Sitting of 7 March 1929

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Llanelly Corporation Bill, read the Third time, and passed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

DONCASTER CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Don-caster Corporation Act, 1926, relating to the Doncaster Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Colonel Ashley; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEE, NORTH WEST WALES.
  Major OWENasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will give particulars of the attendance on the North-west Wales war pensions committee of the members from South Carnarvonshire during the last three years?
  Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): In the absence, owing to illness, of my right hon. Friends, I have been asked to reply. I am informed that the records kept by the Ministry show that the attendance of members from South Carnarvonshire has been approximately
  530
  the same on an average as that of the whole Committee.
  Major OWEN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that at the present time there is not a single representative on that Committee for the whole of South Carnarvon, and is it not possible for the Minister to make arrangements to have this extensive part of the county represented on the Committee?
  Captain MARGESSON: I will certainly refer the hon. and gallant Member's question to my right hon. and gallant Friend.

  PRISONS.
  Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will enumerate the local prisons which have been closed sinced 1st January, 1919, in England and Wales; and what is the estimated saving in cost annually which has resulted from the concentration of prisons?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Ten prisons have been closed since January, 1919, and I will circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am sorry it is not possible to arrive at figures showing the net savings actually realised since other factors operate concurrently to affect the totals; but it is certain that very substantial economies in staff and in other items have resulted.
  Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the figure of 10 that he has given only applies to local prisons?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is so.
  Mr. MORRISON: Not to any large convict prisons?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I shall have the list published to-night.
  Following is the list:

  LIST OF PRISONS WHOLLY CLOSED SINCE 1ST JANUARY, 1919.

  Canterbury.

  Newcastle.

  Carlisle.

  Northallerton.

  Carmarthen.

  Northampton.

  Carnarvon.

  Usk.

  Ipswich.

  Worcester.

  GENERAL ELECTION.

    PRESIDING OFFICERS AND POLL CLERKS.
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the largely increased electorate and the consequent necessity for more presiding officers and poll clerks, many of whom have never had previous experience, any special steps are to be taken in instructing them in their duties?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a matter for the returning officers, who, I am sure, can be relied on to take the necessary steps to ensure that the officials are conversant with their duties.

    TRANSFERRED WORKERS.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Home Secretary what action is to be taken to make it possible for men transferred from mining areas to employment elsewhere to use their vote in the parliamentary division in which they are registered as voters at the general election this year?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only refer to the replies given to similar questions on the 22nd November and on the 7th February.
    Mr. LUNN: In view of the fact that the policy of the Government in regard to unemployment is transference, and that that is the only policy, and that men are being transferred, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of issuing an Order which will make it possble for men who have been transferred to claim their votes up to Whitsuntide?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot be taken for a moment as assenting to the suggestion that transference is the only policy—[An HON. MEMBER: "We know of no other Government policy."]—The hon. Member should read a little more. But I must confess that I cannot see my way to accede to the request. The difficulties would be enormous. Men are transferred from these districts to places all over the country, and there is no reason at all, to my mind, why a man who is transferred in this way should have privileges over and above the ordinary working man who travels about the country in the exercise of his vocation.
    Mr. LUNN: As men are being transferred from Durham to the South of
    532
    England, are they not likely, indeed almost certain, to be disfranchised in the event of a General Election?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, there is that possibility, but the same consideration applies to other people. We have now the shortest period of residence qualification that there is, I think, in any country in the world, and I cannot see my way to amend it. It would need an Act of Parliament to do it. There is no power vested in the Home Secretary to do it.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Does the Home Secretary not realise that thousands of miners, in particular, are being disfranchised in consequence of this state of affairs? Would it not be a simple matter to issue an Order extending to the end of March the period in which these people can apply to become absent voters, so that they can vote in their home towns, although working south of London? Unless he will do something of that kind, I think the Government are deliberately keeping these men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]
    Major COLFOX: Are we to understand from these questions that thousands of miners have already benefited under the Government transference scheme?

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    IMMIGRANTS (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary what medical examinations are made of women and girls entering British ports from France; under what regulations these examinations are made, and in what cases; if he is aware that there has been indignation in France over the alleged humiliating nature of these examinations in certain cases; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Aliens Order, 1920, provides that leave to land in the United Kingdom shall not be given to an alien if a medical inspector certifies that for medical reasons it is undesirable that the alien should be permitted to land; and for the purposes of the Order, medical inspectors are appointed by and act under instructions issued by the Minister of Health, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.

    533
    Legally, every alien, whether arriving from France or elsewhere, is liable to medical examination, but in the absence of special reasons it is the practice only to examine those who propose to stay for a considerable period, and in the case of women and girls, the examination, at which a nurse or female attendant is present, is usually of a superficial character. As soon as the complaints appeared in the public Press, I caused the fullest inquiries to be made into the matter, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. Responsible officers of the two Departments visited the ports, and as the result of their investigation they reported that they could find no foundation for the allegation that the examination of women and girls was of a kind that could be regarded as humiliating. I may, perhaps, add that there is no examination of women for venereal disease. I am anxious to remove any possible source of friction, and I am considering with my right hon. Friend what, if any, modification of the existing instructions might usefully be made.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that the reports, which have received wide publicity on the Continent, to the effect that young girls have been examined in this way are quite devoid of foundation?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Absolutely. I made the very fullest inquiry.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Do the examinations to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred apply to the first-class passengers, or only to the third class?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: To all passengers.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will my right hon. Friend take great care that any such modifications as he threatens to make in response to the inquiries will not in any way restrict the carefulness with which we are enabled in this way to keep infectious disease from coming into the country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend may be satisfied that the Ministry of Health, which is primarily responsible for the investigation, will see, in conjunction with my own Department, that no undue laxity
    534
    which could possibly allow the incursion of infectious diseases will be allowed, but we want to remove any reasonable cause of grievance.
    Mr. HARRIS: Are Englishwomen subject to a similar medical examination on entering France?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I believe there is one, but for particular accuracy the hon. Member ought to address that question to the Foreign Office.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Did my right hon. Friend state that women are in no cases examined for venereal disease, and, if not, why not?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The fact is as I stated, that men are examined for that particular disease, but women are not.
    Mr. DAY: Does this apply to all women and girls arriving from the Continent?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes—aliens, of course.

    MENTAL DEFICIENCY (REPORT).
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give any information as to the date of publication of the second section of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Mental Deficiency?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply. I am not at present prepared to give any undertaking as to any portions of this Report other than those referred to by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Tottenham, North (Mr. R. Morrison) on the 21st February.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give authority for the publication of this Report, which is extraordinarily important?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not yet had time to consider it properly.

    HOP PICKERS (SANITARY CONDITIONS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health whether any communication has passed between his Department and the Kent local authorities with reference to the sanitary conditions that exist during

    535
    the hop-picking season; and will he give particulars of replies that have been received and of the improvements that are suggested for this coming year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. In three instances last year these communications led to the adoption of an improved code of bylaws. In other cases the object of the correspondence was to draw the attention of the authorities to matters observed in the course of inspection. The terms of a further general communication to the authorities are receiving my consideration.
    Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the authorities have replied to this communication?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will give him an answer.

  TRANSPORT.

    TAXIMETER FARES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether he has received any requests from organisations in the Metropolitan area representing taximeter cab owners or drivers asking him whether, in view of the recent increase in the price of petrol, he will appoint a departmental committee to consider an increase in taximeter fares in the Metropolitan Police district; and what reply he has returned?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that, owing to the increase in the price of petrol, taxi-cab owners' and drivers' earnings will greatly diminish, and will he receive a deputation on the subject?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Really, the increase is infinitesimal compared with the rate per mile. If the hon. Member has any information to show that the recent increase is likely to cause or could cause serious hardship to the taxicab proprietors, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that it will cost at least between 1s. 6d. and 2s. 6d. a day to these men, which is a great deal of money to the ordinary taxicab driver?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I doubt it, with great respect, on an increase of 2½d. a gallon.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On top of the tax.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a question relating to the recent increase, and I am only dealing with that, and I think that if the hon. Member works it out, he will find it is not so much as he suggests.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many ox these men are shown to do nearly 200 miles a day, and, if he needs information on the subject, will he consult them?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If they are doing anything like 200 miles a day, they must be making a very fair income.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And earning it too!

    RAILWAY ACCIDENT, GLASGOW (INQUIRY).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of a recent inquiry into an accident at Queen Street Station, Glasgow; that the inquiry was held in the offices of the company concerned, namely, the London and North Eastern Railway Company; that the room was ill-adapted for this purpose; that it was well-nigh impossible for any member of the public to follow the evidence and the questions put by the chairman could not be heard at the Press table; and if he will take steps to see in future that an inquiry is held in a proper building for the purpose and free from any railway company influence?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The inquiry to which the hon. Member appears to refer was held on 18th October last. The inspecting officer who held the inquiry informs me that, so far as he can recollect, the room provided was adequate for the purpose, and I cannot find that any previous representations in the matter have been received. It is usually found convenient to hold railway accident inquiries on the premises of the railway company concerned when suitable accommodation is available there.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the room was entirely inadequate for the purpose, that

    537
    no member of the public could hear questions or answers, and that the Press complained bitterly of the inadequacy of the accommodation?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The opinion of the inspector, who is a very experienced man, is that the room was quite adequate, and, as to the Press not hearing, a very full report appeared in the Glasgow evening papers the same day.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was not a full report and that the Press complained about the accommodation, and will he make personal inquiries?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member presses me, I will make further inquiries, but I am sure that if the Press had made complaints to the inspector they would have been attended to.

  IRISH PRISONERS.
  Mr. BECKETTasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a request from Mr. H. P. O'Brien for permission to visit some Irish prisoners now in Maidstone gaol; whether the request was granted; and, if not, what was the reason for refusal?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: An application for permission to visit was received by the Prison Commissioners from Mr. O'Brien, but was not granted, because the visit did not appear to fall within the purposes for which visits are allowed. The Commissioners' decision has my entire approval.
  Mr. BECKETTasked the Home Secretary whether he has received any representations with regard to the release of B. Sazo, J. Foley, and J. Galvin, now in Maidstone Prison, and P. Green, at Dartmoor; what answer he has made; and whether he has taken into consideration the circumstances in which the crime of these men was committed?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the reference is to Jago, Foley, Gavin, and Breen, I have received no representations apart from certain petitions from Breen, the last of which reached me in June, 1928. Breen's petitions were duly considered, and I caused him to be informed
  538
  that I could not see my way to advise any interference with the sentence passed upon him by the Court.
  Mr. BECKETT: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon for getting the first name wrong, but could he not tell me whether, when he considered this appeal, he considered the fact that, although there was a criminal offence, the men were acting as instructed members of the Irish Republican Army, and in view of the fact that after that raid the Government, of which I think the right hon. Gentleman was himself a member, negotiated with the leaders who ordered the raid, could he not consider it in a different manner from that in which he would consider an ordinary criminal offence?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: So far as I am concerned, I have nothing to do with political reasons. If a criminal is convicted by a jury in this country for feloniously wounding and shooting with intent to murder, that is the only point I take into consideration.
  Mr. BECKETT: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider special representations, in view of the high political enthusiasm and excitement, in regard to these men?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope to the hon. Member of my reducing these sentences on political grounds. At the same time, if the hon. Member has any grounds that would properly induce me to invoke the prerogative of mercy, I am always open to receive any representations from any responsible persons.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is there any reason why, because a man is a rebel, he should be let off lightly?

  CHIEF CONSTABLE, WARWICKSHIRE (APPOINTMENT).
  Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Standing Joint Committee of the County of Warwick in selecting as Chief Constable of the County of Warwick Commander Edward R. B. Kemble, who is still serving in the Royal Navy, which service he joined 26 years ago; and, as the selection appears to be in contravention of

  539
  the Secretary of State's Statutory Police Regulation, Number 7, which requires that a candidate shall have had previous police service and be under 40 years of age, whether he will withhold his approval of the appointment?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The appointment has been submitted for my approval. For the present I can only say that I am in communication with the Standing Joint Committee upon the matter.
  Mr. HAYES: Before making a final decision in this case, if officers from the Army or the Navy must be appointed will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that there are in the force quite a number of Army and Navy officers who have had police experience?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I need hardly say that before I approve an important appointment of this kind every consideration, including an examination of the qualifications of the other candidates, will be given to the matter by myself.

  EDUCATION.

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, although a Canadian Government emigration agency has for some time been established in Cardiff, it had not up to 15th January last succeeded in recruiting a single youth for migration to Canada; and whether he will take steps to have fuller instructions given in schools regarding those Dominions and Colonies in which there are openings for settlement?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I am informed that the number of youths from South Wales applying for settlement in Canada is not sufficient to fill the available openings. On the other hand, the Boys' Training Hostel, which was opened on 26th February under the auspices of the Welsh Council of Empire Settlement, already has its full complement of boys, i.e., 40. The Board do not prescribe the subjects of instruction in the elementary schools; but they have
    540
    called attention in their "Suggestions for Teachers" and elsewhere to the importance of giving the children a knowledge of the geography and resources of the Dominions and Colonies. I have no reason to think that the teachers are neglectful of their opportunities in this matter. The Oversea Settlement Committee are in direct touch with the headmasters and headmistresses and supply them with full information as to oversea settlement opportunities and facilities.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether he is prepared to teach the toys in the Welsh schools, and any other schools, the history of how the land in this country was taken away from them, with the resulting necessity for migrating?
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any additional reasons to explain why it is that so few boys have taken advantage of these opportunities?
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not think there are educational reasons.

    DEFECTIVE SCHOOL BUILDINGS, WALES.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Education if he will give a list of the black-listed schools in Wales and Monmouthshire which he proposes entirely or partly to rebuild during 1929?
    Lord E. PERCY: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the schools in Wales and Monmouthshire in respect of which proposals have been received, or promised, for remedying the defects in the premises during the year 1929–30.
    Following is the list:

    I.—COUNCIL SCHOOLS.

    Local Education Authority and Number and Name of School.

    Category in Black List.

    Anglesey:

    22.

    Llanddyfnan Council

    B

    46.

    Llangeinwen Council

    B

    54.

    Llechylched Council

    B

    Brecon:

    30.

    Llanelly Clydach Council

    B

    31.

    Llanelly, Darenfelen Council

    B

    33.

    Llanfechan, Garth Council

    B

    541

    Local Education Authority and Number and Name of School.

    Category in Black List.

    Cardigan:

    11.

    Cardigan Council

    B

    14A.

    Caron Castell Flemish Council

    B

    69.

    Llanllwchaiarn Cross Inn Council

    B

    91.

    Strata Florida Council

    B

    99.

    Uchayudre Cwmpadarn Council

    B

    104.

    Vaenor Upper Comminscock Council

    B

    Carmarthenshire:

    3.

    Abergwili Panteg Council

    B

    50.

    Llandebie Penygroes Council

    A

    137.

    Pembry Pwll Council

    A

    Flintshire:

    57.

    Mold Council

    B

    93.

    Whitford Carmel Council

    B

    Glamorgan:

    9.

    Blaenhonddan Cadoxton-juxta-Neath Council

    A

    48.

    Dulais Higher Aberdulais C

    A

    229.

    Portheawl Nottage Temporary C

    A

    158.

    Ogmore and Garw Nantymoel Council

    B

    Swansea:

    8.

    Swansea Cwm Council

    B

    19.

    Swansea Llansamlet Council

    A

    Merioneth:

    33A.

    Llanelltyd Temporary Council

    A

    Monmouth:

    4.

    Abercarn, Newbridge Council

    B

    Pembrokeshire:

    73.

    Milford Haven Charles Street C

    A

    Radnor:

    23.

    Llanbister Council

    B

    II.—NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS.

    Brecon:

    81.

    Upper Ystradgynlais Pencae Church of England

    A

    8.

    Brynmawr Roman Catholic

    B

    18.

    Gwenddwr Church of England

    B

    46.

    Llangynidr Church of England

    B

    48.

    Llanigon Church of England

    B

    542

    Local Education Authority and Number and Name of School.

    Category in Black List.

    Caernarvon:

    26.

    Bodfean Church of England

    B

    31.

    Caernarvon Church of England

    B

    36.

    Conway, Beganwy Church of England

    B

    44.

    Dolwyddelan Church of England

    B

    65.

    Llandegai Bodfeirig Church of England

    B

    84.

    Llanfair is Gaer Church of England

    B

    89.

    Llangwnadle Church of England

    B

    110.

    Llanystumdwy Church of England

    B

    113.

    Meyllteyrn Sarn Church of England

    B

    Carmarthenshire:

    74.

    Llanelly Rural, Felinfoel Trinity Church of England

    A

    Denbighshire:

    53.

    Gwersyllt Cross Street Infants Church of England

    A

    109.

    Pentrevolas Church of England

    A

    9.

    Bettws yn Rhos, Trofarth Church of England

    B

    38.

    Denbigh Church of England

    B

    131.

    Colwyn Bay Lysfaen Church of England

    B

    Flintshire:

    76.

    Rhuddlan Church of England

    A

    58.

    Mold Church of England

    B

    19.

    Dyserth Church of England

    B

    61.

    Mold (Rural) Gwerny-myndd Church of England

    B

    77.

    Rhyl Church of England

    B

    Glamorgan:

    168.

    Penarth Church of England

    B

    Neath:

    1.

    Neath Alderman Davies' Charity

    C

    543

    Local Education Authority and Number and Name of School.

    Category in Black List.

    Aberdare:

    2.

    Aberdare Town Church of England

    A

    10.

    Aberdare Cwmbach Church of England

    A

    18.

    Aberdare St. Fagan's Church of England

    A

    Cardiff:

    20.

    Cardiff, St. Alban's Roman Catholic

    A

    26.

    Cardiff, St. Mary's Roman Catholic

    A

    28.

    Cardiff, St. Patrick's Roman Catholic

    A

    29.

    Cardiff, St. Peter's Roman Catholic

    A

    Merthyr Tydfil:

    13.

    Merthyr Tydfil Graigberthlwyd Church of England

    A

    9.

    Merthyr Tydfil Dowlais Roman Catholic

    A

    Swansea:

    33.

    St. David's Roman Catholic

    A

    36.

    St. Joseph's Roman Catholic

    A

    Merioneth:

    6.

    Brithdir, Bryncoedifor St. Paul's Church of England

    A

    Abertillery:

    2.

    Abertillery Church of England

    B

    Newport:

    15.

    Newport St. Michael's Roman Catholic

    A

    Montgomery:

    16.

    Forden Church of England

    B

    17.

    Garthbeibo Church of England

    B

    33.

    Llandrinio Parochial Church of England

    A

    40.

    Llanfair, Caercinion Church of England

    B

    45.

    Pont Dolanog Church of England

    B

    92.

    Welshpool Church of England

    B

    FIGHTING FORCES (APPRENTICESHIPS, GLAMORGAN).
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the Glamorgan Education
    544
    Committee in placing a ban on any of their students becoming trainees for the Royal Air Force or any other arm of the fighting services; and, if so, whether he can take steps to preserve for the students the liberty to choose their own careers?
    Lord E. PERCY: I understand that on 26th February the Glamorgan Education Committee passed a resolution
    "that they will not in future nominate youths for apprenticeship in connection with any branch of the fighting Forces."
    The effect of this resolution appears to be that, though scholars in the secondary schools and evening classes of the Glamorganshire Education Authority will still be able to enter for the examination for the Air Force conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners, they will no longer have the opportunity of taking the examination in the schools, and will consequently usually have to find money for travelling expenses and examination fees. I do not think that the Committee perhaps realised that the effect of their resolution was to place children of poor parents attending public secondary schools at a disadvantage as compared with the children of better-to-do parents attending private schools, and to withdraw from poor scholars an exceptionally good educational opportunity for a thorough apprenticeship training for skilled trades. Last year the Glamorganshire authority nominated 61 candates for aircraft apprentices, of whom 45 passed.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Can the Noble Lord tell us whether the education authority have any right to enforce this ban?
    Lord E. PERCY: If my hon. and gallant Friend will read the answer he will see that it is not a ban, but that it is a question of not giving certain facilities for examinations in their schools. They have a right to take that action, though, as I say, I think their decision was probably a mistake.
    Mr. HANNON: Has the Noble Lord no power to intervene in a case like this where an education authority imposes disabilities on one secton of its pupils?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Noble Lord aware that certain

    545
    education authorities are putting great pressure on students to join the Officers' Training Corps? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Will he pay attention to that matter also?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, LONDON.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education the number of elementary schools in the London area that have been closed or converted to other purposes during the last three years; and what reduction, if any, there has been in the number of head teachers in the same category?
    Lord E. PERCY: The number of departments closed during the three years ending 31st March, 1928, was 27; during the same period there was a decrease of 23 head teachers.

    SECONDARY EDUCATION.
    Mrs. RUNCIMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether the closing of Warminster and other secondary schools under reorganisation schemes of local education authorities has his approval; and, if not, whether he will take steps to secure that areas shall not be deprived of the benefit of secondary education which they now enjoy?
    Lord E. PERCY: In the special circumstances of the ease, I have approved the closure of Warminster County Secondary School, but no other proposals of this kind have reached me and, in the absence of quite exceptional circumstances, I should deprecate such proposals. The problem of reorganising schools so as to provide adequate opportunities for education both of the "Modern School" type and of the existing secondary school type is admittedly difficult, especially in rural areas; but the problem will, I believe, find a natural and easy solution when both types are recognised, by law and regulation, as coming with the general description of higher education and, pending a solution on these lines, which I hope will be realised before long, local authorities will, I think, be well advised, as a general rule, to avoid changes in the status of their secondary schools.
    Mrs. RUNCIMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the meantime 70 out of the 100 children who were attending the Warminster school will no longer get the benefit of secondary education, and will have to attend a school working under elementary conditions both as regards the staff and the size of the classes?
    Lord E. PERCY: So far as these 70 children are concerned, it will be remembered that the vast majority of the pupils at this particular school stay at the school beyond the age at which they would be eligible for a secondary school, and that was one of the exceptional circumstances of this case.

  DISTRESSED AREAS (LORD MAYOR'S FUND).
  Major COHENasked the President of the Board of Education how many divisional committees of the miners' distress fund are now in existence; how much money they have spent; and for what purposes?
  Lord E. PERCY: There are 10 divisional committees for the administration of the Lord Mayor's Fund. It has not been thought advisable to hamper these committees in the earlier stages of their operations by requests for regular returns of expenditure, and it is not, therefore, yet possible to say how much money has been spent nor precisely for what purposes. The committees will shortly be asked to make returns, and more detailed information will then be available. Meanwhile, I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the recent memorandum on the present operations of the Fund in South Wales, Durham and Northumberland.
  Mr. JOHNasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, under the instructions of the divisional committee of the Lord Mayor's Fund for South Wales, no provision is made for granting relief to single men who are deprived of their unemployment benefit and cannot obtain employment or relief from boards of guardians; and will he take the necessary steps whereby destitute single men in the distressed areas can be relieved from the Lord Mayor's Fund?
  Lord E. PERCY: I am aware that the claims of the mothers and children to relief from the Fund have had the first attention; but the local committees of the Fund have been informed that it is their duty to make representations to the divisional committee if they consider that special local conditions require the extension of the scope of the Fund to purposes not at present covered. The question of granting more assistance to men is being considered but the action of the Joint Committee in such matters must necessarily depend on advice from local committees and divisional committees.
  Mr. JOHN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the committee have issued instructions that no assistance is to be given to single men? Am I to understand from the Noble Lord's reply that those instructions will be altered so that single men may be assisted?
  Lord E. PERCY: It is not true that single men receive no assistance. The hon. Gentleman is thinking of food and not of other things. We have to depend in this matter on the representations of the local committees. We are not proposing a change in the present system of distribution, which we think should rest in the hands of any representative local committee which is administering the fund.
  Mr. MARDY JONES: There is a point in the question which the Minister of Education has not answered. There are a considerable number of single men who are out of work in South Wales—
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not in order for the hon. Member to explain the question.
  Mr. JONES: I am trying to get my point made clear. Is it not a fact that these committees do not relieve single men in the way of food and other means? Although they assist the single men who get employment elsewhere by clothing and feeding them, when they fail to get employment they are absolutely stranded, because unemployment benefit is not available.
  Lord E. PERCY: That is too sweeping a statement as regards the action of the local committees. The local committees are as fully aware of the conditions as the hon. Member, and we rely on the local committees to ask the joint committee
  548
  to put other measure; in force if in their opinion other measures are considered to be necessary in the locality.
  Mr. JOHN: Is it not a fact that the local authorities have received instructions from the divisional committee that no assistance is to be given to single men of any kind whatsoever; and is it not a fact that printed instructions have been sent out to the local committees? Will the Noble Lord make inquiries and ascertain whether it is not possible for those instructions to be altered?
  Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member seems to be ignoring the fact that the local committees were instructed that it was their duty to put forward proposals for additional assistance where they considered that the circumstances of the locality required it. The local committees in the hon. Member's district ought to put forward such recommendations if they consider that a change in the present system is required. I must not be taken as assenting to the very sweeping description of the instructions to the committee which the hon. Member has given.
  Mr. JOHN—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had the answer to his question.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Sir GEORGE JONESasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that a contributor to the national health and pensions insurance, if he loses his card, must replace the card by stamping a duplicate card for any weeks for which the original card was stamped by his employer, he will, in cases where it can be established by unimpeachable evidence that the lost card had the employer's stamps upon it, arrange for a duplicate card to be issued without the contributor having to go to any expense for stamping?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion, as it is essential for the proper working of the health insurance scheme that nothing should be done which might conduce to laxity on the part of insured persons with regard to the care and surrender of their cards.

  POOR LAW.

    RELIEF.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Health whether it is the policy of his Department to instruct boards of guardians not to allow out-door relief to any unmarried couples with children, or whether boards of guardians are permitted to grant relief to such couples with children when the association has been of long standing?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Regulations in force prohibit the grant of outdoor relief to single women and to widows having an illegitimate child born after the commencement of widowhood, but the guardians are empowered, upon consideration of the special circumstances of any particular case, to depart from this Regulation and due weight would be given to such long association as is referred to in the last part of the question when the making or approving of such a departure is under consideration.
    Mr. THURTLE: Would the Minister consider 10 years a reasonable period?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should not like to lay down a hard and fast rule; but that point will certainly be taken into consideration.

    SINGLE MEN.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Minister of Health how far boards of guardians are restricted by his Department in the amount of relief they can give to single men, and how far they are allowed to take into account relations that are dependent on them when calculating the scale of relief?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Regulations in force prohibit any general practice of granting unconditional out-door relief to single able-bodied men. If, having regard to the special circumstances of a particular case, a departure from the Regulations is made, it is for the guardians to determine the amount necessary to relieve the destitution of the applicant and his dependants. They have no authority to grant more than is necessary for this purpose.

    ALLOWANCE FOR CHILDREN, GLASGOW.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has refused
    550
    to sanction the request of the Govan Parish Council that the allowance paid for children of unemployed persons might be raised to 3s. 6d. weekly from 2s.; and, in view of the need, will he reconsider his decision?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer the hon. Member to the terms of my reply to him on 13th November last for the explanation asked for in this question and the grounds on which I am not prepared to reconsider the decision.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question which I asked had no relation to the Govan Parish Council's request, because they did not ask until a date subsequent to November, and will he please answer the question as to why he has refused the request of the Govan Parish Council?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have told the hon. Member that, if any other body in the Division can bring me particular cases of hardship, I will have them investigated.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the reason why he has refused the Govan Parsh Council's request for an increase to the children of 1s. 6d. per head?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, I have given the hon. Member the reason. If he or any other responsible body brings me any particular cases of hardship, I will investigate them.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state clearly and definitely if he thinks that 3s. 6d. is a reasonable amount to pay each week for a child?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which does not arise out of the question which the hon. Member put upon the Paper.
    Mr. MAXTON—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has asked a question which is not down on the Paper and which does not arise out of the original question. He has asked the Minister his opinion.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: No, may I respectfully suggest to you that I am asking the right hon. Gentleman's reason for refusing to allow the parish council to increase the amount from 2s. to 3s. 6d.? I

    551
    cannot get an answer to that question. He will not state why he refuses. Is his reason for refusing because he thinks that 3s. 6d. is too much for a child? That is my supplementary question, and will the right hon. Gentleman answer it?
    Mr. MAXTON: I really think the right hon. Gentleman is not treating the House fairly. It is reducing questions to a mockery. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has made up his mind that no parish council in Scotland is to be allowed to increase the allowance paid to poor people?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether his reason for refusing the request of the Govan Parish Council is because they have applied for the payment of 3s. 6d. in respect of all children of unemployed persons, and will he consent to this payment if they only ask for it to be applied to certain numbers of children?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have already informed the hon. Gentleman, if he will bring any specific cases—
    Mr. MAXTON: That is not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman must not ask us to be his examiners and inspectors. He must do his own job.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: This matter can only be settled by an investigation of the particular circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman, or those who are interested in this matter, will bring before my Department any particular cases they will be investigated.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Arising out of the original reply, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what reply he gave to the Govan Parish Council when he refused his consent to an increase of this allowance?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question has already been answered.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, it has not.
    Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland referred the hon. Member to a reply which he had given previously.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The reply to which he referred has nothing whatever to do with the question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Any further question must be put on the Paper.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I asked a simple question, and I cannot get it answered.
    Mr. HARDIE—
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment at the earliest moment.

  HOUSING.

    CAMBERWELL.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Health the number of house? built by the Camberwell Borough Council and the Chelsea Borough Council under the Wheatley and Chamberlain Acts; and whether he has information as to the hardship created by overcrowding in the two boroughs?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No houses have been built under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 by the borough councils mentioned, though under the Act of 1919 the borough council of Camberwell built 444 houses and Chelsea built 56. I am aware that overcrowding still exists in these boroughs. The activities of the local authorities in co-operation with the London County Council have, however, been effectual in providing accommodation on the estates of the county council for a considerable number of families living in overcrowded conditions.
    Mr. KELLY: In view of what is certainly a terrible state of overcrowding, may I take it that the Ministry of Health will use its influence to encourage more building in those districts?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Several new schemes are being carried out at the present time.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some of the worst slums in London in Chelsea, and would it not be better to teach the Chelsea Borough Council their job instead of sending commissioners to take over the duties of boards of guardians?

    WORKING-CLASS HOUSES (CONVERSION).
    Mr. HARRISasked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to the number of working-class houses converted into factories and workshops in the County of London during the last four years; and if so, whether he can state the numbers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No statistics are available on the point to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the Minister of Health try to get some information under this heading? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the wholesale erection of factories and workshops the number of which is continually increasing, overcrowding remains as bad as ever?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The problem will require a very great deal of investigation.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. BELLAMYasked the Minister of Health the number of houses under construction at the end of each month from June, 1928, to date by local authorities under the 1924 Act.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's consent, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    Number of houses included in local authorities schemes under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, under construction at the end of the following months—

    1928:

    June

    31,503

    July

    30,601

    August

    30,151

    September

    28,837

    October

    28,800

    November

    28,081

    December

    27,844

    1929:

    January

    26,946

    RENTS, MAIDSTONE.
    Mr. BELLAMYasked the Minister of Health, with regard to the fact that he has refused permission to the Maid-stone Borough Council to remit to the
    554
    tenants of its houses a surplus arising from the fixing of rents at a higher figure than the cost of the houses was subsequently found to require, if he will say under what authority he has acted; and whether he will reconsider the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My action in the matter referred to was taken under Sub-section 4 of Section 3 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924. The subject which has recently been discussed with representatives of the council is still under consideration.

    BUILDING SOCIETIES (ADVANCES).
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount advanced on mortgage by building societies in 1928 or for the latest available year and, for comparison, the amount so advanced in the year 1924?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply to this question. The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies informs me that the amount advanced in 1927 was £55,886,903, as compared with £40,584,606 in 1924. The figures for 1928 are not yet available.

  COAL INDUSTRY (ROYALTIES IN KIND).
  Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the annual deliveries of free coal which certain royalty owners exact from the colliery lessees are taken into account when assessing the incomes of the said royalty owners from coal royalties for the purposes of national taxation; what steps are taken by the Treasury to ascertain from royalty owners generally whether they derive this additional accretion to their incomes from coal royalties; and what is the total quantity of this free coal accounted for to his Department during the last fiscal year?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Royalties paid in kind are by law chargeable to both Income Tax and Mineral Rights Duty, and are required to be included in the yearly return made by lessors to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. As regards the last part of the question, no statistics are available.
  Mr. JONES: Seeing that the different colliery companies make returns of all the coal they get, why is it not possible to record for each fiscal year the total quantity of coal taken by royalty owners in this way?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We keep a great number of statistics, but in this case the collection of the tax is more important.
  Mr. JONES: Is it not also important to ascertain how much free coal is being exacted in this way, and, if I put down a question, giving a few weeks' notice, will the right hon. Gentleman give the information?
  Major COLFOX: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he would be prepared to publish the Income Tax returns of members of the Labour party?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not a question of disclosing secret or confidential information about individuals, but of ascertaining the amount of royalty that is drawn in kind. It has never been thought worth while to add to our burden of statistics by including the totals of these amounts, and I doubt whether the matter is of sufficient importance at the present time to require what would undoubtedly involve an additional expenditure of money and labour.
  Mr. JONES: Is it not advisable, in the public interest, in view of the coming General Election, that we should be informed—[Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Tinker.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of revenue derived from the taxation of sugar, tea, coffee and cocoa for the financial years 1927 and 1928; and what increase would have to be put on the Income Tax if the articles mentioned were relieved of taxation and the same borne by the Income Tax?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The total net revenue derived from the taxation of
    556
    sugar, tea, coffee and cocoa for the financial years ended 31st March, 1927 and 1928, was as follows:

    £

    1927

    23,697,000

    1928

    23,424,000

    These compare with a figure of £27,384,000 for 1924–25.
    The estimated produce per 1d. of the Income Tax is about £4,800,000. An increase of between 5d. and 6d. in the Income Tax would, therefore, be required to make good the loss of revenue if the duties on sugar, tea, coffee and cocoa were repealed.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the question of taking off these taxes and getting the money by means of direct taxation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am considering all questions connected with both putting on and taking off taxes.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not the fact that in recent years the amount of revenue derived from direct taxation has increased enormously, at the expense of the amount derived by indirect taxation?
    Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Might not an increase in the Income Tax lead ultimately to a decrease in the revenue?

    BETTING DUTY.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the opening of the flat-racing season on the l8th March, he will consider some readjustment of the Betting Duty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on the 19th February last to my hon. Friend the Member for Deritend (Mr. Crooke) in which I said that the various aspects of the Betting Duty were receiving my close attention, but that I was unable at present to make any statement on the matter.

    INCOME TAX (VISITORS).
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he authorised the issue recently of a circular by the Inland Revenue Department regarding the liability to Income Tax of

    557
    regular visitors to this country; and whether, in view of the effect upon regular visitors to England, he will reconsider the existing practice in this matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, the issue of this circular was authorised by me in deference to suggestions from many quarters that visitors should be made aware of the legal position, and it will, I hope, remove some misapprehensions which have tended to deter intending visitors from coming to this country. I have no statement to make about changes in taxation at the present time.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the best assurance of our traditional hospitality is not to tax our visitors when they come to England?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a question of the point at which a visitor becomes a resident.

    SAVINGS.
    Sir J. POWERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the aggregate amount of the savings of the people in National Savings Certificates, deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank, Trustee Savings Bank, investments in building societies, co-operative societies, and friendly societies at the latest available date and, for comparison, the aggregate for 1913?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): On the latest available statistics the aggregate amount invested in the ways referred to in the question, including in the case of building societies and co-operative societies accumulated balances of profit, is approximately £1,370 millions. The aggregate for 1913, when as my hon. Friend is aware savings certificates had not been issued, was approximately £440 millions.

    DEFENCE SERVICES (EXPENDITURE).
    Sir J. POWERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total amount provided in the Defence Estimates for 1929–30 in respect of the present cost of the forces of the Crown and exclusive of all non-effective expenditure and also exclusive of expenditure on such services as hydrography, meteorology, and similar services of a character which,
    558
    though conducted by the Defence Departments, are also necessary for civil purposes; and, for comparison, the corresponding amount provided in the original Estimates for the years 1914–15 and 1924–25, respectively?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The figures for the financial years 1929, 1914 and 1924 respectively are £94,766,800; £73,014,500; and £102,502,764. These figures exclude the cost of the following services, besides those specifically mentioned in the question: The coastguard service; civil aviation; and airships. The cost of defence in the Middle East, where this is borne on Civil Votes, is however included.

    PETROL DUTY (GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES).
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether petrol for the use of the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Civil Departments pays tax or is supplied free of taxation?
    Mr. SAMUEL: In accordance with the usual practice in regard to dutiable articles, duty is charged on petrol imported for the use of the Navy, Army, Air Force and Civil Departments.

  PETROL PRICES.

    PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the recent rise in the price of petrol; what are the functions and responsibilities of the two Government representatives on the board of the concern responsible for the increase; and whether the Government have given any instructions to them in the matter?
    Mr. DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any instructions were issued to the directors appointed by the British Government on the Anglo-Persian Oil Company with reference to the recent rise in petrol?
    Mr. W. BENNETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the recent agreement in regard to petrol and the increase in its price was entered into with his knowledge?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was made aware of the contemplated raising of the price of petrol by the oil combine; and whether he was made aware of this fact by the Government directors on the board of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): These questions, relating to petrol prices, concern various Departments, and, with the permission of the House, I will answer them together. The answer is as follows:
    The Government are fully alive to the significance to industry and the private consumer of the recent increase in the retail price of petrol, and they have carefully considered the position that arises. I should, however, say at once that in the opinion of the Government this question must be dealt with on general grounds, and not by reference to the relations between the Government and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. As has been stated on many occasions, the Government are under obligation not to interfere in the commercial management of the company. The statement of that obligation is contained in Command Paper No. 7419 of 1914. In pursuance of this policy, no instructions have been on any occasion sought by the Government directors in connection with price movements, nor have any instructions been given. His Majesty's Government were, therefore, not informed that the recent increase in price would be made.
    As regards the general question, the Government consider that ordinarily the public is best served by an efficient industry operating freely. But special considerations arise where a single undertaking or an associated group of undertakings dominates the supply and the general distribution of an article of common use. Here, too, large and efficient businesses acting together may give the public the best service. But they have a duty to supply on reasonable terms; and the public have a right to be satisfied that those terms are reasonable. The Government consider that the marketing of oil products under present conditions falls within this category, and that the companies should be prepared to explain the reasons for any considerable increase in price. In these circumstances, it is the intention
    560
    of the Government to invite the oil companies concerned to submit a statement explaining the reasons for the recent increase. I wish, however, to make it clear that by taking this action the Government in no way prejudge the question whether the recent increase is justified or not.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will my right hon. Friend tell me, in view of his answer, what was in the mind of the Government when these two representatives were appointed on behalf of the Government; what functions they were supposed to perform; and whether any useful purpose can now be served by continuing their services?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have given a very full answer, and would refer my hon. Friend to the Command Paper which sets forth the views of the Government at the time when the appointments were first made—views which have been held by every succeeding Parliament.
    Mr. THURTLE: Are we entitled to assume that there is implicit, in the request to the companies for information, the idea that, if the explanation is unsatisfactory, certain action will be taken against the companies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is purely hypothetical.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the formation of a marketing merger between the Anglo Persian and other great oil companies is an ordinary commercial activity, and should not action have been taken to prevent such a merger?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is no merger that I am aware of. The question of selling prices is an ordinary commercial activity.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Shell and the Anglo-Persian have combined their marketing organisation in one piece of machinery?
    Sir FRANK MEYER: Does not the recent history of the rubber Industry show the grave danger that there may be if the Government interfere with an industry where the production is international?
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: In any inquiry which the Government makes of the oil companies, will inquiry be made as to what the arrangement is with the Russian Oil Products Company, and whether any provision has been made for compensating the British holders of oil wells whose property has been taken without any compensation?
    Mr. DAY: Can the Prime Minister say whether the two Government directors have attended all the board meetings of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the case that there is great over-production of oil to-day in the United States of America, and that there is no reason whatever for this increase in price?

  AGRICULTURE.

    ALL-ENGLISH BEER DUTY.
    Lord FERMOYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the action of a Norwich firm of brewers in employing British barley only for brewing purposes; whether to encourage this policy, which is of value to agriculture, he will consider a rebate on the Excise Duty on all beer brewed from English hops, barley, and sugar; and whether he is willing to receive representations on this point?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As regards the first and second parts of the question, I would refer my Noble Friend to the answer which I gave on the 5th February last to my Noble Friend the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley). As regards the last part, I am always ready to consider any representations that my Noble Friend may make to me.

    IMPORTED CORN (DUTY).
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the abolition of the Import Duty on tea and the imposition of a countervailing Import Duty on corn, for the purpose of maintaining the national Revenue and at the same time protecting English agriculture from competition created by the importation of subsidised and other wheat without increasing the cost of living?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Government pledge against the protective taxation of food.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is economically sound, when taxing for revenue purposes, to protect industry wherever possible?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not see any absolute incompatibility between the statement of my hon. and gallant Friend and the statement I have just made.
    Mr. BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman been made aware of the widespread demand from his own followers for an import duty on corn?

    TITHE RENT CHARGE (COLLECTION).
    Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the necessity of indirect collection of tithe through the regional agents can be waived when the interest charges thereon amount to more than the cost or relative equivalent in loss of time would involve to the incumbent, as for instance in such cases as where there are only a very few tithe-payers?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): During the passage through Parliament of the Tithe Act, 1925, which transferred ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge to Queen Anne's Bounty, the question of the collection of tithe rentcharge by individual incumbents was exhaustively discussed, and it was considered desirable to effect a divorce in the direct relationship between the clerical titheowner and the tithe payer, subject to the preservation of the right of an existing incumbent who was already himself collecting his tithe rent-charge, to continue to do so. I am informed by the Bounty that the present system is working satisfactorily, and that the average cost of collection throughout the country is now reduced to £3 4s. per £100 tithe rentcharge.

    LAND DRAINAGE (GRANTS).
    Mr. LAMBasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that in connection with schemes for the relief of unemployment tile-drainage schemes for the improvement of agricultural land would rank for grants in Scotland but not in England, he will state the reasons for this differential treatment?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The question of making grants towards schemes of tile drainage has been reviewed at various times, but it has always been considered that any moneys available for England and Wales could more usefully be expended in assisting schemes of arterial drainage, for which there is an urgent need in many parts of the country.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while arterial drainage assists those on the lower slopes of the hills or down in the lower part of the catchment area, both uplanders and lowlanders are suffering from an absence of money to find means for providing tile drainage?
    Mr. LAMB: Is it not a fact that we are prevented from having assistance for this purpose in England, no matter what case may be put forward?
    Mr. GUINNESS: In answer to the first question I quite appreciate that field drainage offers great advantage but where we have not all the funds available that I should like, I feel that we ought to devote whatever we can spend to the more urgent needs of arterial drainage. In reply to the second question, we are quite prepared to consider any case that may be made for assisting field drainage though my opinion is that it has a less claim than arterial drainage.
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that increased production might be effected by tile drainage as compared with arterial drainage?

    WHEAT PRICES (STABILISATION).
    Lord FERMOYasked the Minister of Agriculture the estimated cost of stabilising the price of wheat at 60s. a quarter?
    Mr. GUINNESS: On the basis of the average price during the first six months of the current cereal year, the difference between the price at which the last wheat crop in Great Britain was sold and 60s. per quarter is 16s. 11d. per quarter of 504 lbs., or 18s. 11d. per quarter of 480 lbs. If this difference in value is applied to the whole crop, the sum involved would be equivalent to about £5,000,000 in the former case and rather under £6,000,000 in the latter.
    Lord FERMOYasked the Minister of Agriculture the average prices of British wheat per 480 lbs. in 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928, respectively?
    Mr. GUINNESS: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with my Noble Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The average price per 480 lbs. of British wheat in England and Wales as ascertained from returns received under the Corn Returns Act, 1882, and the Corn Sales Act, 1921, was as follows in the undermentioned years:

    Per 480 lbs.

    s.

    d.

    1924

    49

    3

    1925

    52

    2

    1926

    53

    3

    1927

    49

    3

    1928

    42

    10

  INLAND REVENUE STAMP OFFICE, HULL.
  Major CARVERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received a request from the Hull Chamber of Commerce and Shipping that the Inland Revenue Stamp Office in Hull should be properly equipped by the installation of a press for stamping bill forms, in view of the amount of stamping which is done there; and whether this application can be satisfied?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, stamped bill forms for all values commonly in demand are on sale in the Hull Stamp Office. Stamps for other amounts, and stamps which traders wish to have impressed on their own bill paper, can be impressed within 24 hours. Business of the latter description is comparatively small and is insufficient to keep a separate bill stamping machine employed for more than a fraction of the day. In view of the high cost of installing and maintaining such a machine, I regret that I cannot see my way to accede to the application.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    EXCHANGE, GLASGOW.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

    565
    as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if the building operations have yet been started with the new Employment Exchange in Glasgow; and what contracts have been placed in connection therewith?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): Building operations have not yet commenced. The preliminaries are being pressed on as rapidly as possible, and I hope that work on the site will begin during the month of July.

    BUILDING TRADE.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Health what is the reason that the unemployment returns, both in total and in detailed sectional classes of the building trade, have risen roughly in proportion to the annual increase of the output of houses built in the last five years?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. I have compared the average percentages of unemployment in the building trades in each of the year, 1924 to 1928 with the numbers of houses built and do not find the correspondence which my Noble Friend suggests. If the estimated numbers in employment are taken there is a rise each year from 1924 to 1927, and a rise also in the number of houses built; in 1928 there was a drop in both figures. As regards any such comparisons, however, I should point out that a considerable proportion of the workers in the building trades are engaged in the construction of buildings other than houses, or in repairs and maintenance work, so that house construction alone would not accurately reflect the total volume of employment.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in various areas the Ministry themselves have prevented local authorities from building houses where there was a large amount of overcrowding, thus throwing people out of work.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir, I was not aware of that fact.

    TRANSITIONAL PERIOD (EXTENSION).
    Mr. ROBERT HUDSON (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government have yet come
    566
    to any decision with regard to the extension of the period during which the present relaxation of the contributory conditions for unemployment benefit will operate?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: When the Unemployment Insurance Bill was under discussion in 1927 I pointed out that if the expectations then current as to the improvement in employment in the depressed areas were not realised by 1929, when the 30 contributions qualification would be due to come into force, it would be possible to deal with whatever situation might then be found to exist. I have had the position carefully under review in recent weeks, and although there has been considerable improvement in these areas—an improvement which I have every hope will continue—the change has come too late to affect materially the circumstances of a number of claimants to benefit. It has therefore been decided to introduce a Bill immediately to extend the transitional period for another year.
    Mr. HUDSON: May I express, first of all, my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman, and also ask him when the Bill is going to be introduced?
    Mr. T. SHAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman give to the House some information as to the numbers?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I shall be glad to do so as soon as possible, and, if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question with regard to the numbers, I will see that an answer is given to him containing the necessary information. If he will communicate with me, I will gladly get the question put down in such a way as to enable me to give the information to the House. As regards the date of the introduction of the Bill, I cannot inform my hon. Friend at the moment. It will doubtless be a question for consideration. It will be before Easter.
    Mr. BATEY: I should like to ask for how long it is proposed to extend the transitional period?

  CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (CAPITAL).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Transport if he will state the amount of capital raised by the Central Electricity

  567
  Board under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926?
  Colonel ASHLEY: The Board inform me that they have so far issued no loans under the Act referred to, but have met their requirements by temporary borrowing.
  Mr. KELLY: What was the amount of the temporary borrowing?
  Colonel ASHLEY: Up to 31st December last, £339,000.

  TRADE BOARDS ACT.
  Miss BONDFIELDasked the Minister of Labour the number of establishments on trade board lists on 31st December, 1928; the number of inspections made during 1928; and what percentage of the first figure the second figure represents?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of establishments on trade board lists on 31st December, 1928, was 107,082. 14,438 of these establishments were inspected during 1928, the percentage of inspected establishments thus being 13.5 of the total. Those figures were given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the course of the Debate on the 27th February (Col. 2137), but the percentage of inspected establishments was inadvertently reported as between 30 and 40 instead of as between 13 and 14.
  Mr. KELLY: Is there any intention to increase the number of inspections?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of inspections has been increased.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SYSTEM.
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Postmaster-General if his Department keep records enabling him to assess the standard of efficiency in the telephone system as regards quickness and accuracy of connection; and, if so, whether such standard of efficiency shows an improvement, or the reverse, for the last six months?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Observations are regularly made and examination of the results for the six months ended the
    568
    31st December last shows that, on the average, there has been a slight improvement as regards quickness of connection while in respect of accuracy the figures are unchanged.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week I rang up my own number from this House, and I was told that there was no such subscriber?

    AIR MAILS.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Postmaster-General the number of letters sent and received by air during each of the last six months?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I regret that the figures are not available in the form desired by the hon. Member, and could not be obtained without considerable trouble and expense.

  EMPIRE TRADE.
  Sir EVELYN CECILasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the proved usefulness of the Empire Marketing Board, he will suggest to the Governments of the Overseas Dominions the setting up in each Dominion of a similar board or organisation, which could communicate with the Empire Marketing Board in this kingdom and with each other for the promotion of Empire trade and for the mutual advantage of Empire traders?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I would refer to the reply which I gave on Monday last to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Sir R. Gower).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Prime Minister say what business will be taken next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday: Local Government (Scotland) Bill, Third Reading.
Tuesday: Report stage of the Air Estimates and of the Army Estimates.
Wednesday: Committee stage of further Supplementary Estimates for the Grant to the Lord Mayor's Fund, and Relief

569
in Distressed Mining Areas in Scotland; Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill, further stages.
Thursday: It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates and to consider Votes A, 1, 10 and 2, and Navy Supplementary Estimate in Committee.
The business for Friday will be announced later. If there is time on any day, other Orders will be taken.
Captain GARRO-JONES: Seeing that the Report stage of the Air Estimates is to be taken on Tuesday, does that mean that the whole of the Air Estimates, the moving of Mr. Speaker out of the Chair and the Committee stage, are to be taken to-day, and also the private Bill, Clyde Navigation Bill? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is an adequate
length of time to devote to the Committee stage of the Air Estimates?
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member is inaccurate in his supposition.
Mr. MALONE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the date of the Dissolution, or, if not, can be say when we are likely to be informed?
The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to have a little more notice of that question.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Business of Supply be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 85.

Division No. 261.]

AYES.

[3.56 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Ellis, R. G.

Lamb, J. Q.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Albery, Irving James

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

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

Fermoy, Lord

Lougher, Sir Lewis

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Fielden, E. B.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Atholl, Duchess of

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Fraser, Captain Ian

Lumley, L. R.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Ganzoni, Sir John

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

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Gates, Percy

Macintyre, Ian

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

McLean, Major A.

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

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

Macmillan, Captain H.

Berry, Sir George

Goff, Sir Park

Macquisten, F. A.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

Boothby, R. J. G.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Malone, Major P. B.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

Margesson, Captain D.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Brats, Captain W.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Briggs, J. Harold

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Briscoe, Richard George

Hamilton, Sir George

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Hammersley, S. S.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hanbury, C.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Harland, A.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Bullock, Captain M.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Burman, J. B.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Campbell, E. T.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Carver, Major W. H.

Haslam, Henry C.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

Chapman, Sir S.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Nuttall, Ellis

Christie, J. A.

Hills, Major John Waller

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Power, Sir John Cecil

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Preston, William

Colman, N. C. D.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Radford, E. A.

Cooper, A. Duff

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Ramsden, E.

Couper, J. B.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen Sir Aylmer

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Hurd, Percy A.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Hurst, Sir Gerald

Robinson, Sir T, (Lancs., Stretford)

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Davies, Dr. Vernon

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Ropner, Major L.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Sandon, Lord

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Womersley, W. J.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Savery, S. S.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Wragg, Herbert

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Wells, S. R.

Tasker, R. Inigo.

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Thomson, Sir Frederick

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Major Sir George Hennessy and Major Sir William Cope.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Tinne, J. A.

Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

NOES.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Harris, Percy A.

Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hirst, G. H.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Scrymgoour, E.

Barr, J.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Batey, Joseph

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Shield, G. W.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Bellamy, A.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Benn, Wedgwood

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Snell, Harry

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Lansbury, George

Stamford, T. W.

Bromley, J.

Lawrence, Susan

Stephen, Campbell

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Longbottom, A. W.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Buchanan, G.

Lowth, T.

Sutton, J. E.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Lunn, William

Taylor R. A.

Cape, Thomas

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Cluse, W. S.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Connolly, M.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Thurtle, Ernest

Dalton, Hugh

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Tinker, John Joseph

Day, Harry

March, S.

Tomlinson, R. P.

Dennison, R.

Maxton, James

Viant, S. P.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Morris, R. H.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Gillett, George M.

Naylor, T. E.

Wellock, Wilfred

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cant.)

Owen, Major G.

Whiteley, W.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Potts, John S.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Grundy, T. W.

Purcell, A. A.

Windsor, Walter

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Hardie, George D.

Ritson, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask leave of the House to make a personal explanation? During the speech yesterday of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Miss Wilkinson), who introduced a Bill, under the Ten Minutes Rule, to amend the law in respect of the state of married women, I intervened and gave some account of the work of the Imperial Conference in 1926 in regard to the nationality of women. The discussion to which I referred took place nearly three years ago, and I based my remarks on my own recollection of what had transpired. Subsequent reference to the published papers of the Conference have shown me, I regret to say, that my memory played me completely false. The position of British women who marry aliens was one of the matters that came under consideration by the Nationalities Committee of the Imperial Conference, and it gave rise to a discussion on which there was a divergence of views greater than I stated yesterday. On one point, however, the Committee were unanimously
572
agreed, that it was of great importance to obtain uniformity throughout the various parts of the Empire in the law relating to nationality. Accordingly, it was decided to recommend to the Conference that further consideration of the question should be postponed, pending the report of the Committee of Experts to whom it was proposed to submit it. The Imperial Conference accepted this recommendation. Much work has been done to prepare the way for the Experts Committee, but the date of the Assembly has not yet been definitely fixed. The report, when complete, will, of course, have to be discussed at the next meeting of the Imperial Conference. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were, of course, parties to the Imperial Conference and joined in the reference to the Expert Committee. Until the Committee's report has been received and considered by the various Dominions, it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to take any final decision, and I very much regret that I should have misled the House in thinking otherwise.

573
I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, will accept my personal expression of apology.
Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why he took the unusual course of making an important and, as it turns out, a misleading declaration in the middle of an hon. Member's speech during the introduction of a Bill under the Ten Minutes' Rule?
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East—I am sorry that she is not in her place—made a statement as to the action of the home Government in burking this question. I bad my mind full of the proceedings of the Committee which sat in connection with the Imperial Conference, of which I happened to be Chairman, and I rose to give her such information as I could remember; but I completely forgot certain things relating to the Expert Committee—I had not my papers with me—and I have now endeavoured, frankly and fully, to remedy my mistake.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928).
Estimate presented of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1929 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL [LORDS],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee B: Mr. Hammersley.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill,
That they do not concur with the Commons in their Resolution communicated
574
to them on the 27th of February last, namely: "That it is expedient that the London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL.
Bill committed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
    AIR ESTIMATES, 1929.

      SIR S. HOARE'S STATEMENT.
      Order for Committee read.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
      4.0 p.m.
      The net Estimates for the year are £16,200,000 as against £16,250,000 in 1928. They, therefore, show a reduction of £50,000. When, however, the Appropriations-in-Aid for the Fleet Air Arm and for services in India and other parts of the world are taken into account, the gross expenditure, being £19,645,100 as against £19,135,100 in 1928, shows an increase of £510,000. The solid fact, however, for the British taxpayer to note is that whilst expenditure upon Air armaments has been bounding up in other parts of the world our net expenditure—after taking into account the recent change in the presentation of the Estimates—for the fourth year in succession shows an actual decrease. There are some hon. Friends of mine on this side of the House who would like to see an increase rather than a reduction in Air expenditure. There are hon. Members on the other side of the House, to judge from their Amendments on the Order Paper, who desire to see little or no expenditure upon this new arm of defence and this revolutionary means of communication. Let me say to my hon. Friends on this side of the House that I wish as sincerely as any of them that the country could afford a more generous expenditure upon our Air services, and let me say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that as the Debate develops we shall be able to show that in the matter of Air disarmament, our record is unassailable. We should welcome a reduction in Air Estimates provided that reduction is general, and does not leave this country in a vulnerable position.
      There are four novel points in these Estimates, and I desire at the outset of the Debate to call the attention of the
      596
      House to each of them. First of all, there is the increase of seven squadrons in the strength of the Air Force. These units will be allocated to the three principal branches of our air activity, Home Defence, Imperial Security and the Fleet Air Arm. The seven new squadrons will make our total strength 82 squadrons, as against 75 in 1928.
      Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: How many aeroplanes are there in a squadron?
      Sir S. HOARE: The bombing squadrons have 10 or 12 first-line machines according to then type, while the fighting squadrons have 12.
      Mr. WELLOCK: Are the Naval squadrons the same?
      Sir S. HOARE: I think I had better refrain from going into fine details. Let me say, in a single sentence, that the Naval units are organised in a somewhat different way from the Army squadrons, but speaking generally, the strength of the Air Force will be 82 squadrons, as against 75 in 1928. Even so, our strength will be definitely inferior to the strength of certain other great Powers. Secondly, these Estimates show a notable advance in the development of our Imperial air communications. The route to India, as hon. Members already know, will be actually in operation in a few weeks' time, and I hope in the course of the next few months to be able to take the necessary steps for starting in due course with the other great trunk line of the Empire, London to the Cape. I shall deal in greater detail with this part of my subject at a later point in my speech. Thirdly, we have made definite provision for a further advance in technical and scientific development. Leaving out of account the larger super-cut, the Vote for technical and warlike equipment shows an increase of no less than £615,000 over 1928. On the completion of this year's programme the whole Air Force, with the exception of four squadrons in India, will be equipped with new-type engines and machines. The four Indian squadrons are due for re-armament in 1930.
      Upon the civil side we are concentrating on the development of new and up-to-date types of machines for civil transport. Among the first items in our programme

      597
      are a boat of new type with twin floats, a larger flying boat than any we have yet constructed and two aircraft which we hope will enable us to test the rival claims of monoplanes and bi-planes for civil purposes. In the meanwhile, a further advance will be made in a field in which we already have the leading place in the world, the field of metal construction. Four years ago the Air Ministry was ordering only one metal machine to every 19 of wooden construction. Today, we are ordering seven metal machines for one wood. So swift has been the revolution in the methods of construction during the last four years! As far as engines are concerned, these Estimates embody a special effort to bring the progress in engine design level with the remarkable progress that has been achieved in aeroplane design during the last few years. Recent experiments go to show that pre-eminent as British aero-engines are in the world, there are very notable improvements within our reach, both with air-cooled and water-cooled types, while the heavy oil engine—the engine we are using in the two new airships—is also a development of great promise.
      A further effort is also being made to apply the data that we have now accumulated upon the risks of flying whether they be due to the structure of the machine or to the human element. The brilliant work of the experimental pilots at Farnborough and Martlesham and the special efforts of the Aeronautical Research Committee are increasing our knowledge of wing-flutter and the stresses to which high-speed machines are subjected, whilst concentrated attention is being given to possible developments of that great safety invention, the slotted wing. Indeed, I believe that the more the Vote for equipment research and technical development is studied, the more it will be clear that we are concentrating upon the essential problems, and that we are trying to solve them with the fullest possible help of scientists and engineers both inside and outside the Air Ministry.
      I now come to the fourth of the new and outstanding points in these Estimates, namely, the proposal we are making to stimulate the air sense of the nation, and to give opportunities for flying to individuals and districts who do not at present possess them. I refer to the
      598
      proposed grant to the National Flying Services Company. I feel sure that in the course of this Debate I shall have an opportunity of going into this subject in greater detail, but let me say here in a sentence or two that we are proposing to make a grant to this company for two specific purposes. First, to obtain a larger number of pilots—and we are proposing to pay the company £10 per pilot as against £40 or £50 we are paying to the light aeroplane clubs now; and, secondly, we make it a condition of the agreement that the new-company should provide, directly or indirectly, 20 new aerodromes and 80 new landing grounds. We have been careful to interfere in no way with the existing arrangements with the light aeroplane clubs, and no change whatever is being made in the agreements, many of which have still some time to run, in force between the Government and these clubs.
      Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Has the Minister consulted with the pilots?
      Mr. SPEAKER: It will be much better if the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to make his speech without interruption.
      Sir S. HOARE: Of course, we have discussed the scheme with the clubs. I have talked the question over with them at great length, and have already informed the House of this fact on several occasions. These are the four novel points in the Estimates—the increase in the Air Force; the proposed development in air communications; the step forward in technical and scientific development, and this effort to diffuse air knowledge throughout the country and give freer and fuller facilities to the young men and women who wish to fly. No doubt in the course of the Debate we shall have an opportunity of going into much greater detail on all these four proposals, but, for the moment, let me pass from details and direct the attention of the House for a few minutes to one or two broad questions of air organisation and air transport. Let me begin by asking hon. Members a very simple but very important question: is the organisation of our air services efficient? Are we, or are we not, keeping abreast of new ideas and modern developments and improvements?

      599
      Take the first question: Is our Air Service efficient? Granted the obvious differences between a fighting service and an undertaking which is carried on for private profit or as a public utility service, I am most anxious that a new service like the Air Service should not be left in any hole and corner of the national life, but should freely avail itself of any improvements in method and management that are being introduced into business and industry. There is no reason why what is known as rationalisation should be restricted to businesses for private profit or to public utility services. If by rationalisation is meant a sound division of labour, the avoidance of waste and an opportunity for ability to get to the top, a fighting service like the Air Service has everything to gain by its application and introduction.
      Let me take rationalisation as my text. Let me suggest to the House one or two ways in which we are attempting to make use of improvements in the world at large in their application to the Air Force Take the personnel side of the question, the staff side. The very basis of any sound scheme of rationalisation is the existence of a contented and efficient staff. On the personnel side, we have had many difficult problems to face during the few years of the existence of the Air Force. We had, first of all, the difficult problem of forming from the very beginning, a new fighting service in time of peace. We had the difficult problem of forming a new service which needs many younger men for flying and at the same time does not require a proportionate number of senior posts at the top. I think that we can now claim that we have made some progress in dealing with these problems, and the record and spirit of the Service during the last 11 years shows at any rate that we are not guilty of any general failure. Be this as it may, we have now accumulated a great deal of data and have obtained a great deal of experience, and we believe that we are in a position to take a step forward and make great improvements in the serving conditions of the Force generally.
      During the last few months we have introduced a new promotion scheme. I need not go into great detail just now, but I may tell the House, in a sentence, that we believe that under this scheme
      600
      we shall insure a freer stream of promotion for ability in the Force. We are throwing open to the non-commissioned ranks a number of posts which have hitherto been restricted to officers and are introducing, upon a larger scale than before, civilian labour wherever we think it will be more efficient and more economical than service labour. In all these three directions the new promotion scheme, when it comes into full operation—obviously it must take some months, it may be years—should enable us to give a better career to officers and men in the Force and make it easier for merit to rise freely to the top.
      Then there is also the problem of the short service officer; the officer who comes into the Air Force for five years and then goes back into civil life, remaining on the Reserve. We have never undertaken any definite obligation to find the short service officer employment when he leaves the Air Force, but being, as we hope, good employers, we have done what we can. I am glad to say that we have now been able to take a further step in order to make it easier for him to find employment when he leaves the Force at the end of five years. We have started an organisation on the lines of the Cambridge University Appointments Board. We have a whole-time official acting as secretary, and we make it our business to keep in close touch with firms and industries with a view to finding opportunities for employment for the considerable number of men who leave the Force every year. Although this organisation has only been in existence for a comparatively short period, suitable appointments have been found for no less than 90 out of 120 officers who have left the Force luring the past 12 months. Of the balance of 30, some have found employment on their own initiative and others have been placed in touch with what appear to be suitable openings. In view of what I have said I claim that in these two directions, namely, providing a better career for the permanent officer in the Air Force and finding employment for the short service officer when he leaves the Force, these Estimates mark a definite step forward. So much for the personnel side.
      Let me come now to the scarcely less important material side. In a very

      601
      technical service like the Air Service it is all-important to take every opportunity of avoiding waste and unnecessary expenditure on valuable material. Let me suggest to the House in a few sentences one or two ways in which we are trying to avoid the waste and the very heavy expenditure, which would be inevitable in so expensive a service as the Air Service unless we were constantly trying to check waste and extravagance. I think we have not been altogether unsuccessful. Take one or two instances. We have been trying to close down uneconomical stations. We have been trying to combine stations where we think economy and efficiency would result, and it is significant to note that although the first line strength of the Air Force has more than doubled since I first presented these Estimates in 1923, the number of personnel on Vote A has not increased at all. If hon. Members will scrutinise the Estimates, they will see that we are transferring our principal wireless training establishment from Flowerdown in Hampshire to Cranwell in Lincolnshire. That is an example of an attempt at economy by the concentration of two important establishments at one station.
      Hon. Members again will notice in the details of this Estimate that we are making a further economy in the very expensive item of spare parts. We have been able during the last year or two to make continuous reductions in this expenditure. Not only does that show that we are saving money, but it shows that the number of crashes and the wastage of material are becoming on the whole less and less each year. There is a saving this year of no less than £156,000 upon this single item of spare parts. When that is taken into account with a corresponding saving of £200,000 in this same item last year, hon. Members will see that at any rate in this respect year by year we are improving our record and are more successful in avoiding wastage of machines and engines and the various instruments which the flying service requires.
      There is another item in the Estimates bearing on this same point. It refers to the more technical devices for avoiding waste. An instance may be found in the provision in the Estimates for what is known as a flowmeter, an instrument invented
      602
      at Farnborough for the checking of one of the biggest items in Air Force expenditure, the consumption of fuel in the air. Let me give the House an illustration of the value of such an instrument. Five Horsley machines were twice flown in formation at a height of 15,000 feet for two hours, once without flowmeters and again later fitted with them. With flowmeters fitted, the consumption of petrol was materially reduced, and further there was very little variation between the individual machines. In fact, taking as a basis of comparison the lowest of the 10 consumption-figures, the consumption of the other four machines with flowmeters in no case showed an excess of more than 7 per cent., whereas when the machines were without flowmeters, the excesses were as much as 27, 29, 32, 36 and 60 per cent.
      There is, further, a most important provision for another labour-saving instrument, a seaplane tank and a variable density wind tunnel, by means of which we are enabled to make tests upon model aeroplanes rather than incur the expense of making the experiments upon full-sized aeroplanes with their crews. If I had the time I could develop this part of the subject and satisfy the House that we are constantly, day by day and week by week, attempting to introduce the kind of labour-saving device of which I have just given the House an illustration, and by that means avoiding unnecessary expenditure and any possibility of waste. But I think I have said enough, at any rate to interest the House in this aspect of our work, and to satisfy them that we are on the right lines.
      Let me now come to a further question. I have attempted to deal with the first question that I put to the House, is our organisation efficient and are we trying to keep abreast of modern methods and modern improvements? I come now to-an equally important question, are we successfully carrying out our main duties of air defence and Imperial air communications? I will deal first with air defence, and the most urgent part of our air defence, the defence of these shores. I regret to say that our home extension programme is not yet completed. We have only 31 squadrons out of the 52 that we are gradually building up. I wish that we had been able to make a quicker advance during the last few years, but

      603
      we can say that year by year, judged by any standard that any hon. Member likes to apply, these squadrons are becoming more and more efficient, not only compared with a year or two ago, but compared with any other squadrons, I care not from where you take it, over the face of the world. It is also satisfactory to know that our experience during the years in which we have been engaged upon building up these home defence squadrons, goes to show that the Territorial units, the Auxiliary squadrons and the Special Reserve squadrons are more than justifying the hopes that were placed upon them. Indeed, so fully is that so and so efficiently are they carrying out their duties, that we are making a substantial increase in their number in this year's Estimate. So much for the main duty of the Air Force at home, the duty of home defence.
      Let me come next to the duties of the Air Force abroad, the activities of the Force overseas. There, I think, I can point to several instances during the last 12 months in which the Air Force has shown itself as the most humane and most efficient instrument for ensuring peace and security in various parts of the Empire. The Air Force has been on active service during the last 12 months in the Middle East, in the Sudan, in the Aden Protectorate and in the North West Frontier of India. I hope that because the Air Force has been on active service for many months during the last year, no hon. Member will think that we embark lightly upon military operations. There is no officer on the staff, there is no officer of any unit in the territories to which I have just referred, who does not desire to use to the full every possible peaceful method and only to use military force in the last resort. Those men, officers or laymen, who have to do with the Air Force, realise that the Air arm is so fine that its misuse or its too constant use will altogether blunt it and make it of no effect. So during the last 12 months it is only in the very last resort that military operations have been undertaken.
      In the case of the military operations in Iraq it was the encroachment of certain tribes many miles over the Iraq frontier, and the butchery of large numbers of men, women and children, that brought the Air Force into operation. In
      604
      Aden it was the kidnapping of two sheiks friendly to Great Britain. In the Sudan it was the murder of a British Commissioner, a Greek trader and several natives that compelled the Air Force to take action. On the North-West Frontier it was the kidnapping of several peaceful Indian subjects. On all these occasions the Air Force went into action, and the operations were carried out successfully, with scarcely any casualities amongst either the Air Force or the native population. In the case of the Air Force there was only one death in action during all the operations. As for the native population, they were saved long drawn out military operations with all the casualties that these inevitably entail. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Lady not agree?
      Miss WILKINSON: It is comforting for the people who have been killed.
      Sir S. HOARE: Does the hon. Lady mean to imply that she would rather have columns of infantry and artillery engaged in these operations?
      Miss WILKINSON: The hon. Lady means to imply that she does not know what we are doing there at all. These harmless native tribes have a right to their own land. We would not be there at all if there was no oil there.
      Sir S. HOARE: I cannot be drawn into an argument with the hon. Member. These harmless natives, harmless British subjects, were butchered without any provocation, and it is the duty of the Imperial garrison to protect them and inflict punishment.
      Miss WILKINSON: If the right hon. Gentleman has a moment to spare in the course of the next few Weeks, would he go and see the play at the Court Theatre, "Rumour," which deals with this exact point, and he will see how much truth there is in the stories of unprovoked attacks?
      Sir S. HOARE: I am stating the facts, and I challenge any hon. Member, whatever side of the House he or she belongs to, to study in detail the history of the operations that I have just described, and come to any other conclusion than that there could not have been a more humane or a more economical instrument of the Pax Britannica than the Air Force in these various territories. So far

      605
      as money expenditure goes, it is interesting to note that in the Aden operations the total cost was £8,000, whereas it has been calculated that under the older conditions of welfare the expenditure would have run into perhaps £6,000,000.
      Let me pass from that side of my speech. I hope I have said enough to show that, assuming that military operations are necessary in these areas, the Air arm has efficiently and economically carried out its duties. I pass to the other side of the question, the very important side of Imperial air communications, almost as important as the side of air defence and security. When I say Imperial air communications, I have in mind the whole field, military and civil—military in respect of the many pioneer service flights that during the last few years have opened out the great Imperial airways, both by the landing grounds which they have laid out, and the experience which they have accumulated; and civil in respect of the regular services that have already been started, the many flights that have been made by civilians, airmen and women, over long distances, and the air knowledge which they are diffusing over the world.
      As long as I have been at the Air Ministry I have always regarded, as the first need in any civil aviation programme, the need for starting an air route to India. The Air Ministry is full of evidence which bears out what I say when I tell the House that scarcely a week, indeed scarcely a day, has passed since I have been connected with the Air Ministry—now I am afraid many years—that I have not been attempting to get this air service to India started. The House may say, "You have been at the Air Ministry for six years and that is a long time for starting a route of this kind." So it is, but, looking back, I do not suppose there ever was a project of this kind that was faced with so many obstacles—the difficulty first of finding the money and the difficulty, again, of making arrangements with the various countries over which we have to fly. Why, Sir, I believe that if I had the style of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I could write as picturesque a narrative about the starting of the air route to India as he has just written on "The Aftermath
      606
      of the War." Anyhow, I am glad to think that these difficulties have been at last overcome. The service is going to start. Hon. Members know the details of it and I need not repeat those details to them. The service is being started in a few weeks. Satisfactory agreements have been made with all the Governments along the route, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Governments with which we are going to co-operate.
      Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: It is by agreement?
      Sir S. HOARE: Yes.
      Mr. BENN: In each case?
      Sir S. HOARE: In each case. I should like to express my satisfaction to the whole series of Governments concerned—to the French and Swiss Governments over whose territory the first stage of the journey will be made, to the Italian and Greek Governments in regard to the second stage, to the Egyptian Government in regard to the third stage and last of all to the Persian Government in regard to the stage between Iraq and India. I believe that not only shall we here at home, and our fellow citizens in India, find the route a very great advantage but I believe that each of the countries over which it will pass will find it of great benefit to themselves. The route is going to open in a few weeks time and I venture to suggest to hon. Members who want a complete change before the General Election that they might very well take a passage by air to and from India. They could be back in this House within a fortnight and I think we might have an arrangement during that fortnight that there would be no by-elections.
      Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: What is the cost?
      Sir S. HOARE: I have not the figure in my mind but it compares quite favourably with any other method of transport. So much for the India service. I come now to the other great Imperial trunk line, the route from London to the Cape. The effort to start the India route was made first for the very good reason that several parts of that route had already been organised between Egypt and the Persian Gulf by the Royal Air Force. But we have always had it in mind that as soon as the India route was started our

      607
      next objective should be a London to the Cape route. I am glad to think that during the last few years we have accumulated a great deal of very useful data which will help us in our efforts to start an African service. We had, as the House remembers, a series of long-distance service flights carried out both by the Royal Air Force and the South African Air Force. We have had the landing grounds marked out. We have also had a series of pioneer flights carried out by private individuals over the same route—by pilots like Sir Alan Cobham, Lady Bailey, Lady Heath and Captain and Mrs. Bentley. I think the House will allow me to pay a tribute to them and particularly to the ladies who, during the last 12 months, have made these very enterprising flights from one end of Africa to the other. We have, as I say, accumulated a great deal of data without which it would have been impossible to organise so ambitious an air line as an air line from one end of Africa to the other—a distance of 6,250 miles. We have the data and we believe also we have the demand. There is not a territory in any part of Africa which would not gain almost inestimable advantages from the starting of this service.
      I will give the House, as an illustration of what I am saying, a few examples of the time which will be saved between one point and another showing how great will be the advantage to the various British territories along the route. The time taken to-day to travel from Cairo to Khartum will be halved. Whereas with present communications it takes seven to 14 days to get from Cairo to Sudanese centres as far South as Malakal and Mongalla, the air service will reach both of them in three days or under. Entebbe in Uganda, and centres such as Nairobi, Mombasa, Dar-es-Salam and Tabora in Kenya and Tanganyika are at present from 12 to 15 days journey by rail and sea from Egypt. The new air service will reduce this time by a full two thirds. North and South Rhodesia will be brought within 10 days of London, whereas now the voyage and subsequent journey take three weeks. To get to Johannesburg or Pretoria will take only 11 days instead of 18 or 19, whilst further South the Union Parliament at Cape Town will be brought within 12 days of Westminster.
      608
      Can we find the money for so useful a project? I believe we can. I have included in these Estimates a small sum for making a start. It is designedly small for, with the best will in the world, we cannot hope to organise a regular service of this kind in under 12 months. But we have included this small sum to show our goodwill. I am in communication with the various Governments concerned and on behalf of the Government here I have informed the Government of the Union of South Africa that we are prepared to make a substantial contribution in the form of subsidy to this London-Cape Town service.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On what page is that sum?
      Sir S. HOARE: I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman afterwards. It is under "Civil Aviation." As I say, I have informed the South African Government that we are prepared to make a substantial contribution to the expenses and it should be remembered in this connection that we are already bearing the whole of the expenses of that part of the service which goes from this country to Egypt. But, over and above that, we are prepared to make a contribution to the section from Egypt to South Africa. I would say to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) that we have a detailed scheme worked out by the various interested parties. As he no doubt will remember, there is more than one interest connected with the question. I am glad to say the various interests have now agreed. We have a combined proposal and it is on the basis of that proposal that we are now negotiating with the other Governments on the route. I think the House will agree that while it is the duty of the British Government to take its share in a project of this kind it is none the less the responsibility of the Governments along the route to take their part in it as well, and I have every hope that the negotiations will proceed satisfactorily and that by each Government playing its part we shall be able to set in operation the second of these great Imperial air trunk routes.
      5.0 p.m.
      What a thrilling project. It is a project to combine no less than seven Colonial and Dominion Governments in Africa in a common endeavour to destroy the great enemy of the Empire—distance. What a

      609
      chance for these Imperial Governments to form in the air a co-operative commonwealth of transport—transport which I am certain will be of the greatest value to the Empire as a whole and of the greatest value to every single one of these territories along the route. In any case the House can rely upon me to spare no effort to bring this project to a successful termination. If we succeed in organising these two routes, the route to India and the route to the Cape, and if in addition to that our great airship experiment is successful, we shall have made ourselves without fear of rivalry the great air carriers of the world.
      I am now drawing to the end of another long Estimates speech, the sixth that it has been my duty to address to the House. For more than five years, the main interest of my life has been the progress of British flying. Looking back to-night, in this last Air Estimates Debate of the present Parliament, I cannot help thinking a little of what has been done, and a great deal of what might have been done, during these critical years in the life of a new service and the development of a new science. I suppose that there is not an hon. Member in the House this afternoon who could not easily make out a long list of what might have been done during these last five years; but I can assure the House that there is no hon. Member who could make a longer list than myself. Be that as it may, we can, however, look back over the last five years with some satisfaction, and, however much we may think of mistakes and of missed opportunities, we can point to a certain definite progress which stands beyond the reach of disputation. Where there was no organised Home Defence Force, there are now 31 of the most efficient squadrons in the world, trained to the highest point to protect these shores from the most terrible of all attacks.
      Where few realised the value of air power in the Empire, the achievements in Iraq, Aden, and India have now convinced public opinion of its inestimable importance. Where there were no Imperial air routes, the work of the pioneers and the organisation of regular services are already succeeding in bringing the Empire closer together. New-types of engines and machines have taken the place of the older material; metal
      610
      has been substituted for wood; safety appliances, like the parachute and the auto-slot, have been introduced. The finest flying boats in the world have been built; the Schneider Cup has been won, and the fastest aeroplane in the world constructed. Two great airships are nearing completion after a unique effort of scientific inquiry and technical experiment.
      Perhaps best of all, the spirit of a great service, first kindled in the testing times of war, has been made stronger and more stable in these days of peace—the spirit not only to act but also to think, the spirit not only to conquer the air but also to surmount the difficulties of the world below, the spirit cheerfully and at the same time intelligently to accept the tasks that are imposed upon the Air Force and the determination successfully to carry them out. These things I mention, not because I have the right or the wish to take credit for any of them, but because I desire the House to realise the progress that has been achieved and the good fortune that I have had in tying my wagon to the flying chariot of the British airmen.
      Mr. BENN: I am quite sure that I am expressing the opinion of everybody who has listened to the most interesting address of the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating him upon maintaining his usual standard of lucidity and interest in the statements which he has now made to us for several years in succession; and I should like, if I may, to add that as an Air Minister he has introduced a new conception by being a flying Minister; and that quality is not confined solely to himself, but is enjoyed by other members of his family, whether against his wish or not I have no means of knowing. Further, I think I am right in saying that this is the last year in which the Air Force will have the services of Sir Hugh Trenchard. Is that so?
      Sir S. HOARE: Yes.
      Mr. BENN: If that be so, remembering his work during the War I should like to say what I am sure very many members of the Air Force feel, that that service is about to lose the services of one of the greatest pioneers the Air Force has ever known, and that people, whenever they speak of the origins of

      611
      the Air Force, will say with very great truth of Sir Hugh Trenchard, that "There were giants in those days."
      If I may say so with very great respect, the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman was extremely interesting as far as facts were concerned, and showed industry and assiduity, but it really did not show that he had tackled the problem which ought to be tackled by Ministers to-day. The Minister in charge of any defence Department has at the present time a very difficult task. The public is sick and tired of the notion of war, and is completely indifferent to any proposal to make any provision for war; and if it is hard for a Minister on that side of the House, who can find among his own supporters perhaps some neutrals, and on the other hand some defeatists, at the same time as far as this side of the House is concerned, if at any time a Minister in a Labour Government were called upon to discharge the office which the right hon. Gentleman has discharged with so much distinction, the task would be infinitely harder, because his supporters on this side are determined to put the engines in reverse, and see whether it is not possible to get a limit set to the thing which we believe, brilliantly conceived and nobly served as it is, is one of the most destructive and dangerous weapons which exist in the world to-day.
      Fortunately, the Air Minister is in a totally different position from the War Minister or the First Lord of the Admiralty, because there is a positive side to his work; it is not concerned solely with the work of destruction. It is not only that he may be engaged in the police work to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred; there is a definite and positive side to it because the Air Minister represents in this House a Ministry which is charged with the development and encouragement of what I believe to be one of the greatest potential aids for the service of humanity that science has provided; and so, although it is necessary in the first place to deal with the military side of the right hon. Gentleman's duty, certainly later on I propose to devote some remarks to what I call the positive, more human, and certainly, to me, the more agreeable side. The right hon. Gentleman said: "Given that I can get no agreement about air
      612
      armaments"—and he dismissed that in a sentence, as he has dismissed it in a sentence on every occasion since he took office—"given that I can get no agreement, I have a certain problem to face, namely, that I must see at any rate that we have some shelter from the blows which might come to us at an hour or a couple of hours' notice." That problem would exist for Labour if it were in office to-day, and until policy is so correct that that situation is altered, there is no doubt that whoever sat on that bench representing the Air Ministry would have to be prepared to answer the question: "In the absence of any international agreement, what are you doing to protect us against what might be a blow delivered in a moment at the heart of our country?"
      The first question that I would ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: Is there anybody in the Cabinet who, when the service Estimates come forward, looks at all three and decides how the money is to be distributed between them? That is a very important question. Of course, here we are limited in a way; we have a certain amount of scope in this House on this Vote, but it is a limited scope. We seldom have an opportunity of discussing the thing as a whole. But, at any rate, we could ask the Minister: When the Cabinet meets, is it a case of first the Admiralty by virtue of seniority, then the War Ministry by virtue of pertinacity, and then the Air Minister last of all for what he can get that is left? Are dress allowances to be made for both the ugly sisters, and is the Air always to sit among the cinders? It is quite conceivable that given an agreed and striking reduction in the total amount voted for defence—a reduction of 10 or even 20 per cent. in the figure—it might be desirable that the Air Estimates should grow. I am dealing with the thing as it stands to-day, and I am coming to what I consider to be the real defence by the Minister of these Estimates, and therefore I would like to ask the Air Minister what is done about that. Does the Committee of Imperial Defence, does the Prime Minister, or does somebody, sit there to deal with the Estimates, and does the Air Minister, with his charming and, I am afraid, too concessive manner, always have to take third place to others who are more obstinate and pertinacious in raiding the public Exchequer?

      613
      I think we realise, in common with everyone, that there is no safety—there may be victory in the Air Force, victory only a shade worse than defeat, but there is no safety either in the Air Force, or in any other form of armament. The only safety is in disarmament, and, therefore, one at once addresses to the Air Minister the question: What has been his contribution, and, though he is not of course responsible for the Cabinet, what has been their contribution to what is the vital question to-day for us and for every other country in Europe? What are we doing to reduce these most dangerous and most devilish of all the weapons of war? We have the Geneva Preparatory Commission; but I do not know what has happened to it. I used to think of it as a lame man, but it is a lame man who is halting. As far as one can make out, nothing has come of that. I will go further, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: He says that the difference between protection against an army or protection against a navy and protection against an air force is this: You get some warning of an invasion and you get some warning about the movements of naval forces, but you get no warning about an air attack, conceivably; and therefore he says: "It is my bounden duty to see that the heart of the Empire is protected Against a blow that might be struck without notice—we do not for a moment imagine that it will be, but which might be struck without notice—at our vitals."
      That being so, it becomes really a question of geographical limits. You do not conceive that the Chinese are going to bomb Woolwich at an hour's notice. It is a question of geography and it is a question of mileage. We know perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman's defence, although very wisely in this House he says very little about it, is that within a certain distance of our own country there is an Air Force which is vastly superior in strength to our own. That is his real defence; that is the defence for this programme which was started in 1923, and which year by year has added squadron by squadron. Are we not entitled to ask him what the Cabinet has done? If they cannot do anything at Geneva for general disarmament, what have they done in reference to our Gallic neighbours? Have
      614
      they done anything at all? We have a Foreign Secretary who is both a Francophil and a Francophobe. As far as I can judge, the only French word he ever uses is the word "Oui." At every stage we pursue a Francophil policy. There is nothing that he has not done. We have entered the Covenant of the League of Nations; we have forgiven the debt, or a great part of it; we have signed the Kellogg Pact; we have undertaken under the Locarno Treaty to defend French territory. What have we in return? Is it impossible to conceive that we could have made some agreement which at any rate would have relieved us of what I admit is a potential danger, against which the Air Minister is perfectly right to place us in a condition of adequate defence? It is not as though nothing of the sort had been attempted. In the future people will regard it as something of a joke that, in this matter of the relative strength of the two Forces, in view of the fact, which is not denied, that the Government have negotiated a Treaty about warships, with the only result of greatly prejudicing our relations with the United States, in this precious Treaty, which might have contained one good thing, namely, an agreement to produce a détente in this competition of air armaments, not a single word has been spoken on that subject.
      I am not laying the whole burden of the charge by any means on the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think the Government as a whole can escape conviction upon that charge, when looked at in the light of the public interest. The Air Minister and the War Minister—and I have no doubt the First Lord of the Admiralty will say the same—say that every other country in the world is increasing its Air Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say these Estimates are increasing, but he is not disarming; he is adding to the Air Force.
      Sir S. HOARE: The Estimates are decreasing.
      Mr. BENN: I had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not take shelter there, because he is not as frank as his own printed statement. There is an increase of armaments and of squadrons. But all these Ministers say, "We are doing all this, but look at the foreigner. Every foreigner is adding to his force."

      615
      The Air Minister said it to-day, the War Minister said it last week, and no doubt the First Lord of the Admiralty will say it next week. Do they not see that every time they explain that foreign countries are increasing their Estimates they are condemning their own policy, because we ourselves undertook at Locarno heavy obligations on the distinct understanding that the price we should get for them was a general disarmament in Europe, and there is not a shadow of hope that any of the fruits of that Locarno policy are going to come our way? The Air Minister might say, very reasonably, "It is all very well, but agreements are two-sided affairs, and I would be very willing to do what I can, but other people have to be consulted." All I can say is that there are many people in Europe, quite independent of supporters of this party, who are hoping that we may see again that happy conjunction which we had in 1924 of Labour and Socialist Governments in office in France and England, which resulted in the greatest détente in the strained relations of Europe that has been known ever since the War.
      I say that the work of the Air Ministry—and that is what makes it so different from the other Ministries—is not confined merely to the negative side, the side of repression and of the use of force, but there is a positive side, namely, the encouragement and the fostering in every way of flying. I believe that it would be a disastrous thing if the pursuit of disarmament led us to do anything to lame or hamstring this enormous human development. I do not think you could in any case, but all who have considered the subject, including the Preparatory Commissions at Geneva, have always come to the conclusion that we must do nothing to interfere with the progress of civil aviation. Its potentialities are immense, and no one has spoken of it better than has the Air Minister himself. I saw a statement which might interest the Minister of Health, to the effect that in a town in Connecticut there had been disclosed by an aerial photograph 1,863 houses which up to then had paid no rates. It might help them in the morass of the De-rating Bill.
      616
      We are entitled to ask, despite what the Air Minister said about the development of Imperial routes to India, how we really stand in relation to other countries. I believe in civil aviation, and I want to say, subject to certain safeguards, that I believe we ought to have the air leadership of the world. We are an Empire which is more scattered than any other Empire in the world, and it is essential for us that we should be in free and open communication with every part, not only of our own Dominions, but of the whole world. That has been the past history of this country, that we have always taken a lead in world communication. Exactly where do we stand now? These figures were supplied to me, and I believe they represent the facts. I am going to give, first of all, the air mileage of commercial routes. These figures, of course, will be very strikingly modified when the right hon. Gentleman can say he has an air route to India or the Cape, but I am taking the present figures, and including the Cairo to Basra route, the link which is at present in operation, Great Britain has 2,000 miles, United States 13,000, France 12,000, Italy 3,000 and Germany 18,000. That is the number of miles of commercial routes open to-day.
      Let us look at the number of aerodromes. I do not know whether this is right, but my statement says that Great Britain has 19 and the United States 425 municipal aerodromes and 415 private and commercial aerodromes. Of course, the United States is a vast tract of country compared with our island, but the figures certainly show a striking disparity between the two countries. France has 15 aerodromes, and whereas we have 18 aerodromes and one seaplane station, according to this information, Germany has 89 aerodromes and seven seaplane stations. When we come to the civil air craft, actually flying, employed on regular air transport, we find that Great Britain has 19, United States 250, and Germany 240. If these figures are accurate, I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is doing, not to meet this immediate problem, but to secure for Great Britain the air hegemony to which we are entitled. I am not by any means criticising what has been done, and I acknowledge the

      617
      efficiency of our service and the spirit of our men, but I notice that in the United States night flying is a regular part of their service, and in Germany too, and that in both these countries there is a train and air combination. I mention this, because in both countries that I have mentioned the railway companies are working jointly with the air companies, or are perhaps controlling them in this train and air combination.
      I am not saying or recommending that we should increase the subsidy we give to civil flying, but I will give the figures of the subsidies in respect of the various countries. I am not sure about the United States at all. I presume they give a subsidy to those who carry their air mails, but whether their startling air development—I am told that £20,000,000 is sunk in the air industry in the United States-is due to subsidies, I cannot say. As regards Germany, it is stated that the State grant, independent of grants from the municipalities and towns, is £840,000 a year, in France £1,370,000, in Italy £534,000, and in this country £385,000. I am not necessarily recommending that we should give money, but I am showing that in this, which is by far the most important side of the Air Ministry's work, we are some long distance behind the other countries.
      The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Imperial air routes, and I applaud what he said. It is a splendid thing that has been done, but what is going to be the character of the routes, aerodromes, and so on? Are they intended, so to speak, to be a trench to defend the Empire, or are they an open highway for the use of all the peoples of the world? There is a vast difference between the two conceptions. That we should contribute our part to making air highways in the world for the use of everyone, of course, with proper charges and so on, is in striking harmony with the principle on which we have built up sea routes, with their ports, in which we have received the commerce of the people of all nations. That is a noble conception, worthy of our race, but if the Imperial airways, of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks, merely mean concealed military approaches, I say that be is entirely out of harmony with the spirit of the times and with the traditions of our own country.
      618
      That brings me to another and the last of the points with which I shall trouble the House. I do not take the view that the real question, even from the point of view of defence, is the matter of having squadrons ready to be put into the air to retort if any attack were made upon us—because that is what we mean by defence; it does not mean filling the sky with aeroplanes, but it means being able to hit back at the man who has attempted or is going to attack you. But what of the development of civil flying generally from the military standpoint? I believe they call it, in the jargon of Geneva, the "war potential." Supposing you were to look round Europe to-day, and you saw France, with her. £1,300,000 being spent on civil subsidies, and her enormous Air Force, and you saw Germany, which has had the incalculable blessing of the Peace Treaty, that has protected her from the waste of money incurred by everybody who is free from military obligations, and you saw her 18,000 miles of air routes, and you saw Franco with her immediately ready machines, and you saw Germany a network of aerodromes, with her 250 machines, with her trained pilots, which country would you say in 20 years' time is likely, from a military standpoint, to have the air leadership of Europe? I do not think many would hesitate to say that it is Germany, disarmed as she is by the Clauses of the Peace Treaty, and that war potential from the air standpoint is far higher to-day in Germany than in France.
      What is going to be done about that? I believe there are two companies in France and in Germany one, the Lufthansa. I am using Germany as an example, because no one will be offended if I talk of Germany, but if I speak of ourselves, people will say that I am a friend of every country but my own, so I will take Germany. You have Germany, with an enormous civil flying machine, you have potential accumulations of stores, potential mobilisation arrangements of pilots—there are hundreds of trained pilots there—and you have, what is much more important, practised pilots. This Lufthansa has its connections, I believe, to Warsaw, Moscow, the southeast of Europe, Barcelona, and away down towards the coast of South America, and everybody who has engaged, even

      619
      temporarily, in this pleasing Christian business of bombing from the air knows that the secret is to know the road. The difficulty is not to drop the bombs, it is not to fly the machine, but it is to know the road. If you are going to have a great civil organisation like the Lufthansa—I am still keeping to Germany for the purposes of my argument—if you have a vast organisation with pilots flying from day to day and from week to week to Vienna, or Rome, or Barcelona, or Madrid, or London, how on earth will you prevent that becoming potentially the most powerful air weapon that any country could possess? That is what you are faced with.
      I turn now to our own position. I do not know about the Imperial airways. But the same thing could be said, mutato nomine, about our own force. That appears to me to be the real problem facing the Air Ministry to-day. What are you going to do to promote the development of civil aviation, that great civilising force, and yet to prevent it being turned to the purposes of war? That is the real problem, and it is to that problem that we should like the Ail-Minister to give a little attention. The matter has been discussed, needless to say, in the councils of Geneva. I am certain that, unless it is solved, you will never get the development of civil aviation, because as long as you associate civil flying with night bombing, no one will wish to see the thing encouraged. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in a famous phrase, "Civil aviation must fly by itself." It can carry its petrol, its engines, its passengers, and its load, but it will never rise from the ground so long as it has the curse of humanity on it from its association with bombing. I hope it may some day be relieved of that curse.
      We believe that by some form of inter-nationalisation this problem, which is the main problem, can be solved. We are at the moment—it will not last for ever—when it might be possible to convince the Germans that it is to their interest to come into such a scheme. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman read the speech in this morning's papers by General Von Seeckt, who gave a perfectly plain warning that the unilateral disarmament of Europe, that is to say,
      620
      the disarmament of Germany, is not going to last for ever. It has been put in a Treaty, but it will be observed only until such time as they are strong enough to throw it aside. The only way in which you can possibly disarm Germany is to disarm Europe, and the time to disarm Europe is now; and I ask the Minister for Air seriously to consider this question.
      After all, the problem is not one of military air forces. The problem is the growth of civil flying, and its potential use for war purposes. People cannot fly over this country without a treaty. I asked a question the other day on the subject: People cannot fly over other countries without a treaty. Is it possible to have some universal treaty which would give freedom of the air to those who are prepared to accept in return the obligations of internationalisation, and to keep their particular machines, their particular lines out of the power of their own national war offices, so that if a war did break out we should be certain that, at any rate, the great international air lines could take no part in it, because their pilot? were internationals and the whole framework, of their staff, machinery and the rest, would be swept aside out of the control of the War Ministers in every country? Till that is done, I am perfectly certain we can never hope to see either the development of civil aviation at the rate that it ought to go on or the effective disarmament of the world. I suggest that it is to problems of this kind that the Air Ministry should devote its talent and the right hon. Gentleman his undoubted ability. It is a difficult task, but the public will be with you if you do it. The public is yearning for something of this kind to be done, but you are face to face with interests, you are face to face with fears and you may be at the mercy of the gutter press; but I do suggest that such a policy, if adopted, would give a new and nobler meaning to the words "per ardua ad astra."
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn), in his journey from Leith to Aberdeen—not a great way—changed many of his opinions, but we are very happy to see that he is still a great expert on air matters. To-night

      621
      we have listened to by far the best speech on air topics which has ever come from the Labour Benches. I want to pay my tribute to him for that speech; and I also think the House ought to pay him a tribute in this respect. In the old days there was no interest in the air at all, and if it had not been for a few of us on these benches and on those, acting together, there would have been no Minister of Air to-day. It is not so very long ago that eight of us used to sit there, alone, arguing for an Air Ministry and for an Air Minister, and although we may disagree with the actual Minister on points of detail, anyhow we of the old brigade can congratulate ourselves that such a gentleman exists to-day. I want also to associate myself with the eloquent remarks which fell from my hon. Friend with regard to Air Marshal Trenchard. This is a big step. This is the dropping of the pilot—of the great pilot. I served under him for three years, and it would be an impertinence for me to pay him a tribute. I know that he has cursed me as roundly as anybody could be cursed—and I deserved it—but all the time I loved him, and I believe in him. He is a great man. Now that he is leaving the Air Force I hope he will be used by the Government in some other capacity for the benefit of the Empire at large.
      May I say a word on the position of Air Force officers? This is a Force which was created all at once. Many officers from the other Services came into that Force at the one time, and consequently we have a whole conglomeration of senior officers all of about the same age, and all that happens from year to year is a sort of general post. Senior officers are moved from one point to another, but there is a general blocking of promotion. I say to my right hon. Friend the Air Minister that if we are to do justice to the many brilliant squadron leaders and flight lieutenants who did so well in the War we must clear the top of the tree, in order that they may get in time the promotion which is their due. It is going to be a difficult task, and there will be many heartburnings. The present position arose through the sudden formation of this Force, all the senior officers having more or less the same period of service, but it is a position which must be faced in order to clear the way for the future.
      Before I get on to the other broader topics, just a word on what is called the
      622
      national flying services. I support them from the bottom of my heart. In this House, in 1924, I advocated, to the best of my ability, the formation of flying clubs. It has been my privilege to see my right hon. Friend introduce them and make a success of them, and I am sure he will agree that they have been an enormous help. But though flying clubs are all very well in their way and teach a certain amount of flying, after all there are only a limited number of people who want to go up in the air for the mere pleasure of flying. If there is one person who will go up for joy flying there are 50 who want to get something out of it in the way of flying from place to place, and that is the next step in the development of this branch of flying. The possibility of exploring the whole of England is opened up, and I hope that the old flying clubs, which have done so much service, will not put a spoke in the wheel of the advance. I am not so much interested in the military side of aviation as I am in the civil side. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen said, no country wants to develop the air for purely peaceful reasons more than we do. That is the way to get air sense—first to fly about England and then to go further afield.
      There are many points of detail which I might discuss to-night, but many hon. Members wish to speak. I believe most hon. Members will agree that within the-ambit of the Air Ministry the right hon. Gentleman and his Under-Secretary do their duty extremely efficiently, but I have a criticism against the Government as a whole. We have been promised a day to debate national defence in its entirety. When are we going to have that day? Time and again we have thundered at the Front Bench to give us a day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to run away, because it was he who promised it, and this is a question which affects him as much as anybody. We as taxpayers want a reduction in national expenditure, and we do not see any way of getting it except along this line; and as the people who vote the money we are going to have it. I do not say that it is necessary to have a Ministry of Defence, that is a thing to be inquired into, but I do say that the Commons of England have a right to talk about defence in its entirety. That is the whole problem to be

      623
      solved. Who among the Members here can tell us how much we could take off the expenditure on the other two services if we spent £10,000,000 more on the Air Service? Does anybody know that? Do the Government know that? Can they tell us anything about it?
      In 1921 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with great imagination, gave the Air Force charge of Iraq and Transjordania. I wonder how many millions we saved in that way? It was a wonderful thing to advocate at the time, it was a leap in the dark, but it was a great success, and we have saved millions. In 1928 the Air Force took over Aden. I want to know "What about the Sudan, what about Somaliland, what about the Indian Frontier and what about coastal defence?" Along all those lines, surely, there is a possibility of economy in the national expenditure on armaments, if the Air Service will only pull its weight. To spend £140,000,000 a year, year after year, against a potential enemy in the United States, is really the most laughable thing in the world. Ask the right hon. Gentleman if you are safe in your beds to-night from Europe? You are not. It is a pure waste of money, it is the most ridiculous thing in the world. Sometimes I really think the Government are out for a fall. It may well be that in their great wisdom they think that the next Government should be Labour, so that it cannot do a lot of harm, and that we can come back again. That is the only way I can explain the Home Secretary's speeches.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting a little wide of the subject under discussion.
      Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am sorry if I am going a little wide, but I think this is a Debate in which one can bring in the Army and the Navy from the point of view of the national expenditure, and I was just touching outside that point for the fraction of a second only. The Prime Minister said at the beginning of this Parliament that he had the finest youth behind him. What has he done with them? He has broken their hearts. He said that with them he was going to hack through the vested interests that lay in the way of Britain.
      624
      Does my right hon. Friend the Air Minister not realise that from his point of view the two great vested interests are the War Office and the Admiralty? What has he done to hank his way through them? If he had hacked his way through we should have had a general lessening of the expenditure on armaments to-day, even though the expenditure on the Air Service might have been higher. After all, peace in our time does not necessarily mean somnolence on the Treasury Bench. The snores of the Government resound throughout the country. Elections are not won by snores.
      Captain GUEST: I rise for the fifth time to take a small part in the Debates on the Air Estimates. I confess that in annually considering these proposals you cannot always see the wood for the trees, but on this occasion I think we can see the whole five years in perspective. The military side of this question has been largely covered by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon). An attempt has been made in this Debate to try to force from somebody a statement as to whether the Air Force is to be a type of national defence and what is the relationship of the three great fighting forces. From the point of view of the Air Ministry, I submit that in view of the additional duties they have taken on their shoulders these Estimates are an absolute model of economy. The Air Ministry have in recent; years undertaken greater responsibilities, and they have had to provide additional barracks and other impedimenta from the very start, and I think I can rightly claim for the Minister that considering these vital factors the Estimates are very moderate indeed.
      I will now deal with the question of substitution. In 1922 a gamble was undertaken by the Air Ministry in Iraq and Transjordania. The question has been asked, what has been the economy to the taxpayer of that decision since that time? The experiment has been completely successful and no less than £40,000,000 has been saved to the taxpayer since 1922. That is a very considerable sum. The next day-to-day policy of substitution occurred a few months ago in the form of two additional

      625
      flights being sent to Aden to replace two battalions there. What will be the economy to the taxpayer of that decision? I asked a question on this point and I was told that the saving by this replacement would be between £200,000 and £300,000 a year. The Sudan offers an excellent opportunity for further national economy and substitution and a squadron has been sent there. I am satisfied that this policy of substitution will be successful. I think someone should examine this great problem more closely and the House should be told what is the long distance policy by which the defence of this country will be safeguarded. These substitutions are nearly always Army replacements. Why should we not have some substitution for the Navy. The taxpayer can be saved untold millions by the Air Force taking over Malta. That is perfectly possible and worthy of serious consideration. On one occasion I remember suggesting to the Imperial Committee of Defence that Singapore should be handed over to the Air Force, and I was nearly blown out of the room by the big guns of the Admiralty for making that suggestion. So much for the policy of substitution.
      I want to put in two caveats before I leave the military side. Ten years ago we planted the tree, or rather the Chancellor of the Exchequer planted it and handed it on to me as a shrub. It was carrying a small burden of about 20 squadrons, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Let us make it strong enough to carry a larger number later on." I ask, are the Government sure that they are watering and manuring that tree properly, are they sure that by these super-cuts they are not starving the roots of the tree upon which they will depend more and more in the future. I fear that an unwise economy in regard to the Air Force will spoil this beautiful tree which you have created. My second caveat is in regard to the programme for 52 home defence squadrons, of which I understand two-thirds have been completed. I understand we have 31 squadrons for home defence, and they have to perform the dual duty of home defence and Imperial reserve. They are the backbone of the fighting power of the Royal Air Force. Is the Secretary of State for Air satisfied that those squadrons are sufficiently mobile to undertake this dual duty? Those squadrons may at any moment be
      626
      called upon to perform a much wider service, and we do not want to find that they are not sufficiently mobile to undertake such service. I will pass from the military side with the observation that I think, looking back, these five years of work do the Air Minister very great credit indeed.
      The remarks made by the Secretary of State for Air relating to civil aviation are of particular interest to me, more particularly in regard to the Cape to Cairo service which I pressed for last year. I was then told that I should have to wait three more years. I am glad to learn that that service is now being pressed forward. I congratulate the Minister upon the courage with which he has faced this problem and upon having brought together the pioneers of this enterprise. I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the way in which he has negotiated with the various Governments through which the Cape to Cairo route will pass, and I think that marks a, very fine milestone in the programme of Imperial Airways.
      Several questions have been asked about an organisation which I have been attempting to launch in this country. May I state quite frankly to the House that I felt that it was not fair to argue here year after year in favour of civil aviation unless I was prepared to take off my coat and try to do something for it myself. May I state here that the success or failure of this national flying service scheme means nothing to me financially in any shape or form, and I shall get no fee, however much profit they make. I did feel, however, that as I had some time at my disposal, I should try to do something in the direction of providing for this national need. Consequently, I am quite justified in criticising as well as enthusing upon this subject.
      The London area struck me as being wholly unprovided with proper flying facilities. There was a long waiting list of men anxious to fly, but they could not obtain either accommodation or equipment, and this seemed to be true of most of the flying clubs. Consequently a few of us put our heads together to see if we could not start a larger organisation. We stumbled across premises and got our scheme a little bit under way. During our negotiations I heard of a wider proposal which was in the

      627
      hands of Colonel Edwards. We got together and very quickly amalgamated our schemes which have now taken the form of the National Flying Services referred to in the White Paper. Broadly speaking our scheme is to provide an additional number of training schools to the number of about 25 and at least 100 convenient landing grounds. Having got so far, I thought the next best thing to do was to go to the Secretary of State for Air in order to find out how the Air Ministry regarded this scheme. I was aware of the assistance already given by the Ministry and I was anxious not to tread upon the toes of any other useful flying organisation. The Air Minister carefully scrutinised the figures and eventually came to the conclusion that our organisation could produce something which would be of real value, namely, aerodromes and flying grounds. The right hon. Gentleman saw that it would be an advantage also to have an additional reservoir of trained air pilots as a reserve. The result was that an agreement was arrived at which is described in the White Paper.
      I would like to remind the House that the amount of money involved is not so large as might appear; always presuming that the scheme has been well conceived and has a prospect of making money on its own. For the first three years, irrespective of any profits they may be able to make, they will receive £10 per pilot, if they can train them, up to a limit of £15,000. If in the fourth year the company is making 5 per cent. profit, irrespective of training fees it will get nothing at all from the State. Comparing the advantages which the country will get from this scheme, I do not think the assistance given by the Government is very great.
      I pass now to what has been spoken of by some hon. Members as the squabble between my organisation and the light aeroplane clubs. That is one tiling which I wanted to avoid from the very start. I presented my scheme to the general council of the light aeroplane clubs six months ago and I asked for an opportunity to explain it to them. They granted me that opportunity, and I left with them all the information I possessed on the subject. I say that what they wanted most was an assurance that we should not trespass upon the provinces
      628
      which they had already marked out. We gave them every possible assurance that we would abide by our definite undertaking and that there should be no interference or overlapping. I went so far as to offer the chairman of the clubs council a place on our board in order to give a guarantee that nothing would he done detrimental to the light aeroplane clubs. I offered them further, the use of every aerodrome we made and every landing ground we created. They could affiliate or not or they could ignore us altogether if they liked.
      6.0 p.m.
      There has been some little rift in regard to this agreement, but I do not know where it comes from. I think, however, that it can be allayed and hon. Members can rest assured that we have no intention of interfering with the light aeroplane clubs. I have received letters from the chairman of the council of the light aeroplane clubs and from the secretary, and both those officers assured me that the assurances we have given were understood and have been accepted and they wish us the best of luck. They have also promised to do everything they can to help us with our scheme. Why that statement has appeared in the Press, I do not know. It may be because those clubs are now pleading for extended assistance from the Government, and I hope that they will receive that assistance. If they continue to serve a useful purpose in holding together a nucleus of enterprising men enthusiastic in the training of pilots, or in encouraging the aircraft industry through the purchase of machines, I suggest that they are a valuable organisation, and that it would be a great pity to let them disintegrate for want of a few thousand pounds at the end of a few years.
      I should like to say one or two words, in addition to what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham, as to the value, if successful, of the organisation that I have been trying to set on foot. It has two main objects. The first is to meet the need of the private owner. I do not think that that is the most important side of the matter, but still it is a very important side. We hope, first of all, to establish schools at which the private owner can learn to fly. Then we hope to sell him machines, and we hope to

      629
      take care of his machine for him, and to turn him out as a first-class pilot. Also, we want to develop the internal services in this country by means of what are known as commercial taxi services. This is more than a question of joy-riding. When it is remembered that a salesman can be carried to different parts of England by cross-country routes in about a third of the time that it takes by train, it will be seen that safe cross-country flying in this way is of real value. I was struck by this aspect of the matter only recently, when, on one day, I had to attend two meetings on the Continent, one at Brussels and the other at Paris. I attended both those meetings and returned home the same night. It seems to me that, if a commercial traveller whose home was, say, at Bristol, could visit Birmingham and, perhaps, Liverpool, then go across to Yarmouth, and be home again the same night, he will have done a bigger day's work than in the ordinary way he would be able to do in a week.
      If one allows oneself to wander over the possibilities of cross-country flying from a business point of view, one becomes more and more convinced that there are advantages in connection with the somewhat large scheme that I have in mind, which, perhaps, have passed unnoticed. They have not been unnoticed by the editors of the four great flying papers, whom we may regard as pioneers of aviation in this country, namely, Mr. C. G. Grey, the editor of the "Aeroplane," General Groves, the editor of "Air," Mr. Stanhope Sprigg, the editor of "Airways," and Mr. Stanley Spooner, the editor of "Flight." All of them thoroughly agree in approving of the general principle of the scheme, and I think that critics who, at first sight, may have thought that we were out to get money from the Government to divide among the shareholders, will be inclined to withdraw their criticism in the light of the views of these four very experienced editors. They all think that we are on the right lines, and that the country as a whole will benefit.
      Large orders are obviously of great advantage to the aircraft industry. They mean more employment, more money for research and experimental purposes, and greater variety of types. The advantages
      630
      to the State are also important. The scheme would provide a reservoir of pilots uniformly trained to the same high standard of efficiency, because at these schools there will not be different systems of training as there are to-day. In the next place, employment would be provided for many short-service officers. These are a most deserving class of young men, and I tender my sincere congratulations to the Minister on his being able to inform the House that, of 150 men who went out last year, he has already found civil employment for over 90. We, I think, should be able to find employment for a good many more. Then there will be the advantage that more aerodromes will be available for military use as well as for our use. The advantages of standardisation, bulk insurance, and bulk purchases also come to one's mind.
      I thank the House for the patience with which they have allowed me to develop the scheme and refer to so many points in connection with it. I felt that there might be misunderstanding unless someone who really knew it from the beginning, and was in a responsible position in regard to it, took upon himself the duty of explaining it somewhat in detail. As a result of what I have said, I hope that those who thought that light aeroplane clubs had any grounds for anxiety will no longer think so, and that, if necessary, they will come back and meet us again with a view to the establishment of such safeguards as they may think wise.
      I cannot close without saying a word of tribute on the passing of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chatham so aptly described as the pilot from the Air Ministry at the end of this year. I had the honour and pleasure of serving with him for 18 months, and, therefore, perhaps, my statement that, but for Sir Hugh Trenchard, there would be no independent Air Force in this country to-day, may be taken as correct. I went through 18 months of what was, perhaps, the most anxious and alarming period of our independent existence. The Geddes axe fell upon us, our Estimates were cut down to almost nil, the wolves were at the door, and, but for Sir Hugh Trenchard's persistence and unbending, inflexible determination to proceed with the scheme which he knew to be right, I have grave doubts as to

      631
      whether the independent Air Force might not have passed out of existence. Just as the names of Cardwell in the case of the Army and Nelson in the case of the Navy have gone down to history, so, to the officers and men of the Air Force, and to everyone in the country, the name of Trenchard should go down in the history of the Royal Air Force.
      Captain CUNNINGHAM REID: I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) in his very interesting remarks, because I want to approach this question from a somewhat different point of view. The whole question of an adequate defence of this country has, as I see it, developed into a vicious circle, and I endorse every word that has been said on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon). I expect that most Members have received, during the last few days, communications from various organisations that to some extent represent the three Services. The Navy League, in a circular letter, tells us that further reduction of our Navy without reciprocal reduction of armaments amongst other nations would be dangerous to national security; and the same claim is made by those championing the cause of the Army. The Air League of the British Empire tells us that, so long as defence expenditure is necessary, the primary essential for national security, namely, air defence, should be given priority. In other words, given the slightest opportunity, all three Services would be prepared to embark on a programme that would mean a considerable increase in their size. But, as it is the unenviable duty of this House to provide for this country both security and economy at the same time, it is incumbent on us to decide, consistently with economy, whether all or any of these Services are justified in their claims: and, if we are able, to come to a decision definitely to give up the policy which has been the policy of this country Tor too many years now, namely, the policy of laissez faire.
      Let us go a little more into this question. The Air League of the British Empire further tells us, in its recent circular, that:
      632
      "The greatest barrier to the building of adequate air defences is public apathy."
      I disagree profoundly with that statement; I do not think that public apathy has anything to do with the neglect of our air defences, or of any other defences. The fact of the matter is that the public as a whole do not want to hear any more about the War. They are entirely "fed up" with such matters, and they think that they can leave the contemplation of such questions to the proper quarter, which, after all, is the Government of the day. But in this they make a mistake, for they forget that the Government of the day have already too many troubles of their own, and, consequently, are not anxious to attend to such a controversial matter as this. If there be any apathy at all, it is to be found in successive Governments, who, somewhat justifiably, have been loth to take an interest in matters so thorny as this.
      In my opinion, the root of the whole trouble is that the two Ministries representing the two senior services, that is to say, the Army and the Navy, have of recent years dug themselves in very comfortably, and, consequently, have conveniently refused to learn any lessons from the War or give way one inch to modern conditions. They have carefully forgotten how the population of this Metropolis spent night after night cringing in cellars and tubes in an agitated attempt to avoid hostile bombs. I should like to read to the House a statement that was made by the Secretary of State for Air only a short time ago. He said:
      "Whereas in the late War some 300 tons of bombs were dropped in this country by the Germans, air forces to-day could drop almost the same weight in the first 24 hours, and continue this scale of attack indefinitely."
      Such an attack on London would be sufficient to end a war immediately and to our disadvantage. As a country we should be completely disorganised, and what then would be the use of the millions we have spent on the Army and the Navy? Geographically situated as we are, this country, of all countries in the world, is the most vulnerable to air attack. Putting this together with the fact that go-ahead civil aviation is essential to sound defence in the future, the following figures are somewhat significant. Great Britain possesses to-day a total

      633
      of but 21 commercial machines, while Germany and France each possess several hundreds. Of the 42,200 miles of air routes in Europe, Germany has 18,000 miles, France 12,500 miles, and Great Britain only 1,080 miles. During the summer of 1928, German commercial aircraft flew 40,000 miles daily, against our daily average of 3,000 miles. These figures speak for themselves.
      As I have been intimately connected with the Air Force, it might well be thought that I am biased in my views; but for years I have discussed this question with innumerable people, and I find that the consensus of opinion is of my way of thinking. I could appeal for a thorough examination of this question from an economy point of view alone. By spending more on matters appertaining to air, and considerably less on those of the Army and Navy, not only would the national Exchequer greatly benefit, but so also would national security. I am convinced that such a policy would appeal, not only to the purse, but also to the common sense of the majority of English men and women, as would also the political party that had the courage to carry it out.
      Mr. JAMES HUDSON: I enter into this Debate with great diffidence as one who does not share in the technical experience that is possessed by practically all the speakers who have preceded me. I enter the Debate, as I have on other occasions when the Air Estimates were being discussed, in order to ask again, especially after the speech which we have just heard, what good we shall do, even from the point of view of defence, by the spending of this money in the provision of 32 so-called home defence squadrons? What good shall we do, indeed, if we secure what the Air Minister has envisaged, the 52 which he believes to be the ultimate programme towards which he is working? I cannot speak of Air-Marshal Trenchard in the way in which those who have known him so much better have spoken, but I can at least thank him for making a frank and courageous statement regarding the use of aeroplanes in war, and particularly for the way in which he said that in any event the aeroplane could not be used as a weapon of defence. It might be used as a weapon of offence. Indeed, it would seem to me that what you have proved
      634
      by all your exercises that you have been recently asking the public to witness is that in any case London is vulnerable to attack. You have proved that you can do to other States what an enemy will be able to do to London if ever we go to war again. You have proved your capacity, indeed, to spread the method of the mad-house broadcast throughout the world.
      Our naval, military, and air commanders have been instructed—indeed, two or three years ago in one of these Debates I read from an instruction that one of the points of strategy in war is to bring to bear such pressure upon the enemy civilian population that at an early moment they will press their Government to sue for peace. We know that what we are discussing to-night is the building up of a weapon which, when it is put to the test, can only be used for pressing the civilian population so hard on their side as the enemy will press our civilian population hard on our side as will make the next war, whenever it comes, infinitely more ghastly than the last one. I feel, therefore, compelled knowing, I admit, very little about the technical details of this thing, which has been described by the Minister himself as a terrible weapon, to warn the House, at any rate those who are willing to listen to me, that we are drifting into a state of things in which we shall provide no defence at all, in which we are providing for an extension of destruction which in the long run will make the expenditure we are incurring of practically no value at all. I hesitate to go into those questions with which some hon. Members have dealt, as to whether we should not do better, perhaps, if we transferred the ratio, as it now exists, of three, two, and one as between Navy, Army and Air Force the other way round. [Interruption.] I am taking it in round figures—£60,000,000, £40,000,000, and £12,000,000. I hesitate to go into the question whether yon could do much good if you had £60,000,000 for the Air Force, and £20,000,000 for the Navy. I do not believe in the long run any money spent upon the air can ultimately secure for you the defence that you pretend to place before yourselves.
      You may ask what is the way out. I have said I can see no valid reason for supporting, either now or at any time,

      635
      any further expenditure upon the Air Force. I believe we ought, as a House of Commons, to realise that we are in such a situation that we should press with greater vigour, not upon the Prime Minister who, after all, is not responsible, but upon the Foreign Minister, for that agreement, particularly, as my hon. and gallant Friend has reminded us, with our nearest neighbour, whom all the time we have in our minds when we are dealing with this matter. It is a tragedy from my point of view that our First Lord of the Admiralty and our Foreign Minister should, in the couple of years which have gone, have caused the nation to preoccupy its mind with the problem of naval relations with America, and by all they have done apparently they have made those relations with America worse. If America is determined to tread her path in the direction of big cruisers, we could afford to let her travel along that path if we could secure between ourselves and France, and between ourselves and Germany, with its new civil air arm, that sort of agreement which would make it impossible, or at any rate unlikely, for the weapon to be used in the way it is now likely that it will be used. I beg the Government, although they will not have very much time now, to deal with the matter. I beg them in the short life that is still left to them—
      Sir H. BRITTAIN: This Session.
      Mr. HUDSON: This Session and perhaps for all time—whether they cannot consider a rearrangement whereby more emphasis can be placed by the Foreign Secretary on the relations with France in particular for the securing of that air agreement by which both they and we could go forward with greater rapidity in order not to increase but to decrease what are called our air defence weapons.
      One other word. The Air Minister assumes that we on these benches are not particularly interested—I think he used the phrase that we object not only to the Air Force as a war weapon but we object to it as a revolutionary means of communication. Not at all. All of us on these benches are very much interested in that part of the work that he does which uses the Air Force for civil ends.
      636
      If I may speak for myself—and I am usually regarded in these debates as a mere pacifist butting in amongst the militarists—when I went over to Canada last year I was profoundly interested in what I learned there from the Canadian Air Minister of the tremendous strides they have made with their Air Force for civilian ends. They use their Air Force to deal with various affairs. They use it for investigating ice-bound waters, like the Hudson Straits, in order to find out whether there is an opportunity for developing their commercial routes between Hudson Bay ports and Liverpool and Southampton. He informed me that they hoped even to use their Air Force for making surveys. They actually use aeroplanes to assist them in preventing poaching in British Columbia waters, and in all manner of means they are using their Air Force to assist them in a very wide development of civilian ends.
      As far as I and every other Member on these benches are concerned, if we felt that the money that was being voted had for its purpose the greater development of routes and communications, or all these other things that are being discovered by some of our Dominions, we should make no more objection whatever, nay more, we should give the Minister our hearty support in all the work that he is doing, but because we realise that his Department is mainly a war Department, we are compelled to examine with the very closest scrutiny even this, part of his work in order to satisfy ourselves that these beneficent purposes will not be departed from, and that the Air Force will not be used only for warlike ends. I again plead that more consideration should be given by the House to the simple truth that when you have spent all this money on your Air Force, and when you have spent more still, you will not secure that defence which the Minister states to be the aim of all the expenditure we are making.
      Rear-Admiral SUETER: I should like, first, to congratulate the Air Minister on the way in which he has presented his Estimates for the fifth time, and also for the clearness of his Memorandum. It is difficult to criticise, but I should like to do it from this point of view. In spite of what we have just heard, and of what

      637
      was said by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn), I am one of those who do not think the Air Minister has obtained enough money for his Air Service. I cannot ascertain to-night the amount of money the Navy is having this year, because it is not in the Vote Office, but I assume that they will take about £57,000,000. The Army has taken, 641,000,000 and the Air Service £15,000,000. That makes a total of £114,000,000. For the third year in succession, the Air Minister has taken a seventh of the amount allowed for the Fighting Services. That is not enough. He said that the country could not afford more generous expenditure on the air. The country can afford to spend more on the air. I cannot understand how it comes about that year after year the Navy takes half the money that is allowed for defence purposes. They take pound for pound what is allowed for the Army and the Air. I know it is a difficult thing for the Air Minister to get more money. This is a case where we want a Ministry of Defence to go into the whole question of this expenditure of public money. I agree very much with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) said about it. Here we have the Kellogg Pact for the outlawry of war, and yet we keep all these battleships in commission that we are allowed under the Washington Agreement. Each first-class battleship of modern type costs £500,000 a year in upkeep. You have only to pay off three or four battleships and you get £2,000,000, which ought to be employed in the development of civil aviation.
      We have the right hon. Gentleman, who is doing all that he can to develop civil aviation with these new companies, He will not make anything out of it. He is doing it for the national good. Money is wanted all round to develop civil aviation in this country. We have at Milford Haven a wonderful aeroplane station that could be developed. We want to develop civil aviation in the West Indies. Only last week I saw in the United Services Magazine that the United States were undertaking the carrying of air mails to the West Indies and also to British Guiana. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air to say when he comes to reply, what we are doing out
      638
      in the West Indies and in British Guiana to develop civil aviation. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air said that he was encouraging as much as he possibly could this all-African air route, but we want to speed it up. Civil aviation in Africa is crying out for development all over. Only the other day. I received letters from people in Africa asking that it should be speeded up. There is the case of Singapore. We want to develop civil aviation out in Singapore as much as we possibly can. I submit that it is high time that the Navy were forced to give up some of the money, so that we can devolp civil aviation throughout the Empire wherever we can. I do not believe that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) would agree to keeping all these battleships in commission. Some of us think that they have only a slight potential value and that civil aviation is being starved.
      Commander BELLAIRS: Let them got it out of the military side of the Air Estimates.
      Rear-Admiral SUETER: Out of the military side? I can reply to that in one second. The military side, I believe, is most efficiently run. The mechanisation of the military side is going slowly on. Indeed, the progress in the development of tanks and so on is perfectly wonderful. They run it as economically as possible, which I do not think is the case on the Admiralty side. There are one or two points in the Memorandum to which I should like to call attention. I should like to ask whether the Air Minister gives encouragement to our firms to carry out orders in foreign countries. That is a point that ought to be looked into. It would help the industry very much if the maximum amount of encouragement was given to the manufacturers, so that they could sell their goods in other parts of the world. We have the finest aeronautical engineers and firms in this country, and I think that we ought to help them all we possibly can. If we could have a programme for the development of the important multi-engine machine and large flying boats extending over a period of years, whether we could have it extending over a period of three years or even five years, I think it would help the industry.

      639
      I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he was going to help the officers to get employment in civil life. I receive a tremendous number of letters asking me to try and find billets for ex-flying officers. If the right hon. Gentleman can only help them to get some employment outside I think it will be a splendid thing, but I would ask him whether he cannot help some of the older officers, some of the men who have borne the heat and burden of the day. Many of them are out of employment, and they ought to have billets found for them if possible.
      I want to ask a question about the automatic slots—the Handley Page slots—whether they have decreased the number of accidents in the Royal Air Force, and also whether the parachutes for seagoing aircraft are being developed speedily, and when they are likely to be supplied? I notice in the Memorandum that the right hon. Gentleman is saving £11,000 on Farnborough. I have pressed the Air Minister for many years to save money on Farnborough, and he is now saving £11,000. I should like to have seen him save £110,000 on Farnborough, because I am one of those who have not great faith in the Farnborough factory. During the last five years, they have had something like £2,000,000, and the Minister to-day tells us that they have evolved a flowmeter. I think that they really ought to have produced something bigger than a flowmeter. I should say that it is very beneficial for checking the consumption of petrol, but I should like to see them do bigger things. I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State replies, he will be able to justify the expenditure on Farnborough.
      I should like to say a word or two about the airships, and to ask the Secretary of State for Air whether, in erecting the State airship, the large girders that were constructed have remained true during the erection of the forepart and the midship part of the airship. I understand that the stern part, with the horizontal and vertical runners, has not been erected, but I should like to know whether in erecting the forepart the girders have remained quite true, because it is a new experiment. I should also like to know whether they have incorporated any gas bags into that new structure
      640
      and whether the wires which are used to hold the gas bags down have been successful. I should also like to know, in regard to the private airship associated with the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney), whether in inflating that ship, if they have inflated it, the girders have remained true and undisturbed. These are a few small technical points. I think the whole House would like to know in some detail how these great airships are behaving during erection and whether all the "mock" experiments are coming out true in the erection of the final structure.
      I would like to ask the Minister whether he is contemplating taking over any other places besides Aden, because I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bristol, North that we might extend and take over more places. I should like to congratulate the Air Minister on the wonderful performance of the handful of machines in evacuating the whole of the British and foreign nationals from Kabul. I was talking with some military people the other day, and they said that a whole Brigade was massacred on the Afghan frontier in 1842 and that it would have taken the whole of the Indian Army, reinforced by units from the British Army at home, to carry out a mission like that to a successful conclusion. When the Under-Secretary of State for India read out those very congratulatory remarks from Sir Francis Humphrys, our brave Ambassador in Afghanistan, I noticed that the Conservatives all cheered and that the Liberals cheered, but not a cheer went up from the Socialist benches.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is so fair as a rule that I am sure he does not wish to do an injustice. I was here when the answer was given and I heard my friends cheer, and I certainly applauded myself. I think that this is an unfair personal attack.
      Rear-Admiral SUETER: The general comment of the hon. Members where I sat, not very far from the Labour benches, was that those hon. Members did not cheer; that there was almost complete silence.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Nonsense.
      Rear-Admiral SUETER: I have heard many pacifist speeches in this House from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) and from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson), and I should have thought that the pacifists of the Socialist party would have got up and cheered when they heard those remarks read out by the Under-Secretary of State for India, because here you have a new arm—the Air Service—which rescued 580 lives from Kabul and probably prevented a bloody war. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield—I have always admired his sincerity in this House—would have jumped on to his stool and cheered.
      Mr. J. HUDSON: I had no capacity to jump on to a stool in this House. I think I did express in every ordinary way I could my approval of the news that came through, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will accept my statement.
      Rear-Admiral SUETER: I am delighted to accept it, because it was not the impression that some of us had at the other end of the Chamber.
      Mr. HUDSON: How could you see?
      Rear-Admiral SUETER: We could hear. While congratulating the pilots on that wonderful performance at Kabul, we must also remember the manufacturers who produced those aircraft to enable the pilots to carry out that work. The Vickers Victory machine, developed from the Handley Page machine, did uncommonly well in flying that great distance from Iraq to Peshawar and then rescuing these people. I should also like to associate myself with what other hon. Members have said about the Chief of the Staff. I have known Sir Hugh Trenchard for many years. He has worked magnificently in creating and moulding the whole of the Air Force. I hope he may be enabled, perhaps from another place, to give his wise counsel on air matters. I should like to congratulate the Air Ministry and the Under-Secretary, who is an old airman, upon the wonderful way they have worked for the good of the Air Service
      642
      during the last five or six years. I hope that when the present Prime Minister comes into office again—which I know he will; I noticed in the Press the other day that he was coming back with a working majority of 60, but I think he is going to come back with a working majority of 120—he will not have the right hon. Gentleman as Minister for Air. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I trust that he will find time to have the whole of the administration of these Fighting Services overhauled just in the same way as the Minister of Health has overhauled the whole of the local government services and the health services of the country, and that he will do away with these hundreds of committees which now run our Fighting Services. I hope that he will select the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air as Minister of Defence and give a good billet to his Under-Secretary, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State can impose his knowledge on the other two Services. It is only in that way that we can really run these Services with efficiency and with economy.
      Captain GARRO-JONES: Every speech in this debate has been critical of the Government, with the exception of the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol, North (Captain Guest). That is in accordance with the usual course of these debates. There is so much criticism that it always has to be sweetened with a little congratulation; but it is criticism that forms the body of most speeches. That, however, never seems to disturb the Secretary of State for Air, because when he replies—I suppose we shall have another half hour of reply to-day—he always ignores the main body of criticism, and replies to the compliments. I want to say a few words in regard to his policy as to the development of certain branches of civil aviation at home. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Bristol is responsible for the inauguration of these new plans, and he has already given to the House his views on the plans which he has put forward. Towards the conclusion of his speech he expressed the hope that any opposition that had been aroused by his original proposals would be finally allayed by his speech. Before I proceed to criticise the proposals of my right hon. and gallant Friend I wish to pay to him a very sincere tribute for the work which

      643
      he has done for civil aviation, both in a financial way and by the equally practicable way of flying himself, and encouraging other people to do so. Any opposition which I and other aviation interests feel towards his plans is not inspired by any personal opposition to him—there is considerable admiration for him—but by the belief that if his proposals are carried into effect the cause of civil flying in this country will suffer a severe setback. If the House will bear with me, I will endeavour to give reasons in support of that contention.
      The proposal of the right hon. and gallant Member was first made to a number of representatives of civil flying clubs last summer. That was the first notification of this vital departure from our previous policy in regard to civil aviation. He called the representatives of the flying clubs together. I would like to remind hon. Members that there were 13 light aeroplane clubs, producing pilots at the rate of some hundreds a year, receiving the most beneficent financial contributions from public-spirited citizens in every part of the country, to a total amount of more than £30,000. That movement has for some years been our great hope for the producing of civil pilots. The representatives of these clubs were called together by the sponsor of the new scheme. He said to them: "The Secretary of State for Air has agreed to give me a subsidy and I intend to set up flying stations in practically every part of this country. I intend to turn out pilots and to run taxi services, and I invite you to consider your position." The situation was a painful one, and they proceeded to consider it in dismay and pressed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to make some sort of concession to them and to allow them to live side by side with him. The outcome of that suggestion was, that he did agree—whether it is a firm obligation or not I am not yet clear—not to open branches of his enterprise alongside those public-spirited efforts which were already flourishing so well. Even if he gave that undertaking, my submission is that the scheme still contains many defects which ought to be put right before it is proceeded with.
      The Secretary of State for Air, in dealing with the matter, made a point,
      644
      which was his most trenchant point, that he was going to get pilots at £10 a time from the scheme of the right hon. and gallant Member, whereas it was costing him £50 a time in getting pilots from the light aeroplane clubs. That leaves out of account the fact that under the new proposal the new company will get a subsidy of £10 not only for new pilots but for pilots who re-qualify. A certificate of flying can lapse in a few days, and if the right hon. and gallant Member's company has trained a pilot and he allows his certificate to lapse for three or four days every year and the right hon. Member then puts that pilot back on his books again, he will get the £10 again. The right hon. Gentleman does not deny that. It has been stated quite succinctly. Moreover, if the National Flying Services, with its new organisation of country clubs and other social amenities, goes to the pilots now on the books of the light aeroplane clubs, and says to them: "If you allow your certificate to lapse, you can join this club," the right hon. and gallant Member will get £10 for each of these pilots, whose training was carried out by the light aeroplane clubs. I think that fact ought to be stated when the Secretary of State for Air compares the two figures of £10 and £50. He is getting the pilots from the light aeroplane clubs, but there is no guarantee at the present time that he will get them from National Flying Services, Limited.
      The Secretary of State for Air has said that the most important condition attaching to the subsidy which he is giving to National Flying Services, Limited, is the provision of 20 aerodromes and 80 landing grounds. He says that if we can get those things, this company will be performing a most valuable service, and they will have well earned the subsidy. My contention is that that is a benefit conferred upon the company in the guise of an obligation. I can prove that statement in a few sentences. Even if National Flying Services, Limited, did not lift a finger to deal with this question of providing aerodromes, I say with confidence that 100 aerodromes would be provided in this country, without any steps being taken by them, within the next three years. The Air Ministry has just completed an active campaign among municipal authorities with the object of prevailing upon them to provide aerodromes. There

      645
      exists a company called Alan Cobham Aviation, Limited, which has been doing hardly anything else during the last few years except persuading municipalities to provide aerodromes. The 25 aerodromes which are in the first few years to be provided by National Flying Services, Limited, are already in existence and available for their use. There are 75 municipalities at the present time actively addressing themselves to the provision of aerodromes, and the Association of Municipal Corporations is providing a model agreement which will be signed by National Flying Services when they take over these aerodromes. The proposal of the new company is to go to these existing aerodromes, to lease a number of them and take over control and then present them to the Air Ministry and say: "Here are the aerodromes which we provide for you under our obligation." These facts ought to have been stated by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech, and they might have been referred to by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol.
      I object sincerely to this scheme, because I believe it is going to fail. If this new company is allowed to secure this subsidised monopoly in civil aviation in England, it will destroy its competitors, and when the Secretary of State for Air looks for civil aviation development in five or ten years' time, he will find that the company upon which he has leaned and relied has failed, if I may use a colloquial expression, to deliver the goods, and the other subsidiary organisations will have been destroyed by its operation. I hope that it is not yet too late. I do not know whether the agreement has been signed. It is being opposed by practically every aviation interest—by the light aeroplane clubs, the aircraft manufacturers, and by independent interests in every sphere of aviation. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the four aviation newspapers support him. I have here the only reference to the scheme that there is in the civil aviation newspaper, "Air," and it consists of a very brief and formal announcement of the formation of the company. That is very feeble and halfhearted support. In regard to the leading air newspaper, the "Aeroplane," I know that the attitude of the editor is one of complete neutrality. He says
      646
      that he will support any scheme that will produce an active development of civil aviation. He is not wedded to the support of National Flying Services, or any other scheme.
      I will now turn to the question of civil aviation in other parts of the world, but before doing so I am anxious to quote something which the Secretary of State for Air said in a speech which he delivered to the Cambridge University Conservative Association on the 1st March. I will quote his speech in the form of a question, because it is my intention to provide an answer in my subsequent remarks. He said:
      "Can the Conservatives adapt themselves to the new conditions and keep a hold upon the thought and action of the new world? I admit that they are often muddle-headed, and often mentally and physically lazy."
      I compliment the right hon. Gentleman on his candour. That is a criticism couched in terms which I should never use in speaking of the right hon. Gentleman. I should be very much interested to learn which of his colleagues he counts amongst those who are "often muddle-headed and often mentally and physically lazy." The question which I wish most directly to answer is whether the Conservatives can adapt themselves to the new conditions and keep a hold upon the thought and action of the new world. His particular promise is the development of civil aviation in different parts of the world. In our overseas territory and in the internal territory of this country there has been no development of civil aviation during his regime. There has not been a single new line started within the borders of this country during the five and a-half years that he has been at the Air Ministry. There is not a single regular seaplane service flying in the home waters of these islands. One would have thought that of the possible lines of development for us, a maritime nation, always depending upon and proud of our sea power, we should have done something to develop the seaplane services. There is a higher ratio of speed as between the seaplane and the steamship than there is as between an aeroplane and a train. Therefore, there is much more time to be gained by going by seaplane rather than by steamship than there is to be gained by going by aeroplane rather than by train.

      647
      7.0 p.m.
      It is not as if development is not taking place in other parts of the world. In Germany they are building seaplanes with engines that total 6,000 horse-power, which are going to fly along the ocean routes. Take the very type of seaplane which the Secretary of State used on his trip to the Baltic, and which the Under-Secretary of State took on his adventurous trip to India. With those very types, manufactured by the same firm, the Americans have now secured a concession to inaugurate an air service over British territory in the West Indies. Why is the Air Ministry giving a concession to an American line to inaugurate a seaplane service in the West Indies? Was there any attempt made to induce a British company or the Imperial Airways, Limited, to establish this service? If not, I think the House ought to have some information as to why it was not done. If I may summarise the position so far as civil aviation is concerned, I can say that in every part of the world, whether in Africa. South America, or across the South American Ocean to the Far East, we are being left behind by every other country in the development of civil aviation. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) gave some figures, but I did not notice that the Minister took any notes of them. I hope the Under-Secretary, when he comes to reply, will deal with the vital figures which show our relation to the foreign countries in matters of aviation. There is no use coming here year after year smugly and complacently making a speech or completely ignoring what is being done in foreign countries. Our position can only be gauged if we take the figures of other countries. Great Britain has a commercial air route mileage of 2,226, the United States has 13,133, France has 12,570, Italy 3,634, and Germany 18,000. Of aerodromes, Great Britain has 18 and one seaplane station; the United States, 425 municipal and 415 private and commercial aerodromes; France has 15 aerodromes and four seaplane stations; Italy has 13 aerodromes and 13 seaplane stations; and Germany has 89 aerodromes and seven seaplane stations. These are shameful figures from the point of view of anyone who
      648
      has civil aviation at heart. As to the number of civil and commercial aircraft, Great Britain has 438, the United States 5,200, and Germany 750.
      These figures are only a selection. They are not chosen to condemn or indict the Minister, but are a sincere effort to show those Members who have listened to the Debate that, so far as civil aviation is concerned, we are in a most lamentable and shameful position, and I wish to know what plans the Minister has in hand to deal with that position. If I may summarise the case very briefly, I should like to say it is due to the very principle which the Minister is about to extend from the Imperial Airways to another great monopoly for the development of civil aviation in this country. The monopoly system has obviously failed in the case of Imperial Airways. I know they run their lines very efficiently and economically and very safely—safer than those of any other country. I am very willing to pay my tribute in that respect, but that is not the whole thing. As a monopoly, they have failed. Their extension in the South African plain brought about by the enterprise of another company would not have come about if it had not been under pressure of the Air Ministry that the company was absorbed. I believe the Minister has refused to pay a subsidy to any company which proposes to develop a British route abroad, without consultation with Imperial Airways. I think the Minister has laid that down as a principle. Does it mean that any company which brings forward practical plans for a British air line abroad can secure a share of the subsidy from British Imperial Airways? Otherwise, there is no reality in his contention of fairness.
      Commander BELLAIRS: May we have an answer? It is rather important.
      Sir S. HOARE: In considering any proposal, I should naturally take the best.
      Captain GARRO-JONES: At any rate, the Minister is relying upon the subsidy to stimulate these people to activity, and the difference between the granting of a subsidy in this country and the granting of a subsidy by foreign countries is that ours is administered in such a way that it does not lead to any good results at

      649
      all. One could compare it with the case of a man who lives in club land in the West End on a private income of £500 or £600 a year, his father allowing him that but not more, because he thinks it is bad for him and will prevent him from showing enterprise and initiative to enable him to get on in the world. That man has a private income of £500 or £600 a year, and, with the aid of kind friends and other agencies, he can keep his head above water. That is the position of Imperial Airways. They can just keep their head above water if they can keep their feet on the bottom, but they cannot make any extension of their services at all. I say that, if you are going to give a subsidy, you cannot give it without making some provision for sharing profits as well. The Minister seems to be terribly afraid of Government control, but I would point out that subsidising is the unprofitable half of socialising. If you are going to subsidise a project, you ought to get some share of the profit, and, if you are sharing a loss or a profit, you are a partner in the industry, and you must insist on some control of its affairs.
      I do not know what is going to be the fortune of the forthcoming General Election. These things are very uncertain. But whatever is the result, I hope that whoever comes to the Box as the Secretary of State for Air will make drastic alterations in our air policy. When we were developing our Colonial Empire in years gone by and sending our ships to chart unknown seas and planting the Imperial flag, there were other nations and Ministers in other countries in just as smug and complacent a mind as the right hon. Gentleman is now. They were either sceptical or scoffing at unprofitable areas, but are we quite sure that the place we are losing under the regime of the present Minister will not prove to be an irreparable loss to our future trade and prestige? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider it from that angle and do something to build up a policy worthy of our great traditions and posterity.
      Sir H. BRITTAIN: The interesting part of these Debates is that practically every Member comes into this Chamber with the intention of speaking and catching the Speaker's eye. For that reason, I will not indulge in any attempt to
      650
      emulate the oratory of those to whom we have been listening with great interest, but will just endorse one or two points made by previous speakers. I have every sort of admiration for the Secretary of State for Air and for economy, and I believe most firmly that the Secretary of State, if he could get more money for civil aviation, would do so. But I look on this as an opportunity—we are an extremely happy band from all parts of the House—to give him some backing to get more money from the Treasury. In the long run, it would not be a waste but real economy to see British civil aviation at the head of all the other countries in the world. Most of the rest of the world agree that in personnel and material British aviation is second to none, but it has dropped most painfully from its record at the head of other countries, and we have had a series of very interesting figures given to us by different speakers in that respect. The last speaker, the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones), has asked for a reply to them.
      I would like to add to the figures already given, those of a country which I know well from one side to the other, and which was but a few years ago as behind as we were in civil aviation; that is, the United States of America, The figures of civil aviation to-day in America are amazing and cannot be repeated too often. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) referred to the amount of capital investment in the American aircraft industry to-day, which he put at £20,000,000. That is not one farthing too much. It has gone up from 5,000,000 dollars to 100,000,000 dollars in six years, but, in addition to this sum, another 50,000,000 dollars is invested under private enterprise. With regard to the output of aircraft: In 1927, 1,600 machines were turned out; in 1928, 5,000 machines: and it is expected that in 1929, 12,000 will be the output. We have had it stated that some 12,000 miles of air routes are in operation there, but it has not been stated that over 8,000 are open for night flying. We have had the number of aerodromes, but we were not told that over 2,000 cities have air ports or land marked for the purpose, and throughout the country over 400 chambers of commerce from San Francisco to New York have aviation centres, and that they are putting in tremendous work in developing

      651
      aviation. I was only too pleased to learn that the London Chamber of Commerce had made a move in the same direction, and I hope it will be taken up by the chambers of commerce in this country.
      I would like to ask the Air Secretary a question with regard to the West Indies, a subject which I have raised frequently during the last four years. Is it still too late to get a British flying boat service there? I was told on the last occasion that this was a job for the West Indian Government and not the Imperial Government, but may I point out that in these centres of population, 50 miles apart it is very difficult to take the lead. They are not a Dominion. On the few occasions they get together they have to do so by boat, and it is a very long and tedious operation. I do not know any part of the world where a seaplane service would be more useful than in the West Indies, which are the nearest link between North and South America. A little incident occurred in the Leeward Islands which will illustrate the position. The Governor was going to start a tour of these islands, taking three or four weeks. A United States warship was in harbour and it happened to have a seaplane on board. The captain loaned the Governor the use of the seaplane for the tour, which he made in one day.
      We must let the people of these islands realise what flying boats can do. The perfectly splendid flight of the Royal Air Force to Australia, round Australia, up to Hong Kong and back to Singapore, certainly the finest flight ever made by any squadron, shows what magnificent machines British flying boats are, and if we could only get a squadron to go out there and show the West Indies what flying boats can do they would, I think, make a start in this direction. But cannot we also give them help from the Mother Country? With all the admiration I have for the United States of America it is pathetic that we should hand over to the Americans the possibility of contracting for flying from one end to the other in one of the most patriotic series of islands in the British Empire. I should like to be quite clear with regard to Imperial Airways. I have the greatest possible regard for Imperial Airways, in whose planes I have often travelled; and I quite agree with the
      652
      hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) that the first thing to consider is safety. We shall all agree that there are no safer machines anywhere than those run under the aegis of Imperial Airways; and with that we get courtesy and punctuality. But it is impossible for one monopoly to develop the possibilities of flying over every section of the British Empire. I quite agree that you save overhead charges, but in my humble opinion there is room for more than one concern, under the backing of the Air Ministry and Government, to develop civil aviation within the Empire.
      Last, but not least, may I again ask the Minister for Air to do all he can to encourage flying boat services from this country—it was urged by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and myself last year—from the mouth of the river upon which stands the great Yorkshire city of Hull. I know of no finer port from which to connect the great industrial north with the Continent, from the River Humber to Holland and Hamburg. It is a service which is badly wanted and which, I think would pay handsomely for itself in a very short time. Then from the Port of London to Antwerp a service would be just as successful. We are a scattered Empire and should not allow other nations to go ahead of us, as Germany is doing to-day, because we have proved to the whole world that there is no flying boat on the sea or in the air better than the British seaplane when manned by British men.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) has been good enough to mention the possibilities of the Humber to Hamburg service, but he was not quite accurate when he suggested that municipalities had not considered the provision of aerodromes. In Hull we have marked the local racecourse for our aerodrome. Strictures have been passed on the company which I may refer to as the Guest company. It did really get a move on and managed to arouse some activity and interest in the city which I have the honour to represent. We co-operated with them, and we hope to see something done in this respect. The Minister for Air must really look ahead. The great route of the future will be from

      653
      New York to Galway Bay, then across Ireland to Wales, and then by way of the Humber to Hamburg, where it will join up with the great European and Asiatic systems on to Pekin. That is undoubtedly the way in which mails and valuable samples will be carried in 10 or 15 years time. Along the east coast of England you have the great estuary of the Humber which is not crowded like the Tyne and the Tees. It is suitable in every way. We had hoped to have had the Schneider Cup contest there this year. We are hoping it will take place there on the next occasion. There is no more suitable place for seaplanes around the coast. The only other place is the Wash, which is not near to any large railway or commercial centre. The Firth of Forth is too far North. Nothing has been done by the Air Ministry during the last six years to give us any help in this matter at all. The Minister for Air has been approached again and again by hon. Members of this House, and by Chambers of Commerce, to give a lead in developing this great waterway. It is not the fault of the citizens of Hull; it is simply because civil aviation is absolutely secondary at the Air Ministry, and is neglected.
      If hon. Members will turn to page 91 of the Estimates they will see the Vote for Works, Buildings and Lands. I want to draw their attention to the figures. You have "Singapore; construction of station"—this is a military station—total estimate of £576,000, probable expenditure up to the 31st of March, 1929, £206,500. And we have the announcement "to be voted in 1929, £100,000." Then we come to the "Air route, Calcutta to Singapore, landing grounds"; and the amount to be voted in 1929 is £1,000. Compare that with the £100,000 for the military station. From the military point of view I should have thought that it was far more essential to get your landing grounds and route prepared so that if necessary Singapore could be reinforced from India, I am astonished at what I find. Surely the next step, when we have got the air route to India, is to extend it to Australia. The right hon. Gentleman spoke hopefully, some time in the future, of having a route to the Cape of Good Hope. May I ask him when he anticipates that we shall be sending our mails to Sydney in 10 days' time
      654
      instead of six weeks. This was referred to as a possibility seven or eight years ago; and nothing has been done since. The right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot get the money. Why is he content to adorn the Cabinet for six years when he is unable to get the money for an imperial need; a project which would give employment to a large number of men? Why does the right hon. Gentleman year after year complain that he cannot get the money to develop these services and yet continue to hold office? While I congratulate a small and gallant nation on being the first to institute a regular mail aeroplane service to the East Indies, the Dutch, I was very disappointed that it was not a British service. I have here the explanatory memorandum issued by the right hon. Gentleman on the Air Estimates in 1926. This is what be said then:
      "In connection with the operation of a regular fortnightly air service, with three-engined machines, between Egypt and Basra via Baghdad and to Karachi, an agreement has been entered into for this with Imperial Airways, Limited."
      That has a rather familiar ring about it. He went on to say:
      "The service should be commenced not later than the 1st of January, 1927."
      That was his explanatory memorandum in 1926, and here we are in 1929 and no further forward. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have had diplomatic difficulties with Persia. Again, from the military point of view surely it would be desirable to have an alternative route to India without having to pass over Persian territory at all, because in time of trouble that road might be blocked by a hostile Persia. Surely we ought to develop a route south of the Persian Gulf in friendly territory. The same thing, of course, applies from the point of view of civil flying. I find no signs in the Estimates, or in the right hon. Gentleman's speech and memorandum, that there has been any change of policy as a result of the ratification of the Kellogg Pact. It is no use, as the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) has said in his brilliant speech, saying that other nations are increasing armaments. That is a matter for their own taxpayers; we can only speak for our taxpayers. I want to put this question: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the ratification of the Kellogg Pact is going to make any

      655
      difference at all in air armaments, and if so, what? Secondly, have we any plans for a mutual reduction of air armaments for the forthcoming Preparatory Commission on Disarmament? Has the right hon. Gentleman worked out any plan? Has he approved of anything? Have the Admiralty been in consultation with the Air Ministry on this matter? The most economical way of strengthening our actual defensive forces would be by an extension and encouragement of civil aviation. There we are up against the danger referred to by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. I think we shall have to proceed along the lines of a great International Air Corporation controlling the air routes of Europe; but that is a matter for the future.
      It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL. (By Order).
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: I think that a Measure of such importance deserves some explanation. I understand that objection was taken to certain Clauses in this Bill, and I shall be interested to know why those objections have been withdrawn.
    Mr. COUPER: As I originally put down my name in opposition to this Bill, I wish to say that, after a conference with those who promoted the Bill, the chairman and his colleagues of the Clyde Trust, an arrangement has been reached by which they have agreed to withdraw certain conditions which would have affected the question of stevedoring on the Clyde, and we have, therefore—I and those who have supported me in opposition—accepted the arrangement and withdrawn our opposition to the Bill.

  SUPPLY.

    AIR ESTIMATES, 1929.
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Question again proposed.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Hersford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) is present to hear what I have to say about his speech. If I may be allowed to say so in such distinguished company, I agree that of our expenditure on national defence so called, there is far too much spent on the Army and Navy in comparison with the Air Force, but I do nor, agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that all the savings ought to come from the Navy. I object to an officer of the hon. and gallant Admiral's distinction suggesting that the Navy is entirely inefficient, and that the Army is at the height of efficiency. We have both seen something of both Services, and I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has allowed prejudice against his own Service to divert him from his usual just judgment. It is an ill bird that fouls its own nest. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was for many years at the Admiralty, and he had a very distinguished career in the Navy, and I do not think he has any cause to say anything against his own Service. There are good and bad in all Services.
    Rear-Admiral SUETER: It is not a question of fouling one's own nest, or anything like it. One's duty to one's constituents is to try to get these Estimates in the most economical way possible. If we keep in commission battleships which many distinguished naval officers in this country, and Admiral Sims of the United States, have said have only a slight potential value, it is not running down the efficiency of the service to say that we can well put some of these battleships out of commission. It does not mean that the rest of the service is inefficient. I have the greatest admiration for my service, but I do not believe in keeping a lot of battleships in commission, particularly after the signing of the Kellogg Pact,

    657
    when we are not likely or ought not to fight America or Japan. In such circumstances there is no sense in keeping them in commission.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would not have objected to that statement, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that there was nothing but good in the Army. Apparently the cavalry are perfect and the lifeguards are perfect, and it is only the Navy that should be cut down. I understand, however, that he was speaking as a politician and not as a naval officer. I suggest to the Secretary of State for Air that one of the duties that might well be taken on by the Air Force is the duty now performed by the Navy with great difficulty, and that is the suppression of the slave trade in the Red Sea. The use of seaplanes, I think, would be quite practicable there. Another duty is the suppression of piracy in Chinese waters. If we can send shallow-draft gunboats up the Chinese rivers, we can easily send aeroplanes. I want to strengthen the Minister's hands in obtaining supplies from a close-fisted Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to protect him from the overwhelming bullying of the Admirals and the Generals. But I have this criticism to make about personnel: I am sorry to see in the Minister's memorandum a sentence about the permanent officers—that they must be offered a career sufficiently favourable to attract the best material from the public schools and universities. I do not think that such a sentence should appear in a Minister's memorandum. We want the best material from the whole nation, irrespective of class.
    As I have taken upon myself to point out on many occasions, as long as the fees charged to Air Force cadets at Cranwell make it impossible for the sons of poor parents, however brilliant and worthy of commissions, to enter the Air Service, the right hon. Gentleman will necessarily confine his choice to a very narrow class. That is unfair to the nation as a whole, because there might be a great genius who by poverty is prevented from embarking on a career in which he might be of great service to the nation. If the Japanese and the Americans are able to subsidise the fees for their cadets, so that poor boys can enter the commissioned ranks, we should be able to do the same thing here.
    658
    I must also protest against the setting up of a bombing range near Bridling-ton, a beautiful seaside resort on the east coast of Yorkshire. Six miles away it is proposed to establish a bombing range, against the protest of the local fishermen, whose livelihood will be threatened, and very much against the wishes of all the inhabitants and those who depend on the amenities of that resort. I hope that the proposal will be abandoned. There are plenty of other places where bombing practice can be carried out. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make this service thoroughly unpopular, he will continue with the proposal.
    The fault with civil aviation to-day is two-fold. First of all there is the monopoly or virtual monopoly of Imperial Airways. It would be far better to have no subsidy at all and not to assist civil aviation in any way, than to have this monopoly. It would be better to leave civil aviation to private enterprise than to encourage any monopoly. The alternative, of course, is to provide far more money for subsidies, and to allow greater freedom to anyone who can start air lines. The other difficulty is that the Ministry looks upon civil aviation too much from the national point of view. Placed as our Empire is, we cannot have all-red routes. We must co-operate with other countries and obtain facilities from them. There was the ridiculous hold-up through the obstruction of the Persian Government. There will be a great many more of these hold-ups if we play a selfish role. One of the difficulties with Persia was that we used our influence to prevent a German-Russian line coming down from the North to Teheran and to our territory. As a reprisal the Persians prevented us from flying to India.
    There was another example quite recently in the case of the German dirigible Graf Zeppelin. Permission was sought for it to fly over a number of countries, including Egypt. I understand that there is an objection to a regular air line being established by the Italians over the Suez Canal zone. That. I can understand. I think these are short-sighted objections, but I dare say treaties exist and the objections have to be upheld. But this Zeppelin flight was an experimental flight, a great

    659
    adventure. I think it was extremely short-sighted to prevent the Germans from flying over Egypt. They are going to fly over North Africa, and we have been made to look very small and ridiculous.
    I have a word to say of praise about the extraordinarily fine work of our aeroplanes in rescuing the people at Kabul. It was a splendid piece of internationalism. I am sorry that more enterprise and generosity were not shown when the Italian airship under General Nobile was wrecked in the Arctic seas. It was very deplorable, too, that we were not able to send an aeroplane to Southern Spitzbergen, where there was a sea clear of ice, in order that our aeroplanes could have gone to search for the heroic Amundsen when he was lost. I understand that we were asked to do so. I dare say it could not have been done at the time, but the moment we got news of the disaster to the Italia we should have sent an aeroplane carrier to the nearest point from which we could render any assistance. That is internationalism and neighbourliness, and it will be needed if we are to develop civil aviation on the great scale that is required for Imperial purposes. The Italia's crew were rescued by the combined efforts of Swedes, Norwegians, Russians and their own countrymen. I would have preferred an Englishman to have done what the heroic Russian aviator did—one of the greatest deeds of aviation that has ever been done. It is that sort of thing that shows that at the Air Ministry there is no drive, no imagination, no foresight, no energy and no statesmanship.
    Major HILLS: At this time of night I should not speak if I did not want to say one word for civil aviation, which in the eyes of the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) has no merit whatever. He said that we have made no development in six years, that we have no seaplane or flying boat worthy of the name, that Imperial Airways has done nothing to develop the service, and that we stand at the bottom of the list of all countries that fly.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: The right hon. Gentleman is not quoting me with
    660
    any sort of accuracy. I said that there had been no development within the seas of Great Britain or within the territory of this country or these islands. I paid a tribute to the development of safety and security on the existing air lines to the Continent.
    Major HILLS: Does the hon. and gallant Member really think that our scientists and inventors have stood still for 6½ years? If so I do not think, with all respect to him, that he can have kept in very close touch with civil flying because great advances of all sorts have been made. I wish to come to the gist of the charge made by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Bean) against civil flying in this country. It is a charge which we have often heard before. Certain figures are reeled off as to the mileage of routes in Germany and France, and then those figures are compared with a much smaller mileage here. But the hon. Member must appreciate that these routes may mean very different things. The routes which I have seen, of the German air service for instance, have a line ruled from Berlin to Teheran. That route may be flown but it is not flown every day. I do not think it is flown every week. You cannot compare that with routes such as some of the Imperial Airways routes on which there are four services a day each way.
    Mr. MALONE: The total air mileage is just as bad—even worse.
    Major HILLS: The total air mileage is the most misleading of all figures. The only comparable figures are those of passenger mileage or ton mileage. If you take total air mileage you are comparing some of the French machines which fly to North Africa carrying perhaps one or two passengers with the big Handley Pages that tarry 12 and more passengers. It is an entirely fallacious comparison, but such figures are used constantly. I think that comparison was not used this time by the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney, but I know he used that figure last year. I would say to hon. Members opposite, let them attack Imperial Airways and the flying services as much as they like, but do let them use comparable figures. Air miles mean nothing at all because you do not know whether they have been flown by a machine carrying a few pounds

    661
    load or by a machine carrying 2½ tons or 3 tons load. Then when hon. Members talk so gaily about expansion do they realise that no company in Europe—I do not know about America—is paying, "on its own"? Hon. Members ask, why do we not fly to the West Indies, why do we not fly here and there? But all this requires money, and a great deal of money. I believe and hope we shall see a seaplane service in the West Indies, but can you ask the over-taxed people of this country to find the money for flying in the West Indies? It is all very well to talk about showing the flag all over the world and of flying from the Humber to Hamburg as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has put it, but these services do not pay. No service pays of itself. The German subsidies are very high. We do not know what they are—at least I do not know—because, in addition to the Government subsidy, the big towns pay additional subsidies to planes that land in their areas and I believe they are immensely more than ours. The last time I was speaking to a prominent French aviator we compared notes and it appeared that the French subsidy was two and a-half times the amount of ours and we are getting just as much flying. I do not quite know what the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney wants. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull was quite specific. He wants us to disband Imperial Airways and to pay no subsidy at all. That would involve break-a contract, but, assuming that you got over that difficulty, if you pay no subsidy you get no flying.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I said that would be better than the present system but I want much bigger subsidies and a free field for anyone who flies.
    Major HILLS: If the hon. and gallant Member will vote for a bigger subsidy I will go into the same Lobby with him. I think we ought to spend much more. May I say what my experience taught me in Imperial Airways? The essential thing that we must get into the minds of the flying public is the impression that air travel is just as safe as travel by sea or by train, so that when a man is making up his mind how he will travel to India, he will not say that the air is more dangerous though faster. We have to
    662
    get to the time when people will decide according to the speed, the expense, or the convenience of the different modes of travel. The next essential is regularity. Aeroplanes have to link up with trains and steamers and it is not good if they arrive a half hour or half day late for their connections. They have to transfer their passengers and goods and they must be up to time. Now in regard to those two points—safety and regularity—we are out and away ahead. I do not know if the House realises that the Imperial Airways only had one fatal accident involving passengers. It was a bad accident and six or seven passengers and the pilot were killed, but still there was only this one single accident involving loss of life to passengers. Look at the records of any other company abroad. They are hard to get. They do not come to this country but I think hon. Members who inquire will find that we have far and away the best record in the matter of safety.
    Further this is the only country which looks to the possibility of making flying pay of itself. Flying is no good if it is only to be run as a subsidised pursuit. I believe that flying is one of the big things of the modern world. I believe it is a great force for peace and a great force for commerce. I believe we are only on the threshold and that we shall see enormous developments in flying, but the first thing to be done is to make flying pay. If you do that, you will abolish all risk of flying being turned ever to military purposes. You will build up a tremendous international force—not an internationalised Air Force, but a pursuit in which all nations can join, an international movement, and you will be able to put on one side all thoughts of conversion. The more you develop the civil aeroplane, the more you tend to differentiate it from the military aeroplane and you will, I expect, get the same relationship between the two, as that which now exists between the great ocean liner and the battleship. The liner may possess some military value but it is very different from the battleship.
    The hon. Member for North Aberdeen asked why we did not come to some agreement with our neighbours in Europe. It takes two to make a bargain. The hon. Member quite fairly admitted

    663
    that, and he quite fairly said that we could not disarm alone. I will give him another road to disarmament. If he will support those of us who are working for a Ministry of Defence he will give the biggest lift up, both to economy and disarmament, that can be imagined. The case for economy has been stated so often that I shall not restate it, but the case for disarmament is not always known. The great difficulty is that when we go to these various conferences we have the three separate Departments, the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force, and it is very difficult to get a common line which can be adopted by them. More than that, if, as I believe intensely, a Ministry of Defence will cause a big reduction in the amount which we spend on our Navy, that would forward disarmament more than any other single fact in the world. The great difficulty now is that foreign nations say to us, "It is all very well for you to say that we should reduce our land armaments, but why do you not make a start with your Navy?" If the existence of a Ministry of Defence meant a big naval reduction, it would bring disarmament a great deal nearer. I believe it is the greatest reform that we can seek to achieve. I hope I have shown the House that we are not quite so behindhand or so antiquated in the matter of flying as some of the speakers have endeavoured to make out.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I do not wish to be tiresome, but as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking for Imperial Airways I should like to have some comfort from him. He rejects figures relating to commercial routes, figures of the mileage flown, figures of the number of machines and the number of pilots and the number of aerodromes. In what single respect do our figures compare favourably with the others? I wish to have some consolation.
    Major HILLS: I have said that we compare very favourably in the matter of safety.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: In the number of miles flown per fatality?
    Major HILLS: In safety, in regularity and in approaching the time when the service can pay "on its own." We are approaching that time and that is a
    664
    very great thing because, as I have said civil flying must be made to pay without Government subsidies. The whole future lies in that direction as the hon. and gallant Member must recognise. I had the honour at the beginning of Imperial Airways, of being on the board. I resigned when I became a Member of this House. I can say that the description which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave, conveying that we did nothing except collar the subsidy, hardly represents the very difficult time through which we went. I claim no credit but we worked hard and some of the fruits of our work is being seen now. We worked that enterprise up from the time when it was losing money, to the time when it is coming near the point of being able to pay without a subsidy. It has done a much greater work than the hon. and gallant Gentleman—who seems, if I may say so, to have some animus against it—gives it credit for. At all events I agree with him that we ought to spend more money and that we ought to develop the building of aircraft in every way we can. I agree that we ought to fly more services. I am glad to hear that we are flying a Cape-Cairo service, and I hope we shall soon see the Australian service also. I am quite sure that aviation is a great means of communication for passengers and still more for letters, and I believe, also, that it is one of the great civilising influences in the world.
    8.0 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: It is very magnificent that although the Estimates of £20,000,000 are mainly for war purposes, with £500,000 for civil aviation, every speech which has been made this afternoon has dealt almost exclusively with civil aviation. It may be that that reflects a realisation on the part of the public as a whole that we are now within measurable distance of making civil aviation fly by itself, as was aid by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) who last spoke. I think the Secretary of State for Air ought to be congratulated on firmly adhering to the policy of one monopoly company which was laid down in the initial stages, and not being influenced by the specious arguments of those who do not understand the facts of the situation. Having said that, I should like to refer to what I think are the two most important questions which have been

    665
    raised in the Debate this afternoon; I refer to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn), and that of the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore Brabazon). May I say this in passing: gallant Member for Chatham is correct, I feel sure that we shall have in the next If the election prophesy of the hon. and Government a most able and efficient Air Minister in the hon. and gallant Member for North Aberdeen.
    The two points which were raised were these: Whether you can develop civil aviation without at the same time starting a new armament race, because of the value which civil aviation would have as a reserve to the regular Air Force, and, secondly, the whole question of the consideration of the money which we spend on defence in this country. I believe that, if we are to examine those two questions properly, we shall have to consider both the military aspects and the economic aspects as they bear on this country; because what is this Vote that we are discussing? It is a portion of £120,000,000 a year that we spend on defence. The wars of to-day are fought by the civilians; they are not fought so much by the regular forces. In the last War, it is true that an Army of a quarter-of-a-million was extended to 5,000,000, and that, of the men employed by the Admiralty, three out of four were obtained from the Mercantile Marine and from civil occupations. If you take the whole Air Force of to-day, it does not provide a fortnight's supply of machines, of men, of stores, or of anything which is used in time of war, judged by the scale upon which we used them during the last War.
    What is the result of that? It is surely this: That our forces as we have them to-day are nothing, and cannot be anything, but training organisations which are to be devoted in time of war to creating the main forces which we shall require. Therefore, the money which we now spend, this £120,000,000 a year, must be looked upon as an insurance to provide for the safety of this country and of this Empire during time of war; and, if we are to look at it correctly, I believe we must look at it upon the basis which I have just explained. Therefore, the real security of this Empire rests on the economic capacity of this country and of the Empire as a
    666
    whole. The United States to-day does not rest for her security on her armed forces; she rests for her security on the great predominance which she has in the world in manufacturing resources and economic power.
    Therefore, we have to consider what is the position of this country and of Europe in that respect to-day. Europe most certainly, this country to a lesser degree, are I believe rapidly becoming but an economic appendage to the United States of America. Modern industry is developing in such a way that unless it is organised upon an international basis and upon a continental scale, it is impossible for a small country to compete in the economic sense of the word. Mass production may be organised on a national basis, but it requires an international selling organisation to keep it going. What I think has happened is that America, being the first continent which has been able to organise upon a basis of this character, is able to take advantage of that position, and, by the fact that her overhead charges on industry are perhaps 30 per cent. less than those on industry in a small country, she is able to compete with and undersell other countries, with the result that she is rapidly eating into the economic strength not only of this country, but of Europe as a whole.
    Then you may say: How does that affect us? Surely it affects us in this way. If it be true, as I believe it to be, that the real security of this country depends upon our economic strength, one of the main things which the statesmen of this country have to consider is: How is the money which we devote to defence to be spent? Is it all to be spent upon armaments, or is some of it to be spent in developing our economic strength and security? What has given America that great economic strength which she has? Surely it is that she is a political and economic entity. Therefore, if we can do something to create a great political and economic entity of our Empire, then, and not until then, can we compete upon a basis of equality. For these reasons. I believe that we should put in the forefront of our defence policy, a method by which we can build up an economic and political entity of our Empire.
    We have two great enemies, time and distance. The telegraph and wireless

    667
    have defeated distance so far as the spoken word is concerned, but it is. I believe, to aviation, and to aviation alone, that we can look to defeat time and distance so far as physical contact is concerned. Therefore, if the foundations of this argument be true, namely, that the Fighting Forces can be nothing but training forces and that our real security depends upon our economic capacity, and if our economic capacity depends upon creating a great political and economic entity of the Empire in order to compete in a continental fashion with America, and if, further, it be true that industry which is organised upon a continental basis is bound to crush out other countries which cannot so develop economically and to make them economic appendages, then I say that the main policy of any Government ought to be to create these great air fines to all parts of the Empire upon the foundation of which we shall obtain a beginning to build this great Empire of ours into an economic entity.
    Those are the fundamental conditions which I believe are before this country to-day, and it would not be too much if 10 per cent. of our total defence funds were devoted to the furtherance of civil aviation in pursuance of that policy. You may say that 10 per cent. is a great-sum—£10,000,000 a year; but, if those arguments which I have put to the House be true, what is the use of spending it in other ways? Surely, it is better to go along an avenue which will give us real security, instead of this false security of armaments which we may not be able to keep up in the years to come. Therefore, I would ask the Secretary of State for Air to consider, if a Conservative Government be returned at the next election—[HON. MEMBERS: "It will not be!"] Well, I will ask the hon. and gallant Member for North Aberdeen to consider this also, as he will, I hope, be the Secretary of State for Air if a Labour Government is returned. I will ask him to consider whether he should not get out a comprehensive long-distance programme, which people would know they were working for, of a daily service to every Dominion of the Empire, linked up with every great town in the Empire, so that no part of our Empire should be more than five or six days
    668
    distant from this country. Then we should have the basis of a great political and economic entity, upon which we could extend.
    I go further than that. Obviously, if we are going to develop our Empire, it is essential that there should be a peaceful Europe. A Europe divided and always on the brink of a war is a condition which detracts from the development of our Empire, and anything which tends towards creating greater security in Europe is to our advantage in developing our Empire. In this respect, I believe that the development of civil aviation will do more to bring about a condition of affairs which will be the prelude to a United States of Europe, on the same conditions and upon the same lines as the United States of America, than anything else which could take place. I think, therefore, that what we want to do is to create some scheme whereby we can carry out what I would term a peace offensive. We have, I think, been so interested in eliminating the causes of war that we are apt to forget that the best way to do this is to consolidate all chose positive causes which are working for peace. If we do launch a peace offensive, it ought to be as ruthless and as dynamic and as comprehensive as the steps which we took in prosecuting the War.
    We come then to an important condition. Civil aviation, if it is to develop, must be developed upon an international basis; it cannot be developed in any other way. You get into an aeroplane to go from one country to another, perhaps across two or three intervening countries of Europe. Therefore, if civil aviation is to develop, it must be developed upon an international basis, and that, again, is the greatest step that we could take towards a peaceful Europe; because the more civil aviation develops, and the more we break down international barriers, the more we shall get people to think internationally, and we shall create an international spirit which for the first time will enable us to make war perhaps too difficult for any European country to undertake, and make people begin to realise that war between highly civilised and contiguous countries is to-day nothing but civil war. Therefore I would suggest to the Secretary of State for Air that he might arrange with the other Members

    669
    of the Government to put up some definite and concrete proposal to Geneva to start the internationalisation of the civil aviation of Europe.
    The first two steps which I think he should take would be these: First of all I think we should agree upon an international certificate of air worthiness. To-day each country has its own certificate of air worthiness; and I believe I am correct in saying that the machine which carried Lindbergh across the Atlantic two years ago, would not have been allowed to fly in this country because it would not have been passed as air-worthy. I think it is essential that there should be some general concensus of opinion between the countries as to what is wanted for that, because otherwise machines licensed in one country would perhaps not be licensed in another, and moreover it is unfair to manufacturers who are manufacturing their machines in those countries where the regulations are more stringent. When I was in the United States lately I was informed at Detroit that they are manufacuring any quantity at a rate of 12s. 6d. or 14s.—three and a half dollars—per lb. weight, whereas in this country it costs something like 25s. per lb. weight, and when I asked the reason, they said it was mainly because they were not fiddled about with by a lot of regulations from the Government. The next step which I believe could be taken by the British Government would be to suggest to Geneva to internationalise all aerodromes.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be going some way beyond the powers of the Air Minister. Any question to be settled at Geneva could not be done by the Air Ministry.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I suggested that the Secretary of State for Air might represent to the British Government, but I will not pursue that line of thought. If we say that our main defence is to obtain the peace of Europe, and if it be true that the peace of Europe can be more readily and more easily obtained by some system which will help towards internationalism, I think perhaps the best way to do that would be to internationalise all aerodromes, and, in the same way that the Italian Government has recently ceded a portion of Italy to the Pope, I would
    670
    like to see every country allied to the League cede all aerodromes to the League of Nations, so that the citizen of this country or of any country in Europe could fly about Europe or about the world as easily and with as little interruption as the citizen of the United States can fly about the United States.
    It is not the slightest use talking about disarmament or doing away with aircraft for war purposes unless and until you are prepared for universal disarmament, and no country at present is prepared for that. Therefore, the only thing, as it seems to me, that it is open for us to do to-day is to inculcate, not only in this country, but throughout the world, the truth that if you are to have peace you must have internationalism, and if you are to have internationalism, you can only have it by abrogating to some extent the sovereign rights of each nation and at the same time restricting the freedom of the elective assembly of each national Government. If we can do that, there is a possible prospect of peace in Europe, the development of the British Empire, and security at home; but if, on the other hand, every nation is prepared to contemplate the catastrophe of another world war rather than take any steps which they may to prevent its occurrence, I am fearful of the future of this country. I do not believe we have the economic substance to-day to take our place in another race of world armaments, and it is upon those broad and general grounds of the development of the civil aviation as a weapon to use for the peace of Europe as a whole that I ask the Secretary of State for Air to contemplate suggesting to the Cabinet that not less than 10 per cent. of the amount which is spent upon defence, namely, £10,000,000 a year, should be devoted to fostering and furthering civil aviation.
    Mr. MALONE: Before the hon. and gallant Member sits down, could he tell us approximately when the first flight to India is to be made by his airship?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member must not thus ask a question of another hon. Member who does not hold an official position in the Government.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): We have had a very interesting Debate, and I think that on the whole the House has been very kind to us. The fact has been borne in upon me that we have not asked for nearly enough money, and that if we had asked for a great deal more the House would apparently have been more satisfied. Some of the speeches have dealt with questions of disarmament and the internationalisation of civil aviation, and I will deal with those when the appropriate Resolution comes before us, but I will answer the other points that have been raised now, and remind the House that there will be an opportunity of raising any of these points again on the Votes, and that my right hon. Friend will be speaking later in the evening, and he will then be able to deal with them. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn), in the course of his very brilliant speech, if I may say so, produced certain figures that seemed unfavourable to ourselves in regard to aerodromes in this country and mileage flown by civil air lines. I think the figure he gave was 18 aerodromes in this country, but that is not the correct figure. The correct figure, including the service aerodromes and landing grounds, is 115.
    Mr. BENN: Are they available for civilian flying?
    Sir P. SASSOON: My hon. Friend knows quite well that service aerodromes are not usually available for all civil flying, but they are aerodromes which can be used in emergency, and I think that the figures which he gave for other countries included service aerodromes too. But we are fully alive to the fact that we have not sufficient aerodromes, and that is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend is so anxious for this National Flying Services scheme to be established, because it will supply us with 100 more aerodromes and landing grounds. With regard to mileage flown, the service to India will shortly be in operation, and the African service, when it is in being, coupled with extensions to Australia and elsewhere, will eventually give to the British Empire a total mileage of 22,000, which is better even than that of Germany. The hon. Gentleman asked if we were trying to develop a system of combined train and air service. In this new service to India, which is
    672
    beginning on the 1st April, part of the route is travelled by aeroplane, part by flying boat, and part by train; and, of course, the railway companies in this country are seeking powers to develop air services and establish aerodromes, so that I think that the hon. Gentleman's wishes will in the near future be realised.
    The hon. Member also asked whether these great trunk lines which we are developing are to be open highways for all countries to use with aeroplanes. That is generally so, but there must be certain exceptions. The difficulty we have had up to now is that in Iraq there have been no civil aerodromes, but, generally speaking, all these big trunk lines will be what the hon. Member described as open highways. The right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol North (Captain Guest) asked about auxiliary squadrons and whether they were being trained for the mobility which was necessary for them to be sent overseas. As a matter of fact, they are not supposed to be mobile in that way, as they are for home service, based on home aerodromes. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) asked some questions with regard to the service in the West Indies, and the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) also asked a similar question. Of course, we would like to see developed all services of that kind, but in the present condition of national financial stringency it is difficult to find money for services which, although very important, are, like this one, purely local services. He asked us what we were doing about assisting in securing orders from abroad for our aircraft constructors. We are doing everything we can in that respect, and as a matter of fact last year more orders came from abroad for them than ever before. That inquiry was combined with a suggestion from him that we should look ahead. We are, I need hardly say, looking ahead as much as we can. In his speeches every year the hon. and gallant Member is rather severe upon us with regard to Farnborough and this year he said that all that Farnborough had been able to produce in the year was a flow-meter. I know that he meant his criticisms in a kindly sense, and that he really recognises more than he acknowledges the extraordinarily good work

    673
    which emanates from Farnborough. He mentioned one out of many productions. I should like to mention the automatic slot device, which I hope will do more to prevent accidents than anything else which has been invented. I do not think there has been any invention in aeronautical science produced of late years which has not benefited very greatly from the experiments which have gone on at Farnborough. The one or two questions which he asked me with regard to airships are of a very technical nature, and if he does not mind I will write to him to give him the information.
    Mr. MALONE: Can the hon. Baronet say when they are going to fly?
    Sir P. SASSOON: We hope they will be completed in the early spring.
    Mr. MALONE: This year?
    Sir P. SASSOON: This year.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But this is early spring.
    Sir P. SASSOON: It is a movable feast in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) was rather critical of our civil air lines, saying that so far as this country is concerned civil flying was in a lamentable and shameful condition. He said, it is true, that our civil aircraft fly regularly and safely, and that Imperial Airways run their lines economically. That result is exactly what we are hoping for. He complained very much about what he called the monopoly of Imperial Airways, and then went on to say that another company was to be brought into the projected service to Africa. There seems to be no pleasing him. When Imperial Airways carry on the service on their own he is not pleased, and when they bring in another company he is equally displeased. He also inquired why some of the money for subsidies was not allocated among other companies. There is only a certain sum of money and it is given to the company which my right hon. Friend thinks is the best company. There is not sufficient money to be usefully employed if we distributed it amongst a great many different companies. I could not quite follow what was his grievance in connection with National Flying Services. For many
    674
    reasons we welcome them. We think we shall get payment by results, that they will give us more pilots, and that we shall get a great many more aerodromes and landing grounds. In spite of all that, we shall not in any way interfere with existing light aeroplane clubs, but, on the contrary, we shall in a great many cases help them. They will not be adversely affected; their subsidy is not being taken away or reduced. The more clubs of that kind we have and the greater the airmindedness of the country, the better it will be. The Secretary of State himself was the originator of the scheme of light aeroplane clubs, and no one is more sympathetic than he or more anxious that they should achieve the aims which they have before them. He is the last man in the world to wish to deal a blow at them, and I am sure that these criticisms have arisen more out of misunderstanding than anything else.
    I will deal next with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of it. One of his points was that we did not help General Nobile. We made an offer to the Italian Government—we had to do it in that way—to do everything we could. We told them that if there was anything we could do they had only to call upon us, and we would instantly render every assistance in our power.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That is not the way to go to the help of people in distress. Were we not asked by the Norwegians to supply seaplanes, and we could not do it?
    Sir P. SASSOON: We offered to send any machines we had. As a matter of fact I believe the machines we had were not suitable for this particular purpose, but I believe we offered to send machines without pilots. We offered to send some Moths up there by sea. We did everything we could, but our offer was not accepted, and our help was not asked.
    The hon. and gallant Member also asked about the bombing range at Bridlington. I think that range was decided upon in 1927. All the local authorities and all the different interests affected were consulted, and matters were arranged between them and the Air Ministry. It was only in the following year that some of the fishermen became alarmed, and

    675
    thought that bombing practice there might hurt their interests. In the meantime, some £20,000 had been spent in preparations for the range. We have had a great many conversations with the people concerned, and have been in communication with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and with the local authorities, and also with the fishermen themselves. We are anxious to meet them in every way possible. One of the chief difficulties arose out of the work of the crab fishermen, who lay their pots between two and eight in the morning, I think. To meet that objection we have arranged to delay our practice until after 8 o'clock in the morning. We have also arranged to interfere as little as possible with the herring fishers at the end of September and beginning of October. We are meeting them as far as we can, and I have every hope that everything will be arranged satisfactorily.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the hon. Baronet understand that the trouble is that the bombs themselves will drop into the water and injure the crabs and other fish? That is what the fishermen fear—not that they will be hit, but that their industry will be hit.
    Sir P. SASSOON: Hardly any of the bombs are live bombs, they are only practice bombs. We have inquired into that aspect of the matter, and there is little in it. I think the fishermen will eventually be the first to welcome the fact that we have settled on Bridlington for a bombing range.

    AERIAL DISARMAMENT.
    Mr. BELLAMY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
    "in view of the growing menace to civil communities in the development of methods of air warfare, this House regrets that His Majesty's Government have failed to make any proposals for securing international agreement on the question of aerial disarmament, and urges them to take the initiative in proposing a programme for the abolition of military and naval air forces and the establishment of international control of civil aviation."
    Commander BELLAIRS: On a point of Order. This Amendment urges the Government to take the initiative in proposing a programme for the abolition of
    676
    military and naval air forces. May I ask whether we shall be able to discuss the Army and Navy on this Amendment?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The wording of the Amendment is strictly correct and speaks of military and naval Air Forces, and hon. Members Will have to keep themselves strictly to Air Forces of the Army and Navy, and not deal with naval and military forces other than Air Forces.
    Mr. BELLAMY: In addressing the House for the first time, I ask that indulgence which is always accorded to a new Member. The majority of the speakers who have addressed the House are intensively interested in this question from the point of view of actual association with the Air Force, the Navy or the Army. I want to approach this question from the civilian point of view, because it occurs to me that the civilian is very closely interested in the question of the future of the Air Forces of the world. We had some experience of the effects of aeroplane warfare during the late War, and I am confident that that experience has led people to the conclusion that an Air Force is not only bar barous and inhuman in its attacks on women and children, but that the development of aeroplane warfare means the ultimate end of civilisation. Subsequent developments force one to the conclusion that in any future clash between nations the field of battle will be changed. Whereas in the last Great War Flanders and Franco were the actual seat of war, it occur; to me that in any future clash the seat of war will be the industrial towns and great cities of those nations which go to war. I am supported in that conclusion by our own Field Service Regulations which states that:
    "The aim of a nation which has taken up arms is therefore to bring such pressure to bear upon the enemy people as to induce them to force their Government to sue for peace."
    In future you will only be able to get at the enemy people by attacking them exactly where the people live. The science of aviation has made extraordinary strides. I was reading the other day the views of Brigadier-General Groves, who says:
    "The science of aviation, which has already forged the paramount weapon, is

    677
    still in its infancy. Its ally, chemical science, stands merely on the threshold of its possible application to explosives and poisons. The whole apparatus of aerial warfare is changing constantly in a swift and stupendous progress towards perfection."
    Not long ago the "Times" newspaper, in a leading article, said:
    "It is very probable that the critical battles of the future will be fought over our great cities and the chief sufferers will be civilians—men, women and children. In the late War some 300 tons of bombs only were dropped upon this country. Air forces to-day could drop the same weight in the first 24 hours of war and could continue this scale of attack indefinitely. I need not dilate upon this terrible and repulsive picture."
    In addition to that, I want to point out the great development of speed. I listened with interest to the Minister of State for Air when he told us that steel was being largely used for our fighting aeroplanes. We have two sections, the fighting and the bombing section. The fighting aeroplane is becoming every year a more highly specialised machine, and the only thing considered in its construction is its maximum performance. A writer in a book the other day dealing with fighting aeroplanes, says:
    "The fighting aeroplane of the future will be a very small all-steel monoplane mounting a 1,000 h.p. gas turbine engine and possibly incorporating some form of jet propulsion. It will be capable of 400 miles per hour on the level and will have the tremendous velocity in the dive of nearly 800 miles per hour. In other words it will be able to travel faster than sound. It will climb to 20,000 feet in four minutes, and its service ceiling which is the height at which the rate of climb falls below 100 feet per minute will be 60,000 feet."
    That is the view of Major Oliver Stewart in his book, entitled "The Strategy and Tactics of Air Fighting." Great developments have taken place in fighting planes and bombing machines, and Mr. Noel Baker, writing on "disarmament," says in regard to the most recent bombing machine:
    "It can carry bombs of far greater calibre and destructive power than any shell that can be thrown by a gun. The shell of a 16-inch gun is in great part composed of steel and the quantity of high explosive is therefore relatively small. The aerial bomb is only of light steel casing and thus the proportion of explosive is much greater. Not only so, but bombs have already been used which are much greater in actual
    678
    weight, and therefore unfortunately greater in destructive power than any shell could be, while there is literally no limit to probable expansion in this respect. An aeroplane may quite soon be produced which can carry 20 or 30 tons of high explosive."
    That is the prospect which the civilian population of this and other nations have to face. I think that I am justified in calling the attention of the House to another aspect of that question, and that is the development which has taken place in the manufacture of chemicals for use in bombs. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), speaking in this House, in 1927, said:
    "Lewisite is invisible. It is a sinking gas which will reach down to cellars and dug-outs; if inhaled it is fatal at once; if it settles on the skin it produces almost certain death; masks alone are no use against it; it is persistent; it has 55 times the 'spread' of any poison gas actually used in the War. Indeed it was estimated by an expert that one dozen Lewisite air bombs of the largest size known in 1918—far larger sizes could now be used—might in favourable circumstances have wiped out the entire population of Berlin."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1927; col. 941, Vol. 203.]
    The United States Chemical War Service say that a new deadly poison liquid has been discovered, three drops of which on the skin would kill a man. The Chief of the Department says that one aeroplane carrying two tons of this liquid would be able to kill every man in a space seven miles long and 100 feet wide. In the next war, says Lieut.-Colonel Fuller:
    "Fleets of fast-moving tanks, equipped with tons of liquid gas, against which the enemy has no possible protection, will cross the frontier and obliterate every living thing in fields, farms, villages and cities of enemy countries. Meanwhile fleets of aeroplanes will attack the great industrial and working centres."
    Three hundred machines, says the French Air Service Report, carrying 5 cwt. each, manipulated from a single control station in Paris, within 24 hours could unload 2,000 tons of bombs in Berlin, Geneva or London.
    I have used these quotations to support the contention that is made in the first portion of our Amendment. It may be said, and we have been told, that we have an increasing number of squadrons for defence. I make no apology for the number of quotations I am giving, because they are all from men who are experts in their line. I, as a civilian, a railway engine driver, have spent my time largely

    679
    in railway transport, and any contention of mine in this direction might be questioned; but Brigadier-General Groves who was Director of Flying Operations in the Royal Air Force in 1919, used these words:
    "It may be argued that it may be possible to protect the great cities by means of anti-aircraft defences. The following considerations will show that that view is fallacious. In 1918, the London Anti-Aircraft Defences consisted of 11 specially trained night-flying squadrons, 180 guns on the ground in addition to a number of guns mounted upon motor vehicles, 10 balloon aprons, and a large number of searchlights. The number of aircraft was nearly 300, and the total number of men employed some 30,000, an equivalent of two divisions of infantry. In addition there were a number of specially prepared night landing spots, extensive telephone installations, and a large headquarters staff to co-ordinate and direct the home defensive organisation. Great as was the scale of these defences, London was bombed, although the largest number of aeroplanes in any single raid was only 36. Obviously, it will be impossible to maintain defences on the above scale for every city and other nerve centre in a State. But even if it were possible, such defences would be useless against aerial attack delivered by thousands, or even hundreds, of aeroplanes."
    I think that one would agree with that statement, in view of what has been said even during this Debate.
    With regard to the second point in our Amendment, one reads with very great interest the record of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference. One has read with great interest the proposals that have been made on behalf of the British Empire, but I think that, when they are carefully considered, it will be felt that, while we appreciate the attempts that have been made, they have only gone a very small way to limit the number of aeroplanes, and have not actually dealt with the point with which we deal in our Amendment. The net effect is not to give to the people that security for which they are entitled to ask. I suggest that, at the coming Conference in April, our representatives ought to take a stronger line, that the course laid down in this Amendment should be adopted by them, and that the proposals made by our Government should have that as their ultimate aim, no matter what course may have to be pursued in order to attain it. One would also like to know whether the Government
    680
    are going to follow up the conclusions of the last Conference with regard to civil aviation. I was interested in the recommendation made this afternoon by an hon. Member opposite, with which I think we can all agree, that civil aviation should be controlled on the lines of the proposal in our Amendment.
    I should like to ask the Government what line they are proposing to take on the Russian proposal for disarmament. While I hold no brief for Russia, I do think that the proposals submitted by any country attending a Conference of that description are worthy of consideration, and that, in so far as they show sincerity, we might go a long way to meet them. I understand that during the past few months we have had some conversations with France. France, I suppose, from the aerial point of view and from other points of view, is our greatest potential enemy, and yet, in the conversations between the two nations, there was, so far as I know, no mention of or agreement upon aerial methods for attack or defence. I would ask whether we are serious even in the proposals that this country has made to the Conference. Are we really strengthening the hands of our delegates to the Preparatory Conference, in view of the statement that has been made as to the position of our own Air Force? It occurs to me that, if we wanted to strengthen our delegates' hands, we could do it better by a reduction than by an increase in the number of squadrons that we have. I would point out that in 1918 we had 300 squadrons In 1919 the peace establishment was laid down, I understand, and accepted by the Government, as 31 squadrons. That was increased in 1925 to 54, in 1926 to 61, in-1927 to 63, in 1928 to 69, and now, in 1929, it is increased to 75 rising to 82. It occurs to me that we might have shown a gesture that would have been accepted probably in a better spirit had we made a reduction rather than an increase in the number of our squadrons.
    I now come to the final portion of the Amendment. In the interests of peace and economy, we suggest that civil aviation should be entirely divorced from the military services. We should be only too willing and anxious to help any Government which desired to spend money on civil aviation, but, when it is

    681
    under the control of one of the military Departments, one cannot dissociate oneself from the point of view that the money is being given in order that, when needed, you may have an additional arm to your military or aerial force. It does not seem to me that it would be difficult to divorce it if, as we suggest in the Amendment, one can have international control of civil aviation. It occurs to me that through the Bills that have been before the House during the last few days whereby the transport services of the country are going to take up aerial work, and the existing aerial ways, we could divorce the services entirely, and any moneys that might be spent to help civil aviation could be given in that direction asking no quid pro quo from any of those who are serving those companies to serve us in time of war. Some time ago the Prime Minister said: "Who in Europe does not know that one more war in the West and the civilisation of the ages will fall with as great a shock as that of Rome?" Sir Josiah Stamp tells us the abolition of armaments would mean an increase of 10 per cent. in the standard of life of the peoples of the world. I am sure I could not bring a greater authority to help me than Air-Marshal Sir Hugh Trenchard. Speaking at the Cambridge University Aeronautical Society, he said:
    "I do not want you to think that I look upon air as a blessing altogether. It may be more of a blessing for this Empire than for any other country in the world, but I feel that any good it will do in civil life cannot balance the harm that may be done in war by it, and if I had the casting vote I would say abolish air. I feel that it is an infinitely more harmful weapon of war than any other."
    9.0 p.m.
    Many of us agree with that view. When I won my place in the ballot, a Member congratulated me on my luck and said. "Do you know anything about the Air Force?" I said: "I only know that it claimed my son," and it is because of that, because I feel that, if we do not make every effort that a Government and a nation can make to abolish this diabolical means of warfare, we shall stand convicted, not only by the people of our own day, but by our children and our children's children, that I commend this Amendment to the House.
    Mr. MALONE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    682
    I trust I shall be voicing the feeling of all Members of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Bellamy) on his admirable speech. I sincerely hope he will give us many more contributions on the same line. I do not think there is any topic, or any policy, more vital than disarmament. It is necessary at the outset to underline one or two things which the Amendment does not mean. As I read it, it is a very moderate proposal. It does not mean a policy of scuttle. It does not mean a policy of disarmament by example. It is simply a proposal to call a conference to discuss certain policies and certain proposals. It may be asked: Why is the question of disarmament raised on the Air Estimates? One must underline the fact that, owing to the difficulties of procedure, it is impossible to discuss all the Services in a proper way in which a disarmament discussion should take place. Disarmament should be approached from a consideration of all three Fighting Services. There is a very strong feeling in the House, which has already been expressed, for the formation of a Ministry of Defence. I believe it would receive support from Members of all parties, because there is no staff at present able to weigh all the claims of the different Fighting Services. There is no Department to-day which considers the claims of the Air Ministry, the Admiralty, and the War Office. It is true there is a Committee of Imperial Defence, but that is only a meeting together of the heads of the Fighting Services. There is no staff and no Department thinking out the details of those Services. I should be going a long way from the Amendment if I developed that point to-night, and I should be out of order if I referred to the failure of the Government at the Coolidge Conference, or if I discussed the question of the freedom of the seas and the consequent freedom of the air. I will confine myself to the air.
    I should have thought that the Government would have been only too ready to adopt the Amendment which is before the House. The Air Minister, in his opening speech, said that the Government would welcome a mutual reduction, provided this country was not left in a vulnerable position. Supposing that it can be shown that the country is in a vulnerable position to-day, then the arguments

    683
    in favour of universal disarmament will be increased tenfold. The fact is that we are gradually losing our air position. We have to consider, not merely the military situation, but both the military and the civil situation. We are usually charged on these benches with running down the country, with running down one or other of the Government Departments or Services, but there has hardly been a single speech to-day which has not been critical of the Government's air policy. What is the defect? There is nothing wrong with the technique of the Air Service. We have pilots who have shown as much skill and as much audacity as any pilots in any other part of the world. We have designers and factories producing machines which surpass the aircraft in any other part of the world. We have produced engines which have carried our machines on the longest flights and under the most difficult conditions as far as duration is concerned. With all the material at our disposal, the best possible personnel, the best technique, the best possible designers, the situation is all the more appalling.
    I have been in some difficulty in making a comparison between the air power of this and other countries from the military point of view. As far as I am able to ascertain the relative military position can be gauged by regarding France as six, Italy as three, and Great Britain as two. I know that it is difficult with different types of aircraft and with different numbers of this or that machine to obtain a real numerical comparison, but that, I think, is a just comparison. A friend of mine has put the relative difference between France and Great Britain as much as eight to one. In fact, it is very doubtful if this country can guarantee its international commitments. Great Britain agreed at Geneva and at Locarno to certain arrangements with other States. As far as the Air Service is concerned Great Britain is not able to honour her signature in regard to France and to the other parties to the Locarno Treaty. That is the position in regard to military aviation, and I think it increases by tenfold the necessity of the Government to take some steps to arrive at an international settlement. It was admitted by the Air Minister in his speech to-day
    684
    that, as far as home defence is concerned, he has only an establishment of 31 squadrons out of an approved establishment of 52 squadrons.
    When we turn to civil aviation, the situation is very much worse, and as long as civil aviation is controlled, as it is, more or less by Stale subsidised companies, more or less by Government concerns, then we must regard civil aviation as a potential war weapon. I believe that properly handled and directed civil aviation can be the greatest factor for world peace that we can possibly imagine. The whole history of the development of peace has followed closely on the development of new forms of transport. Hundreds of years ago we used to fight on this island. There were the Wars of the Roses, the wars between England and Wales, and the wars between this and that tribe. As railways developed and as there was greater human intercourse between one part of the country and another part, the whole idea of one tribe fighting another passed away into obscurity. In exactly the same way, when you get rapid means of communication taking the people of this country across another country and into another country, you will gradually reduce, if indeed you will not ultimately eliminate the chances of the people coming together in deadly combat. I should like to say a few words about the situation of civil aviation to-day, because is is apposite to the discussion, in that under present condition civil aviation is a war factor. Several hon. Members have compared the position of this country with that of certain foreign Powers. It was mentioned earlier in the Debate that, as far as route mileage is concerned, Germany had 18,000. France 12,800, America some 13,000, and Great Britain only 2,200 miles, including the Cairo-Basra service—a mileage which has not altered during the last five years.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) told us that these figures meant nothing. I will give him some more figure, and they are figures to show what we are doing on these routes. What has happened on the London to Paris route? On the London to Paris air service, Imperial Airways are rapidly losing their traffic. In the first eight months of 1028, compared with the same period in 1027, the French air lines increased their passenger traffic

    685
    by 117 per cent., and the Imperial Airways by less than half, by 56 per cent. The reason for this is that Imperial Airways have not a sufficient number of aircraft to carry out those routes efficiently. Exactly the same thing is going to happen when the London to India service is started on the 1st April, because it is going to be a purely skeleton service. Already there are three competing services to carry passengers from this country to the East. There is one service already running, the German service via Berlin and Baku to Teheren. It is a twice weekly service which you can pick up in the ordinary way. There are two more projected services which will probably be operating very shortly: a French service via Constantinople and Angora and another service, I believe, via Italy and Greece. Take the German service which runs right across South Russia to Baku and Teheren. Supposing they put on another 20 machines—and the Luft Hansa company can very easily do that—it will mean that they will take the whole of the central European traffic out of the hands of Imperial Airways. This is bound to take place, because the Imperial Airways in regard to their equipment, not only on the London to Paris service but on the London to Geneva service and so on, have only 21 aeroplanes in commission.
    So far as new machines which are likely to be delivered in the course of the next 12 months are concerned, I am informed that there are only four on order, three large aeroplanes and one seaplane, of the Calcutta type. What is happening elsewhere? Whilst we are developing on these lines, the output of the American factories for the next 12 months is estimated to be over 12,000, an increase over last year of nearly 7,000. That shows the situation in regard to our commercial air routes. We have lost the London to Paris traffic, and we shall probably start losing the London to India service if any of the foreign competitiors put machines on to these competitive routes, which they are able to do very easily from their vast resources.
    Let me turn to the attitude of the Government towards the whole question of developing these tentacles for international peace, namely, civil air routes. It is very fortunate that there is no chance of war for the next 10 years.
    686
    What line ought the Government to take towards the air routes? The first thing that they ought to do is to after international air agreements, conventions and treaties in order to get greater freedom for flying over other countries. I do not believe that this policy of all-red routes and all-black routes, of aeroplanes flying from London to India, and jumping off at red spots on the map, counteracted by German aeroplanes flying to black spots, is likely to develop the best policy in the end. It is likely to antagonise and increase the bad feeling between the two countries. I should like to see the air liners of the future calling at the capitals of Europe, at London, Paris, Berlin and elsewhere, just as the tramp steamers and the liners of the seas call at Marseilles. Southampton and Hamburg. That, surely, is the direction in which we ought to work; to get the freedom of the air and the freedom of air ports all over the surface of the globe. Until we get that, we shall not get air traffic moving with that freedom that it ought to do.
    Then there is the question of international supervision. I was very glad to receive the cordial support of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) to our proposals for international supervision. The hon. and gallant Member has received the confidence of the Government in regard to his airship policy, and as the Government place such confidence in the air knowledge of the hon. and gallant Member they may rely upon his judgment and support this Amendment. There ought not to be much difficulty in the supervision, control, and employment of civil aircraft. Some machinery could be devised, through the League of Nations or otherwise, to supervise and control all civil aviation, employing, if necessary, individuals belonging to all nationalities. As the Governments have the power to grant certificates to all aeroplanes which fly, it ought not to be very difficult to deal with this matter, especially as it is practically a new service, starting de novo, which makes it very much simpler.
    The Government have not really appreciated the value of air power, while other countries have. The Government do not realise what the next air war will mean, and they do not realise the

    687
    value of encouraging international air transport. That is partly due, I believe, to the absence of a proper planning department at the Air Ministry. There is nothing at the Air Ministry corresponding with the plans division at the Admiralty. It took two years of war, and then only when the country had nearly been defeated by the submarine menace, to set up a new plans department at the Admiralty, entirely separate from the administrative work, to think out the future. That is what is wanted at the Air Ministry to-day, not merely on the military side but on the civil side also. It is because the civil side is so important that I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Air why it is that he has not put the Director of Civil Aviation on the Air Council. Having regard to the important position which the civil division holds in the work of the Air Ministry, in my opinion the most important work of the Air Ministry, the Director of that Department ought to have a seat on the Board of the Air Council.
    The trouble is due partly because the policy of the Government—I am not allowed to develop it to-night, because we are unable by the terms of the Vote, and the terms of the Amendment, from discussing the fighting services as a whole—is still largely dominated by the old blue water school. The Air Ministry comes in a bad third after the Admiralty and the War Office. The Navy gets its £57,000,000 and the Army gets its £41,000,000 and the Air Ministry gets its £16,000,000. I am in favour of the abolition of war, but so long as we have to have some fighting services they ought to be as cheap and economical as we can possibly devise. We cannot go on spending these enormous sums on the weapons of war. I believe that we could cut down the Army and the Navy by tens of millions of pounds, and devote some of the money to the Air Ministry, and we should not impair the defensive measures of the country. The reason why we do not do that is because the Government and the Cabinet are dominated by the blue water school, the old-fashioned blue water school which thinks in terms of naval strength, in terms of the conditions of 1914, when private blockade was the policy. That policy is now almost universally
    688
    regarded as being morally intolerable, physically indefensible, and technically impossible.
    Very soon after the next war has started, if a war does start, and no attempt is being made to prevent it so far as this Government are concerned, air craft will be the first service. The Navy and the Army will be auxiliaries to the Air Force. Except perhaps in some remote field of warfare, the Army and the Navy will only be playing a very subsidiary part. I am glad to think that facts will prove more important than generals, and realities will be more convincing than Admirals. It may be said by some, what are you going to do with the officers and men in the Air Force and in the other services. I do not think that ought to be a consideration against disarmament. Even if you pension off the whole of the services, it would be far cheaper than the cost of maintaining the services, coupled with the cost of warfare, and the trouble and misery that comes from using these forces for war. There is a further question about which I feel very strongly, and that is, what the next war will mean. In the next war, if it comes, the horrors will dwarf the horrors of the last war into insignificance. The next war will be a civilian war. On a small scale in past wars women and children have suffered from bombing raids which were generally looked upon as accidents. They may have been intentional, but the ordinary public looked upon these events as not being deliberate. The mere fact that in any future war we shall have the whole of our women and children put into the conflict of war within five minutes of the declaration of war, is in itself a sufficient justification for our trying to prevent any air warfare whatsoever.
    I am concerned with disarmament because of this effect of the next war. A few months ago the Air Minister carried out a trial bombing raid on London. There has been far too much reticence about the experience that has been gained by the Air Minister in that direction, but I do think from what has leaked out in the newspapers that the ordinary man-in-the-street can gain some appreciation of what the next air war will mean to the population of London. What is certain is that the civilian in the next war will be a helpless combatant. There is no

    689
    security for the 10,000,000 or so of population that makes up Greater London. There is no security for the industrial population in any of the great towns in this country. We have heard a good deal about poison gas. I believe as far as London is concerned—spread as it is over an area with a diameter of 30 miles—that 30 or 40 tons of diphenylchlordarsine, or any of the more recent poison gases, would destroy nearly the whole population that happened to be above the ground. The Government have done absolutely nothing, except to produce two Blue Books dealing with chemical warfare, a manual of the medical aspects of chemical warfare issued by the War Office and a tract published by the Red Cross Society. As I said just now, every town in this country is liable to annihilation within five minutes of the declaration of war, and if reason does not finally triumph over force, the writing in the sky will mean the end of modern civilisation.
    Every year that passes makes disarmament harder. The further you get away from the experiences and results of the Great War the more difficult it is to influence public opinion in favour of a great measure of universal disarmament. Day in and day out there are more people reaching the age of maturity who did not experience the horrors of the last War. Even if they are employed, they go daily to a long, irksome toil at the factory; or those working in the city go up regularly every morning, hanging on a strap for an hour, sitting on an office stool in a dirty, dingy office, and then hanging on a strap at the end of the day going back to their homes. In the event of another war, then to all these people who have not seen the last War, and who have no memories of the last War, the call to enlist would come as a bright interlude in a life of drab monotony; and I say that the longer we go on the more difficult it will become to prevent another war. War is also inimical to social progress. Every war that takes place means that the hands of the clock of social development are set back by scores of years. The colossal expenditure we have put into armaments, and the money put into paying debts for years afterwards has meant starvation of the social services. While we are paying to-day £114,000,000 for the Air Service and other fighting Services, the Ministry
    690
    of Health has to cut down milk supplies for babies; the Ministry of Labour has to cut down unemployment benefit; and the Ministry of Health has to reduce housing subsidies. We are spending to-day something like £200 a minute on armaments. Since the Conservative Government have been in office, we have spent no less than £582,000,000 on war. Think what that sum might have meant spent in other ways! Think what one-fifth of that sum might have meant if spent on social services, housing, education and the health of the people! What have we spent on peace? While we have spent £582,000,000 on war, we have spent a paltry £360,000 on the League of Nations, and even that the Government representative at the meeting last year tried to cut down still further.
    There is no question more important than this question of disarmament. The Government have messed and muddled disarmament conference after disarmament conference. I believe that in the end disarmament will come about. Up and down the country, and up and down the world, there is a growing feeling that war is a terrible infamy and a crime against Christianity. I believe the time will come when the wars which now take place will be looked upon as the dreadful barbarities of the mediaeval age of 1928. Just as we have abolished wars between England and Wales and other parts of this country, so shall we abolish ideas of war between England, Germany, France and the other countries of the world. I am sure that this moderate little Amendment, which does not go very far, will receive the support of the Government. The Air Minister, whoever he may be, has a very great opportunity. He has got the greatest opportunity of all the Ministers who control the fighting Departments. Negatively he can use his influence through the Cabinet and through the Foreign Office, and work through enemy channels to bring about international agreement with regard to the air services of the world. But he has a greater power. He alone of the three fighting Services has got a positive weapon. He has got the positive weapon of civilian air power. He can use that weapon, and if it is properly handled it can and will be a determining influence in the cause of world peace.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) has said that we are all in favour of the abolition of war. Certainly I know no party in the State, no individual Member, and certainly no one who took part in the last great War, and has a wife and children dependent on him who is not in favour of the abolition of war. But as I listened to his speech I thought he ought to have been addressing not the Minister for Air but the Archbishop of Canterbury and some of the leaders of the other religions and denominations, because where they have failed to agree the hon. Member must not expect the Minister of Air or any political party in this country to succeed. What does the whole of his statement really mean? It is a propaganda statement on pacificism and disarmament. The world is not sufficiently advanced and civilised to accept the total abolition of all naval, military and air forces. The words of the Amendment refer only to the air forces. I do not think hon. Members intend that they should stop there, but would include the Army and Navy as well. It would he absurd to have total disarmament of the air forces and leave the naval and military forces as they are. I presume that hon. Members opposite mean to abolish the lot. Does the hon. Member for Northampton think that uncivilised countries would agree to such a proposal? This country is only a tiny- item, a very small oasis, in a desert of uncivilised communities. We are actually on the fringe of civilisation. It does not stretch many miles away; it only reaches to the borders of Russia.
    This brings me to the difficulties under which we suffer in this country as far as aviation is concerned. We are hemmed in north and south by the sea and also on the Atlantic side. Our only expansion is towards the continent. We are at the geographical land end of this continent and, therefore, compared with America and Germany and other countries, which have made enormous strides in aviation, we are at a great disadvantage. What have we to replace it? We have the British Empire Route. What we want to do is to develop our air communications with the Empire. I think the Air Ministry has been unfairly criticised in what they are doing in this respect. Other countries can carry out the whole of their developments with
    692
    land machines. We are differently situated. We have to experiment with seaplanes airships, and other forms of aviation; and when I hear hon. Members opposite read out large figures of the flights carried out by America and Germany, and hold them up in order to criticise our own Air Ministry, I think they are somewhat unfair to the Air Ministry, and are unduly critical of our civilian capacity for flying. I am convinced that we are on the right lines, providing we encourage the air sense in this country. At present it is not being sufficiently developed. There is the greatest difficulty in getting landing grounds and aerodromes outside our principal towns. They are not included in town planning schemes; but I am convinced that, with sympathetic attention and consideration, we shall presently develop the flying sense amongst our youngsters and when that takes place, and it becomes natural for our young people to take to the air, we shall overtake nations like Germany and the United States of America who at the moment are ahead of us. I think the Air Ministry is on the whole developing this service on the right lines.
    Mr. STAMFORD: It is not often that I address the House and I only do so to-night because of the interest I have in the subject under discussion. The Amendment which has been moved calls attention to disarmament and invites the Government to accept a certain policy in relation to it. Since I have been a Member of this House there have been a number of motions similar to this submitted to the judgment of this House, and every one has been rejected, as I have no doubt this will be when the Division takes place to-night. No one watching the proceeding's on an occasion like this, noting the comparatively empty benches, and noting that at the end of the Debate the decision given by a majority of this House, would ever dream that in this matter of disarmament this country placed, itself years ago under pledges of a definite and most binding character. I want to refer tonight to one only of those pledges; the pledge employed in the reply made en behalf of the Allied and Associated Powers to the German Peace Delegation's observations on the Peace Treaty, on 16th June, 1919. This declaration

    693
    has been referred to on previous occasions in this House, but I make no apology for returning to it to-night. The terms are as follow:
    "The Allied and Associated Powers wish to make it clear that their requirements in regard to German armaments were not solely with the object of rendering it impossible for German to resume her policy of military aggression. They are also the first steps towards that general reduction and limitation of armaments which they seek to bring about as one of the most fruitful preventives of war and which it will be one of the first duties of the League of Nations to promote."
    That declaration was made 10 years ago. Since that time, there have been a succession of conferences on war and disarmament. Agreements have been signed and treaties and pacts have been entered into. The last of these pacts was that signed in August of last year. On 27th August, 1928, the representatives of 15 nations, headed by Mr. Kellogg, the American Secretary of State, signed a treaty by which the signatory nations pledged themselves to renounce war as an instrument of national policy. I imagine that even the most enthusiastic supporter of the Kellogg Pact would hardly claim for it more than a certain moral value, and even that moral value has been reduced considerably by the reservations insisted upon both by the French and the British Governments. Fifty Notes had to be sent to and from Washington in order to accomplish even so little in the interests of peace, and it took Mr. Kellogg 12 months to remove the objections of the chief signatory Powers. I realise, of course, that in these matters concerning international agreements Governments cannot hurry. There are all sorts of difficulties to be overcome and all sorts of obstacles to be removed. But the Kellogg Pact was only one of a number of agreements. Is it to be wondered at that people become cynical and apathetic when they see these long-drawn-out negotiations yielding such very meagre results? After all, the people of this country are essentially a practical people, and they want to see practical results. They apply the practical test, and they are perfectly right to do so, for the real test of the value of an agreement such as the Kellogg Pact is, does it make real disarmament possible? Ultimately, that is the test by which the value of any such agreement will have to be judged.
    694
    I want to put a question to the Secretary of State. I want him to tell us what to-day is the real mind of the Government on this question of disarmament? Have the Government a disarmament policy? Does it regard disarmament to-day as practical politics? If it does not, I think it would be just as well for the Government to emulate the frankness of some of its own friends. Some months ago I read a leading article in the "Sunday Times" under the heading, "The Disarmament Phantasy." That article was written during the sittings of the Preparatory Conference at Geneva, and the "Sunday Times," in commenting on that Conference, said this:
    "This is the 5th Session and the 500th is not likely to find it any nearer its goal."
    The article concluded with the following:
    "The dream of disarmament or even of any universal agreement to limit arms, is as baseless as the dream of a universal religion."
    It can at least be said about that article that it was an honest view, frankly, if somewhat brutally, expressed. I want to ask whether in any sense that attitude represents the present view of the Government with regard to disarmament? For my part I would infinitely prefer the attitude expressed by the writer of that article to the attitude of those who are ready to pay lip service to disarmament, but who in their heart of hearts reject it as a wholly impracticable and unattainable ideal. I ask again, how does the Government regard disarmament? I shall be told, of course, that the Government is sincere in its desire to promote disarmament. Every other Government declares exactly the same thing, and every Government has been declaring that for the last 10 years. But nothing has happened up to now. Not all the conferences and pacts and agreements put together have really helped the world forward by a single step towards the realisation of a measure of disarmament. After all, in this matter deeds are much more impressive and convincing than declarations.
    There is certainly very little evidence of the sincerity of Governments in anything that has happened since the year 1918. As a matter of fact, we appear to-day to be living wholly in a world of unreality. Everybody pays lip service to the ideal of

    695
    disarmament. Governments pay lip service to the ideal. Yet every nation continues to perfect its machinery of slaughter at a vast and increasing public cost; new and formidable weapons of war are being devised, and more deadly instruments of annihilation than were employed in the last war are being prepared for the next war. The truth, I am afraid, is that every Government to-day is sceptical as to the possibilities of any real measure of disarmament. The Minister to-day made a claim. He said that while aerial expenditure was bounding up in other countries, in matters of aerial disarmament our own record is unassailable. I would like to know exactly what the Secretary of State means when he talks about aerial disarmament. The fact of the matter is that for years past the strength of our aerial service has been growing. The figures of that increase have been quoted to-day. They show a progressive increase in the strength of the Service. Is that what the Secretary of State means by aerial disarmament?
    I can find very little connection between the actual facts as they are known, and the claim of the Secretary of State that in matters of aerial disarmament our own record is unassailable. It is true that in comparison with certain other Powers our present expenditure on the Air Force is a low expenditure. That we have limited our expenditure, I am prepared at once to admit. But what is the reason for whatever limitation has up to now been imposed on aerial expenditure? It is not that we have sacrificed anything to peace; only that we have sacrificed something to economy. We have had a good many so-called disarmament conferences. As a matter of fact, those conferences have been economy conferences; they have been concerned with the question of how national Budgets might be lightened by a reduction in armament expenditure. But economy conferences are not disarmament conferences. We have yet to hold the first real conference for the purpose of considering the problem of disarmament.
    The Air Minister last year warned the people of this country of the inevitability of further increases of expenditure on the. Air Service. I am perfectly certain
    696
    that the Minister was right in giving that warning. It is true that this year there has been a small saving, but the Minister knows how inevitable further increases and developments in the Air Force are, provided that there continues to be an absence of international agreement to deal with the question of the limitation of aerial armaments. The question has been asked: Where is this kind of competition going to end? The answer is clear and definite. It will end as every race in armaments has ended, in war between the civilised nations of the world. The time has come when we ought to be prepared, boldly and frankly, to meet the facts of the situation. If disarmament is not a practical ideal, then let us continue to plan and prepare for war. Let the scientist and the inventor increase and multiply the powers of death and bring the mechanism of destruction to its highest point of efficiency. After that, let us resign ourselves, with what tranquillity we may, to the catastrophe that will sooner or later follow. No sensible man in this country wants war. Everybody views the possibility of it with dread and horror. War, under modern conditions, has become an extremely horrible and utterly inhuman thing.
    Yet I sometimes think that even the horrors of war are not so appalling as the stupidity of war. War, under modern conditions, is the last word in human folly and futility. It squanders wealth and life. It frustrates the work of social reform and strengthens every power of evil in the world, and, after all, its appalling waste and sacrifice settle absolutely nothing. War is an affront to reason and an affront to the moral sense of mankind. The effort to end war by making reason and good will effective through international agreements is one to which we should all be prepared to dedicate ourselves—Governments not least of all. I belong to a party which is sometimes accused of lacking the quality of patriotism. I do not admit the truth of the accusation. It is true that the view of patriotism and of what patriotism means and involves held by us may differ from the view of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But my patriotism at least impels me to wish for my country the best that is possible. It impels me to desire to see my country helping all good and righteous

    697
    causes, and, above all, to see this country take the lead among the nations in helping to prepare the way for the new international era, when peace, securely set upon her throne, may exercise dominion over the minds and hearts of men.
    10.0 p.m.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I should like, at the outset of my remarks, to congratulate the Mover of this Amendment on his very excellent maiden speech. I am very sorry that it was so eloquent, as I have to reply to it. In so far as the supporters of the Amendment have urged us to be willing to take our part in a scheme of all-round reduction of air armaments, or, better still, of armaments generally, they are forcing an open door. The Air Ministry does not yield either to the Army or the Navy in its desire to be associated with a general scheme of that kind. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Bellamy) drew a terrible picture of the effects of the bombing of a great city. One does not need to accept these pictures, very often highly coloured, which are drawn of the horrors of air warfare to admit that the possibilities of the air weapon are terrible, and that everything that can be done ought to be done to avoid these possibilities being realised. The Air Ministry is also concerned equally with the other Service Departments in the question of national economy, and would welcome a reduction in the Estimates. Even on that ground alone, the expenditure of from £120,000,000 to £130,000,000 a year on the defence services is a serious matter, and, although the Air Ministry's share of that expenditure is not a great one, we should be very glad to contribute to its decrease if we thought we could do so without endangering the national security.
    As a matter of fact, the Air Force is the last of the three Services which can be used as a peg on which to hang an Amendment of this kind. By that, I do not mean that either of the other two Services are proper for that purpose. All I am saying is that the Air Force is not suitable for such a purpose. Its record since the War shows that to be the case. I do not need to remind hon. Members that, drastic as have been the reductions made in the military and naval forces, the reduction in the Air Force has been even more drastic. From
    698
    being the first air Power in the world, we have sunk to the position of the fifth and that in spite of the fact that the advent of the air weapon has lost us our age-long security as an island nation, and has left the greatest city in the world more open to the dangers of air attack than any other of the capitals of Europe. This Amendment complains that the Government have failed to make any proposals for securing international agreement on the question of air disarmament. The simple and sufficient answer is that we have made such proposals. At the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament at Geneva a provisional formula for air disarmament has actually been reached and has been reached very largely on the British initiative. We set out from the start to advocate a simple clear-cut formula, namely, strength of first-line machines.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Has that formula been agreed?
    Sir P. SASSOON: We should have liked to have retained that very simple and easily intelligible formula, but, when the other nations were desirous of having samething rather more elaborate, we were only too ready to meet them and eventually agreed to a formula which is a combination of strength in first-line machines and horse-power of engines. The position, therefore, is that whereas no acceptable formula has been reached in the spheres of naval or military disarmament, a formula in the sphere of air armament has been reached and is ready for application; and it is due chiefly to this country that so much progress has been made. Once the method and principles to be applied have been agreed, there is little more that the Preparatory Commission can do; it is then for the Governments concerned to apply the agreed principle.
    I should like to say, and I should like to prove if I can, that this country is not the country which should necessarily take the first step in that direction, because no one could fairly say that Great Britain has ever shown the slightest intention of engaging in a race of air armaments, or indeed of going in for a race in armaments at all; but to-night we are discussing the Air Estimates, and so I will keep to them. As I have said, we have now sunk to the fifth place among the Air Powers of the world; but

    699
    that is not the whole story. We are the only nation which can show in the past five years a consistent reduction in our Estimates below the figure of the year 1925. Last year I gave the House detailed figures showing that our air expenditure in 1928 was over 10 per cent. below the 1925 figures. This year, for the first time since 1925, our gross Estimates show a slight increase, but our net figure shows a slight decrease. If one looks at the Estimates of the principal foreign Air Powers one finds a very different state of affairs. The Estimates of every one of the four Powers which come before us in comparative air strength show that in each year since 1925 there has been a very considerable increase upon their respective figures in 1925.
    I gave the House last year some detailed figures showing the really surprising scale upon which these increases are taking place. In the present year the United States and France are carrying the process of expansion still further. The precise figures, owing to the different methods of administration and budgetting, are difficult to ascertain quite accurately, but it is not at all difficult to discover that in each case a very substantial increase, ranging from 25 per cent. to 100 per cent. or more, over the 1925 figures, is taking place in the present year. Second on the list of the five strongest Air Powers comes the United States of America, the birthplace of the Peace Pact. In the Estimates for the present year they head the list of increases, with Estimates which will be more than double those for 1925.
    Commander BELLAIRS: They are not passed.
    Sir P. SASSOON: But the Estimates are presented.
    Commander BELLAIRS: They are presented, but they will not be passed.
    Sir P. SASSOON: The hon. and gallant Member knows that they will not pass; he has information which we have not got. France, the strongest Air Power in the world, is not very far behind with an increase of nearly 100 per cent. over her 1925 figures. The Italian figures for this year are not available, but the figure for each of the past three years has remained steady
    700
    at a substantial increase over the 1925 figure. The original Italian programme of air expansion provided for the ultimate attainment of a first line force of 1,600 machines which is twice our present strength, and there is no reason to believe that that programme has been in any way modified. A rough but sufficiently accurate calculation indicates that the United States, France and Italy are all allocating substantially larger proportions of their total national expenditure to air development than is this country.
    Even to-day our ratio of Air strength in terms of first-line machines as against France is approximately 8 to 13. Yet only a few weeks ago the French Air Minister, in the Chamber, when introducing his Estimates, said that he intended to proceed with a programme which would increase the number of French squadrons from the present number of some 150 squadrons to the truly formidable figure of 201 squadrons. In face of these figures it is scarcely reasonable that this country should be the first to cut down still further its scanty provision of machine.
    Mr. BELLAMY: Nobody is asking that.
    Sir P. SASSOON: It would be more reasonable for hon. Members to complain that we are not paying enough attention to the Air risks and Air responsibilities of our Empire. I know that I should find that kind of attack far more difficult to meet.
    Mr. BELLAMY: Is there anything of that kind in the Amendment?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The Amendment is a disarmament Amendment, and I am trying to show what we have done in the way of disarmament, and how we compare with other countries.
    Mr. MALONE: Excuse my interrupting, but the Under-Secretary of State for Air has misinterpreted the argument of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. He says that we want to cut down the Air Forces without other Air Forces being cut down, but the Amendment clearly says that the Government should take steps to secure an international agreement on the question of Air disarmament, which is quite a different matter.
    Sir P. SASSOON: The Mover of the Amendment said in the course of his speech that if only our representatives at Geneva had been able to go there with a gesture saying, "We have been able to cut down our Air Force," the situation would have been greatly improved.
    I was saying that it would be more difficult to meet an attack that we were not paying enough attention to our Air responsibilities as far as our Empire was concerned. The only way in which we could meet such an attack would be by stating the fact—which I am happy to say is a fact—that man for man and machine for machine our Air Force can more than stand comparison with the Air Force of any other country in the world. I wonder whether the Mover of this Amendment really believes that if this House were to decide this very evening to scrap the whole of our Air Force, the result would be to induce any foreign nation to delay the construction of a single aeroplane. I think, on the other hand, that such a decision would far more probably result in a further expansion in the Estimates of neighbouring Powers, who would see themselves deprived of the support which in certain circumstances they might think they were able to rely upon from the British Air Forces.
    It might be laid down as an axiom in all questions of international disarmament that the Power which is strongest in the weapon concerned is the one which can put forward proposals for reductions with the greatest hope that its proposals will be accepted, and without fearing that with each reduction which it makes in its own forces without inducing others to follow its example, it is lessening its chance of realising its aim. The history of our own action in the sphere of Naval armaments is a proof of this axiom, and is conclusive, I think, against the possibility of our taking the next step in any question of Air disarmament. As a matter of fact, as I have already pointed out, we have already set an example in the reduction of Air armaments, which, if there were anything in the arguments which have periodically been put forward by Members opposite, ought to have succeeded already in checking the remarkable expansion which is going on in the Air Forces of other Powers. For four years our Air Estimates have been
    702
    stationary or have decreased, amid general increases all round us.
    We have not even yet completed the scheme of expansion for our home defence which was laid down in 1923. In that year, hon. Members will remember, owing to public anxiety with regard to our weakness in the air, a scheme for the expansion of our home defences was drawn up, after very long and careful examination of the question. That scheme was for the creation by 1928 of a force of 52 squadrons, and entailed an annual increase of £5,500,000 over a period of five years. That scheme was approved by the Government of the day and by hon. Members opposite, but it has not been carried out. Its completion was first of all put off till 1930, and it was then still further deferred. Surely we might reasonably have expected that, if example was all that was needed, our action in this respect might have been reflected in the Air Estimates of other Powers. I believe that our gross Estimates to-day are within £1,000,000 or less of the sum at which they stood when that scheme was introduced. We are spending to day less than two-thirds of the sum for which the United States of America are making provision in this coming year.
    It is true that, in spite of the postponement of the completion of our home defence scheme and the reductions in our Estimates year by year, we have been able to make some progress, and the fact that we should have been able to do so reflects great credit on the Air Ministry, but we are still 21 squadrons below our 1923 scheme, and the responsibilities of the Air Force have increased. The Air Force has undertaken new responsibilities in many spheres abroad, in Aden, in Iraq, in Transjordan, in Palestine, and in India, and, as has been said to-day, there was a remarkable achievement at Kabul recently when nearly 600 men, women and children were evacuated without a single casualty. In undertaking all these extended responsibilities and carrying them out, they have saved great expenditure to the Exchequer. By careful economies and organisation we have been able to make some additions to our first line strength and to re-equip all, or nearly all, our squadrons with up-to-date machines.
    I do not think anyone is going to suggest that, because we have been able,

    703
    without increasing our Estimates, to create an efficient Air Force within the resources at our disposal, that fact can be said to have been the cause in any way of the remarkable increases in foreign Air Estimates, or that cur action in any way constitutes a threat to any other nation. On the contrary, the true position is rather different. We alone, among all the great Air Powers, have not only postponed our home defence scheme, but for years have steadily reduced our Estimates. We have done this, despite the fact that the position of our Empire and its needs show more opportunity for the use of air power than do those of any other nation. What reasonable likelihood, therefore, is there that, by any further postponement of our home defence scheme or by any reduction in our Estimates, we shall cause any other nation or air Power to change its policy? The policy of those nations depends on quite other considerations.
    If that defence scheme is to be proceeded with, it will in years to come entail further increases in the Air Estimates. We have not got to bother about that to-night. But if and when that time comes hon. Members who are now asking that we should reduce our Estimates still further will have to reflect on the results of the lead we have already given to other nations in the last five years, and weigh against those results the responsibility which this House has of ensuring the safety of our people against the horrors of air attack.
    The concluding sentence of the Amendment advocates the international control of civil aviation. That proposal was also made last year, and I think the House was then satisfied with the arguments advanced against it. The situation has not changed since then, and the arguments presented then still hold good. It must be remembered that the air transport companies of Europe are not State owned. They are commercial enterprises and the difficulties in the way of inter-nationalising them would really be insuperable. Moreover, if by some miracle, those difficulties could be overcome, the object which hon. Members opposite seek to obtain would still be no nearer, because in order to meet the needs of the nations concerned the machines would still at any given
    704
    time be located in centres and at aerodromes as they are to-day, and it would be no more difficult than it would be to-day for any ill-disposed country to commandeer all the machines in its territory and put them to any military use which was desired.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Will the hon. Baronet explain to the House whether the application of the agreed formula of disarmament alters in any way the present relative strengths of the forces of Great Britain and other countries?
    Sir P. SASSOON: It is only the categories of comparison which have been settled, and not the numbers.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the addition of horse power mean that civil aeroplanes will be counted as military aeroplanes?
    Sir P. SASSOON: No.
    Mr. DALTON: From two points of view, the hon. Baronet has made a somewhat alarming speech. In the first place, he painted a rather serious picture of the insecurity of this country from the point of view of its aerial defence by comparison with the Air Forces of other countries. I will say a word about that in a moment. In the second place, he made a rather alarming speech in the sense that he seems to suggest that His Majesty's Government are quite unaware of certain very grave risks inherent in the present situation and in the competitive development, of which he himself spoke, of the Air Forces of other countries. As I listened to the figures given to us of the increases in the strength of the Air Forces of the United States, France, Italy and other countries, and as I heard the hon. Baronet referring to home defence, I had a feeling that if in reality the position be as serious as he suggests, there is no possibility of a substantial defence, either for us or any other great Power, threatened with air attack. I read the other day a very interesting speech made by Lord Halsbury, who held a high staff appointment during the War. He repeated as recently as 6th December, in a conference on disarmament held in connection with the League of Nations Union, a statement which I had heard made before and which, if it be still true, is exceedingly serious. He was dealing with the development of German civil aviation

    705
    and the possibility of its being converted to military uses; but the same argument would apply equally to France or any other Power. He said:
    "It seems to me the only possible solution is to have enough force in this country so that, if Germany were to attack London and obliterate it, we should have enough force to make reprisals on Germany."
    I want to couple that statement with one other remark:
    "We must get a campaign of publicity, so that all the public in every country shall know that if there is an attack by one country it means the obliteration of the capital cities of both."
    Does it simply mean that if we happen to be engaged in war with another country that London would be blown to pieces and reduced to a mass of poisoned ruins, while our defence force would be carrying out similar destructive operations in Berlin, Rome, or Moscow? As far as I have read the judgment of experts on this question they are to the effect that there is no possible defence against a mass attack from the air with poisoned bombs and so on. The Air Force upon which such a large sum of money is being spent by this country is a complete bluff because it is not a defence force at all but a counter offensive force. We are to ruin the cities and towns of other countries in the same way as they are going to ruin our own. We are not getting much satisfaction for the large sums of money we are being asked to spend upon the Air Force. I think the Secretary of State for Air himself has admitted that there is no effective defence against air attacks on a large scale.
    May I put this consideration before the House? During the last War there were many interesting Debates in this House upon the progress of the War and the possible conditions under which it might be terminated in regard to the terms of peace. In the next war between highly equipped European Powers such discussions will be impossible because this House will go up in smoke soon after the declaration of war, and if Parliament does continue its deliberations it will have to seek some sylvan retreat in the provinces. In the next war the main shock of the air attack by the enemy will determine the issue of the war soon after its opening, and there
    706
    will be a greater mass of casualties amongst the civilian population than was achieved by four years of military operations in the last War. General Groves and other experts have been quoted to-day, and it cannot be contended that these are mere dealers in melodrama. They know what they are talking about, and when they paint such a picture of the possibilities of another war between powerful national States and tell us that it will be fought mostly in the air, it cannot be denied that they are dealing with matters well within their knowledge.
    The Government typifies a nation which is, as it were, walking in its sleep, striking matches in the neighbourhood of high explosives without realising what it is doing. Supposing every word of what the Secretary of State for Air has said is true and that the picture which has been drawn is as black as it has been painted. Does it not follow that we should be in a stronger position if we took steps to get the representatives of the nations together to come to some decision in regard to this question of disarmament? It is all very well to say that the Disarmament Commission agreed upon a certain formula for the number of machines in the first line and their horse power with no figures filled in. Can it be said on behalf of the Government that they have proposed any big scheme of disarmament or that they have endeavoured to push the whole thing to a concrete conclusion?
    I have read some of the reports of the proceedings of the Preparatory Disarmament Commission, and the impression I have formed as regards naval, military and air force discussions is that the Government were not really pushing forward at all in this matter, that they were sitting still, letting other people make the running, and, in a great number of detailed cases, raising obstructions and difficulties about matters which were clearly of comparatively small importance. For example, it was proposed by the French that we should put a limitation also upon air effectives, upon aircraft in reserve, and upon military expenditure on aircraft. On all of these three points our representatives obstructed, and refused to agree to what were, as it seems to me, reasonable proposals. It is true that in the end

    707
    this partial, empty formula was arrived at which the hon. Baronet so greatly prizes.
    I submit that the whole course of the proceedings was such as to indicate that His Majesty's Government were not in earnest about the matter, did not seriously and earnestly desire disarmament, and regarded the whole thing as an academic and unimportant matter. It is against that attitude of mind that we have brought forward this Amendment. The Amendment has been either gravely misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented by the hon. baronet. It is not a proposal for unilateral disarmament; it does not suggest that we should reduce our own Air Force regardless of what is done by other nations. It expresses regret that His Majesty's Government have not made proposals for securing international agreement. I submit that the proposals which they have made are feeble and partial proposals, and that a great part of their activities has been directed towards blocking the proposals of other people, instead of putting forward proposals of their own. We express regret that they have not made greater international efforts to bring in these other great nations who are building up these powerful air forces, and we urge them to take the initiative in proposing, not a programme of unilateral disarmament, but a programme to which, if they were sufficiently persuasive in the Conference, other nations might give their assent.
    We have put down this Amendment because a very large mass of opinion in the country outside is sick and tired of the obstruction and self-excuse which is continually going on with regard to this question of disarmament. Whatever the hon. Baronet may say in this House, whatever other spokesmen of the Government may say in this House, the truth remains that people outside are getting sick and tired of the inactivity, passivity and obstruction which they believe to exist in this Government in relation to expenditure on armaments. I regret, as previous speakers have, that we have to discuss these matters in water-tight compartments, that there is no opportunity for reviewing the whole problem of military, naval and air policy under one heading, such as should be afforded in an intelligent distribution of the business of this House. Therefore, we are making the best we can of such partial opportunities as come to us, and on this occasion, in view of the fact that the Air Ministry is on its trial and is bringing its estimates before the House, we put down this Amendment. We are exceedingly dissatisfied with the reply that has been made from the Front Bench opposite, and shall certainly carry the Amendment to a Division.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 65.

    Division No. 262.]

    AYES.

    [10.36 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Albery, Irving James

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Couper, J. B.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hanbury, C.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Bevan, S. J.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Harland, A.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Ellis, R. G.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Hills, Major Join Waller

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

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

    Burman, J. B.

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Burney, Lieut. Com. Charles D.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Gates, Percy

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Christie, J. A.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Goff, Sir Park

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Hurst, Sir Gerald

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Oakley, T.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Templeton, W. P.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Ramsden, E.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

    Renter, J. R.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    MacAndrew Major Charles Glen

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    McLean, Major A.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Ropner, Major L.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Ross, R. D.

    Wells, S. R.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Meller, R. J.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Womersley, W. J.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Wragg, Herbert

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Savery, S. S.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Smithers, Waldron

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    NOES.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Potts, John S.

    Barr, J.

    Hardie, George D.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hayes, John Henry

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Bellamy, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bromley, J.

    Kennedy, T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kenworthy, Lt Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawson, John James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Taylor R. A.

    Dalton, Hugh

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Day, Harry

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Viant, S. P.

    Dennison, R.

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Duncan, C.

    Maxton, James

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Edge, Sir William

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

    Windsor, Walter

    Gardner, J. P.

    Motley, Sir Oswald

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Owen, Major G.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

    NUMBER OF AIR FORCE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 32,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."
    Commander BELLAIRS: Early in the afternoon my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) made a very incisive speech which aroused the interest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and will, I have no doubt, be of interest to
    710
    the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip to-morrow when they read it. He came down from great personages to myself and said that I was in favour of doing away with the Air Force. That is rather a crude way of putting it. I am in favour, like he is, of the co-ordination of our Fighting Forces to prevent overlapping. I happen to think that the best method of doing it is by merging the Air Force into the Army and the Navy and handing over civil aviation to the Board of Trade just as the Mercantile Marine is controlled by the Board of Trade. I think that in so delicate a force as the Air Force, which can only operate in fine weather and by day with certainty, with about 250 miles of bombing range, it is a very difficult matter indeed to adjust things so that we can save expenditure, as I believe we

    711
    can, by substituting the Air Force for coast defence and the Air Force on occasions to get rid of the use of cruisers. It can only be done by merging them into those forces. I can give two instances of the unfortunate effect of the present arrangement. One is the bombing accident which took place in India. That accident was clearly due to want of co-ordination between the Army and the Air Force. There is also the question of the staff college. That college was built after the War was over, and it ought to have been built at Camberley, but the Air Force removed it as far as possible from the soldiers. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) challenged me once again on the question of bombing squadrons.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the hon. and gallant Member to go a little too far already. He must not attempt to answer in Committee speeches which were made in the House.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I recognise that that is so. I will not reply to the hon. and gallant Member now, but will wait until the Navy Estimates. He is much more successful than I am in rambling in debate. He is the crimson rambler of debate. I will speak generally. The hon. Members who represent the Air Force have no conception of relative costs. The Master of Sempill said, the other day, that we could get 500 bombing planes for the cost of one battleship. A bombing squadron is the unit of the Air Force. The Air Force has no other fighting unit. For an expenditure of £19,000,000 gross, the Air Force is going to get 82 squadrons. If we divide 82 squadrons into £19,000,000, we get a cost for each squadron of £230,000. I heard to-day that the cost of a battleship is £500,000 a year, whereas the cost of a bombing squadron is £230,000 a year. What rubbish it is to say that we can get 500 bombing planes for the cost of one battleship.
    For every two squadrons in existence, we can only get one squadron into the air at a time. We cannot put the whole Air Force into the air at the same time, and it is a very liberal allowance to say that one bombing squadron out of two can be put into the air at once. Sir
    712
    Hugh Trenchard has estimated that the wastage of aeroplanes in war will not amount to the 30 per cent. per annum wastage in peace time, but to 80 per cent. in the first month of the war. The aeroplanes will waste away at the rate of 80 per cent. per month. We can, therefore, well understand what tremendous wastage there is in aeroplanes in time of war. The Under-Secretary of State for Air gave some very remarkable figures about the United States. The actual expenditure of the United States for the financial year 1928–29 was £12,929,000 for the Army and the Navy combined. That compares with our £19,000,000, when we have deducted the cost of civil aviation. We now know, for the firs; time, the official figures of the French expenditure. The French expenditure, after deducting civil aviation, is a little more than £13,000,000. Here we have the remarkable fact that for a little more than £13,000,000 the French get something like twice or three time? as much strength as we do. I would like to know what the Secretary of State for Air has to say on that point.
    One hon. Member suggested that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should take part in this Debate. Had the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs taken part in this Debate and introduced these Estimates, I can imagine him saying that he had negotiated the Locarno Pact, and had got rid of two possible enemies, France and Germany, the only two countries that are within bombing distance of this country and that therefore, we had no risks from either of those two countries. Then he would have told us that the Cabinet bad given directions to the fighting Departments that for ten years they were not to anticipate any outbreak of war. They had a period of assured peace from 1926. I draw attention to that because there is no relation between civil expenditure and war expenditure, as far as I can see. Nearly all of it, under a war Ministry goes to war expenditure, and not to civil flying. That would not happen if we took away civil flying from the Air Ministry. I do not think that this is a matter for the Committee of Defence.
    We ought now, after eleven years of the Air Ministry, to have a general stocktaking inquiry. We have had inquiries into the Admiralty in the past and inquiries

    713
    into the War Office; but we have had no inquiry of a public character into this question of the Air Ministry. There have been private inquiries, but no inquiry of a public character. We want to look into this question of subsidies which has been raised by more than one speaker to-day. Subsidies are now paid to Imperial Airways at the rate of £18,750 per aeroplane. After 11 years we have only 20 commercial aeroplanes, a number which will be increased to 24 when we have established the new routes. When one remembers the forecasts of 11 years ago about freight-carrying aeroplanes, the results are simply ludicrous. The Air Ministry obscures them by giving us figures in ton-miles. We are told that the aeroplanes carry as many as 147,000 ton-miles in a year. That represents a mere wagon load carried a certain mileage. Compare this with the railways, which carry 18,332,000,000 ton-miles in this country in a year. And when you come to sea carriage you have 40 times as much carried by sea as you have by the railways. The passenger subsidy amounts to about £14 per passenger, whereas the railways carry people to Paris for nothing. Now we stipulate, in this new contract that the Air Minister has made, for 425,000,000 horse-power miles on European routes. I ask the Air Minister: What on earth is the good of a stipulation of that character? Where is the gain? In the year 1926, the Imperial Airways went 549,000,000 horse-power miles. Why then, have we come down to a minimum of 425,000,000 horse-power miles? To my mind, the only remedy is to hand over civil flying to the Board of Trade, and subsidise only for services rendered. That is the method we have invariably adopted in the past, except when we got panicky about American ships, and gave subsidies for the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania."
    We have the enormous advantage of an Empire land service as well and ought to be supreme in civil aviation. We have the best inventors, the best mechanics, and our people have such a natural genius for aviation that it is quite true that we possess the safest civil aviation in the world. The insurance rates on British planes prove that, they are insured at a much less rate than foreign planes; and they carry more passengers because they are regarded by the passengers as being safer. Our planes each
    714
    carry 6.64 passengers, while foreign planes carry 3.68. Had we applied the same policy to the railways the War Office would have controlled them. The great Duke of Wellington opposed the construction of the Portsmouth to London railway on the ground that it would facilitate invasion. If the Mercantile Marine had been put under the control of the Admiralty do hon. Members think we should have succeeded in rearing up the great Mercantile Marine we now have? Of course we should not; and we shall not have the chance of rearing civil aviation as long as it is associated with a military department. I want to read to the Committee what the Coolidge-Morrow Committee said in regard to this matter. It was a very influential Committee and heard a great deal of evidence. They reported:
    "To put civil aviation under a military department is to make the same mistake the world believed Germany to have made."
    That is to say, that she subordinated civil interests to military policy. They further said:
    "The union of civil and military air activities would breed distrust in every region to which commercial aviation sought extensions."
    That is clear proof, I think, of one of the great dangers of associating civil aviation with a war Ministry. As it is getting late I do not propose to detain the Committee any further. The Minister for Air will not be able to deal with gas bombs on London and all the rubbish that is talked nowadays of wiping out London, but let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman. You judge a tree by its fruits, and by its failure to give us a sufficient force for the money, and its failure in civil aviation, the Air Ministry stands condemned as an extravagant Department.
    Sir S. HOARE: My hon. and gallant Friend has never disguised his dislike of the Air Ministry and all its works. I have known him make the same speech three or four times before—
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And we have heard you make the same speech three or four times before.
    11.0 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: At this late hour all I will say to him is this, that it is a significant fact that in the last few months France, a country which had no

    715
    independent Air Ministry and was at one time stronger than any other country in the world, has recently adopted an organisation almost exactly like our own. That makes me think that we are not quite so bad as my hon. and gallant Friend thinks we are. When it comes to a comparison of the expenditure of this country and that of other countries, while it is very difficult to get comparable figures I do not think that any impartial investigator would arrive at the kind of conclusion at which my hon. and gallant Friend has arrived. He says that the Air Force costs more here than in other countries, but if he applied that kind of comparison to the Army or the Navy he would find the difference very much what it is between our Air Force and Continental Air Forces.
    As to his further comments about dividing the Air Ministry into three parts, I must speak with care, because beside me are the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary, and it is to these colleagues that he would transfer civil aviation. I can only say that in the early days of flying it is much better to have all these branches of aviation—military, naval and civil—concentrated in one department. I believe that it is more economical, and I am certain that it is more efficient. I believe that, however many justifiable criticisms hon. Members may find against my administration of the Air Ministry, we have laid our foundations firmly, and proof of that is the fact that other Governments have built upon them.

    PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,323,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

    WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND LANDS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,700,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."
    Mr. KELLY: With regard to the item of lights, do I understand that part of the cost of the beacon light at Orford-ness is to be taken out of the general lighthouse fund which is under the control of Trinity House?
    Sir S. HOARE: I think that that item comes under the Vote "Technical Equipment and War Stores." The cost is defrayed by the Board of Trade and the Air Ministry combined. The Air Ministry makes a contribution towards it, as both the Departments are equally concerned?
    Mr. KELLY: Then this must have the approval of Trinity House?
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not think there is any difference of opinion between the Board of Trade and the Air Ministry and Trinity House. As far as I know Trinity House have already given their approval.

    TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORKS (INCLUDING EXPERIMENTAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES).
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,585,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

    CIVIL AVIATION.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £450,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1980."
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  POOR LAW RELIEF (GOVAN).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I desire to raise a question of which I gave notice to-day, concerning the Govan Parish Council. To-day, I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he had refused to allow the parish council to increase the payment

  717
  to the children of able-bodied unemployed from 2s. to 3s. 6d. I wish the right hon. Gentleman were in his place to-night, because I have seldom in my Parliamentary life known of a more evasive answer than that which he gave me. It was more a trick than an answer. Instead of stating whether he favoured or disagreed with this decision, the right hon. Gentleman said he had given a certain answer on a certain date, but that answer had no relation to this matter at all, because the Govan Parish Council came to this decision on a date subsequent to the date of the question referred to being put in the House.
  I will be as brief as I can, but I want to relate the history of the position. The Govan Parish Council were elected in the month of November. Shortly after the election, the Labour members of the parish council raised the question of increasing the amount which was then allowed for the children. May I briefly state the position? A few years ago the Govan Parish Council allowed the able-bodied unemployed a few shillings extra in addition to the amount allowed by the Employment Exchange. That amount was stopped owing to a circular from the Scotish Office. Now the parish council say: "After we have seen the children, and with an intimate knowledge of the conditions under which these children are living, we think it desirable, on reviewing the whole position, that the amount should be raised from 2s. to 3s. 6d."
  I want to put this to the Members of this House: The average family in Govan of an applicant of this kind is three children, with the mother and father; that is to say, five all told. At the present time, the total income which the five receive is 29s. I am not exaggerating when I say that the average rent of a family of that kind is 7s. a week. That must be paid, and it leaves them 22s. out of which to find coal, clothes, and every human necessity which one can picture in one's mind. The Govan Parish Council is not a Labour body. If my memory serves me rightly, there are 31 members, or about that number, and out of the 31 only one-third are Labour members. The majority do not follow a calling at all. But so strong is the case which the Labour movement put up about the terrible distress prevalent
  718
  in the area that even the moderate members of that council, or most of them—I say it to their credit—decided to try to raise the standard of life by increasing the amount from 2s. to 3s. 6d.
  The Under-Secretary some time ago, in a reply to the hon. Member (for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton), said that he was concerned with the bodily or physical welfare of the children. I want to put this to him: Is the increase proposed by the Govan Parish Council from 29s. 6d. to 33s. 6d. for five persons an excessive increase? Does 29s. allow of the purchase of the full nourishment due to a growing family of young children? The evasion with which I met—I hope I shall not get it to-night—is this. They said: "If you will bring us a certain case of starving people, we will make inquiries." I must respectfully suggest to the Secretary of State for Scotland that that is not the issue. The issue is that the body charged with the administration of the Act, viewing the conditions of the children, seeing their physical state, seeing their degree of comfort and seeing their homes, came to the deliberate conclusion, after reviewing all that, that 2s. was not good enough to enable them to maintain physical decency or to live at anything like the standard which was desired. That is the issue. It is not whether a child is actually dying of starvation, but that a body, the majority of whom are Tories, reviewing the position, came to the decision that 29s. for a family of five did not allow sufficient to give them bodily comfort. This refusal cannot be made because the rates are going to be increased, for only yesterday we granted to 230 people a gift of £27,000. If 230 well-paid men can get that from the rates, surely it is not asking too much that poor people may get a proportionally less sum than has been given to these rich people.
  To-day I understand the Glasgow Town Council have given the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland the freedom of the City. If it is not agreed to, it is certainly recommended by a committee. He is going down there to accept the freedom, and he ought to do something worthy of that great honour. I know of nothing nobler or greater that he could do to earn that freedom than to see that the children of Govan are given at least a minimum

  719
  of food, clothing and shelter. Is it not better that he should earn the freedom of the city by giving the decencies of life to children than by giving a grant to house factors, as occurred yesterday? I have been asked time and time again to bring forward a case that is dying of starvation; but I say that the 29s. does not allow of a decent minimum standard.
  I remember that when the unemployment scale was much less than it is today, the Government of that day did not say, "Bring us a starving person before we increase it." They said, "Make out the general case that it is not enough, and we will increase it." That is the position that I put to-night, that the body entrusted with this work came to a deliberate conclusion upon the matter, and if the Secretary of State believes in the democratic liberty of local authorities, I ask him to allow the local authorities to treat the children as even his political friends want to do.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): I am indebted to the hon. Member for the temperate and brief way in which he has put the case which he is advancing for the consideration of the House tonight, and I have, in the first place, to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland regrets that he is not able to be here himself to-night. As the House knows, he has only recently recovered from an illness, and it has been an exceptionally trying week with the long debates on the Rating Bill that have taken place. It is only for reasons of health that he is not here to discuss the matter across the Floor of the House with my hon. Friend. The case which the hon. Member has put seems to me to require some further explanation than the House has yet heard. It is not within the power of the Secretary of State for Scotland to limit in any way whatsoever the scales of relief given by any of the parish authorities of Scotland out of their own money. That is the first point that I would ask the hon. Member to admit.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: They borrow money.
  Major ELLIOT: That is another point. The suggestion is that the parish of Govan is spending borrowed money in this case, but it is only in so far as it
  720
  borrows that it has to come to the Secretary of State or the Department of Health to ask for any sanction whatever to the scale of relief which it is paying. That is the first point in the case. Secondly, he spoke of the poor children of Glasgow, but the parish of Govan is a portion of the City of Glasgow, and not a large portion at that. The major portion of the City of Glasgow is in the parish of Glasgow, 660,000 strong. His own constituency is in the parish of Glasgow.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: No, mine is in the parish of Govan.
  Major ELLIOT: The constituencies of many hon. Members opposite are in the parish of Glasgow.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: But mine is not in Glasgow.
  Major ELLIOT: I apologise to the hon. Member, but constituencies in which there is as great distress as there is in any portion of the City lie in Glasgow Parish.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: But to the miners' children in Glasgow, through the Miners' Relief Fund, you are allowing this scale.
  Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member knows that it is out of no brutality or carelessness or hardheartccness—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Why differentiate?
  Major ELLIOT: Let me develop my argument. The parish of Glasgow, 660,000 strong, has also a democratic parish council, which council is spending its own money and is under no restraint whatever by the Secretary of State. That parish council is there to determine what scale of relief it pleases, and it has not asked that this increase should be made. That seems to me to knock the bottom out of the case advanced by the hon. Member. There are two portions of Glasgow, the larger and the smaller—the larger portion spending its own money and the smaller portion desiring to spend borrowed money. The larger portion covers the major part of the city, including distressed areas where it is just as necessary to keep up the health of the poor children as it is in the areas in the parish of Govan. That parish council, democratically elected,

  721
  would have no difficulty in suggesting an increase in the scale of relief, but suggested no such increase.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: It has never been raised in the Committee since the Election. The chaps are waiting to get a chance.
  Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member now agrees with me.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: It has never been raised. It has never been turned down.
  Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member agrees with me that the subject of increasing the scale in Glasgow parish has not been brought forward. He must not attempt to ride off on the point that it has not been brought forward yet. This matter has not arisen since the Election. It has been within the power of the Glasgow Parish Council to raise it for months and, indeed, for years past. The hon. Member says, what is the justification for the scale laid down by the Secretary of State? I would not attempt-to justify it on any other ground except simply this ground—that it is a scale similar to the scale which, across an imaginary line, is being administered by a democratically elected body without the suggestion of a shadow of control from the central department.
  To follow out the history of the scheme very briefly. The suggested scheme was brought forward for the consideration of the local authorities because there had been a reduction in the cost-of-living figure of 24 per cent., and a reduction in the scale amounting to no more than 12 per cent. was suggested by the Board of Health. That scale is not a driving scale imposed upon poor authorities by the ipse dixit of the Secretary of State. That is a scale which in one great city after another is laid down without any suggestion of compulsion by the Board of Health. It is the scale in Glasgow, and in many of the adjacent industrial parishes, and the scale for Dundee and for Aberdeen. When all those authorities are administering that scale, there is at least a prima facie case for saying it is not an unreasonable one for Govan Parish Council. But I am far from suggesting that that is a desirable scale on which to expect any Scots family to exist, and the numbers on poor relief are undoubtedly one of the great blots upon
  722
  our civilisation, but we have to deal with the facts as we find them and with the scales laid down by the democratically-elected bodies dealing with this specific problem.
  These people have an equal regard for the relief of the poor as those bodies across the imaginary line. The difficulty of dealing with the scale of relief is undoubted. You have to consider a great number of factors. I would not say that this scale was adequate. I say that we must investigate the circumstances of the case, and if you have an authority covering 660,000 persons laying down a certain scale of relief, we are entitled to say that the adjacent authority which desires a higher scale of relief ought to bring forward some suggestion to the central department to show why that scale, which is admitted by the authority for the parish of Glasgow, is not enough for the parish of Govan.
  The position in Scotland is different from that in England. In Scotland a poor person has an appeal to the Department if the relief he or she is receiving is inadequate. They can bring up their dependants in order to show that the relief is inadequate. A person has the right to go before the central department and show that the scale of relief is inadequate. I quite agree that these factors have caused many hard cases. We have on more than one occasion examined and revised the circumstances in which this relief was being given. We have not had any cases of this kind brought to our notice; I do not say cases of starvation, but where there is serious deficiency in the nutrition of families on these scales.
  Mr. MAXTON: I object very strongly to my hon. and gallant Friend's argument. I want to ask him if he has not been conducting an experiment as to the improvement of physique by the addition of one pint of milk per day to the ordinary diet? That is a very interesting experiment, from which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been getting wonderful results. I would only point out that what he is approving for Govan parish would give one pint of milk a day as the whole diet.
  Major ELLIOT: The question there was not merely one of persons on poor relief receiving an inadequate diet. Our investigations seemed to show, with

  723
  respect to this extra milk feeding, that, as far as one could see, the whole school population of Scotland would be improved by the increased diet, but there is no suggestion here that the whole population of Scotland should be dealt with under these relief scales. The facts are simply these: A reduction of 24 per cent. in the cost of living led to the Department introducing a scale representing a reduction of 12 per cent., and that reduction was enforced only in the case of authorities which were borrowing. That scale is not less than the scale given by adjacent authorities, which are perfectly free to increase it if necessary. On these facts we say the onus on those desiring the higher scale is to prove that that higher scale is necessary, and neither from the hon. Member nor any other hon. Member, nor the parish council themselves, nor from our own investigations on the subject has the Department had the evidence that would be necessary if it were desirable to bring about the result the hon. Member requires, namely an increase in the scale from 2s. to 3s. 6d.
  Mr. MACLEAN: If the right hon. Gentleman's Department has made the investigation which he says justifies them in taking up the attitude they are doing with regard to Govan parish, why is it that he has taken up several minutes in making his statement and has never anything from the investigations they have made into specific cases? I know Govan. I was born and brought up in it. I have lived in it practically all my life and I represent the Govan Division myself. I want to put this to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The reason why Govan parish is spending borrowed money to-day is that the unemployment which struck Glasgow hit the Parish of Govan first, in the shipbuilding centres on the Clyde, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, or ought to know, very well, and, consequently, he is not making any point by trying to suggest—
  It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  BENEFIT, GARSTON.
  BENEFIT, GARSTON.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).
  BRITISH ARMY (SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSIONS).
  BRITISH ARMY (SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSIONS).
  WAR DEPARTMENT INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYES (HOLIDAYS).
  WAR DEPARTMENT INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYES (HOLIDAYS).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL EXPLOSION.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL EXPLOSION.
  IRON AND STEEL TRADE (PIG-IRON, IMPORT).
  IRON AND STEEL TRADE (PIG-IRON, IMPORT).
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  MAIL SERVICE, ISLE OF MAN.
  MAIL SERVICE, ISLE OF MAN.
INDIA.
  DISTURBANCES, CALCUTTA.
  DISTURBANCES, CALCUTTA.
  ROAD DEVELOPMENT.
  ROAD DEVELOPMENT.
  CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE.
  CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE.
MEXICO.
  FOREIGN DEBT.
  FOREIGN DEBT.
  REVOLT (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  REVOLT (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  PASSPORTS AND VISAS (FEES, AMERICAN VISITORS).
  PASSPORTS AND VISAS (FEES, AMERICAN VISITORS).
  GERMAN ARMOURED VESSELS.
  GERMAN ARMOURED VESSELS.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  PETROL (COST).
  PETROL (COST).
  REGISTERED CIVIL AIRCRAFT.
  REGISTERED CIVIL AIRCRAFT.
  AIR SERVICE, WEST INDIES.
  AIR SERVICE, WEST INDIES.
  SCHNEIDER TROPHY (VISITING TEAMS, HOSPITALITY).
  SCHNEIDER TROPHY (VISITING TEAMS, HOSPITALITY).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (SIZE OF CLASSES).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (SIZE OF CLASSES).
  FORESTRY COMMISSION (EMPLOYES).
  FORESTRY COMMISSION (EMPLOYES).
  OFFICE OF WORKS (BUNGALOWS, SALE).
  OFFICE OF WORKS (BUNGALOWS, SALE).
  PRISON SERVICE (OVERTIME).
  PRISON SERVICE (OVERTIME).
  ELECTORAL LAW (VOTERS, CONVEYANCES).
  ELECTORAL LAW (VOTERS, CONVEYANCES).
  TRAFFIC CONTROL, LONDON.
  TRAFFIC CONTROL, LONDON.
  EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES (FEES).
  EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES (FEES).
  CRANES (SAFETY REGULATIONS).
  CRANES (SAFETY REGULATIONS).
  DRUNKENNESS (STATISTICS, LONDON).
  DRUNKENNESS (STATISTICS, LONDON).
  SMALL-POX AND INFLUENZA.
  SMALL-POX AND INFLUENZA.
HOUSING.
  ARREARS OF RENT.
  ARREARS OF RENT.
  CONDEMNED DWELLINGS.
  CONDEMNED DWELLINGS.
  SLUMS.
  SLUMS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING (SOMERSET).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING (SOMERSET).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BRITISH EMPLOYES).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BRITISH EMPLOYES).
  INFECTIOUS DISEASES HOSPITAL, MOTHERWELL (SUBSIDENCE).
  INFECTIOUS DISEASES HOSPITAL, MOTHERWELL (SUBSIDENCE).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  ADMIRALTY DRAUGHTSMEN.
  ADMIRALTY DRAUGHTSMEN.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY.
  DISABILITY.
  SPECIAL APPLIANCE.
  SPECIAL APPLIANCE.
  ATTRIBUTABILITY.
  ATTRIBUTABILITY.
  COMPASSIONATE GRANTS CANADA.
  COMPASSIONATE GRANTS CANADA.
  CLAIM.
  CLAIM.
  AGRICULTURE (STATISTICS).
  AGRICULTURE (STATISTICS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PERFORMING ANIMALS (REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act, 1925; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MOUNT VERNON HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]

  ROMFORD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to these two Bills I beg to move that Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (COORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Message of Wednesday, February 27, namely, That it is expedient that the London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move, That this House do not concur with the Commons in the said Resolution. I will very briefly mention my reasons for making this Motion. It is not a common Motion,
208
though it is not by any means an unprecedented one. Many of your Lordships will remember the very interesting proceedings of twenty years ago, in 1908, on the London and District Electricity Supply Bill and the London Electric Supply Bill, when your Lordships passed a Resolution in favour of submitting these Bills to a Joint Committee—a Resolution which was not agreed to in the House of Commons on the Motion of the then President of the Board of Trade. I have the report of the proceedings here, but it is not necessary for me to go into them in detail. I would sum it up by saying this: The Houses do not always agree, because they regard these matters from rather different points of view. It is of public value that they should do so. Each branch of the Legislature in these matters should be complete master in its own House.
Your Lordships have always proceeded on very definite lines in proposing, or agreeing or disagreeing with the appointment of Joint Committees. I think I am right in saying that we never agree to a Joint Committee unless one of two conditions is present, and possibly both. Firstly, of course, your Lordships would always agree to a Joint Committee if His Majesty's Government announced that in their view a Joint Committee was desirable in the public interest. All other reasons must go in that case. I would almost call that the second condition, because it is generally the second to come before us in point of time. The other condition is that your Lordships are agreeable to appoint a Joint Committee if the promoters and a substantial body of the opponents are agreed in asking that a Joint Committee should be substituted for the usual procedure—namely, two inquiries, one in each House, one after the other. I would remind your Lordships that last year in the Joint Committee on the Railway Bills, in which we were so much assisted by my noble friend opposite, Lord Chelmsford, who was Chairman of the Committee, Lord Russell, and other Peers who sat upon it, both these conditions were satisfied. His Majesty's Government communicated to me—and I informed your Lordships of it—their desire that a Joint Committee should sit. And, secondly, there is no doubt that the promoters were in agreement with a very large number of the opponents on this point, and this point

209
only—namely, that they desired the matter to be inquired into by a Joint Committee.
Now, in this case neither of those two conditions has been fulfilled. What has happened in the proceedings in which I have taken part is this. After the House of Commons came to the decision which they came to, and of which your Lordships are aware, I saw the parties—I had an application from the promoters, who asked for a Joint Committee. I saw them formally as represented by their agent. There are 29 Petitions against this Bill. Quite a number of those Petitions only refer to clause matters, and therefore can be discarded from consideration on the present point. Nine very important opponents most strenuously opposed the appointment of a Joint Committee. Not one opponent was quoted to me as being in favour of a Joint Committee. For that reason I felt that, following your Lordships' invariable practice, there was no reason for denying to the opponents their usual right to two hearings in each case. I know of no case where your Lordships have insisted on a Joint Committee in the teeth of the opposition of all or most of the opponents, and that is why I make this Motion this afternoon.
I think I ought only to say that the promoters were, as they naturally would be, quite frank with me as they would be with your Lordships. Their object in asking for the Joint Committee was that they believed it was the only way of saving their Bill in view of the fact that a great many members of both Houses of Parliament—I am not one of them—would have a very disturbed Whitsuntide holiday this year. Even on that point I disagree. I think the Bills are more likely to get through conveniently if the position is not complicated by the hearing by a Joint Committee which might not terminate by Whitsuntide. There is just a chance, I think, that a Committee of one House might be finished by Whitsuntide, in which case the Bills can go on after the General Election.
Your Lordships realise, of course, that it is our invariable custom to facilitate Private Bills by not wasting the time and energy that would be given to them previous to a General Election, by carrying them over if necessary, and I have no doubt that this year I shall have to
210
ask your Lordships to carry over quite a large number. I do not disguise from myself this fact: these are very difficult Bills, they are more or less skeleton Bills, and they were described to me as such by the opponents. They are Bills which will require very careful consideration by Parliament, and I think they are Bills where a re-hearing in the Second House, in a revising House, if I may so say, might be very useful if the Bills are to get through and to be useful from the public point of view. I appreciate the importance of the occasion, but I think, apart altogether from the merits of the case, when we contemplate the nature of the opposition, that we are doing a wise thing from the point of view of facilitating the Bills getting through in whatever form is finally approved. I submit this Motion to your Lordships.
Moved, That this House do not concur with the Commons in the said Resolution.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I should like to say that I believe the County Council are very anxious that this Bill should be considered with the least possible delay. The County Council have given a great deal of time to its consideration and the matter is urgent. I am sure that the Lord Chairman realises that. That being so, I, for one, am prepared to acquiesce in the course that he suggests.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order): The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.
Clause 49:
Travelling expenses.
49.—(1) As from the appointed day it shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be lawful for the council of any county to defray any expenses necessarily incurred by members of the council or of any committee thereof to which this section applies in travelling to and from meetings of the council or committee or in travelling by direction of the council or committee for the purpose of carrying out any inspection necessary for the discharge of the functions of the council or committee.
(3) No expenditure by a county council under this section shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining the amount of any sum payable to the council out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(4) This section shall apply to any committee of a county council appointed for the discharge of functions throughout the whole area for which the county council is charged with those functions, and Shall also apply to any sub-committee or joint committee so appointed as if it were a committee of the council.
(5) In this section the expression "sub-committee" means a sub-committee of a committee of a county council, and the expression "joint committee" means a joint committee or joint board appointed by a county council jointly with the council of another county or of a county borough or with a court of quarter sessions.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from the beginning down to and including "necessarily" and to insert "The council of any county shall defray any expenses reasonably." The noble and learned Lord said: The object of my Amendment, which I think is an important one, is to ensure as far as one can that in the transfer of the old guardian powers amongst others from a localised to a central county body, the county body shall be put as far as possible on a representative basis and particularly shall include a sufficient element of the poorer or working classes. The Lord Chairman has told me he can put my Amendment so as only to raise one point at this stage. The point is this. I desire that it should not be optional for the county councils whether they provide certain payments or not—the nature of the payments will arise at a subsequent stage—but that there shall be an obligation upon them to provide those payments, whatever they may be, so that as far as possible we may ensure that poorer people can go to their county councils in the country districts.
It would be impossible without payment for them to do it. So the question really arises whether that ought to be an option or a uniform obligation. I suggest there is every reason why it ought to be a uniform obligation. Your Lordships discussed uniformity yesterday on a different subject matter, and the Lord Chancellor declared the advantages of uniformity in that particular matter. Surely the case is far stronger here. It would be wrong, it seems to me, to have what would be practically a different
212
franchise in different county council districts, and unless there is payment, and payment in the same way and substantially on the same terms and to the same extent in the two instances, you would really have different bodies represented in the one case and in the other.
I am very anxious not to raise matters in regard to which no difference arises. We all desire, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, pointed out in his White Paper and in his speech on the Second Reading, local assistance and local help so as to keep alive as far as possible the knowledge already existing in the local guardians. I think I may take the noble Earl's view upon that point to be the same as that of all of us. As to the question of means and measures, let us see how the thing stands. Supposing it is optional you may have county councils taking different views. First, as regards the people in whose favour such an option is exercised, it is very difficult to prevent their being placed in what is really a somewhat subordinate and inferior position in having to make what amounts to a special application that their cases might be considered with regard to optional payments. I know from my own knowledge of these matters that on a point of this kind, particularly in the county councils, there is a great deal of sensitiveness, and rightly so. One understands that if you are a member of a body or society the fact that unless it provides a certain payment you have to cease to be a member, is not by any means a position which ought to be established in a Bill of this kind. We want the best form of local government.
Other members of your Lordships' House have Amendments similar in character and can support what I say. I have not been able to see the Scottish Bill. I have tried once or twice but have not succeeded. I think that in the Scottish Bill what I am asking for at the present time is already inserted. There it is not a matter of option but a matter of obligation. I may be wrong in that but the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am. That is a very strong additional reason. You have two systems of local government in Scotland and in England paid for out of a common fund. You cannot separate payment for the one and the other, but the ordinary proportion which is allocated to Scottish purposes will be allocated

213
out of the common fund. So far as English contributions are involved, as they will be in the Scottish fund, they go to the payment of Scottish members who otherwise could not perform their duties as county councillors. Why not the same in England? I cannot conceive why the same principle should not be applicable in both cases. I do not think I need detain your Lordships further on this matter. The Lord Chairman will put my Amendment in a form so that the only question raised will be that of obligation as against an optional system. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 34, leave out from the beginning to ("incurred") in line 36 and insert ("the council of any county shall defray any expenses reasonably").—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question I shall put is that in Clause 49, page 45, line 34, the words "As from the appointed day" shall stand part.
LORD SANDHURST: I have an Amendment on the Paper which is to the same effect as that moved by my noble and learned friend, but with the expression "it shall be the duty." Perhaps I am a little fond of my own expression but I am willing to accept any form of words provided it gives what we ask for. My noble friend has said all that I desire to say in the matter except this. I have some very striking figures showing in how few cases, comparatively speaking, contests take place at council elections—perhaps I shall have to enlarge on that further on another Amendment which I have on the Paper—which certainly indicates that representation on the county councils is very much limited to people of independent means. In another place, when this question or an analogous one was debated, it seemed rather to be suggested that the people most concerned were the Labour Party, but I am by no means sure that other people who are not members of the Labour Party are not a great deal more interested. Many Labour representatives get their expenses paid by their unions, or from some other funds, and there are many small traders and other persons of small means to whom the 7s. 6d. or 10 s. a week is of immense consequence, and who have not this ad-
214
vantage. I submit, as my noble and learned friend did, that in this matter it is at least as desirable as in any other that there should be uniformity, not only as between the different counties, but also as regards the treatment of any persons who may desire to receive payment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): In opposing this Amendment I ought to tell your Lordships how the clause comes into the Bill at all. In the Bill as drawn there was no provision of this kind. In another place an hon. member—Sir Edward Thurtle, I think—as the representative of the County Councils Association introduced this clause in this form and persuaded the Minister of Health to accept it as being what the county councils themselves desired. This being the county councils' own request, the Minister of Health thought it right on behalf of the Government to accept his proposal and accordingly it found its place in the Bill. Therefore, the first observation I have to make is that the change which the noble and learned Lord desires is a change contrary to what the county councils themselves have asked for, and they, after all, are perhaps the hest judges of what is suitable. Secondly, it is said that uniformity is desirable in this matter. The answer is, uniformity is very desirable, of course, but there must be uniformity of conditions in order to justify uniformity of treatment, and you have not got uniformity of conditions in the different counties.
Let me remind your Lordships of the purpose of this clause as it appears, and as it was stated on behalf of the county councils themselves. There are some counties in which the meeting place of the county council is comparatively inaccessible. Instances were given in another place in which considerable expense must necessarily be incurred in going from one end of the county to the other. There are other places where the county area is much smaller, where the place of meeting is much more accessible, and where the expense of attending, therefore, is very much less. In the one case it may well be thought that the nonpayment of travelling expenses would be a real deterrent which would prevent otherwise suitable people from accepting

215
membership, while in another county it might be found there was no such deterrent, and that, therefore, there was no such reason for providing the payment. We none of us, I hope, at this time want to be unnecessarily extravagant with public funds, whether they are to come out of the rates or out of the Exchequer. Under the clause as it stands it is optional for any county council which thinks it desirable in the interests of its own local government to provide for the payment of the travelling expenses of its members on county council business. The noble and learned Lord opposite desires to compel those county councils which do not think it necessary or desirable to make that payment. The Government thinks that the clause, as the county councils ask for it, is quite a sufficient provision to prevent the mischief of suitable people being kept away, and that the clause, as the noble and learned Lord desires to alter it, would go further than that and merely be an extravagance with county council monies which the county councils themselves do not desire.
Reference has been made once again to the Scottish Bill. The noble and learned Lord said that I was to correct him if he was wrong as to what was in the Scottish Bill. I am sorry I have not read the Scottish Bill which, as far as I know, is at present in process of discussion in another place. I propose to wait till they have decided in what form they will send it to us before I make it my duty to study its provisions. I have heard that there are provisions in the Scottish Bill which not only make it compulsory but also provide for payments for actual loss of time and things of that kind; or there were at some stage some such provisions, and I have heard it suggested that that is the existing Scottish law. I am afraid I am not an expert on Scottish law, so I cannot say if that is so, but if it is so then at present the system as between the two countries is wholly different. In England we have never paid our county councillors their travelling expenses or payments for loss of time. If in Scotland they have hitherto done so and they propose to go on doing it, it may or may not be desirable, but at any rate it is no reason why we should depart from a practice which in our experience has
216
worked well as a whole, except to the extent which the county councils themselves think desirable, and to that extent the clause as it stands already makes provision.
EARL BUXTON: The noble and learned Lord has brought forward two arguments against this proposal. The first was that this clause was not originally in the Bill at all, and that the county councils made representations to the Government in the form of this clause which the Government accepted. He says that is, therefore, the considered and final view of the county councils. But surely they were in the position of wishing the Government to accept some clause and they naturally put the minimum proposal before the Government. It does not in the least follow that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is entitled to say that they would have opposed this Amendment. The other argument was that there is no advantage in uniformity in this matter, but as I understand it this Amendment, if passed, will bring uniformity to this extent, that each county council will be required to defray any expenses reasonably incurred. That will bring uniformity to some extent, although it is true that in counties where distances are great the expenses will be great, and that in other counties expenses will be small because the distances will not be so great.
But whether expenses are great in one case and slight in another, equally each county council ought to defray the expenses of its members. If the expenses are not great the charge will be light and if the expenses are considerable the charge will be heavier, but what my noble friend had in mind, I think, is that no county council ought to have the right by not adopting this clause of putting an obstruction—it may be a small one, or it may be a large one—in the way of any citizen becoming a member of the county council. Surely, if the obligation is put on the county councils there will be uniformity, not necessarily in the scale, but in the basis on which the scale will be assessed throughout the country. I think, therefore, that the argument on the question of uniformity is entirely in favour of the Amendment proposed. I do not think the Lord Chancellor has really appreciated that

217
at the present moment, as my noble friend behind me pointed out, contests in county council elections are very few. Why is that? It is not on account of any blame which should attach to the county councils or members of them, but it is simply on account of the fact that practically only one class have the time or opportunity to become members of county councils.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
EARL BUXTON: Some noble Lords say "No," but surely it is so in the vast number of cases. The Government are taking away local representation in the persons of the guardians and they desire that in place of that representation there shall be members of county councils who represent local interests. That cannot take place under present conditions. It can only take place in a large number of cases if expenses of county councillors—I should go further and say salaries—are paid. The time consumed not only in the work of the councils themselves but in going backwards and forwards, and the travelling expenses involved, are so serious in many cases that the result is to restrict representation on the county councils. Surely, it ought not to be at the option of any county council to say: "We will remain as now, taken from a small representation." It seems to me vital, in view of these new duties which the county councils will have to carry out, that membership of the councils should be upon the widest possible basis.
EARL RUSSELL: This clause deals with the payment of travelling expenses, in itself a fairly simple matter, but the method in which it is dealt with, as I shall hope to show your Lordships, is not so simple or unimportant. There are several Amendments on the Paper in the name of my noble Leader and myself and others in reference to this matter, but I think at present we shall be discussing simply the principle of whether this ought to be an obligation upon county councils or whether it is to be a matter for them to decide. I agree entirely with what has been said by the noble Earl who has just sat down. This clause, as drawn, provides something which the noble and learned Lord says is new to English county councils. No doubt that is so, but it provides it in a spirit of grudging-
218
ness to which, as I shall show your Lordships, we on this side of the House attach a great deal of importance. There is a sort of suggestion running all through the clause that no really nice person would wish to have travelling expenses, that it is a sort of concession to people whom you have to allow to go on county councils, but that you do not make it willingly or in a cheerful manner.
What does the clause actually say? It says that the council may, if it thinks fit, "defray any expenses necessarily incurred." I would ask your Lordships to think what that means in practice. There is a county council consisting mostly of people to whom travelling expenses are an insignificant matter, which gives them no concern at all, and they would never dream of asking repayment from anybody. There may be two working-class representatives on that county council, or possibly three, to whom an addition to their actual out-of-pocket expenses of £8, £10 £15 or £20 a year may be a very serious matter. What have they to do? They have to beg the county council to be so kind as to pass a resolution in order that they may get these expenses back. They will have to make the suggestion that the resolution should be passed and they will have to appear as suppliants in a very unpleasant position.
One of the arguments of the noble and learned Lord as to the discretion of county councils seems to me quite extraordinary. Yesterday we were told that county councils were not fit to exercise discretion about so domestic a matter, a matter with which they alone are entirely concerned, as to who should, or should not, maintain roads in the county. This was a matter on which they were not fit to exercise discretion, and it must be left to the Minister in any case where they did not want district councils to do the maintenance of their roads for them. Now we come to a matter which concerns, not the county council as a whole, not its administration, but the carrying on of its work, and we are told that this is not for Parliament but for the county council to decide. That is wrong in principle. If it is right that people should be paid their travelling expenses then it is for Parliament, and not for the county councils, to say so. The decision is a matter for us and not for

219
them. Why should it be left to the good nature—because that is what it comes to—and the good feelings of members of a county council to pass a resolution to enable some two or three of their poorer fellow members to recover their travelling expenses? If Parliament thinks it right that the expenses of people of that sort should be paid then Parliament ought to say so, and the person who wants these expenses paid ought merely to have to make application to the clerk of the council or the proper officer and send in his bill and have the matter dealt with.
Your Lordships may think this is a comparatively small matter, but it is really nothing of the sort. The effect that it produces upon the public mind—and we shall take ample care that it is fully understood—is that the Government are really unwilling to make easy the path of the poorer county councillor, that they are anxious to put every little obstruction in his way that they can. I do not for a moment believe that this is true of any noble Lord on the Bench opposite, but that is the effect that will be created, I think rightly, by a clause drawn in this form. You are saying in a grudging sort of way: "If you can get your county council to pass a resolution, then you may have your travelling expenses." It is a sort of concession that you have to extract from a county council. A suggestion was made by the noble and learned Lord that some county councils might not pass this resolution merely on the ground that the travelling expenses were small. The noble Earl who spoke last said quite truly that this is a matter, not of amount but of principle, and if a man is entitled to recover a fare of 15 s. he is equally entitled to recover a fare of 3s. An impression upon the public mind will undoubtedly be created, and rightly created, that the Government are indifferent to the case of these poorer members of county councils. I think their indifference comes chiefly from a want of imagination as to the position of these people who serve upon county councils, surrounded as they are by people who, compared with them, are well off and have very little sympathy with their small requirements.
This is a matter in which you have to make up your mind what the county councils are going to do under the clause in its present form. Are they all going
220
to pass resolutions saying that expenses may be paid? If so, there is no advantage in doing it in this roundabout way. Are some of them not going to adopt a resolution that expenses may be paid? If so, how are you going to justify the injustice of these particular cases? This is not a matter for the private discretion of the county council. I say emphatically that it is a matter for Parliament, and I ask your Lordships to put one or two questions to yourselves. Do you desire to make it difficult and almost impossible for poor men to sit upon county councils? Of course the answer to that is "No," with whatever degree of conviction that answer is given. Then I come to a further question. Do you desire to put the people who have to ask for these expenses in a position of supplication and of unnecessary humiliation, or do you wish them to have those expenses as a matter of right if they require them? I do not care what particular form of words is adopted. I have suggested the words "shall on demand" in order that the council shall not pay fees to anybody who does not want them. We should be perfectly willing to accept words providing that payment shall be made in accordance with a scale approved by the Minister, if that be desired, so that there shall be no extravagance. The principle for which we contend is a very simple one. It is that these members should be paid as of right, and that the right should be granted by Parliament. I assure your Lordships that this is no small matter. We regard this clause very seriously indeed, and I do urge the Government to consider the very bad effect that will be produced if they stick to the clause in its present form, at least with the extremely indefinite reason that we have so far heard from them.
LORD SEMPILL: I will detain your Lordships for only a few moments, but I wish to deprecate the constant reference that has been made to the Scottish Bill. That Bill is not yet before your Lordships and I do not think it ought to be discussed at all. I think the Lord Chancellor was in some uncertainty whether Scottish county councillors are paid or not. As one who has been a member of a county council in Scotland for the last twenty years, let me say that Scottish county councillors are not paid, nor do they receive travelling ex-

221
penses to the place of meeting. I make this statement in case any noble Lord may think that the English county councillor will be put upon the same level as the Scottish county councillor in being paid for his Services. The Scottish councillor is not paid and never has been paid.
EARL FORTESCUE: I think the noble Earl opposite drew rather an Imaginary picture of the result of passing this clause in the form in which it is drawn. I believe that almost every county council will pass a resolution adopting this clause immediately, with the minimum of friction. I should like to ask whether county councils will be entitled to draw up any regulations for their procedure under this clause. For instance, will it be meumbent upon them to pay first-class fares, as in the House of Commons, or may they limit them to third-class fares? Will they be required to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by a member of a council who happens to be in London during the summer, possibly as a member of this House, and who travels to Northumberland for the purpose of attending the council meetings? Will they be entitled, as is the practice in territorial associations with which I am familiar, to limit the travelling expenses to those incurred within the county to which the association belongs?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In answer to the questions which have just been put to me, I think on the wording of the clause the council is authorised to defray expenses necessarily incurred. I think it will be quite open to them to say that they will pay first-class fares. I do not think that the clause as it stands will limit expenses to expenses within the county. I think it will be a question of fact whether a particular expense was necessarily incurred through travelling to the meeting of the council. This might cover fares outside the area of the council. I am answering the noble Earl without having had the opportunity of consulting the Ministry of Health, but I am giving him what I think is the right answer on the wording as it stands. As regards Scotland, perhaps I should apologise to the noble Lord, but I did not introduce Scotland. It was introduced by some other noble Lord and I think I took the same point as he did, that it was undesirable to discuss a Bill
222
which has not come before us. I know very little about the Scottish Bill, and I am glad to know that this clause is not going to create the difficulty which it was suggested yesterday that an earlier clause created in the minds of some noble Lords.
With regard to the observations of the noble Earl opposite, I only desire to say that we on this side of the House have heard with interest that he, being satisfied that it is not the desire of the Government in this clause to prevent working men from going on to the county councils, is going to take care that this impression shall be created in the country before the next Election. That, no doubt, is characteristic of methods to which we are becoming accustomed, but which we are not accustomed often to hear so openly avowed. All I can say on that point is that, if he does so, I shall be very glad to follow him with a quotation from his own speech this afternoon. I will only add that it is an odd way of preventing people from becoming members of county councils to give to the county councils the power, which they do not now possess, of paying travelling expenses.
LORD PARMOOR: There are two points with which I think the Lord Chancellor has not dealt but which appear to me to go to the foundation of the matter. I will not go into the question of Scotland. Certainly I was under the impression that county councillors in Scotland were in the same position as in England, and that their expenses were not paid. That is a question which we shall have to consider by and by. The present proposal is a different matter altogether. I do not think that the Lord Chancellor has answered the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, regarding uniformity. In a matter of this kind, which is really a question of franchise, we surely ought to have uniformity. But what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, suggested, was that you would not have uniformity, because the expenses involved would be different in different places and in different counties. Of course, but the uniformity is in the payment of expenses, whatever they are in any particular case. It is no advantage to a poor man who has to pay 10 s. only to be offered 3s., which is the expense in another place. That is not suggested.

223
In my own County of Buckingham I am not sure whether there is any working man on the county council at the present time, but it is really quite impossible for any working man, or the poor man referred to by Lord Sandhurst, to attend the county council meetings, unless his expenses are provided.
This is a matter of policy. Do you intend it or not? Do you intend that the poor man and the working man should take part in the new work conferred upon the county councils? There can be only one answer to that. You have to recollect that although there is devolution here the policy of the Poor Law will rest with the county council, and not only the policy, but the payment, and the appointment of officers. All those are matters in which the local element ought to have its voice properly and adequately expressed. Without that, I have more than once expressed my view, you could never get, so long as the Poor Law exists, proper consideration or anything like as good consideration as you get now in regard to the destitute poor. I do not think that the importance of this question can be exaggerated.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble and learned Lord endeavoured by way of reply to fix me with a dilemma as to my position. I remain quite unmoved by that. I shall say, and be justified in saying, that these matters having been pointed out to the Government, and the Government having refused to make any change, the Government are responsible for any consequences which flow therefrom. There is an old rule of law with which the Lord Chancellor will be well acquainted, that people must be taken to intend the reasonable consequences of their actions, and that is all I shall say. I will add to it, if it affords the noble and learned Lord any satisfaction, that it was done by well-meaning persons. If that will soften the blow I am prepared to say it, but I shall never cease from saying that the Government, having had the difficulties pointed out to them, have refused to recognise or to show any sympathy with them, or to take any steps to meet them.
On Question, Whether the words "As from the appointed day" shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Scarbrough, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Spencer, E.

Forester, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

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

Greenway, L.

Wellington, D.

Astor, V.

Hastings, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hindlip, L.

Bath, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Bristol, M.

Hood, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Exeter, M.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Islington, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Lamington, L.

Abinger, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airlie, E.

Addington, L.

Merthyr, L.

Ancaster, E.

Ampthill, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clarendon, E.

Askwith, L.

Monson, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Avebury, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Biddulph, L.

Fortescue, E.

Carson, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Halsbury, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.)

Ilchester, E.

Redesdale, L.

Iveagh, E.

Clinton, L.

Remnant, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Cranworth, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Lindsay, E.

Danesfort, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lovelace, E.

Darling, L.

Sempill, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

de Clifford, L.

Sinclair, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Deramore, L.

Strachie, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Templemore, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Desborough, L.

Treowen, L.

Onslow, E.

Dynevor, L.

Wargrave, L.

Plymouth, E.

Ernle, L.

Wharton, L.

Sandwich, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Buxton, E.

Russell, E.

Chesterfield, E.

Beauchamp, E.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Allendale, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Buckmaster, L.

Shandon, L.

Clwyd, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Knutsford, V.

Daryngton, L.

Hemphill, L.

Stanmore, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Morris, L.

Swaythling, L.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Tenterden, L.

Aberconway, L.

Parmoor, L.

Thomson, L.

Arnold, L.

Sandhurst, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendments in the names of Earl De La Warr and Earl Russell are covered by the decision already come to, and I will therefore call upon Lord Sandhurst.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in subsection (1), after "county" to insert "(a)." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really introductory to one which I shall move later on, at the end of subsection (1)—["(b) To pay to the members of such county or of any committee thereof to which this section applies allowances at uniform rates to be prescribed by the Minister in respect of time necessarily lost from ordinary employment,"] It is necessary to insert the letter (a) in order to add the further paragraph. I am afraid it becomes necessary for me to refer again to the Scottish Bill. My Amendment was originally framed upon language appearing in the Education (Scotland) Act, where the principle is recognised, but since then I have been furnished with a copy of an Amendment placed on the Order Paper in another place by the Secretary of State for Scotland—I am not sure whether it has yet been introduced—in which provision is made for the personal expenses to be paid. I should have thought, in view of the observations which fell from the noble and learned Lord opposite, that what is good for Scotland is also good for England in a case of this kind; and, at any rate, the English county elector ought to be put upon as satisfactory a basis as the Scottish county elector. I find it very difficult to conceive any reason why that should not be so. It is true, no doubt, that some Scottish counties have less suitable facilities for travelling than others, but that is also true of English counties. There are many counties, both in England and Wales, where travelling is extremely difficult, and where, not only travelling, but time is taken up in going to and fro which is out of all proportion
226
to the travelling expenses involved. In fact, I am credibly informed that there are cases in which members of county councils are not able to get home the same night and have to sleep out.
I have some rather striking figures on the subject of the proportion of contests to seats in counties, and I propose to quote a few as examples. The largest number of contests occurred in the County of Durham, where there are 74 seats; the number of contests was 47, that is, a little more than half. The next largest was the West Riding of Yorkshire—90 seats and 46 contests, or just over a half. Those are the only two counties in which more than half the seats were contested. Other figures are:—Berkshire, 52 seats, 3 contests; Hereford, 52 seats, 4 contests; Leicestershire, 54 seats, 5 contests; Northampton-shire, 54 seats, 5 contests; Suffolk, West, 51 seats, 4 contests; Warwickshire, 53 seats, 5 contests, or about one in ten. Now, what does that mean? It means that the county councils are really necessarily in the hands of people of independent means. I do not blame those people; on the contrary, we all owe them a great debt of gratitude for giving the time and the industry which they give to public service. But it is really not satisfactory that the field of selection should be so much narrowed. I do commend to your Lordships this Amendment upon that ground: that the field from which candidates can be drawn should be enlarged, and every facility should be placed in the way of people of moderate means—as I have said before, that does not mean from the Labour Party; it means people of moderate means of all kinds and classes—in order that they may be able from their local knowledge to contribute to the discussions and the work of the county councils. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 36, after ("county") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: After the discussion on the last Amendment your Lordships will not be surprised if I am

227
bound on behalf of the Government to ask you to reject this one. The noble Lord began his argument by saying that there was some Amendment down in the Scottish Bill which, when it was passed, would produce some such effect as this, and that what was good for Scotland was good for England. I respectfully accept what was said by the noble Lord behind me. I think it is impossible for me to discuss what is in the Scottish Bill which I do not know—I am not doubting what the noble Lord said—or to discuss reasons why it is in, as to which I know nothing, or to discuss what the differences are, if it is in, which may justify different terms in one case or the other. Nor do I know, if in fact it be different, that the Scottish method is a better one than the English method. That is not always true. I prefer to deal with the Bill that we have before us and with the Amendment on its merits. On its merits I venture to submit it has very little to recommend it and a good deal against it.
The argument in favour of it was that the noble Lord was able to show a number of cases in which it appears that there were very few contests for county councils, and he said that proved that people of independent means were the only people who could be members of county councils. With great respect to him it proves nothing of the kind. It may be because, unfortunately, there is not enough interest taken in some districts in county council work. It may be that the altered functions which we are conferring by this Bill will in themselves go a long way to remedy anything of that kind. It may be that the people who are willing to come forward in the county districts for county council seats, are such as command so large a measure of public approval that really there is no one who can stand against them with any reasonable prospect of success. That would be a very satisfactory reason and I am sure that in some cases at any rate it is the real reason.
I think there is no evidence at all before your Lordships from the mere fact that there are few contests, that the people who are county councillors are not very admirable public servants and are not fully equal to the discharge of the duties which they undertake. That is the question. If you can show that the county council is composed of people who are unfit to discharge their func-
228
tions properly, and that if you introduced instead a class of professional politicians you would get a better type of work, then, of course, there would be something to be said for the Amendment. Obviously you can prove nothing of the kind. We all know that the county councils do their work admirably. We know that the men who are willing to accept the duties do the most excellent public service ungrudgingly in the public interest and do it with perfect efficiency. Those of us who are at all acquainted with local government in our own districts know how well the work is done.
I should have thought that to make payments for lost time, which is in effect to make it a salaried job to become a county councillor, was the very worst way to get the best type of man to become a member of the county council. If you do it there is no possible logical reason why you should not do the same for every district council, and you will very soon find that the whole of the public work of the country becomes the prey of the professional political man instead of, as at present, the honoured duty of people who are willing to give their time to the public service. It is not true either to say that poor men cannot belong to county councils. As a matter of fact we all know, if we are to face facts, that where working-class organisations think it worth while to have a representative on one of these bodies, they are quite willing and able to pay a salary if they think it desirable so to do. In such cases actually the labour representative, if I may so describe him, the representative of the Socialist Party, namely, is better off financially than any other member of the county council because he is the only one who is paid. I do not advocate that as a general practice. I think it is an unfortunate practice that people should be paid for work of that kind. The position at present is that the work is admirably done without professionalising those who do it, and I should be very sorry to see a departure in the direction which is desired by the noble Lord.
EARL BUXTON: It is unnecessary for the Lord Chancellor to defend the present county councils in the conduct of their duties. There is no need to defend their personnel or the admirable way in which

229
they do their work. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst specially desires to make it clear that in his Amendment no attack was meant of any sort or kind on the county councils as at present constituted or on the way in which they perform their duties. What I think the Lord Chancellor forgets, in connection with the Amendment, is that a new position has arisen. Up to now the work on the county councils has been generally done by practically one class. The Lord Chancellor said that the fact that there were no contests did not show that it was more or less from one class that the candidates were selected. Nobody would deny for a moment that the county councils are constituted more or less from the leisured class, those who are in a certain position and are able to give the time and money involved in attending the meetings.
A new position has arisen. This Bill gets rid of the board of guardians and other bodies, which until now have been democratically elected and whose committees and other bodies have been constituted from all classes of society, and in many cases especially from the labouring classes. If the duties are taken away from these democratic bodies, who have also carried out their duties to a very large extent admirably, and are put on to the county councils, it surely would be right that every opportunity should be given and every endeavour made to enable the electors to select the members from the largest possible area of selection and not from one class. The Lord Chancellor refuses this proposal on the ground that it is unnecessary because the county councillors are at present unpaid. That is perfectly true; but what we desire is that in order to have a large area of selection for the electorate to choose from and to give those persons who up to now have undertaken these duties time and opportunity of continuing to do so, this payment shall be made to the members of county councils. That will enable the poorest person to become a member if he wishes to do so. The only possible way of doing that is to accept my noble friend's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said:
230
It would be interesting to know from the Lord Chancellor whether, when the county councils asked for this clause to be inserted, they asked at the same time for this subsection of it. If they did it must surely be the first case on record of a body like a county council more or less hinting at an expenditure which might possibly be passed on to the national Exchequer, but which would be borne by themselves. If the county councils did not suggest this subsection, I am at a loss to understand why it is inserted, because the sums of money referred to in the subsection are presumably paid out under the operation of the formula. If the formula does not give money for this purpose, why does the subsection go out of its way to remind county councils that they cannot get this money out of the national grants? It looks to me very much as if it was an attempt to discourage county councils from giving these travelling expenses, as if that which was given to them grudgingly with the one hand in the part of the clause which they did ask for is being taken away from them with the other hand in this subsection. If that were not the motive I suggest that my Amendment might be followed and the subsection deleted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, lines 9 to 14, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Thomson.)
EARL RUSSELL: I can suggest to your Lordships three perfectly good reasons why this subsection should be deleted, and I shall be interested to hear the reply of the noble and learned Lord on the matter. First of all the matter is very small. The total possible amount of these expenses is something quite insignificant in the total county council budget. It must be a very small fraction of one per cent., probably not sufficient to pay for the additional expense which will be incurred by keeping separate accounts of it as a matter of accountancy. Secondly, it seems to be a matter of principle. Expenditure which is incurred by a county council under this clause is just as much an expenditure for the purposes of the county council and for the purposes of the work of the county council as travelling expenses paid to its officers and servants. It comes in exactly the same category and,

231
as a mere matter of accountancy, it ought to be dealt with in the same category. The third reason seems to me the most important of all. It is the one to which my noble friend alluded in moving the Amendment. This subsection constitutes a sort of sneer at these travelling expenses, a sort of suggestion that there is something a little odd and unusual about them, and that they must be put in a separate category and be dealt with in that way. Those seem to me three excellent reasons why this subsection should disappear, and I have no doubt they are three reasons which will appeal to the Government for letting it remain.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government certainly ask the House to let it remain but not for the three reasons the noble Earl has suggested. The mover, Lord Thomson, said this money was paid out under the formula. That, if he will forgive me——
LORD THOMSON: I did not say that. I said it is obviously not paid out out of the formula, and if it is not being paid out of the formula why remind the county councils they are not getting it? That was my whole point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The formula has nothing in the wide world to do with this subsection. The formula is one which provides for the distribution of certain Exchequer grants which are ascertained quite independently of the formula. The amount of the Exchequer grant has nothing to do with the formula. It deals only with its distribution. The reason the clause was put in is that this is dealing with those percentage grants which remain. Let us take one instance, because it happens to be the one which occasioned the subsection going in, the education grants. The Board of Education see no reason why the percentage grant for educational purposes should be increased because a particular county council thinks it right to pay the travelling expenses of its members. I cannot say whether the subsection was put in by the county councils in the clause they originally submitted, because I do not happen to have the official Report here, but I gather that they have raised no objection to it. Whether they actually put it in or whether it was inserted in another place I am not quite certain.
232
At any rate no objection has been raised by the county councils. I know the Board of Education desire it, because they see no reason why these travelling expenses for purely local matters should be treated practically as Exchequer percentage grants.
The noble Earl gave three reasons why the subsection should be omitted. First of all, that the matter was a small one. Since the days of the famous lady in Dickens I do not ever remember that argument being used with effect. Even though it be only a little one, it may still be one which is worth dealing with. Then the noble Earl said that as a matter of principle it ought to be included because these are expenses for the purposes of the county council. It is true they are expenses for county council administrative purposes, but that is not the test. The test is whether or not you are to include them in calculating how much the Exchequer has to pay to the county council as a percentage of certain expenditure which attracts national moneys, and we see no reason why the fact that a particular county council resolved to pay the travelling expenses of its members should be a reason for giving it in addition to those expenses, which will come out of the rate, an additional sum out of the Exchequer by way of percentage grant. Finally he suggested that it looks like a sneer at the travelling expenses. From the explanation I have given your Lordships will see that that is not the fact. On those grounds I ask your Lordships to retain the subsection.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble and learned Lord has raised a question which I confess I did not understand. Of course, an expenditure of this kind could not come within a percentage grant such as an education grant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Why not?
LORD PARMOOR: Because it is not an education matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord for the purpose of clearing this up? One of the committees for which the travelling expenses will be paid is an education committee, and the expenses of that would, therefore, unless this subsection were in, be included in the education expenses which would attract the percentage grant.
LORD PARMOOR: I did not understand that was the noble and learned Lord's view, but I think that disposes of his argument. Supposing expenses of this kind are proper in connection with county expenditure, in connection with expenditure properly incurred by the education committee, why should they not be regarded as an element in determining what the percentage education grant is? This expenditure is really necessary for the earning of a certain percentage grant. These members, according to all our ideas, ought to be paid. The travelling expenses of members of the education committee in every sense come within and ought to come within education expenditure in respect of which grant is received. As a matter of principle it is quite inexplicable why this expenditure should not be taken into consideration in the percentage grants for education. You are going to say that these traveling expenses are not necessary in connection with a particular work which the councils are carrying on. The members of the education committee are the central part of the education work. You cannot carry on your education without them. Therefore they are an essential part of education expenditure. I agree with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: My reason for moving the deletion of this subsection is that it seems to me that the guardians committees will not be able to get their expenses. That seems to me to be so because the words in the clause are "the whole area." The guardians committee, I presume, will be a localised committee dealing with a certain part of the whole area. Therefore, members of a committee which probably will have most need to travel will not benefit by the allowance for traveling given generally and rather grudgingly in the clause. That is my reason for moving the deletion of this subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, lines 9 to 14, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Thomson.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is quite right in supposing that the effect of this subsection is to
234
prevent payment of traveling expenses to, amongst others, guardians committees. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that where there is a substantial expenditure on travelling over a long distance then it shall be within the power of the council to say that provision shall be made for meeting that expense. It is deliberately not intended to provide for the payment of travelling expenses when the committee is a purely local one, because the committee will consist of people who are on the spot dealing with one particular area and they will have no lengthy journeys to make. A guardians committee will naturally deal with a small district in which the members themselves, the representatives of the county council and of the district council and the co-opted people, are on the spot. If you give these people travelling expenses I can see no possible reason why we should not pay all the travelling expenses of members of a district council, for example. The scheme is to pay travelling expenses when they are substantial for journeys over long distances, and not to pay the expenses of small local committees such as guardians committees.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to say one word on that. Subsection (4) goes quite outside what the noble Lord has said. I can only say that judging by experience of county councils there are a large number of committees the members of which have a considerable amount of travelling expenses, although the committees are not committees conducting business throughout the whole area of the county. You would only have to make your committee function over an area which does not include some small portion of the county and then their travelling expenses cannot be paid. Is that intended?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The test which is laid down—I think it is a plain one—is whether a committee of the county council is appointed for the discharge of functions throughout the whole area for which the county council is charged with those functions, that is to say, whether the county council appoints a committee to which are delegated functions over the whole area. The reason these words are used instead of saying merely "apply to the whole county" is because there are matters, such as education, where

235
the area of the authority dealing with that and the county are not coincident. It is not intended that the provision shall apply to travelling expenses of committees which only deal with a limited area. The noble Lord says that a council could get out of this by appointing a committee for only a part of the area, but as the clause is only optional it is obvious that if a county council did not wish to pay expenses they would not need to resort to a subterfuge, they would only refrain from passing a resolution.
LORD PARMOOR: I did not mean to suggest a subterfuge. I only meant that a committee might be appointed which would not cover the whole area, although some particular member of the county council would have in fact to incur considerable expenses in performing his duties as a member of that committee. The county council might be willing that he should be reimbursed for that expenditure but would be unable to do that because of this provision. That was the case I had in mind. However, I will not argue it further.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (4), after "area", to insert "or if the Minister shall so direct a part of the whole area." The noble Earl said: The noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, has come very near to dealing with this Amendment. This is merely a practical question and I only want to put it to the noble and learned Lord to hear what his answer is. I propose to insert after "whole area" the words "or if the Minister shall so direct a part of the whole area." You may in fact and practice have a committee dealing with perhaps half the county or one-third of the county. Quite a reasonable amount of travelling expense might be incurred which should properly be payable. Might it not be wise to give power to the Minister to meet these cases by directing that they would be proper cases for payment of travelling expenses? It is purely a practical point that I want to put to the noble and learned Lord.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 11, after ("area") insert ("or if the Minister shall so direct a part of the whole area").—(Earl Russell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I appreciate the reasonable way in which the noble Earl moved his Amendment. My answer, I am afraid, must be the one I have already given, that the view of the Government and of the county councils who asked for this is that it should apply only to committees appointed to deal with the whole area, and that it should not apply in cases of local matters where there will not be the same necessity for payment of travelling expenses. Therefore, it is intended to limit it in that way. There is a still further objection that if the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted it would give to the Minister—to each particular Minister who came into office—absolutely arbitrary discretion as to what areas should, or should not, be included. One Minister might allow it in every case and another might limit it to the whole county. There would be no sort of guide laid down in the Act as to the principle on which the Minister should apply his discretion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (5), after "borough," to insert "or borough." The noble Lord said: This subsection deals with the payment of travelling expenses in the case of joint boards or joint committees. If a county council have a joint board with a non-county borough then the expenses of the members could not be paid. That is an omission which I desire to see remedied. There are very large and important non-county boroughs and it would be rather ridiculous if they had a joint committee with the county council or with a county borough, that the expenses of their members should not be paid. Therefore, I propose to insert these words to remedy what I think must have been an unintentional omission.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 20, after ("borough") insert ("or borough").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government think that the object which the noble Lord has in view is quite a reasonable one, but I would suggest that a simpler and more satisfactory way of making the Amendment would be to omit the last "county" in the subsection. The subsection would then cover both boroughs and counties. If the noble Lord will move the Amendment in that

237
form with the permission, I hope, of the Lord Chairman, the Government will accept it.
LORD STRACHIE: I will move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 19, leave out the second ("county").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to insert as a new subsection:—
"(6) This section shall extend to the County of London."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Russell. I need not say more than a very few words. The County of London covers a wide area and, if this Amendment is accepted, I think it will conform to the principle, as I understand it, which the Lord Chancellor has laid down that travelling expenses should be substantial. They could be substantial in this area, and therefore I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 20, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. This clause, as your Lordships have heard, was put down at the instance of the County Councils Association. It applies entirely to county councils in the strict sense of the term, and there was no intention of applying it to other bodies. It was intended to meet the special conditions in large counties where councillors have to travel considerable distances to the place of meeting. The London County Council, though technically a county council, is quite a different body from the County Councils of, let us say, Surrey or the West Riding. Its circumstances are utterly different, and it is more like the City Councils of Birmingham, Liver-pool, Manchester or one of the great county boroughs. If the Metropolis were included it is quite possible that application would be made to include other towns that might be of considerable size, though not comparable to London. That, of course, was not the intention of the clause, and it is stretching it beyond the limits for which it was framed.
238
Everybody admits that London is special case, unique in this country and, indeed, in the world, and its conditions are met by provisions in its own Local Acts. For example, the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1911, empowers the council to pass a resolution to pay travelling expenses to members of committees for attendance at meetings elsewhere than at the County Hall or other offices of the council to an amount not exceeding the expenses that they would have incurred in travelling from or to the County Hall to or from the place visited. Then there is an Act of 1926 which extends these powers to travelling and subsistence expenses of members of committees for visits of inspection to institutions or other places outside the county. If the London County Council had desired to come under the clause it could have made representations to Parliament at the same time as the County Councils Association did so. As it did not, do so, presumably the matter is governed to its satisfaction by its Local Acts, and therefore I hope that your Lordships will leave the clause as it stands.
LORD ARNOLD: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his full reply on this Amendment. I do not find it convincing and, in fact, the general purport of his observations seems to me rather to strengthen the case for the new subsection. He said that if this were done for London it might establish a precedent for other large towns. I should not object to that, at all, and I am not at all frightened by the prospect. The noble Earl has told us that the London County Council already have certain powers under special Acts—I think exceptional powers as compared with other local bodies. They are certainly in an exceptional position, but that is an additional reason for making this subsection operative. Finally he said that representations were not made by the County of London. I do not think there is very much in that point. There are a great many things that they would like to see in the Bill that they have not made representations about, and the same remark applies to other bodies. However, if the Government are not going to do it, they are not going to do it. I will only say that we find at almost every stage that, although the noble Earl is most courteous and gives us very full replies, which we

239
appreciate, he is very rigid and does not give much away. I do not think that this is entirely his fault, and so I leave the matter there for the time being.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am glad to have such a good character from the noble Lord. The point is that this clause was put in at the request of the County Councils Association in the form in which they asked for it and to make any addition to it would be to go outside the scope of the clause as it was originally brought into another place.
LORD ARNOLD: I should not mind that at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LAMINGTON: Before this clause is agreed to I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether, before the Report stage, they will consider and deal with the points raised by the noble Earl behind me as to the very indefinite character of the allowance to be paid for travelling expenses. I need not repeat what the noble Earl said, but it seems to me that the most satisfactory plan would be to adopt the method that prevails among Territorial Army associations of paying expenses from the residence of the individual to the place where the meeting is held. I believe that in some cases county councils hold their meetings outside their own area, but I do not think that this need prevent the adoption of this principle. I think the Government should give some consideration to this important point, because people might travel the length of the Kingdom and have their expenses paid. To my mind it is a great pity that the clause was ever introduced, but I would ask the noble Earl for an undertaking that the Government will consider the basis of these payments.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This debate has been very interesting and useful and shows what great advantages your Lordships' House offers to the public as a revising Chamber. This particular point has not, I think, been raised before either in your Lordships' House or in another place, and accordingly I am unable to reply to my noble friend Lord Lamington on the subject at the present moment, but I can give him an undertaking that the matter will be considered between now and Report, and if
240
he or any other noble Lord raises the question again, we shall have a considered reply to give.
Clause 49; as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50:
Borrowing and appropriation of land by county councils.
50.—(1) Subsection (5) of section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, and subsection (1) of section one hundred and twelve of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which fix respectively the maximum period within which loans by county councils and by councils of boroughs are to be repaid, shall have effect as if for "thirty years" there were substituted "sixty years."
(2) A county council may, subject to the approval of the Minister and subject to the like restrictions as are contained in section ninety-five of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, with respect to the appropriation of land by local authorities under that section, appropriate for any purpose for which they are authorised to acquire land any land acquired by the council for some other purpose and not required for that purpose:
Provided that where powers of appropriation of land are conferred on a county council by any other enactment, nothing in this section shall affect the powers under that enactment or dispense with the necessity for complying with any conditions imposed by any such enactment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the date of repayment of any loan issued before the passing of this Act." The noble Viscount said: Since putting this Amendment upon the Paper I have had the opportunity of studying the sections referred to in this clause and I am not at all sure that the Amendment is necessary. Certain noble Lords are still apprehensive on the point, and if the noble Earl can give me a definite statement I shall be very much obliged to him.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 28, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Viscount is quite correct. This Amendment is unnecessary. The clause as it stands would not affect any loan arrangement entered into by a county council or county borough council before the passing of the Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to omit subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: There are two things which I do not like in this subsection. The first is that there is nothing about the interested parties being heard in opposition. Secondly, I understand that under this clause land could be acquired for site value only, and then means obtained for using it for some quite other purpose, and had that other purpose been known in the first place when the land was acquired, better compensation would have been payable to the owner of the site. The introducer of the Bill did not mention this clause at all, and I cannot say that I am very much surprised, because I think it is a rather objectionable clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 29, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: In the first place let me explain to your Lordships that by the definition in Section 3 of the Interpretation Act of 1889, land covers both land and buildings. At the present time county councils have no general powers to enable them to appropriate to another use land and real property acquired for a particular purpose, and which they no longer require for such a purpose. This Bill puts functions upon county councils which render it necessary that they should have these new powers, because the transfer of the Poor Law and the duties thereof from the guardians to the counties will place a large number of institutions in the hands of the counties, which they will administer in conjunction with those institutions which they already possess. These buildings have been acquired by the Poor Law guardians for certain purposes. When the counties have all these buildings on their hands they will be able to allocate them for certain purposes—one building perhaps for tuberculosis and another for chronic cases, and so forth. If they do not have these powers the institutions would not be able to be used for the most necessary purposes and the most beneficial purposes to which the county councils now have an opportunity of putting them. It is quite true that certain restrictions apply which are set out in Section 95 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, but unless the clause were put in I do not think that the county councils would be able
242
to carry out their new functions under the transfer of the Poor Law.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I think your Lordships will do well to consider a little before accepting such a wide subsection as this. The noble Earl is going to assume that everything is going to be done in the best possible way in the best of all possible worlds, but one has to see whether or not that always takes place, and if not what the difficulties are likely to be. It is perhaps somewhat illuminating to find that under very similar powers an actual definite case came up in the Courts the other day and was decided by a Divisional Court, over which the Lord Chief Justice presided. It is true that the case has gone to the Court of Appeal, whose judgment has not yet been given. The judgment of the Divisional Court may stand or not, but I think it is somewhat useful to see what was said in a case under a similar provision of the Housing Act.
It was a case in which a rule of the High Court was sought to prevent the Minister approving a scheme that had been put forward, and the Lord Chief Justice began his judgment as follows:—
"The substance of the argument in support of the rule was that under the agreeable name of an improvement scheme the corporation was minded to acquire a slice of very valuable land in the heart of the City of Derby, not for any purpose of rearrangement or reconstruction, but for the purpose, if and when the corporation thought fit, of resale, and, of course, resale at the highest obtainable price. One naturally asked whether the Act of 1925 contemplated any such power as that. In his opinion, if Parliament had really intended that the local authority should have such a power, that power would have been expressed in unambiguous terms, and not, as was suggested, by implication from the language of Section 38, subsection (4), and Section 46, subsection (1). It was said that the Minister had power to confirm a scheme with modifications, and that he had in fact never confirmed a scheme containing the power of sale, etc., in this unqualified way, but had imported into such schemes words requiring his approval. But he (the learned Judge) could not resist the inference that if the Minister believed that he possessed the power to confirm this scheme he might use it."
This subsection is in quite unambiguous terms. It gives them power to use land acquired for one purpose for any other purpose that they choose. Is it wise to confer that very wide power

243
on the Ministry, when one sees that at this particular moment, under similar powers given under a different Act, you get abuses of this sort coming up and being condemned in the strong words I have read from the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice? I certainly will support the noble Viscount if he presses his Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Before the Government answer I would like to ask this question. As I read the subsection, it appears to me that a county council might obtain certain land under the Acts quoted for the purpose of re-housing or of building additional houses. Having got the land, they might say: "Oh, we find we have made a mistake. There are already plenty of houses and we shall not use the land for that purpose." Having got the land for a particular object, and under a particular Act, they then say: "As we cannot use it for that purpose and we must use it for something—we cannot leave it derelict—we will start a cinema or a municipal entertainment," or something of that sort, for which, if they had in the first instance asked to obtain land for that purpose, it would have been refused to them. It seems to me possible that that could be done. I do not know what answer the Government may give, but if it is an answer that the county councils would not do such a thing, then I beg to say that I do not agree with them. County councillors, like all of us, are human, and they are inclined, some of them, to achieve their end without being very particular by what means. Therefore, unless I am shown to be wrong, I shall have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think there is a little misconception, and I am not surprised, after the speech of the noble Earl. He cited a passage from a judgment which is now under appeal to the Court of Appeal and may ultimately come to this House. I think it undesirable, to say the least, that I should discuss that judgment at this stage, because it may be that later on your Lordships will have to consider it judicially; but inasmuch as that case has been referred to, I should like to explain that so far from its being a case of analogous powers, it is a case which has no sort of analogy to the case which we are dis-
244
cussing. It was a case in which a county council prepared a housing scheme, for the acquisition of land in certain slum districts, in order that they might recondition. Under the Act which deals with the acquisition of land for these purposes it is necessary for the Minister of Health to approve the scheme. It appears that the county council in that particular case—I am not sure whether it was the county council or the county borough, but it does not matter—the county council, not being quite sure whether all the land would be wanted or not for the purpose of their housing scheme, put in a power to sell or lease any surplus land. The Minister was asked to approve the scheme, and the Court has decided that the Minister had no power to approve a scheme which contained so wide a provision.
It was so far from being an analogous power to the one sought that it was a case in which the power conferred by Parliament was a power of compulsory acquisition of land for a certain purpose. Here we are not dealing with the acquisition of land at all; we are dealing with land which has already been acquired and belongs to a county council; and what is sought here is that where the county council have land which they have been authorised to acquire, and which they do not find necessary for the purpose for which it was originally acquired, can turn it to some other useful purpose. My noble friend Lord Banbury said: "Could they start a cinema?" Of course, the answer is "No." I should think it very unlikely that a county council or county borough is already empowered by Statute to run a cinema, but the answer is certainly, "No." Under this subsection you do not empower the county councils to do things which they are at present not authorised by Statute to do; all you do is to authorise them to use land, which they have acquired for some particular purpose, for some other purpose which they are by law entitled to carry out. You do not authorise them to do things which they may not do; all you authorise them to do, if it turns out that the land was not necessary for the purpose for which it was originally obtained, is to use it for some other purpose for which they are lawfully entitled to use land.

245
The power which was regarded as so revolutionary is a power which was given so long ago as 1907 by the Public Health (Amendment) Act in the case of all sanitary authorities; and the provision, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has pointed out, is a provision which is really essential if we are to carry out what I think everybody in the House desires and wishes—namely, centralisation of different kinds of treatment in different kinds of institutions. Because it may well be that they will find themselves in possession of two or three institutions which have been supported by two or three Poor Law authorities, which are all transferred to them under the provisions of Part I of the Act; and they will find it unnecessary to use those institutions for that purpose, and will desire to put in one, say, a hospital, in another something in the nature of a workhouse, and in another case to use the land for some other lawful purpose.
It is quite a mistake to suppose that subsection (2) entitles a county council to do anything which they are not by Statute empowered to do now. All it does is to allow them to use the land which has come into their possession, and which has lawfully reached their possession by virtue of Part I of the Act or by virtue of their previous acquisition of it, for some other purpose than that for which it was originally acquired, if, on the centralisation and rearrangement and reorganisation which is
going to take place under Part I, they find it more useful and better in the public interest that they should so use it. I do hope that, with that explanation, your Lordships will see that this is no wild entrusting of powers to county councils which they do not possess, but merely a necessary, incidental power to enable them to carry out their functions with economy and in the public interest.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am under the impression that a county borough might have a cinema or might even start a co-operative store under this clause, but perhaps I am wrong. I am very glad, however, to hear from the Lord Chancellor that a Judge has at last said that a Minister has exceeded his powers. I should like to offer my congratulations to that Judge, and I hope his example will be followed by many more.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Notwithstanding the fact that the county council cannot do anything unlawful, they can get their Bills varied by the Minister, who is taking rather a wide view of his powers to vary Acts of Parliament. Therefore I am afraid I cannot withdraw my Amendment.
On Question, Whether subsection (2) shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L.Chancellor.)

Sandwich, E.

Biddulph, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Clanwilliam L. (E. Clan-william.)

Wellington, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clinton, L.

Bath, M.

Allendale, V.

Clwyd, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Astor, V.

Danesfort, L.

Reading, M.

Chaplin, V.

Darling, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Daryngton. L.

Airlie, E.

Elibank, V.

de Clifford, L.

Ancaster, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Deramore, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Hood, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Buxton, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Desborough, L.

Chesterfield, E

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Cranbrook, E.

Knutsford, V.

Faringdon, L.

De La Warr, E

Peel, V.

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

Fortescue, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Hanworth, L.

Iveagh, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Harris, L.

Lindsay, E.

Hemphill, L.

Lovelace, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Hindlip, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Aberconway, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Abinger, L.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Addington, L.

Islington, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Ampthill, L.

Jessel, L.

Onslow, E.

Arnold, L.

Leigh, L.

Plymouth, E.

Askwith, L.

Monson, L.

Morris, L.

Remnant, L.

Stanmore, L.

Newton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Strachie, L.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Swaythling, L.

Olivier, L.

Saltoun, L.

Templemore, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Sandhurst, L.

Tenterden, L.

Parmoor, L.

Sempill, L.

Thomson, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

Sinclair, L.

Treowen, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Redesdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bristol, M.

Midleton, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Exeter, M.

Forester, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Lamington, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Lawrence, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Wharton, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Cranworth, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 50 agreed to.
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON moved, after Clause 50, to insert the following new clause:—
Repeal of 45 and 46 Viet. c. 50. s. 236.
"Section two hundred and thirty-six of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (which contains provisions as to the publication of notices and correspondence with respect to the approval of sales, loans, and other financial arrangements proposed to be effected by certain councils) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: This new clause is one that the Association of Municipal Corporations have asked me to move. It has this merit, that, although it is a new clause to an already very exhaustive Bill, it only proposes to repeal certain sections of an old Statute. It is a very small matter and I hope your Lordships will regard it in that light. It requires very little explanation from me. Under Section 108 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, the council of a borough is prohibited from selling or mortgaging corporate land without the approval of the Treasury, now the Ministry of Health. The proposed new clause leaves that provision undisturbed. It merely repeals the provisions in Section 236 of the Act which prescribe that notices have to be given.
The practice in giving these notices is that for a month before such sale or mortgage, the notice has to be affixed to the town hall, and if there is any objection raised the notice of correspondence has also to be affixed to the town hall. The Association of Municipal Corporations, I believe unanimously, on behalf of their members, regard this practice as one that has become obsolete and un-
248
necessary and can, therefore, quite well he removed from the Statute. These notices are never read. There is a much simpler and more up-to-date method of obtaining information than that which prevails under these notices. It is asked that this prescription should be removed from the Statute Book and that the notices should no longer encumber the notice boards of corporations. As I say, the notices are not read, it is a waste of time to place them there and there is a certain expense in drafting them. I think I have put the case as it stands and in the way in which it is regarded by the corporations, and I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 42, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Islington.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think I need detain your Lordships in regard to this Amendment. The clause has been very carefully explained by my noble friend and the Government are quite prepared to accept it.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 50, to insert the following new clause:—
Application of Borough Funds Acts to rural district councils.
" Subject as hereinafter provided, the council of a rural district shall have the like powers of promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament and of prosecuting or defending any legal proceedings necessary for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of their district as are conferred on councils of urban districts by the Borough Funds Acts, 1872 and 1903, and accordingly in those Acts, the expressions 'governing body' and 'council' shall include the council of a rural district, and the expression 'chairman' shall include the chairman of such a council:
Provided that section one of the Borough Funds Act, 1903, and the other provisions of that Act relating to meetings and polls of electors, shall not apply as respects rural district councils."
The noble Lord said: The object of this new clause is to enable rural district councils to exercise the powers already conferred on urban district councils by the Borough Funds Acts, 1872 and 1903, to promote and oppose Bills in Parliament and to take or defend any legal proceedings which may be necessary in the interests of the inhabitants of the district under their charge. It is very desirable to give this power to rural district councils. The probability is that rural district councils will be largely increasing their areas and therefore will have the more reason to promote Bills in Parliament. This provision may recommend itself to the Government and I hope they will see their way to accept it in the interests of those rural district councils on whose behalf I propose it.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 42, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am glad to say I am able to accept this clause, all the more so because I think it is the only recommendation of the Royal Commission which has not been dealt with in the Bill.
Clause 51:
Provisions as to expenses of rural district councils.
(3) Any determination or apportionment by a rural district council under this section shall be binding and conclusive on a11 parties concerned, notwithstanding any enactment conferring a right of appeal to Quarter Sessions.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to ask whether there is any particular reason why the apparent right of appeal to Quarter Sessions should be taken away. At present there is a right of appeal to Quarter Sessions against a Poor Law assessment and also, under the Public Health Act of 1875, a right of appeal against a separate rate for special expenses for rural districts. Now this subsection says that—
250
"Any determination or apportionment by a rural district council under this section shall be binding and conclusive on all parties concerned, notwithstanding any enactment conferring a right of appeal to Quarter Sessions."
For anything I know to the contrary advantage may be taken by means of this Bill to prevent the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions by people who want to get their assessments altered. Does this subsection take away such right of appeal, and if so, for what reason?
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 17, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord has asked me what the reason was for this particular Subsection. The clause deals with provisions as to expenses of rural district councils. It seems to me that the question whether a rural district council should contribute or should not contribute from their general fund towards expenses incurred by them and payable as special expenses, and also the manner in which a council should apportion between contributory places any expenses incurred by them, are essentially matters of local government. It is essentially a question for the elected representatives of the district to decide for themselves. I think they may fairly be trusted to settle such matters. I do not think it is usual for Quarter Sessions to deal with matters of this kind. Quarter Sessions deal with issues affecting particular individuals, particular interests, and so forth, rather than questions as between the general body of local ratepayers. They have jurisdiction, of course, over appeals where proceedings are taken by local authorities for the abatement of nuisances on private property. They would then have to deal with offences against public health, but the questions which we are considering here are purely domestic questions for a local authority, and do not seem to be matters which are properly referable by appeal to Quarter Sessions. They are matters which I think are properly settled by the local authorities themselves who are quite competent to come to a final decision.
LORD ASKWITH: I suppose that is intended as an explanation. It seems to me a rural authority has to get its money from somewhere by a special rate, and has to tell the overseers of the contri-

251
butory district to obtain the money. In the circumstances I do not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Relations between county councils and district councils in respect of public health functions]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendment standing in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 28, after ("supply") insert ("of water").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after subsection (1), to insert:—
"(2) A county council may, where they are satisfied that a scheme or further scheme for the supply of water, or the disposal of sewage, or the establishment of sewerage works is necessary for a district or combination of districts wholly or partly within the county, but cannot or will not be provided by the district council or councils concerned, prepare such scheme as they consider appropriate for the purpose, and the said district council or councils thereupon shall, subject to such appeal to the Minister as is mentioned in subsection (4) of this section, give effect thereto.
(3) A scheme prepared in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall contain directions for the commencement and completion of the works specified therein, and in the event of the district council or councils failing to comply with any of the directions so given the county council may themselves undertake such works as may be necessary to give effect to the scheme.
(4) The county council shall, within fourteen days after the making of a scheme under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, send a copy of the scheme to the Minister and to the council of each district to which it applies, and any such district cou0144cil may, within three months after the making of the scheme, appeal against the whole or any part thereof to the Minister, who may thereupon either disallow the scheme or confirm it with or without modification:
Provided that for the purposes of this subsection a scheme shall be deemed to be made on the date on which it is adopted by a resolution of the county council.
(5) All expenditure incurred in connection with the works authorised by the scheme and the subsequent maintenance of such works shall be defrayed by the district council or councils to whose area or areas the scheme applies in such manner as is provided by the scheme, but the county council may make a contribution towards such expenditure in accordance with the power conferred upon them by subsection (1) of this section."
The noble Lord said: This is rather an important Amendment dealing with the question of public health. The chief object of the Amendment is mostly stated in subsection (2). The object—and it is quite optional—is to allow county councils to contribute, in the interests of public health, towards the cost of water supplies, sewerage works and general sewage schemes in particular districts in the county where they are necessary and in which districts there may perhaps be none at all. The county councils are here given power to contribute to these expenses if they think fit. The expenses will be incurred by rural district councils or small authorities—this does not apply to rural district councils only but also to small urban districts within a county. The other provisions are all in the interests of public health. You may have small authorities who are unwilling to incur expenditure which is necessary in the interests of public health, and in such cases the county councils would have the right to insist on expenditure being undertaken. But there is power for the Minister of Health to interfere if anything is improperly demanded by a county council. In such a case the Ministry of Health would act as an appeal tribunal.
Sometimes the Government support the recommendations of the Royal Commission and on other occasions they go against those recommendations. I hope on this occasion they will prefer to support the Royal Commission. In the Second Report of the Royal Commission, paragraph 66, the following appears:
"We observe that the Minister of Health would prefer to see county councils empowered to secure the proper discharge of 'public health functions' without discrimination, and that be would leave it to the discretion of the county council to make a contribution in the case of any service which they determined could most suitably be stimulated by financial assistance."
There is a note to that stating that this evidence is given on behalf of the Minister of Health by Sir Arthur Robinson, and therefore it has great weight. In another paragraph (67) the Report says:
"We, therefore, recommend that county councils should be empowered to contribute, at the expense of the ratepayers of the administrative county as a whole, to the cost of the provision of water supply and sewerage (including sewage disposal) by councils of county districts, if it appears to a county council that such provision ought to be made in any county district, but that

253
it would entail a financial burden which it would be unreasonable to expect the council of the county district to incur unaided: Provided that the council of any county district should be empowered to represent to the Minister that an unreasonable burden would be imposed upon them by a proposal of the county council to make a contribution to another district."
I do not think we can have anything stronger than the passage I have quoted from the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government regarding this matter.
The Royal Commission unanimously passed this recommendation and I hope your Lordships will agree that this Amendment ought to be accepted because there are undoubtedly certain districts which would not be able to carry out necessary work without assistance. We had cases brought before us, for instance, of watering places which had only a season lasting for a few months and which were over-crowded at that particular time. A system of drainage ought to be carried out and the public health was suffering because it was not carried out for the reason that the amount raised by a penny rate was insufficient to enable the council to carry out necessary improvements. Cases such as that are cases in which it is quite right that the county council should contribute towards the expense. In cases where anything unfair was done by the county council there would be an appeal to the Minister, who could be trusted to see that no unfair burden was placed on any district. I hope that the Government will accept these subsections because they are founded entirely on the Report of the Royal Commission who were perfectly unanimous on this particular point.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 30, insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD OLIVIER: I would like to support the proposal of the noble Lord. The, Bill, as it stands at present, is an improvement on the present position because it does enable county councils to come to the aid of poor districts whose borrowing powers are not sufficient to provide for a water supply. That is a relief for which country districts are indebted to the authors of the Bill, but it is not quite enough. Even in those circumstances there will be constantly found, I am afraid, in country districts which are in
254
want of an improved water supply, an indisposition to move when really the standard of public health demands that movement should be made. That is the case in the district in which I live. All round Oxford there has been an increase in population and as there is not the necessary housing accommodation people have gone into villages twelve, thirteen and fifteen miles away. There is no proper water supply in those villages and the rateable value is not enough for them to raise a loan to pay for a water supply.
Moreover, the original population are very conservative. They say: "What was good enough for our fathers is good enough for us. We can go to the well and that is all we want." But the people now going into these districts are people of a higher civilisation, or, at any rate, of better habits of civilisation, and they demand a good water supply. They go into these districts because they have children and cannot get accommodation in the towns. They have modern standards of cleanliness and are accustomed to an abundance of water, and it is very irksome to them not to have water simply because their neighbours are not disposed to think that it is necessary for them. In such cases county councils which have these higher standards should come to the rescue and say to the inhabitants of these villages: "You must have a proper water supply, even though you do not like to pay the rate of 2d. or 3d. which it would put upon you. We will make up the balance and we will require you to carry out a scheme." I think the additional powers proposed by the noble Lord are really required.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am sorry to find myself defending a clause in the Bill which my noble friend who was a colleague of mine on the Royal Commission thinks is at variance with the decision unanimously arrived at by that body. I find myself in entire agreement with everything that has been said by the two noble Lords, and I am in wholehearted sympathy with Lord Olivier in the disabilities which he so eloquently described. I trust the Bill will, at any rate, afford him the satisfaction that under it they can be removed. It is not done in quite the way in which Lord Strachie suggested, but I venture to suggest that the Bill does carry out the

255
recommendation of the Royal Commission. If your Lordships will look at the clause you will see that it says that "the council of a county may agree to contribute towards the expenditure incurred" for this purpose—this very necessary purpose. If you turn to subsection (3) of the clause you will see that in case of default, which is really the point, I suppose, the Minister may take action, and "may by order transfer to the county council the function with respect to which default has been made."
It is true that a difference comes in here, but I do not think that there is any discrepancy between the recommendation of the Royal Commission and the provisions of the Bill. It is true that, under subsection (3), initiative would rest with the Minister, whereas under the Amendment proposed by my noble friend it would rest with the county council to take action in the first place. I do not think there is really any material difference, because if there was a case in which a county council wished to take action they would make representation to the Minister and ask him to deal with the matter in the manner laid down in the Bill, which is entirely in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission. The county council, therefore, I think, have absolute power to secure what my noble friend wishes to obtain. I would deprecate any alteration in the Bill which gives every opportunity for county councils to exercise these functions. As I think my noble friend will remember, the matter was one on which there was considerable debate between various local authorities, and I think myself the way in which the Bill is drafted will prove most agreeable to the various district authorities themselves. I think the clause does meet the recommendation of the Royal Commission and I venture to hope that my noble friend will agree.
LORD STRACHIE: I accept the explanation given by the noble Earl as satisfactory and therefore I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53:
Provisions as to medical officers of health.
53.—(1) The council of every county shall, after consultation with the councils of dis-
256
tricts wholly or partly within the county, formulate arrangements for securing, whether by means of a combination of districts or othewise, that every medical officer of health subsequently appointed for a district shall be restricted by the terms of his employment from engaging in private practice as a medical practitioner.
(4) Where such arrangements as aforesaid have been formulated, then, on a vacancy occurring in the office of medical officer of health for any such district, it shall be a term of the appointment of a person to fill the vacancy that he shall not engage in private practice as a medical practitioner:
Provided that if upon application made to him by the council of the district in connection with any such proposed appointment the Minister, after considering the arrangements formulated and any representations which may be made to him by the county council or by the councils of other districts concerned, is satisfied that such a term cannot conveniently form part of the terms of the proposed appointment, he may dispense with the foregoing requirement as respects that appointment on such conditions as he may think fit.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "securing" and to insert "the future appointment by district councils of medical officers of health, whether by combinations of districts or otherwise, which shall most conduce to the efficient carrying out of public health services within the county as a whole as well as within the districts to which they are respectively appointed." The noble Earl said: The Amendment standing in my name really originated with my noble friend the Earl of Midleton, who, unfortunately, was unable to move it himself and asked me to put it on the Paper. It can be explained very shortly. Clause 53 says that in future when any medical officer is appointed he shall be appointed as a whole-time officer and shall not be allowed to take part in private practice. It is quite true, and quite fair, to say that there is a proviso at the end, that the Minister may in exceptional circumstances waive that condition, but that is to be the ordinary and primary condition.
There is something else that it is quite right to say. I am going to refer to a document which I will not suggest is a document on which this Bill is based. It is the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. I would rather refer to it as a document which

257
flits in and out of this debate from time to time as the Government think it expedient to bring it forward or leave it in Obscurity. It is only fair to say that the unanimous finding of this particular Report is in accordance with the clause as drafted, but the criticisms, that, I think might fairly be made is that, when we come to look at the Report, we see that this finding was based on evidence given by the Minister himself.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Not only the Minister.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The noble Earl corrected me too soon. It was based on evidence given by the Minister himself, by the county councils, by the rural councils, by the borough and, I think, the urban district councils. Is it not clear that, when you have evidence based on views of administrative bodies, they are thinking primarily of what would be most convenient to them? Undoubtedly the use of whole-time servants would be more suitable for their purpose, and these servants would be easier to deal with. But is that quite the question? The question is whether the medical officer of health would not be more efficient in his district if he were to keep up what is known as the curative part of his work as a doctor, and were not confined to an administrative position where he does not exercise his profession. I had hoped that when this Amendment came on Lord Dawson of Penn might have been in his place, because I tell your Lordships quite frankly that this is not an Amendment that originated with me, nor do I pretend to be an expert in the matter, but it was suggested that the point ought to be laid before your Lordships before you agreed to the clause as it stands, and for that reason I have thought proper to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 30, leave out from ("securing") to end of subsection and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This cuts at the root of the whole of the recommendations in this connection of the Royal Commission which are embodied in the Bill. The noble Earl corrected me when I ventured to interrupt him, and said that the findings were based on the evidence of the Minister, of the county
258
councils, of the Association of Municipal Corporations and of the Urban District Councils Association. That is true, but he did not mention the Rural District Councils Association. If your Lordships will turn to paragraph 100 you will see that the Rural District Councils Association considered it desirable that the medical officer of health should be a whole-time officer wherever practicable. It is, of course, in the rural districts, where the work is not so arduous, that the part-time officer is most usually found. The rural district councils agreed that it was desirable to have a whole-time officer wherever possible.
I would also draw your Lordships' attention to a letter from the medical secretary of the British Medical Association which appeared in The Times yesterday, in which he says that he would appreciate an opportunity of stating the policy of that body as adopted in 1911—namely, that:—
"In the general interests of public health and of the medical profession it is desirable … that medical officers of health should as a rule (and without prejudice to those at present holing part-time appointments) be required to devote their whole time to official duties."
The arguments in favour of having a whole-time officer can be briefly stated. There has been a tremendous development of these duties in recent years, and the demand for specialised knowledge has made it necessary that the medical officer of health should have a diploma of public health. Further, the private practitioner has other interests than those of the medical officer of health. He has to attend to his private as well as to his public duties, and the two activities might conflict. I submit to your Lordships that it is undesirable that a man should be placed in a position where public and private interests might conflict, and it is desirable that the medical officer should devote his whole attention to public work.
Of course it is not necessary that he should be medical officer for one district alone. He might, serve two or three districts, or a rural and an urban district, but it is desirable that he should be a whole-time public servant. Another point is that there might be an epidemic, and a private practitioner with a great demand upon his time would have to choose

259
between the interests of his private patients and his public duties. One can conceive numerous cases in which that choice would be very difficult. The consensus of opinion of local authorities and of the British Medical Association is in favour of the appointment of whole-time officers. There is a proviso in the Bill by which, where there are part-time officers and the system is working well, a loop-hole is given. That is quite right, for one should always have an opportunity of dealing with special cases, but as a general rule I am quite certain that the right policy to follow throughout the country is to have whole-time medical officers of health in accordance with the terms of the Bill.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: It is quite obvious that there must be something to be said on both sides of this question. After what has been said by the noble Earl, who has pointed out that all these matters have been gone into carefully and that the Government have come to the conclusion that the whole-time officer is better as a whole, naturally I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55:
Maternity and child welfare services.
55. Where in any district any services under the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, are being provided by a council who are not the local education authority for elementary education for the district, and the Minister, on representations being made to him by the council who are such local education authority for the district, is satisfied that the transfer of the services to the council who are such local education authority would conduce to the more efficient administration in the district of the functions relating to public health and education, the minister may, by order—
(a) withdraw his sanction to any arrangements made under the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, by the council who are providing the services, and
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, shortly before paragraph (a), to leave out "and education" and to insert "having regard to local conditions and requirements." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to deal with the maternity and child welfare schemes of certain urban district
260
councils. I can put the case very shortly. There are certain districts that have grown very much in the last twenty years. For instance, you have Coulsdon and Purley, which have now a population of 35,000 persons; Sutton with 42,000; and Barnes with over 34,000. These districts administer schemes of maternity and child welfare but, as they had not in 1901 a population of 20,000, they are not the local education authority. That authority is still the county council, and can apply to the Minister of Health to transfer maternity and child welfare schemes. By this clause, if your Lordships will read it, the Minister of Health can really take away the arrangement under which these urban district councils are administering maternity and child welfare schemes. My Amendment proposes that the Minister of Health shall not be able, on the application of the county council, to transfer these services to the county council, unless he is satisfied that the transfer would conduce to the more efficient administration in the district of the functions relating to public health, "having regard to local conditions and requirements."
I think that is a reasonable position. The county councils will have quite enough to do under the various provisions of this Bill. They will have their powers and functions largely increased, and they will be over-burdened without the necessity of administering maternity and child welfare schemes which are being, and have for years been, well administered by others. It is only in respect of such services that I urge this Amendment. If it really would be in the interests of public health, having regard to local conditions and so forth, to make these changes, they can still be made under my Amendment, but my Amendment would alter the clause as it stands, and I think would improve the operation of it in the interests of the community all round. Why, I ask, should we upset existing arrangements if they work well? The noble Earl may say that the Bill will not really upset them, because things will go on very much as before, but I submit, with respect, that there will be a change, for the control will be taken from the urban district councils, and I think that on the balance there are strong reasons why my Amendment, which is a very modest one, should be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 41, leave out ("and education") and insert ("having regard to local conditions and requirements").—(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOWI am in great sympathy with what the noble Lord has said, and especially with the question which he has asked—namely, why should you interfere with an institution which is running well? I agree, and I do not think that the clause necessarily causes you to do so, and I should like, if I may for 'a moment, to deal with the question of maternity and child welfare. The whole matter was gone into with great care by the Royal Commission, and the point raised a discussion of great interest, and perhaps, as it joins on very closely with other matters, I may be allowed to speak upon it for a few minutes. The Act of 1918 provided that a district could become a maternity and child welfare authority. While this Bill does not insist upon it, it encourages and provides machinery for the transfer of the duties of a maternity and child welfare authority to a body which is a school medical authority, that is to say, generally speaking, it is considered advisable that the maternity and child welfare authority to a body the school medical authority. This clause gives effect to that to a certain extent, but it does provide for a, great deal of latitude, so as not to interfere with a child welfare committee which is doing good work, though it indicates the policy of combining the functions under an authority which is also a school medical authority.
The reason for it is this, and it raises another point which I think is going to be dealt with by noble Lords 'at a later stage. The object of the various clauses in the Bill dealing with the subject of maternity and child welfare is to get the supervision of the child—and the mother also—from pre-natal days until the child ceases to be of school age and under the care of au authority at all, in the hands of one and the same local authority. The object is, in the first place, to have a maternity and child welfare committee which deals with the mother and child in pre-natal days. Then comes the period of birth and the child comes under the supervision of the midwife. Provision is made to bring the midwives under the same supervision, whether district or
262
county, as the maternity and child welfare authority. Then you come to the period when the midwife has left, and the child in its early days comes again under the care of the maternity and child welfare committee, and it is desirable that the same authority should have control. Then you come to the school age. The school medical authority, whether district or county, is the authority which will take over the child's welfare, and it is desirable that the school medical authority should be under the same body. If we follow the policy in the Bill we shall get the maternity and child welfare, the mid-wives and the school medical authority all under one body, whether district or county authority. I admit quite freely to Lord Arnold that a body which is not an education authority—I think he mentioned Barnes—I do not quite understand——
LORD ARNOLD: Perhaps I should explain that it was in 1901, when the population was then under 20,000, and it has grown since. If that could be but right, there would be no difficulty.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think that an authority which was doing well would not be interfered with, but as a matter of broad policy it is desirable to get all the authorities under one body, and you must trust to administrative ability on the part of the Ministry of Health to see that the power is not unreasonably used, and that in order to obtain uniformity we shall not take away what is being well done already by somebody else. Gradually, no doubt, uniformity will be obtained, but one does not want to interfere with district councils which are doing good work, and the Bill has been carefully drafted to secure that.
LORD ARNOLD: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his full reply. I am somewhat reassured, because I had fears that under the clause as it stands in practice it would mean that before long every one of these maternity and child welfare schemes would be moved from the district authority to the local education authority, which is, for reasons stated, the county council and county education authority. The noble Earl says that in his view that would not happen, and that if schemes are being well administered he thinks they will be allowed to

263
remain as at present. I am very glad to hear that. He is evidently not going to accept my Amendment, but if the Bill is administered in the way in which he says it will be then there will not be very much cause for complaint. I recognise that where schemes are not being well administered there would be a case for transferring, but if they are I think they should be allowed to remain with these urban bodies. I think that that reassurance will do something to remove the misgivings of these bodies. As I have pointed out on a previous occasion, there is not very much inducement to go on an urban district council. The prestige is not great, and, if the good work which they are doing is to be taken away from them without sufficient reason, I think that is undesirable. But I am a good deal reassured, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57:
Supervision of midwives.
57.—(1) If the council of any district have established a maternity and child welfare committee and employ a medical officer of health who, by the terms of his appointment, is restricted from engaging in private practice, the council may apply to the Minister to be made the local supervising authority under the Midwives Acts, 1902 to 1926, and the Minister, if, after consultation with the county council he is satisfied that the district council are in a position to discharge the whole of the functions of a local supervising authority under those Acts, may, by order, direct that the council shall become the local supervising authority for the district in place of the county council, and provide for the manner in which the expenses of the district council and the county council under those Acts are to be defrayed.
(2) Where an order' has been made under the foregoing subsection, the Minister may at any time, if he is satisfied that the functions of the local supervising authority, should be retransferred to the county council, make a further order revoking the original order, and thereupon the county council shall again become the local supervising authority under the said Acts.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (1), after "If the council of any district," to insert "being a local education authority." The noble Earl said: Here, again, I am moving an Amendment suggested by my noble friend
264
Lord Midleton with regard to the question of midwives. The Amendment gives a larger area than the Bill for the control over midwives. The case for the midwives is put rather in this way. Their first objection is that there is bound to be a difficulty arising by reason of the fact that if they are under very small areas their work will certainly take them outside those areas, and they will find themselves under a dual control—at one time under that of the small area and at another time under that of the county council. The effect will probably be that there will be conflicting rules and regulations made by the two bodies, and the rules with regard to disinfection, for example, and the times of disinfection, and various things of that kind, will vary in the two different areas. It would, therefore, be better from their point of view if they could remain under the larger area rather than be put under the smaller area.
The next point is this. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill will probably not think I am overstating what appeared in the Report of the Royal Commission when I say, having read through the part which deals with the maternity question and the question of midwives, that he seems to make it the pivot of the whole of that part of the Report that the control should start with, and largely be kept in the hands of, the local education authority. If so, my proposed Amendment would not be at variance with the findings of the Royal Commission. If the district were that of the local education authority it would be a district of some size. That undoubtedly would please those who advise the midwives, and who, in this matter, comprise practically every well known body concerned with midwifery. The larger the area the broader the view, and the lees likelihood of local difficulties being put in the way—such a difficulty as that of a doctor preferring one particular midwife because he has been working with her, and employing her to the exclusion of others. Furthermore, it would be much easier to get an experienced inspector for the larger than for the smaller area.
I think one is entitled to look to what has happened in the past. Under the Midwives Act, 1902, there was a power for counties to delegate the inspection of midwives and the general question of

265
midwives to a smaller committee. Ten counties adopted that, but every single one of them, after trial, gave it up. In 1909 it was suggested by the Departmental Committee that that delegation to small committees should be given up entirely, and, in fact, when the Midwives Act, 1918, was passed it was repealed. Therefore, I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that this question might be considered again before this part of the Bill is passed. I have a second Amendment lower down which really runs with the first. It proposes that if there is any difference between the county council and the district council with regard to a possible order that may be made by the Minister in accordance with this clause, he should hold a local inquiry among the people who know the circumstances, and the matter should be gone into at the place where the difficulty has arisen rather than be inquired into departmentally at Whitehall.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 24, after ("district") insert ("being a local education authority").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD PARMOOR: I have an Amendment down to the same effect as this, and I wish in every way to adopt the noble Earl's argument. I think that the transference to the smaller authority would be a mistake. I have before me a document showing that the Incorporated Midwives Institute and every other similar association is opposed to this provision. The change has already been tried and given up in the cases to which the noble Earl referred. This Amendment, I believe, was on the Report stage in the House of Commons in the hands of a great expert on this subject, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, but, owing to the effect of the "guillotine," he was unable to bring the matter forward. With regard to the later Amendment concerning a local inquiry, I think that is a very important safeguard. There is an Amendment before my Amendment on this subject, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Strachie and Lord Cottesloe, and it seems to me that that Amendment goes substantially to the same length as we desire. I am not quite sure that I am right about that, but I think it does, and I certainly commend this present Amendment as one right in itself, as representing the result
266
of experiment, and as one supported by everyone who has had substantial experience in this matter.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: When Lord Parmoor and I were in a former state of life he often had the honour of leading me, but I never knew before that I should have to speak at greater length than he. I shall try, however, to be as short as I can. I will not quote now the opinion of an anonymous expert such as we heard the other day. I am going to tell you, if I may and as shortly as I can, what the opinion of everybody concerned with the training of midwives is on this subject. I am authorised to say that the Central Midwives Board object to this transfer of the powers of the inspection of midwives from the county council to a district council. Queen Victoria's Jubilee Nurses, who are the largest employers of midwives, object to it. The Incorporated Midwives Institute object to it, and the College of the Nursing object to it. (I am speaking to Amendments generally.) All those bodies object to having the inspection and supervision of midwives transferred to the smaller body. They have been unfortunate in this business, because they were "guillotined" in the discussion in another place, and when they were prepared to place their evidence before the Royal Commission on Local Government they were not heard. Therefore, this is really the first opportunity (I am sorry it is in such poor hands) there has been of voicing the unanimous opinion of everyone of the bodies concerned with midwives and everyone who employs them.
We want to encourage women to join the profession of midwifery. It is not easy to get them, and one thing that would make midwives more happy in their work is that they should feel safe that the supervision they are under will be supervision, not only of somebody who knows how to carry out the duties that they have to perform, but who knows what is expected of midwives and what standard they have to work up to. They feel certain that they can get better treatment and better supervision from the more important body, the county council, than from a district council. Why? The county council are an important body. The county council contain men of much wider experience than

267
those on a district council. The county council are enabled—and this is a very important point—to employ whole-time supervisors, women who have nothing else to do. It is impossible for a district council to employ a whole-time inspector of midwives' work. They might have only one or two midwives in the whole of their district. The point that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, stated is perfectly right—that if we hand the duties of supervision over to the district councils, a midwife might be working under one district council here, another one there, and another one there, all with a different standard of inspection. I am afraid I am being hurried by time and cannot put to you all the arguments I should like to put; but you cannot disbelieve me when I say that I am voicing the opinion of all of them. You cannot disregard it, and you cannot hand these women over to the inspection of district bodies. They are asking only that they shall be left to the supervision of their work by the more important body, the county council, instead of the district council.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: My noble friend Lord Knutsford has told you what the views are of the associations of midwives, and has rather advocated, as it seems to me, that the whole of this clause should disappear. I would like to inform your Lordships of what the feeling is in one County at least of which I can speak, Hertford, in regard to this matter. I am speaking for ladies who are connected with the maternity and child welfare committees and the supervision of midwives. They know what they are talking about, and we in the county at all events have the greatest respect for their competence and their opinion. They view Clause 57 with something akin to dismay. I can understand that in the County of London or a county in which there are very important district authorities the case would be different; but in Hertfordshire, so far as I can see, the proposed transfer would be of no advantage either to the county council, to the district council, to the midwives or still less to the patient, who is the person who ought to be most considered.
We are speaking to other Amendments which have not been brought forward but it seems to me that it is a most mild
268
and reasonable request that those who are responsible for the efficiency of the midwives as well as the midwives themselves should have an opportunity of expressing their views before they are transferred from one authority to another. I do not want to use any expression that might be considered offensive, but this clause treats a useful and necessary body of working women as if they were chattels to be transferred from one authority to another without even allowing them to state their case. With all respect, I think that it is also unreasonable not to ask those who supervise the midwives to express their views, and unjust to the midwives themselves.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I ventured to trouble your Lordships with some few words in dealing with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, because I wanted to explain to your Lordships the whole policy in regard to maternity and child Welfare which governs the provisions of this Bill. I have already explained the point about midwives, and I will not trespass upon your Lordships' time any longer in that regard. It has been said that under this Bill the midwives are likely to come under the supervision of a body of a district which is not so likely to afford them that proper care and control which they would naturally expect from a county council. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the very careful provisions of this clause which is based upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It says that if, after consultation with the county council, the Minister is satisfied—the county council, of course, will have an opportunity of stating their views after the district council have put forward their request—
"that the district council are in a position to discharge the whole of the functions of a local supervising authority"—
and so forth, then, and then only, can he give his permission for them to take over the duties of the supervision of midwives.
A great deal of feeling has been expressed in the larger municipal boroughs, and I hope that in this I may have the sympathy of the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. The larger municipal boroughs have felt that they have had some cause for displeasure because this duty has been taken away from them.

269
It is to be remembered that under the Act of 1925, which was based upon the First Report of the Royal Commission, the size of a county borough in future or of any borough which is constituted a county borough is increased from 50,000 to 75,000. Therefore, there are a large number of towns approaching the 50,000 which will have to wait a long time before there is any hope of them becoming county boroughs. It is to such towns more than others that this particular clause is directed. Though, of course, I have explained that the general policy of maternity and child welfare includes midwives, I do not think it is likely, seeing the careful wording of this clause, that any Minister would transfer the supervision of midwives to any authority unless he was perfectly certain that it would carry out the duties well. If a borough of over 50,000 or any large county borough was the supervising authority it is unlikely that it would do it worse than a county. If, for instance, the Rhondda Valley, an urban district of 250,000 inhabitants, were the supervising authority, one would expect them to be equally competent with a county borough of, say, 75,000 inhabitants. It is part of the general policy, and I would venture to ask your Lordships to consider it in that light and to bear in mind also the fact that for the safeguarding of the interests of the midwives the clause is very carefully drawn, and I do not think they are very likely to be injured by its provisions.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships will all, I am sure, agree that this is a matter of the greatest importance. The midwives throughout the country are performing very valuable national services, and I am very glad to have this opportunity of urging, what I am sure is the opinion of your Lordships as a whole, that we ought not to deal lightly with them as a service, nor remove them against their wishes, or allow them to be moved against their wishes, from one authority to another. Nobody has more right to speak with authority, after so many years of devoted service to nursing and hospitals, than the noble Viscount who spoke a few minutes ago, and whose speech, I confess, moved me a great deal. I think the matter is very unsatisfactory in its present position. Your Lordships' House has especial
270
responsibility in view of the fact that this matter was not discussed at all in another place. I am not in the least moved by the argument of the noble Earl with regard to the autonomy of municipal boroughs, because so far in this Bill he has entirely neglected any argument that I have used as to their importance or competence. Now, on this occasion, he tells me that they are perfectly competent people to carry this out. If he had thought them competent on the other occasions I should have listened more readily to him when he makes such an appeal on the present occasion.
I think that an uncommonly good case has been made against this clause by the noble Viscount, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Hunsdon, with whom I am glad to find myself for once in agreement. I am most unwilling at the present time, having heard what has been said by the two noble Lords, to agree to the clause as it stands at the present moment. I regret that we cannot consider the matter a little more at length. This is an unfortunate time of the evening for the matter to be brought forward. What we desire is that this work should be carried on with the greatest efficiency. Those who are engaged in this work themselves, the midwives, speak with the unanimity which was voiced by the noble Viscount, and I think it is very difficult for your Lordships' House to neglect their appeal that we should strike this clause out. The only alternative really seems to me to be to strike the clause out of the Bill: the Amendments which are suggested hardly go so far as I should think is necessary having regard to what has been said.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The words which your Lordships have heard spoken by so many members of this House indicate that there is a great desire among your Lordships for further consideration of this clause. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I would suggest that we leave matters as they stand without considering the further Amendments that are down on this clause, and permit me to consider the subject with my right hon. friend the Minister of Health and bring the matter up again on Report. All these Amend-

271
ments might be brought up again on Report, and possibly we might be able to meet noble Lords with other proposals. If your Lordships would allow me to take that course I would undertake to go into it again with my right hon. friend at the Ministry and see how it would be possible to meet your Lordships, leaving, of course, your Lordships entirely free to bring forward any further Amendments on Report that you wish to propose.
THE EARL OF HALISBURY: Naturally after what has just been said I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, but I should like to call the attention of the noble Earl to a point for consideration on the Report stage. The clause as it at present stands gives no say in the matter to any of the midwives themselves, and I would like to suggest to the noble Earl that before the Report stage he might at least give a little thought as to whether or not the midwives themselves might be given some say in the matter.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: I think it is much better to leave the matter as it is. We have the noble Earl in such a conciliatory mood before dinner that I think we had better accept what we have got, and be grateful to your Lordships for the sympathy you have always shown to people in distress.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Provision of hospital accommodation for infectious disease]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have to move out words in subsection (1) which are unnecessary as a similar general provision exists in Clause 119.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 10, leave out from ("county") to the end of the subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59:
Power of London County Council to transfer or delegate functions to metropolitan borough councils.
59.—(1) The Minister may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the London County Council or of any association or committee which is in his opinion representative of the metropolitan borough councils, by order provide—
272

(a) for the transfer to all the metropolitan borough councils of any functions exercisable by the county council other than functions transferred to them under Part I of this Act; or

(b) for the exercise by any of the metropolitan borough councils as agents for the county council of any functions of the county council other than functions transferred as aforesaid.

LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (1), after "any," to insert "Metropolitan borough council or of any." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I can move very shortly. Under the clause as it stands the only body which can represent the views of the Metropolitan borough councils is an association or committee which in the opinion of the Minister is representative of the Metropolitan borough councils. Presumably that is the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, but, clearly, the position might easily arise in which difficulties would be created if the clause is not somewhat widened. The Standing Joint Committee might cease to be representative of Metropolitan boroughs. Some boroughs might withdraw and perhaps form an association of their own. In such an event—and it might happen owing to conflicting political and financial interests—a real difficulty would arise. I suggest that the clause ought to be amended so that it would be competent for the Minister of Health to take into account the view of any association or associations, any committee or committees; indeed the view of any individual borough council. Unless that is done the Minister of Health might know of such views, he might even attach weight to them, yet it would be wrong for him, unless the clause is amended, to take into account any views except those of one committee or association. Surely that cannot be right. I cannot see any real objection to the acceptance of this Amendment. It can do no harm; it might well be needed in certain circumstances which might easily arise. I therefore hope it will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 36, at end insert ("Metropolitan borough council or of any").—(Lord Arnold.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I rather hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. I think I can reassure him. Your Lordships will see that Clause 59 is a clause which gives power to transfer functions to the Metropolitan borough councils which are exercisable by the county council. It has to be done on the clause as it stands, either on the application of the London County Council or of any association or committee which is, in the Minister's opinion, representative of the Metropolitan borough councils. The noble Lord suggests that on the representation of any Metropolitan borough council, the Minister may, by Order, so provide. I think that would be going a good deal too far. The reason he gave is that the present Metropolitan Borough Councils Committee may cease to be representative. I do not think that is a very likely thing to happen. Still more unlikely is it that the Metropolitan borough councils would not have some sort of association or committee representative of their interests. The Metropolitan borough councils themselves, their Standing Joint Committee, and the L.C.C. have accepted the clause as it stands and it seems to us desirable. I think your Lordships will agree that a proposal of this kind should come from some representative body rather than from one individual borough council; and of course, any individual borough council could easily move its association, and, if the association agreed with it, then they would be able to bring their proposals before the Minister. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD ARNOLD: I am sorry that I do not find that very conclusive because in the first place, although the Lord Chancellor thinks that it is improbable that this Standing Joint Committee would cease to be representative, I am told that there is doubt about that. This Amendment is supported by people outside who have great knowledge of these things and who say that it might cease to be fully representative of the Metropolitan borough councils. I cannot see any objection to widening the clause. Discretion would still be with the Minister. The Lord Chancellor is not really giving anything away. The whole discretion would remain with the Minister. Under the clause as it stands it would be definitely wrong for the Minister to take account of views which he might
274
know of unless they were supported by one association.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: By any association or committee which is representative.
LORD ARNOLD: But it has to be representative of the Metropolitan borough councils. It is a matter for much argument as to what is meant. If the Lord Chancellor says it is going too far to say that it should be representative of one borough council we might meet him by dropping that part of the Amendment, but I do think it ought to be widened. As it stands the clause might lead to great difficulties. Discretion would still rest with the Minister and that is the point which, I think, with respect, the Lord Chancellor has not dealt with.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 59 agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, after Clause 59, to insert:—
Union of parishes it metropolitan borough.
".Where it appears to the Minister that the combination of the area of all the parishes in any metropolitan borough for the purpose of forming a single rating area would be of public or local advantage, the Minister may after consulting the council of the metropolitan borough concerned make an order for combining those areas for such purpose and such order may provide for such financial or other adjustments as the Minister may deem fit."
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Jessel. The Amendment is to provide that in all Metropolitan boroughs there should be only one rate and that the borough should be a rating unit. This is the position in all the boroughs at the moment with the exception of four—Greenwich, Holborn, Southwark and Woolwich. In one of these, the Borough of Holborn, there are no fewer than nine parishes all able to levy different rates and thereby cause unnecessary trouble. I know it will be urged that under Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, this can already be done, but the machinery provided in that Act is cumbersome and expensive, and I believe that some few years ago the City of Westminster had to bring in a Private Bill to unite itself into one parish. This clause has the support of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Com-

275
mittee and of the London County Council and I hope the Government will be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 16, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think I may say that the Government have great sympathy with the principle which underlies this Amendment, and there is a good deal to be said for providing this simple piece of machinery for doing away with parochial rating which, as the noble Earl says, only exists in four boroughs, and making them into one single rating area as is the case in other boroughs. But I would appeal to the noble Earl not to insist on the Amendment. It is really outside the scope of the Bill. We have done our best to keep this Bill within certain definite limits and if we admit other clauses, however desirable they may be in themselves, we should find it very difficult not to include others which would make the Bill top-heavy and over weighted. The noble Earl has told us—and this is an additional reason for appealing to him not to press the Amendment—that under Section 57 of the 1888 Act this object can be carried out. He has also told us, and no doubt quite correctly, that the machinery of the Act of 1888 is cumbersome. Still the machinery does exist and, moreover, I might point out that a certain amount of simplification is provided in Clause 46. Therefore, I hope that he will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Your Lordships may wish at this stage to take a short respite.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]
Total exemption of agricultural land and buildings from rates.
62.—(1) No person shall, in respect of any period beginning on or after the appointed day, be liable to pay rates in respect of any agricultural land or agricultural buildings or be deemed to be in occupation there of for rating purposes, and notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, or in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, no such land or buildings shall be included in any rate made in respect of a period beginning on or after that date.
(2) For the purposes of valuation lists in force at the appointed day agricultural land and agricultural buildings shall be deemed to have no rateable value, and, notwithstanding anything in the enactments herein-before in this section mentioned, no particulars with respect to such land or buildings shall be included in any subsequent valuation list.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, at the beginning, to insert "Subject as hereinafter provided" in order later to move a proviso. The noble Earl said: I hope I may be permitted to claim this amount of credit for the Amendment, that it is perfectly clear in itself. There is no question of legislation by reference and any noble Lord can see what is intended. The object of it, of course, is to protect the tenant from finding that the benefit, which accrues to the land from the remission of rates, is going to the landlord and not to the tenant. Of course, it may go in more than one way. If the land changes hands and a new rent is fixed, it may be that the new rent may be fixed having regard to the fact that the tenant does not pay the rates, or, as exists in some estates, there may be an arrangement between the landlord and the tenant by which either of them at any time may apply to an impartial arbitrator who may fix a new rent. I would like to make it perfectly certain that in neither case should the remission of rates go to the advantage of the landlord. It should go to the occupier of the land, the tenant.
It is really necessary that there should be some provision of this kind. His Majesty's Government will realise that the case of Sutton Bridge has raised a great deal of anxiety among tenant farmers in the country. In the case of Sutton Bridge, a letter was written by the Ministry of Agriculture to the local authority saying that the land, which was let to them for the purpose of small holdings, would have to be re-rented and, in view of the fact that agricultural land was to be derated in the Bill then before the House of Commons, the local authority would have to pay more rent. If His Majesty's Government set an example of that kind, it is only natural that all the landlords in the county will follow that example. In those circumstances it is quite obvious that for the benefit of the tenant farmers an Amendment of this kind should be in-

277
serted. I do not wish to press this particular form of words and, if His Majesty's Government object to it on technical grounds, I will willingly withdraw it in order that a form of words approved by them may be moved on Report. That something should be done is very desirable.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 36, at beginning insert ("Subject as hereinafter provided").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment has a most commendable object, but there are two difficulties. The first is that experience, of which we have had a good deal by this time, shows that an Amendment of this kind really is not necessary. Secondly, the way in which the noble Earl proposes to carry out what he desires would really not be effective. Your Lordships will appreciate that the proposed proviso says that it is to be a condition in every agricultural tenancy after the commencement of the Act not to take into account the derating, and that there shall be a statement in every contract that neither party has taken into account the derating. To deal first with the practical point, how on earth could you prove that anybody who puts that statement in had not been telling the truth? What guarantee or sanction have you that they have not been telling the truth? I am assuming for the moment that somebody did wish to appropriate to himself the derating benefit. I am sure that such an immoral person would have no hesitation at all in declaring with his hand on his heart that he had not taken derating into account, that such a thing had never occurred to his mind, and, since the mind of man is not triable, you could not do anything, however much you might suspect that he had taken it into account. He would say that he thought the land was worth the money without the derating, that he was asking the rent which he thought it fair to ask. You could not prove that he had not complied with this condition, nor would there be any benefit if you did, so far as I can make out, except possibly that there would be no contract at all, which the farmer who had taken the land would probably be the last to desire. Accordingly, if you want to do what the noble Earl thinks necessary, I venture respectfully to submit to him that he has not
278
achieved that object in the proviso that he has put down.
Further than that, in dealing with the derating of agricultural land we are not dealing with a new proposition which is now introduced for the first time into our rating system. Derating began in 1896, it was stretched further in 1923 and now we are taking the last small step of the last quarter and relieving agricultural land altogether. It has not been the experience that the derating benefit in 1896 or in 1923 has been appropriated by landlords, that there has been an increase of rents or that the tenants have gained no benefit. The people who are loudest in asking for the extension of relief are the tenant farmers, and they obviously do not think that they have gained no benefit from the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, or from the Act of 1923. They, I think, are under no illusion that the completion of the task in 1929 will have any different effect. They were the people who asked for it before they got it, and they are asking for it again. One does not see that rents have increased in the periods that followed either 1896 or 1923. The noble Earl may say that rents were falling. I dare say that they were, but there is no evidence—at least none has ever been produced—to show that the fall in rents was checked, that the benefit was appropriated by the landlords or that it was not passed on in the way that was intended. In view of this experience the Government are disposed to pay more attention to the common sense of practical men than to mere theory, and the fact that the particular provision that is suggested is one that I venture to call on the face of it ineffective and not calculated to achieve its purpose shows the extreme difficulty of translating economic theory into practical legislation. Unless this is proved to be necessary, I think it is best to leave it alone.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I make full confession that I was rather hoping that His Majesty's Government might have accepted this Amendment, subject to an appeal to an arbitrator. I cannot help feeling that something of that kind might have been done, so that the tenant could feel that, in any change of rent to which he was expected to agree, there was some appeal to an impartial person. An ad-

279
mirable scheme was, I think, adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture by which it was possible for landlords and tenants to find in a list of well known people published by the Ministry by mutual agreement men who might arbitrate between landlord and tenant. If the Government had seen their way to provide that an arbitrator of that kind should make himself acquainted with the facts and convince himself that there was no transference of the relief from one party to another, then the case of these tenants would very largely have been met.
I am sorry that the Government do not see their way to accept my Amendment and I do not think it will be very useful to ask your Lordships to divide upon it. If, however, the Government would consider the point which I have just mentioned I should be very much obliged to them. There is that system already in existence in the Ministry of Agriculture and I feel that very often in cases of controversy between the landlord and the tenant the intervention of an impartial person like that is of very great use. Unfortunately I have not been able to convince the Government, although I hope that on some later occasion, when we come to deal with the more general questions of rents and tenure, the noble and learned Lord will be more inclined to agree with me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course anything that the noble Earl puts forward will be considered. I should be deceiving him if I held out any hope that the consideration would be helpful to himself, but I will tell the Minister of Agriculture what the noble Earl has said this evening.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "value." The noble Earl said: Again I rise with an Amendment that was suggested by my noble friend Lord Midleton, who unfortunately, has not been able to put it down in his own name. The point of this Amendment is simply this. I want to call the attention of the Government to the fact that if no particulars are given and are continued about this matter there will be no history for the future. It may be that land which is agricultural land now may
280
suddenly turn over and become something else. Would it not at least be advisable to keep some record of what the general ideas of rating are at the present time with regard to that land? I have said before quite frankly that I am not an expert in this matter and do not pretend to be, but the suggestion made to me was that it would be a pity to lose the history of the rating of any particular land should it come hereafter into a different category. The Government may have a very good answer to it and I am merely ventilating the question, having been asked to do so by my noble friend Lord Midleton.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 8, leave out from ("value") to the end of the subsection.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess to sharing with the noble Earl the disqualification of not being an expert in these matters, and I can only give him the answer furnished to me by those who can claim special knowledge. The position is this, that under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, particulars have to be inserted in a valuation list with regard to every hereditament. Under the Act of last Session, which was preparatory to the present Act—the Apportionment Act—provision was made that in every valuation list agricultural hereditaments should be entered distinct from other hereditaments, and of course that record remains, showing the position as at October 1, 1929. After that date agricultural hereditaments will have no rateable value. In those circumstances it has been thought that there was no real justification for the very considerable labour and expense which would be involved if rating authorities were still compelled to insert particulars and values of agricultural land and building. Further, if the unfortunate occupiers were compelled to continue to fill in returns for the purpose of providing the necessary particulars, those returns would serve no useful purpose because the land, when it had been entered, would be liable to no rates and therefore the rateable value would be unnecessary. It was for that reason that it was thought better not to continue to insert particulars which would involve unnecessary work on those concerns.
EARL RUSSELL: I want to be sure that I quite understand what is going to happen. The land which is no longer subject to rating, agricultural land, will never appear in future in any valuation lists in any parish. So far as any record is concerned it will be lost sight of, and in twenty years you may not be able to trace the parcels or descriptions or the rateable value unless you can turn up the, list that was made before the present Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So long as that remains agricultural land.
EARL RUSSELL: But will it not be lost sight of for all purposes? It may turn into building land. Would it not be better to keep the record of its existence?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the answer is, that so far as the existence of the land and the assessment numbers are concerned there are the records. So far as the future is concerned it is not thought likely that the rating authorities in a parish, if land is built on, or if factories are erected, will be so blind to what is going on as not to be aware that a building or a factory is being put up. After all, these things are not done without communicating with the authorities, and passing plans, and getting sanctions from various people; and it was not thought justifiable to ask people to incur the considerable trouble involved, both to occupiers of the land and the authorities charged with these books, merely in order to keep a record of something which had ceased to be valuable for the purpose for which the record is intended, namely, for the purpose of making out the rates.
EARL RUSSELL: I presume, then, that the present record will be officially preserved, and presumably indefinitely, in the absence of any accidents?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will make inquiries, but I imagine that ought to be done.
LORD DYNEVOR: I might point out that the value of the hereditament as a whole will not be lost sight of, because Schedule A Income Tax is still going to be levied on the farm as a whole
THE EARL OR HALSBURY: After the explanation of the Lord Chancellor, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63:
Relief from rates in respect of industrial and freight transport hereditaments.
63.—(1) The rateable value of industrial hereditaments and freight transport hereditaments shall, for the purposes of valuation lists in force at, the appointed day as from that day, and for the purposes of subsequent valuation lists, be ascertained as follows:—

(a) in the case of an industrial hereditament or of a freight transport hereditament shown in a valuation list as being occupied and used, wholly for industrial purposes or wholly for transport purposes, as the case may be, the rateable value of the hereditament shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be taken to be one-quarter of the net annual value thereof:

(b) in the case of an industrial hereditament or of a freight transport hereditament shown in a valuation list as being occupied and used partly for industrial purposes or partly for transport purposes, as the case may be, the rateable value of the hereditament shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be taken to be an amount equal to one-quarter of the net annual value shown in the list as apportioned to the occupation and user of the hereditament for industrial purposes or for transport purposes, as the case may be, together with the whole of the net annual value so shown as apportioned to the occupation and user of the hereditament for other purposes:

Provided that as respects any industrial or freight transport hereditament or any part of such a hereditament, elsewhere than in the county of London, whereof the rateable value would, if it had continued to be ascertained under the provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, or of any scheme made under section sixty-four of that Act, have been taken to be the amount produced by making any deduction from the net annual value, references in the foregoing provisions of this section to "net annual value" shall be construed as references to the amount produced by making from the net annual value the like deduction as would have been made under the said provisions.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved, at the beginning, to leave out "industrial hereditaments and," and to insert "such industrial hereditaments as are not used for the purposes of a brewery, distillery, or tobacco manufactory and of." The noble

283
Lord said: In moving this Amendment I am raising a somewhat important point, but, in view of the lateness of the hour and the number of further Amendments to be considered, I will be as brief as possible. First of all, let me express my sense of genuine relief that this is, I think, the first occasion upon which I have had an opportunity of taking part in any debate, or moving any Amendment in regard to the drink trade which is not a Party or political issue. As the House will remember, this Amendment was moved in another place by a supporter of the Government, it was supported there by many supporters of the Government, and, when the Division came, the Amendment had the support of the three Parties.
The question raised in the Amendment is whether there are grounds in relation to the trades mentioned in it which justify placing them outside the scope of the Bill. Let me give your Lordships one or two considerations in favour and in support of this assumption. First, these three trades cannot, I think, be regarded as essential to the life of the country. They do not belong to the basic industries of the country. They are not concerned, except, perhaps, to a very small extent, with the export trade of the country. The main object of this Bill, as I understand it, is to stimulate production and, through that, to increase employment. I am put in a somewhat difficult position in that I do not know whether I am right in saying that it is the desire of the Government, through the application of the derating provisions to these particular trades, to increase the production of beer and spirits. However that may be, the position regarding the other issue—namely, that of the increase of employment—seems to me to be clear.
I do not see how the application of the derating benefits to these trades can possibly result in increased employment, and for this reason. I have gone a little closely into this question. I have followed what has been said by those who had authority to speak regarding these particular trades, and it has been stated authoritatively that the amount of benefit which will accrue to those trades from these provisions is so small that it will make no alteration at all in the retail prices; in other words, the benefit will not and cannot be passed on to the con-
284
sumers. If the benefit cannot be passed on to the consumers it is somewhat difficult to understand how the provisions can result in any increase of employment so far as these trades are concerned.
With regard to the burden of rates, I noted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the Second Reading of the Finance Bill last year, submitted a great number of very interesting figures upon this point showing the comparative burden of the rates in particular groups of industries in the country. As some of your Lordships will remember, he pointed out in respect of the coal industry, which was then, as now, very depressed, that the burden of rates in proportion to profits was as high as 27 per cent. and that in the cotton industry, which was also depressed, it was 23 per cent. Then he specifically referred to the three trades mentioned in my Amendment and said in regard to them that the burden of rates in proportion to profits was only 2 per cent. Let me make it perfectly clear that in emphasising these figures regarding the rates I am making no suggestion as to unfair or inequitable assessment. No question of that sort arises in any way. The disproportion in the burden of rates as between these particular trades and other trades arises from the exceptional conditions under which these trades are carried on.
I might very easily refer to the smallness of the numbers employed in these trades in proportion to the capital involved. I might also refer to the very high profits which have been made in these trades in contrast with the results in regard to other trades generally. I know very well that the Government have said, and probably will say again tonight: "Our view is that all trades so far as this Bill is concerned must be treated alike." My answer to that view is: "Yes, let us treat all trades alike that are carried on under like conditions." I think that point is important. The considerations which I have already referred to are not only important in themselves, but in my judgment they are also most important in their direct relevancy to the fact that these three trades are carried on under exceptional and special conditions. Take them one by one. Take the tobacco trade. The raw material in this trade, as we all know, is very heavily taxed. There are

285
other exceptional conditions in connection with this trade which make the de-rating relief which results from the provisions of this Bill of a very trivial character, and if we move on to the other two, the breweries and distilleries, the same factors operate as in the other trades, but here there are other and further factors making the ground still more distinct for separate treatment in their case.
The trade in drink—this is not a debatable point, it is a fact—is carried on in this country under virtually monopoly conditions. It is subject to licensing limitations of various kinds; it is sheltered from what I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to as "the fierce storms of competition." It is not necessary for me to-night to go into the reasons why this is so. We all know that the reason for the various limitations imposed upon the trade in drink in this country is due to a recognised element of risk or danger to the community, and the only difference between the views that I hold upon this point and the views of probably the majority in this House is in relation to the degree of the seriousness of this element of risk. But the fact that I wish tonight to emphasise is that there is this element of risk which imposes these special limitations upon these particular trades, and on this ground it seems to me that we are justified in asking for a differentiation in their case in respect of the derating provisions of this Bill.
I am anxious to be as brief as possible and I will not detain the House longer in support of this Amendment. I know it is a comparatively easy thing to suggest difficulties, on the ground of strict logic, to making a difference in the treatment of these trades and other trades, but if you look at it from the practical point of view I think you will find that there are ample grounds for making the differentiation. There is one phrase—and with this I will conclude—in the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Minister of Health, when he was replying to this Amendment in the other House, which I regretted. There is no one in this House who admires the Minister of Health more than I do, or who has a greater admiration for the skilful way in which he has piloted this very intricate Bill throughout its stages. He is always, as we all know, in every
286
way most courteous, but he used a phrase which I think was very regrettable. He said: "There is plenty of prejudice but no principle in the selection of these trades." Well, I think that is a pity. After all, whatever I may think upon this point and whatever the Government may think, or other members of your Lordships' House may think, this is a question upon which everyone has a right to come to his own conclusions.
I think that it ought always to be assumed, whatever conclusion we come to, that it is reached upon grounds designed to promote the welfare of the country. I can assure the Government that there is in the country a very considerable body of public opinion, lying entirely outside what might be called the temperance view, which protests against the inclusion of these trades within the derating provisions of the Bill. I think that is demonstrated by what took place in the other House a few weeks ago, and I think it will be further demonstrated when the Government have the opportunity of getting into touch with the feeling of the country upon public platforms. For these reasons, which I have very briefly attempted to lay before your Lordships, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 13, leave out from ("of") to ("freight") in line 14, and insert ("such industrial hereditaments as are not used for the purposes of a brewery, distillery or tobacco manufactory and of").—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD TENTERDEN: I beg to support this Amendment. I have an Amendment on the Paper later for the purpose of defining who shall have the benefit of the allowance of rates, but I consider that this is not only a matter to be looked at from a commercial point of view but one which also involves questions of principle and policy. I cannot understand why some method could not have been found of settling the question of depressed industries other than the wholesale subsidising of these trades. There are some who may say there are no prosperous trades. I am not prepared to stand here and give a whole list of them because noble Lords would not want to listen to them and I should not be able to stand here long enough, but there are a number of prosperous industries.

287
A great deal has been claimed for this clause. It has been claimed that it is going to resuscitate depressed industries, that it is going to bring about a great deal of further employment, which, of course, would be a natural consequence, and all that kind of thing.
Let me take the case of agriculture which has been a good deal discussed in this House. Agriculture is already de-rated as to 75 per cent., and we have not yet seen any great resuscitation or any great amount of further employment as a result. That we are still waiting for, and I suppose we have to take it for granted that the remaining quarter is going to bring about that marvellous result. If this is the result of derating a distressed industry by 75 per cent., it does not promise very well for the other distressed industries. During the debate on Second Beading one noble Lord alluded to the fact that there would be a great falling off in the revenue derived from rates owing to the derating of these agricultural interests. That is an indisputable and very important fact. One must add to that the 75 per cent. derating of industrial hereditaments. I do not know where the rates are going to come from if you are excluding all these from the rates. The long and the short of it will be that rates on houses will go up and indirect taxation will go up.
What does £400,000 amount to divided up among the rich breweries? Nothing Why not give it to a distressed industry or to the hospitals? It is not the slightest use giving it to flourishing breweries. With regard to other industries, there is the Imperial Tobacco Company with their capital of millions. Are they going to contribute practically nothing to the rates? What about Courtaulds with £6,000,000 capital and £6,000,000 reserve? Are they to pay nothing to the rates? One can go on naming a great many flourishing industries which are being treated in the same way. Take a smaller instance, well known to those who live in London—Harrods' Stores. They make six or seven hundred thousand pounds profit a year. They are quite able to pay their rates. Does any one imagine that a gain of two or three thousand pounds a year in relief from rates will make Harrods employ a man or a woman more than they do now? No, nothing of the kind. The prosperous industry does not wait for a Conservative Government to
288
come along and finance it. It works out its own salvation by attaining the greatest possible capacity in the way of output. If it has any money it employs all the labour it can.
I waited with considerable interest to hear what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, had to say when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill on behalf of the Government and came to explain why the prosperous industries were to participate in this "dole." He carefully explained all the aims and objects of the Bill. When he came to this clause, he said that the Government considered it was only an act of justice to give an equal relief from rates to prosperous as well as distressed industries. Personally, I cannot see that there is any justice in that at all. Surely, the poor and the rich are not treated alike. If they are, what about the Super-Tax and the Income Tax? You cannot treat the rich and poor on the same footing. Then the noble and learned Lord went on to say that it would not be unfair if the prosperous industries were given this relief and that it was very hard on the depressed industries, which had not got sufficient financial reserves, to have to pay these high rates. I entirely agree with him. It is hard upon the depressed industries. I presume that this clause is introduced for the purpose of assisting depressed industries, but not for the purpose of putting money into the rich man's pocket by assisting the prosperous. That is where I cannot follow the argument at all. It seems to me that there is no argument. I certainly think that the whole thing is wrong in principle.
There is no doubt that this House can take a direct line in this matter and it should not permit money taken from the public funds to be given to industries that do not need it. I may be asked what a prosperous industry is. All I can say is that it is up to the Government, having introduced a Bill for the relief of depressed industries, to find out what the depressed industries are and when they have done that they have their answer. The whole thing is dreadful. Are we really going to do this sort of thing? If we want to help one lot of people must we give money to another lot? It will become very expensive. What about the policy of the "dole"? Have we not got a large part of the population upon the "dole" and

289
is it necessary to put the whole of the industries of the country on the "dole" as well? What else are you doing and how far can we go along those lines? It might go a very long way. You might extend this thing until ultimately we become a bankrupt nation and a nation of bankrupts. I have listened with great respect and admiration to the speeches of noble Lords in this House and I have sufficient respect for the House to feel that your Lordships will not allow this clause to rest as it is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships have listened to a most inspiring and eloquent address which from the premise on which it was based proceeded to a most logical conclusion. The unfortunate thing is that the premise is an entirely false one. The noble Lord who has just addressed your Lordships asked whether we were going to give doles to the whole of the industries of the country and whether it was fair to give money to rich people instead of to the poor people who wanted it. If this derating scheme were a method of giving doles I agree entirely with the conclusion that follows, that you ought to give the dole to the people who are in need of it. But that is not the economic basis upon which this part of the Bill proceeds. We are not giving a dole to industry at all. The view of the Government which was adopted in another place, and which I hope your Lordships are going to adopt, is that all the industries of the country are at present unfairly treated by the present rating system. It is perfectly true that it was the difficult position of our basic industries that forced public attention to the inequity of the present rating system. It is true that it was those injustices that led the Government to remove the burden which, to quote the Liberal Yellow Book, which I am quite sure noble Lords opposite study every night, "we should hardly tolerate if immemorial usage did not blind our eyes to its significance." Immemorial usage has blinded our eyes long enough, and we became aware, thanks to the unhappy condition of our basic industries, that an unfair burden was being placed upon industry.
If we are aware of that fact, surely the right course is to remove that burden from industry, and it is not just to say that we will remove an unfair burden on
290
some industries because they happen not to be prosperous and will continue that injustice upon other people because they are rich enough to be able to afford it. Agriculture suffered first from the stress of modern conditions and unrestricted foreign competition, and the injustice was first detected with respect to agriculture and partial relief was given to agriculture. Then, as time went on, unfortunately the condition of steel and coal and the like called our attention to the fact that is was not the isolated experience of one particular industry, but that the whole system was wrong and required rectification. This Bill is designed to rectify it.
If you proceed upon that basis, logically you can only relieve the injustice wherever it is found and not only from those industries which are hard up. It may be proved that some industries are more prosperous than others, and it may be that the particular industries which excite the attention of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment are at present in a particularly prosperous condition. That may be a very good reason, when a Chancellor of the Exchequer is framing his Budget, why taxation should be directed upon those best able to bear it, and the noble Lord admitted quite frankly that the one common characteristic of these particular industries is that they are the most heavily taxed in the country. That is the way to deal with an industry which is gaining an undue profit. You must tax it. On those grounds, which commended themselves in another place, I ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
I will say to the noble Lord who spoke last, and who wished to extend the penalty to all prosperous industries, that it is worth considering that it is not always the same industries which are prosperous. He desires to penalise the man who has the enterprise to make his industry prosperous, but that does not seem to be the best, way of encouraging your industries to be prosperous, and although the noble Lord who moved the Amendment has limited its operation to three industries which are prosperous, even these have not always been prosperous. I remember when a few years ago some of our breweries were in a parlous position, and the fact that they are prosperous now is no reason for

291
taking them out of the relief from a burden which we consider to be unjust, although it may be a ground for considering their liability to taxation when taxation falls due to be considered.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble and learned Lord commenced his remarks by saying that a noble Lord had based his observations on entirely false premises. I think that description should be applied to the basis of this Bill. In fact the Amendment of Lord Clwyd brings out one of the most essential faults of the Bill and of this clause. The truth is the Bill is neither scientific on the one hand nor is it based on sound and defensible principles on the other, and so it comes about that it frequently falls between two stools. That is exactly what has happened in regard to this Amendment. The noble and learned Lord said industries are unfairly treated under our rating system. That may be so. It is interesting to recollect that only about a year ago the present Government awoke up to the fact that there was rating injustice. Other people found it out long before that. But the injustice of the rating system is not confined to productive industry; it applies also to distributive industries, and if the noble and learned Lord, in his desire for uniformity, was really sincere, he could not defend this Bill, because this Bill discriminates, it picks out certain industries for relief and it leaves others without any relief at all.
Now, this particular Amendment means in cash that you are practically throwing away £650,000 of public money. On what possible grounds is that justified? It cannot be justified on the ground that it will help the consumer. The noble Lord pointed out that it does not do that, and cannot do that in any degree which can be considered appreciable. It has been calculated that the relief to breweries under this derating provision will amount to one one-hundred-and-forty-fourth of a penny on a pint of beer. It has also been calculated that the relief to the tobacco trade will amount to one-fiftieth of a penny on a packet of ten cigarettes. It will require very great skill to pass those minute amounts on to the consumer. This clause cannot be justified on the ground that it will stimulate industry, because it will not do anything of the sort, even if it was desired to stimulate
292
those industries. And it cannot be justified on the ground that it will help unemployment, because there is no unemployment in those trades. What will this clause do? What it will do is to help the ordinary shareholders of breweries and tobacco companies, and it will help them in very great measure.
These companies have been enormously prosperous. Since the War three or four tobacco companies have paid away in bonuses and dividends to their shareholders hundreds of millions of pounds; and yet it is these fortunate persons who are singled out by the Government for further help at the expense of the taxpayer. This clause will give a relief to the breweries of £400,000 a year. Capitalise that—which you ought to do—and you arrive at a sum of £8,000,000. Therefore, the effect of this clause is to increase the value of the ordinary shares—it is the ordinary shares of the breweries—by £8,000,000. Take the tobacco companies. The relief which is given to tobacco companies under this clause is £250,000. Capitalise that, and you arrive at a sum of £5,000,000. And so these shareholders, who are the most fortunate in the country, who have for years been drawing enormous dividends and bonuses, are to have the capital value of their share holdings increased at the expense of the taxpayer by £5,000,000. A man who can defend that can defend anything. But as a matter fact it has not been attempted. The noble and learned Lord entirely burked the issue.
What do the Government say? What is their defence of this extraordinary proceeding? They say: "Well, we must accept this, because, if we do not, we shall have to take out of the operation of our Bill other luxury trades and other prosperous concerns." Why not? It only shows how faulty the whole basis of your Bill is. That is the whole point. When it is said that this must be done to satisfy a principle—because that is what the noble and learned Lord said—it only shows how bad the principle is. It shows you are proceeding on entirely wrong lines. The fact is that out of the total of £24,000,000 which is to be provided—but which, I may remark in passing, has not yet been found—out of the public Exchequer for derating under this Bill, probably £10,000,000 (I think that is a moderate assessment) will go to

293
the relief of prosperous concerns. You are, that is to say, increasing the value of the ordinary shares of those prosperous concerns at the public expense by a capital sum of £200,000,000. It is no good saying that we cannot help it. That is the Bill and we must satisfy some alleged principle of encouraging prosperous firms. That is what the Prime Minister said, that we must encourage prosperous firms. We must encourage these breweries, I suppose, and these tobacco firms.
Can we afford in the present financial position of the country to indulge in the luxury of satisfying this theoretical principle of encouraging prosperous firms? It is merely theoretical and that is the point. I say we cannot at this time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at his wits' end for money, at a time when we are constantly being told by the Government—they are constantly preaching it but never practising it—that we ought to economise. Here you are throwing away £650,000 of public money. You can find £650,000 of public money for the brewery shareholders and the tobacco shareholders, who do not want it and of whom, to do them justice, many have said they do not need it and do not want to take it. Yet under this Bill you are not finding enough money for the health services; that cannot be denied. Why do you not save the £650,000 from one part of your Bill and give it to the health services which would be much the better for it? You can find £650,000 to help breweries and tobacco companies, but you can find practically nothing for the miners for whose condition you are responsible and who have to be left to charity almost entirely.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD ARNOLD: It is certainly the effect of your policy. You cannot find money for the miners, but you can find hundreds of thousands for the Irish loyalists in a few minutes when you are pressed about it. You can find £650,000 of public money for the shareholders of breweries and tobacco companies, but you want to save £12,000—this is one of the achievements of the Minister of Health—on the supply of milk to maternity centres. You can find £650,000 for brewery and tobacco shareholders and you cut down the unemployment pay of
294
a young girl to 8s. a week. That is the record of the Government. We are told that we must economise. It is not very long ago that the noble Marquess stood at that box and announced with all solemnity that the Government had decided to abolish, to do away with the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Mines, and the Overseas Trade Department. This was done under the pressure of Press clamour. The cost of those three Departments, even if they had been done away with—but the Government did not do away with them, because they found they could not abolish them; as is so often the case, they spoke first and thought afterwards—would only have amounted to the £650,000 that you are now throwing away. The Government have frequently expressed in this House their desire to economise. We have had Motions moved in regard to it. Yet I notice that Lord Hugh Cecil said last week that of all the failures of this Government that which was most lamentable and disastrous and disappointing was its failure to economise. Here the Government have the opportunity.
One final reason I will give, a new reason since this matter was discussed in another place, why this Amendment should be passed. In consequence of that surrender to their Back Benchers the Government have committed themselves to a further expenditure to the Irish loyalists which, before they have done with it, will probably absorb a considerable part of the sum of £650,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has never been able to find any money to help the health services and the Poor Law and so on, will have to find that money. What better way have you than accepting this Amendment? Then you will get your money and balance your finance. In all these considerations there are very strong reasons why this Amendment ought to be accepted. There is a strong feeling about the matter in the country. There will be a stronger feeling about it when the General Election comes. You are always very bold in this House in saying that you do not mind that. Be it so. But the consciences of many people have been outraged by this proposal to throw away this vast sum of money without any justification whatever.
EARL RUSSELL: I am very glad indeed to learn from the noble and learned Lord opposite that the Government intend to stand firm upon this matter. I can imagine nothing, or very few things, that they will do that will be more useful to us in the next few months, and I am not at all surprised at the restiveness of noble Lords opposite as to things that have been said by my noble friend who has just sat down. I am not going to discuss, nor shall we discuss with the general public, this question of fortieths of a penny on a packet of cigarettes. There is the simple outstanding fact which they understand, and which they have no difficulty in understanding, that when you are preaching economy and when you are refusing money for essential things, you are none the less, because you say you will not distinguish, throwing away this money upon prosperous industries and upon what I believe you call productive industries—beer, whisky and tobacco. In any sane view of a social state what sort of a productive industry is represented by beer, whisky and tobacco? That is what you are spending this money on. I can imagine no better ammunition for the coming campaign than this clause, this proposal and this decision to-night will afford us.
In another place, your Lordships will remember, where the wind of public opinion is a little more felt than in this Chamber, a good many of the supporters of noble Lords opposite joined in the demand that this matter should be put right. Their consciences were outraged, their principles were shocked by this proposal, and you had a small revolt on the subject even among your own followers. If that takes place among your own followers what do you think the feeling will be in the country outside? We are quite content to leave the matter there.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: When one listens to the speeches made by the noble Earl who has just sat down one feels a sense of reasonable plausibility which appeals to one and makes one think that what he has said contains a great deal of truth and accuracy. After the noble Earl has made a speech, I am almost in-
296
clined to agree and go into the Lobby with him. But when I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, I always feel in entire disagreement with him from start to finish, because he speaks with a spirit of dogmatic assertion which leaves no argument on the other side. He always says that there is no argument on the other side, that what he has stated must be true, that there can be no other story. To-night he has accused our Party of being responsible for the present position in the mines, he has accused us of being responsible for other enormities, and all without any sense of the arguments which have been advanced by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, which, in my opinion, met the opposition absolutely. If you happen to be a landlord, if you happen to be a brewer, then you are a criminal. In another place I always found that that was the case. In this case we have learned it from the noble Lord, Lord Arnold.
I think that when the General Election comes the story which the Opposition will tell with regard to the case which has been presented by them tonight in this Amendment will not go down in the country as they believe it will do, because the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has given an argument to-night in reply to that Amendment which I believe will find a great response. After all, as he has stated, if an industry is too prosperous, land or anything else, then the State always has the opportunity of placing a tax upon that industry and recovering the unearned increment—a phrase dear to the mind of the noble Lord, no doubt—which belongs to the State. To alter a general principle which is being applied in the case of this Derating Bill would, I believe, be absolutely wrong. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will stand fast against this Amendment and that we may go to a Division upon it.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

de Clifford, L.

Chaplin, V.

Deramore, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Elibank, V.

Desborough, L.

Falmouth, V.

Dynevor, L.

Wellington, D.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Hood, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Bath, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Exeter, M.

Faringdon, L.

Knutsford, V.

Forester, L.

Airlie, E.

Peel, V.

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

Ancaster, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Harris, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Halsbury, E.

Abinger, L.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L,

Iveagh, E.

Askwith, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Lovelace, E.

Avebury, L.

Lamington, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.)

Redesdale, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Sempill, L.

Onslow, E.

Clinton, L.

Suffield, L.

Plymouth, E.

Cranworth, L.

Templemore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Daryngton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Russell, E.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Olivier, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Allendale, V.

Sandhurst, L.

Buxton, E.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Arnold, L.

Strachie, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Tenterden, L.

Fortescue, E.

Hemphill, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Amendment of valuation, lists on or after appointed day and making of subsequent lists]:
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to insert the following new subsection:—
"(5) As from the appointed day and in subsequent re-valuations a rating authority shall not take into valuation for the purposes of amending valuation lists the relief from rates provided for in sections 62 and 63 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is of great importance to the derated industries. Even now, before the Bill has passed, figures have come in showing that the rates have been put up exceedingly owing to the derating under this Bill. There is considerable apprehension, judging by the results of what the local authorities are doing, that in subsequent assessments the advantages given by this Bill to industry will be very much taken away. Under derating the profit-making industries will have the net benefit reduced by having to pay a larger Income Tax, while they also pay the Petrol Tax and Light Oil Tax, and the balance is one which they wish to preserve as far as possible.
If, as I am given to understand, the law now provides that assessors have to assess upon the net rental value, then they would be obliged to take the increased advantage in the net rental value which the industry might have after three-quarters of the rates were taken off. Supposing you were going to buy a house or a business, you would take into account in your purchase price the amount of cash that you would have to pay annually in necessary outgoings, and this would certainly include the amount of the rates in the district where you were going to live or establish your business. Since it is intended that this relief should be given by Parliament, it is of some importance, I think, that it should be duly protected and should go to the quarter to which it is intended to go, and that you should not give an apparent relief with one hand and take it away with the other.
I am not wedded to the wording of this particular Amendment. I am not quite sure that it carries out the intention that I have laid down, but the draftsmen who so carefully and well drafted this Bill would probably be ab1e to express that intention in a better manner. The principle, as I have said, It is quite simple. It is that you should

299
permit the relief that this Bill is intended to give to go to the people for whom it is intended. This is a matter of far-reaching importance throughout the country, and particularly in localities where those responsible might perhaps feel that they are obliged to put up the rates because of the increase in rental values that the premises would command after the derating scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 18, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD OLIVIER: The very acute mind of the noble Lord has seized, as it naturally would, upon one of the difficult results that arise from this Bill, and he is asking you to do in another department precisely what my noble friend Lord Beauchamp asked you to do in regard to rent—that is to say, when you have actually increased the value of a thing to say by law that you have not increased it. I understand that the Government declined to accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Beauchamp, and I cannot see on what principle they can accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, which is based on precisely the same principle and designed to effect precisely the same hanky-panky for the purpose of remedying the defects of this Bill.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, put down an Amendment to this clause, and my noble friend Lord Askwith has done the same. The Amendment now before your Lordships is, I think, precisely similar in effect to that of the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, which was not moved. Lord Askwith's Amendment is more tersely worded but it produces exactly the same effect, and the argument which has been used is that the effect of reducing by 75 per cent. the rateable value of any given hereditament will be to increase the rent which any given tenant will give for it and therefore increase the net annual value, and thus make the new reduced rateable value something more than one quarter of the present rateable value. That is the argument which has been brought before your Lordships in favour of the Amendment. Will that really be the case? Those who support the Amendment assume that the rateable value of industrial property is
300
arrived at by making a reduction in respect of rates from some defined figure representing letting value, but is that really the way in which assessments are arrived at? What the valuer has to regard is the rent at which the property is let from year to year on the assumption that the tenant pays the usual rates and taxes. That is a different way from ascertaining a value which is taking an ascertained value and then deducting the amount of the rates from it.
I think the figure which valuers endeavour to find is what a property of the description which they set out to assess is actually fetching in the market at the time. The market value from year to year is dependent upon many factors and I do not think it would be sound or true to single out one of those factors—namely, the amount of the rates—and then say it shall be deemed to be something other than what it is. The rates, I do not deny, would enter into the question of the rent which the hypothetical tenant would be willing to give, but the dominating factor in ascertaining the value is the supply of and demand for such properties, and I do not think it is contemplated that there will be any general increase in the value of industrial properties merely because of the derating clauses of the Bill. I do not think that the effect which the noble Lord fears will really take place, but that any effect will come from the ordinary laws of supply and demand, rather than from the derating of 75 per cent. In those circumstances, I venture to think that your Lordships can with confidence leave the Bill as it is, and that it will not have the adverse effect upon rateable value that my noble friend anticipates.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am most astonished at this last speech of the noble Earl. Does he really suggest that supposing suddenly an Act of Parliament is brought in, saying that a particular share on the Stock Exchange shall no longer be required to pay Income Tax, it would have no effect upon the value of that share in the market next day? Here you have definite property under an obligation to pay, say, £100 a year to the Government: suddenly you find that obligation drop from £100 to £25, and the noble Earl says its value is going to be the same in the market to the hypo-

301
thetical tenant. I cannot understand it for a moment. He then goes on to say that you start with a definite value. You do not. You start with the value to a hypothetical tenant who is going to take it. Its value is dependent upon various things which the property is under obligation to pay, and you take off one of those obligations and the noble Earl says the property is of the same value.
Then, finally, he came to a remark that I could not follow at all. He said: "You must not take only one of the factors, namely, the rates"; but that is the particular factor that he is dealing with. I should have thought it was the one factor you must take. I should have thought this Amendment was absolutely essential to the Bill. I am not arguing that it necessarily means an equivalent amount, that is to say that necessarily, because you take off so much in the rate, you are going to put the rent up to the actual figure. But what I am saying is that it is grossly unfair to suggest that the person who is derated under this Bill is, without this Amendment, going to get anything like the amount that the Government have promised him. For that reason I shall certainly support the Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: It is extremely gratifying to us to hear from Lord Halsbury that, forgetting for the moment his Party and remembering only his experience, he is supporting the contention we have always put forward, that the benefit of these proposals must in the long run inure to the benefit of the landlord.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It seems to me that the Government are giving with one hand and are going to take away the advantage of what they are giving with the other.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65:
Valuation of agricultural dwelling-houses.
65. As from the first day of April nineteen hundred and thirty, the gross value for rating purposes of a house occupied in connection with agricultural land and used as the dwelling-house of a person who—

(a) is primarily engaged in carrying on or directing agricultural operations on that land; or

302

(b) is employed in agricultural operations on that land in the service of the occupier thereof and is entitled, whether as tenant or otherwise, so to use the house only while so employed,

shall, so long as the house is so occupied and used, be estimated by reference to the rent at which the house might reasonably be expected to let from year to year if it could not be occupied and used otherwise than as aforesaid.
LORD CLINTON,on behalf of Lord Bledisloe, moved, after the first "land," to insert "and whether normally let therewith or not." The noble Lord said: The object of Clause 65 is to restrict the gross value of houses for rating purposes, when they are occupied in connection with agricultural land, to a value which will be placed upon them presuming they can be occupied for no other purpose. The intention of the clause, so far as I understand it, would be to restrict this new value to what we know as tied houses on the farm. I do not think it is the intention that any other houses occupied by agricultural labourers should come under the advantages of the clause. It seems to me that this will have a very serious effect upon the housing of agricultural labourers generally. Two cases in point have been sent to me of houses which were built for agricultural labourers and let at, the ordinary agricultural rent; but the valuer, seeing that they would let at a higher rent from year to year, has put that value upon them and has brought them up to about £18 a year. It is clear that even though an agricultural labourer may only pay a rent of £5 or £6 a year, he cannot in addition pay the rates upon such a high value as £18 a year.
There may be a way of getting over the difficulty by tying more houses to farms, but that is not a generally popular method of doing it. I think the noble Earl should really take into consideration whether it is right that houses built for the purposes of the agricultural labourer, the rent of which is brought within the limit of his wages, should have an assessable value put upon them which they might fetch if let to a weekend tenant, but which it is clear they would never fetch if let to the men for whom they were intended and who would always occupy them. The noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, has a later Amendment

303
which is intended to effect practically the same object; but I am moving that standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 22, after ("land") insert ("and whether, normally let therewith or not").—(Lord Clinton.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendments to this clause are all cognate Amendments and hang very largely together; so if I venture to touch upon one or two of the others which are on the Paper but not actually before your Lordships perhaps you will forgive me. The noble Lord who has just addressed your Lordships and has moved the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, suggests that the special basis of valuation which the clause lays down for tied farm cottages should be extended to include the cottage of any bona fide agricultural worker. There is another Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, who is not in his place at the moment—I presume that other noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench will act for him—which has the object of extending these provisions to tied cottages occupied by persons employed in connection with industrial hereditaments and freight transport services. Your Lordships have two proposals before you both of which extend the operation of this clause very widely indeed.
I must first, I think, explain the reasons why this clause was put in the Bill. The reason is that the Twelfth Schedule of the Bill contains a provision repealin; the whole of the Agricultural Rates Acts. In view of that and in order to maintain the present position it was necessary to put in a clause to safeguard the existing position in regard to agricultural dwelling houses. Now noble Lords seek to extend this principle and in extending the principle of the Agricultural Rates Act they will introduce, if their suggestions are adopted, a new principle in rating—namely, that the rating of a hereditament shall depend upon the occupation of the tenant for the time being. It would not be governed by the value but by the occupation of the tenant for the time being.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, has told us, that there is a
304
cottage for which an agricultural rental is being paid which may be liable to an assessment on its full rack rent value. But what would result if this Amendment were accepted with regard to cottages occupied by agriculturists? You would have a pair of cottages in a village, built at the same time as a pair, exactly similar in every particular but which would be differentially rated if one were occupied by an agricultural tenant and the other by someone else, say, a cobbler or any other person who cannot be described as an agricultural worker, and it may be that the agricultural tenant may leave his cottage and that it would be occupied by another person, not an agricultural worker, when the rate would automatically increase, or the one occupied by the person not an agricultural worker might be taken over by an agricultural worker, when the rate again would decline. It would be very difficult to enforce such a provision. In addition to that, to alter the whole principles of rating would be entirely outside the scope of the Bill. We do not seek to alter the principles of rating in the Bill. I think if you were to give preferential treatment in regard to rating to one class of the community—to agricultural labourers, for example—it would open the door to other interests to suggest that they should also receive similar treatment, and Lord Parmoor's Amendment has already made that suggestion. Doubtless his argument will be that if the farm labourer's house is to be specially treated in the matter of assessment so should the factory hand's house and the railwayman's house and so forth.
If you are to alter the principles of rating in one direction why not alter them in other directions? All the Amendments to this clause have the same effect. They alter the general law of rating in regard to dwelling-houses. The provisions of the Act of 1896 are part of the present general law of rating and this clause merely repeats them. To be quite frank, it does go a little further. It carries it on with a small additional extension to a tied cottage the subject of a tenancy with a rent payable. To extend this special treatment of the Act of 1896 to cottages which are not tied to an agricultural holding would be a considerable alteration in the general law, and, of course, so would be the pro-

305
posal of Lord Parmoor that we should extend the principle to the tied cottage which is occupied by the factory hand or railwayman. I foresee very great difficulties in accepting either of the Amendments proposed by the noble Lords for the reasons I have stated. I hope that your Lordships will see the difficulties which they present and I venture to hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD OLIVIER: My noble friend Lord Parmoor has asked me to take charge of any Amendment on the Paper for him if I thought it my duty to do so and therefore I take charge of this Amendment. May I say that I entirely agree with everything that the noble Earl has said, because on this occasion he was speaking, if I may say so, not clothed with this Bill but clothed in his right mind, and he gave a perfectly sound argument why the proposal should not be made, but the fact is that rating is dealt with in this Bill upon no sort of principle at all except the principle of giving money to certain persons to whom you want to give money. If the noble Earl and myself were to discuss the principles of rating we should find ourselves more in agreement than we are over this Bill.
But if you say that this Bill is based on the definite principle that you want to give assistance to agriculture and to persons engaged in agricultural production, why on earth should you grant exemption to an agricultural labourer who happens to occupy one cottage and refuse to exempt the agricultural labourer who occupies another? If you are going to give relief to those engaged in agriculture all labourers in agriculture should have their houses rated according to the principles of this Bill. I should like to go further on behalf of all kinds of productive industries and say that the noble Lord has made a very arbitrary selection of productive industries, but that would be beyond the scope of this Amendment. But having set up the principle of giving relief to agriculture it is most illogical to derate some agricultural labourers' cottages and not others.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: We do not derate. That was done in the Bill of 1896. We merely continue by this Bill the same provisions.
LORD DYNEVOR: I do not want at this moment to discuss the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper but to make some remarks about the Amendment moved by Lord Clinton on behalf of Lord Bledisloe. His Amendment may be as good as or perhaps even better than mine, but at the moment I am not quite clear that I understand it, for this reason. My noble friend spoke only about agricultural labourers' cottages, but I notice that his Amendment is to insert words after the words "agricultural land" in line 22. Therefore it covers both farmhouses and agricultural labourers' cottages. If he puts in the words "whether normally let therewith or not" and applies them to farmhouses I do not quite see the meaning of his Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Before Lord Clinton replies there is one matter that rather puzzles me, and that is what is the meaning of "normally." Does "normally" mean usually? I am only asking that question because I always like to know what I am supposed to be voting on, and at present I do not understand what "normally" means.
LORD CLINTON: I am certain that the noble Earl can define a word better than I can. I gather that the intention of the Amendment was that it should apply to the ordinary occupation of cottages by agricultural labourers. That clearly was the idea of the noble Lord who framed the Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: "Habitually" would be a better word.
LORD CLINTON: I should think my noble friend would accept that word, but Lord Dynevor has pointed out that this Amendment goes further than the original framer of the Amendment intended. I think it would apply to cases of cottages occupied as farmhouses, but I do not think it was intended to do so. In reference to the noble Earl's reply I recognise the real difficulty of applying this to the whole body of agricultural workers. Yet against that there is the real trouble we shall be in in housing the agricultural labourer, who will now be required to pay rates on the full letting value of his house, which he has not had to do before. I would suggest to the noble Earl that the instances he has brought up against me

307
are really not very conclusive. He spoke of the great difficulty there would be in having a pair of houses side by side, one occupied by an agricultural labourer and lightly assessed and the other occupied by somebody else and assessed at a higher value. You get the same position now where one house is under the Rent Restriction Acts and the other is not. There are different values put upon them. You would get the same position under the Bill, one being a house tied to the farm and the other not. If my noble friend Lord Dynevor is going to move his Amendment I would like to withdraw mine and deal with his when he moves it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert:
"(b) is employed in agricultural operations and whose wages are subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924."
The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I said I should move an Amendment to Clause 65. I do not wish to repeat too much of what I said on that occasion. The clause as it stands is an order to assessment committees as to how they are to assess agricultural dwelling-houses as from April, 1930. Up to date there has not been any order regarding how to value farmhouses. Some are being assessed high and some low. This now lays down the law and the provision in paragraph (a) as regards farmhouses seems to me quite satisfactory. When one turns to paragraph (b), which refers to agricultural labourers' cottages, I am far from satisfied, especially with the words "on that land" and "so to use the house only while so employed." Those are very limiting words and will only apply to a certain number of cottages, including tied cottages. My Amendment is to delete that paragraph and substitute the one I have proposed. I agree with what has been said about differentiation in the assessment of agricultural labourers' cottages. Supposing there are four cottages in a row two of them tied cottages and two belonging to Mr. Snooks, who is not a farmer and who lets them to an agricultural labourer at 2s. a week, then the two tied cottages under the Bill as it stands, can be asses-
308
sed at a lower figure than the untied cottages.
I believe it has been suggested that I am making a suggestion that there should be a different assessment for the same kind of cottage. My Amendment is to put all agricultural labourers' cottages on the same footing. I am not introducing the principle of assessing some cottages at one figure and others at another. That is what the Bill already does. It says that a farmhouse let to a farmer is to be assessed at a lower figure than if it is let as a hunting box. The Bill says that a tied cottage is to be assessed at a lower figure than an untied cottage. I am only asking that all agricultural labourers' cottages should be assessed at their value to the labourers and not be assessed at what they could be let at either to a weekender or to some other person who is in receipt of a higher salary. I hope I shall have the Ministry of Agriculture on my side, and I am sorry that Lord Stradbroke is unable to be present, for I am convinced that the Ministry wants to be friendly to the agricultural labourer and does not want to inflict higher rent or rates upon him. If the owner of a cottage is willing to let to an agricultural labourer at 2s. or 3s. a week, he ought not to be penalised and told that he could let at a higher rent to somebody else. I hope I shall receive a favourable answer from the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 26, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have already troubled your Lordships with some observations that are relevant to the Amendment and I shall not repeat them. My noble friend Lord Clinton compared the Rent Restriction Act with the provision that he proposes, but I suggest that the differentiation made by that Act is very different from that which he proposes. The Rent Restriction Act places a restriction on the cottage until the tenant leaves it and the cottage is released. There is a definite division between the cottage that comes under the Act and one that is free in the market.
LORD CLINTON: Perhaps I did not make it clear, but I was only dealing with the instance that the noble Earl

309
himself raised of cottages standing side by side, one of which would be valued under my proposal at a low rate and the other at a higher one. My reply was that you have that already with cottages of which one may be under the Rent Restriction Act and the other not.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I see the noble Lord's point, and if he will allow me to develop my argument I will point out the difference. I was saying when he interrupted me that a cottage protected by the Rent Restriction Act can go free into the market, and there is a clear distinction between the protected and the non-protected cottage. He suggests a differentiation between a cottage occupied by an agricultural labourer and that occupied by another worker. It is a differentiation based on occupation. The other worker may be earning the same wages and be of the same class. He may be the agricultural labourer's brother. Suppose an agricultural labourer gets a job elsewhere and leaves his cottage and somebody else goes in who is not an agricultural labourer: the latter would not be entitled to the protection which the noble Lord seeks to give. That is a very considerable alteration in the present law of rating, and it would be very difficult to carry out in practice.
I see the object which the noble Lord has in view. He asks why should a man who is occupying a tied cottage and doing the same work have an advantage over a man who takes a cottage in the market, and why should you not introduce some means of putting them both on the same footing. I think that argument goes in the contrary case, as I showed just now. The same class of cottage, with the same class of person would be differentially rated on change of occupation. The noble Lord seemed to think that this was introducing something new. The only alteration which this introduces into the present law is the slight extension put in in another place, which gives a tied cottage which pays a rent the same differentiation as one occupied on service tenancy. The present law is maintained in exactly the same way and is not altered in any degree. The noble Lord seeks to alter the law, and to do so considerably, and we feel that it would be undesirable to do so in this Bill, because in spite of what the noble Lord opposite said it is not a Bill which aims
310
at fundamentally altering the general law of rating. Therefore I venture to deprecate the suggestion that we should adopt the proposal of the noble Lord.
He has said that he is sure that the Minister of Agriculture and Lord Stradbroke, if he were here, would support the Amendment, because they are both friends of the agricultural labourer. I am sure that both the Minister of Agriculture and Lord Stradbroke are friends of the agricultural labourer, as are all your Lordships, and I venture to hope that we may not be thought to be unfriendly to the agricultural labourer if we venture to deprecate the introduction of this Amendment into this Bill. I very much hope that noble Lords will agree that it would be inexpedient to accept the Amendment.
LORD OLIVIER: I think perhaps the noble Earl did not quite understand what I said. I did not say that this Bill altered the principle of rating. I agreed with him that this Bill did not alter fundamentally the principles of rating, but what I argued was that when you proposed to endow a particular industry, it was very unfair to pick out certain parts of that industry and not to endow it as a whole.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: May I ask the noble Earl if he has considered whether there is any reason for the whole of this clause being in the Bill at all? I have had only small experience of the Rating and Valuation Act, but all these different rating authorities throughout the country—assessment and valuation committees—are dealing with these matters of the assessment of farmhouses and cottages. In fact, I am not quite sure that the assessment committee of which I happen to be chairman is not going to be engaged in what is likely to be a test case, as to what constitutes a farmhouse. A building which was erected for a hunting box is no longer used as such, but is used in connection with certain grassland, and the question is whether it should be rated as a farmhouse or not. I understood that all this was being settled under existing legislation, and for the past two years we have been solving these questions. I do not profess to have great knowledge of the Bill, but I was amazed when I read this clause in the Bill, because I thought the whole question had been

311
dealt with by the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am glad the noble Earl has raised this question, because if the reason for this clause is not present to the minds of your Lordships it is very desirable that I should make it clear. The repeal Schedule contains provisions to repeal the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896. The noble Earl, who is the chairman of his assessment committee, has been working under the Act of 1896 and the subsequent Acts, and if this clause was not in the Bill his labours, I am afraid, would be superfluous, because, without it, the relief given to tied cottages would disappear. It is necessary to put this clause into the Bill in order to maintain the status quo. That is the whole object of the clause.
LORD HASTINGS: I still hope that the noble Earl will try to get over the difficulties, for the reason that to-day the agricultural labourer, by reason of the abolition, to all intents and purposes, of the compounding principle, is being exposed to the full blast of competition in, the matter of cottages. Also at the present time the valuation authorities are hard put to it to find the means whereby they can carry on their services. In this Bill there is a definite invitation contained to raise the assessment of cottages that are not expressly excluded from being so raised. When you say that certain classes of dwellings may not have their assessments raised beyond a certain figure it conveys a tacit invitation to those who are raising the assessments so to raise all other dwellings. That is inevitable. Personally, I did not altogether like Lord Dynevor's Amendment, because it even more expressly emphasised that invitation. But when one remembers that the clerks to rating authorities belong to the legal profession it would hardly be complimentary to them to suggest that the existing invitation in the Bill would be likely to be overlooked. Therefore I accepted Lord Dynevor's Amendment as being an improvement upon the Bill.
The undoubted desire of rating authorities will be (and you may say it should be) to raise the assessments to the maximum figure, and an owner of cottages might quite rightly be faced
312
with the contention that, as his cottages could and would let for more than he is now letting them for to agricultural workers, they should be assessed at the figure at which he could let them. In a few instances the owners of these cottages will not be concerned with land, and it might be not an entirely unfair proposition to put to them. But in the great majority of cases that owner of these cottages will be concerned with land. The average landowner only lets a very small minority—the smallest number he can—of his cottages as tied cottages to farmers. He always endeavours to keep as many as possible untied. But the great bulk of cottages in agricultural counties do belong to agricultural landowners. The assessment authority may say to such a landowner: "Your cottage is worth more than you let it for, and you will be assessed accordingly." His answer would be one that under this Bill would be futile, but nevertheless perfectly sound. It is; "Yes, I could get more for my cottages, but if I let them like that what shall I do with my land?" For, after all that is the purpose for which the cottages were built—to maintain the land in cultivation.
We are faced at the present time, I think, with a new set of circumstances, partly because of the extreme need of rating authorities to raise assessments, and partly because of the abolition of the compounding system which, as I said before, exposes the labourer to the full blast of competition in the matter of cottages. When those two things are taken into consideration I cannot help feeling that whatever difficulties there may be—and I readily agree there must be great difficulties—it would be well to strain every means of getting over them; otherwise the labourer will be the victim and we shall find cottages taken out of the occupation of agricultural labourers at a time when there is not the slightest doubt that the noble Earl himself and every member of the Government is most anxious to make it possible for the labourer to live under the best possible conditions and circumstances. I greatly hope that my noble friend will persist in his Amendment.
LORD HARRIS: I also hope that the noble Earl will reconsider the wording of the clause in the Bill. I do not think

313
he recognises that the Bill is dealing with an entirely different set of circumstances as regards agricultural cottages and employees from those of any other class of employees. He is arguing as if the wages of workmen in any other occupation are on the same lines as those of the agricultural labourer. They are not. The agricultural labourer is under a statutory obligation. That being so, why should not the cottage which he occupies temporarily—it may be for only six months or less—also be dealt with on the same lines?
The noble Earl thinks there would be very great difficulty in changing the assessment from that of an agricultural labourer to that of an employee in some other occupation. I dare say it would be inconvenient, but that is the fault of the Legislature for instituting an entirely different system of paying the agricultural workman from any other workman. That is the difficulty the Government are in. It is partly their own fault for accepting a statutory obligation regarding the wages of the agricultural labourer. Having accepted that they have to deal specially with the cottage occupied by the agricultural labourer. If inconvenience is caused from time to time the assessment committee will have to change the assessment according to the employment of the man.
THE EARL OF IVEAGH: I should like to support Lord Dynevor's Amendment, but I find it difficult because of my own farm near Woking and I cannot help thinking that lots of other people have farms near growing towns. Some of my labourers live in towns and I have no doubt they move from one cottage to another. Are those cottages to be re-assessed every time they move? It seems beyond one's, imagination that it should operate in that way. It seems to me that a proper remedy would be to tie the cottages. In the Home Counties especially there are lots of districts where the cottages are attractive to look at and have been deliberately taken away from the farms to be let as week-end cottages. Labourers have to go considerable distances on bicycles to find suitable accommodation. How are you going to deal with that? I am afraid that in the circumstances I cannot follow Lord Dynevor though I should like to do so.
LORD SEMPILL: Would it be a way out of the difficulty if we went to the individual, if instead of leaving the cottages to be assessed on the same principle we allowed the agricultural labourer, assuming he is such, to claim relief? I suggest that method to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: We have had some very interesting speeches and some very interesting suggestions, especially the last one of the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said the Bill had the effect of tempting the valuer to raise the rents because of the provisions of the Bill. As I have, I am afraid, said to your Lordships several times, this Bill contains no new provisions, except the small ones I have mentioned, which have not existed since 1896, and therefore I fail to see how these provisions can tempt the valuer to raise rents. Possibly if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, were introduced it might have that effect. I am not going to commit myself to saying it would—I do not know—but if any new provision would have the effect suggested by Lord Hastings, it would certainly be Lord Dynevor's provision rather than the provision which has existed for a great number of years and has not had the effect attributed to it by my noble friend Lord Hastings. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred, I think, to the question of the fixed rent.
LORD HARRIS: Fixed pay.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I misunderstood the noble Lord. I beg his pardon. I would like to call his attention to this possible contingency. Supposing an agricultural labourer, a married man had taken a cottage and let part of his cottage to a married couple: how would you assess the rates on that cottage? Would it be in the occupation of an agricultural labourer?
LORD HARRIS: It becomes a lodging house.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I only mention these matters to show there are considerable difficulties in the proposals of the noble Lord. With regard to Lord Sempill's proposal to give a weekly rebate I would point out that all these circumstances show the extreme difficulty of carrying the proposals made by noble Lords into effect. I do not think it is

315
possible to draft a new rating law on the floor of your Lordships' House. I really find myself in very considerable difficulty in accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord and I am afraid it is impossible for me to do so.
LORD FORESTER: I hope my noble friend Lord Dynevor will press this Amendment. I find myself in much the same position as my noble friend the Earl of Ancaster. I am the Chairman of the valuation committee in my county and we thought that this matter was all decided under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. We issued instructions to our rating authorities that farm cottages occupied by agricultural workers, whether tied or not, should be valued on the same basis in accordance with Section 5 of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, and that cottages allotted to farms but not let to agricultural workers should be assessed on the same basis as other cottages let to other than agricultural workers. If Lord Dynevor's Amendment is passed I think it will make things absolutely clear, and we shall know where we are. All agricultural workers whether they are in tied cottages or whether they are in cottages which other people have let to them to enable them to follow their occupation of the cultivation of the land, will be in the same position and we shall know where we are. I therefore hope my noble friend Lord Dynevor will press his Amendment and I shall certainly go into the lobby with him.
LORD ASKWITH: I shall follow Lord Dynevor and Lord Forester if it is only to make the adoption of Lord Dynevor's Amendment cause the Government between now and the Report stage to consider how to get out of the difficulty. Lord Harris has put the difficulty of going in and out of assessment and of whether they shall have lodgers or not. In all parts of the country this is an awkward question. I used to have a house myself in a small town on the borders of the Fen country and labourers there did not have cottages in the Fens but lived in the towns. None of the tenements occupied by these men will get the advantage of this derating. So it is in many parts of the country. At present you get the tied tenants de-rated and the others not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether your Lordships will allow me to say a few words because I am not sure that your Lordships fully appreciate the exact effect of the Amendment Lord Dynevor has moved. The Amendment affects only subsection (b) of Clause 65. That clause deals not with any house but only with houses occupied in connection with agricultural land and used as a dwelling-house by a person who falls within (a) and (b). It is in effect a reproduction of Section 5 of the Agricultural Rates Act.
The position, if I may try to make it clear—because it is important that we should understand it—is that when we partially Berated agricultural land it became necessary to differentiate between land and buildings, and it became necessary under Section 5, I think it was, of the Agricultural Rates Act to define what was to be done with the buildings on land used as agricultural land. Accordingly subsection (c) of Section 5 provided that where there were buildings used in connection with agricultural land they were to be treated as agricultural buildings and not to be treated as ordinary buildings which could Le let at a rack rent. Now that section is repealed. This Clause 65 reproduces that position and deals, and deals only, with houses occupied in connection with agricultural land. Therefore if there were a cottage such as I think Lord Dynevor referred to which was used by agricultural labourers and might be used by weekenders, his Amendment would not assist that. It is not a house occupied in connection with agricultural land, although it is quite true that it is a house used by a person employed in agricultural operations. Therefore, it would not affect his Amendment.
My noble friend Lord Harris has made a very interesting suggestion that agricultural labourers having their wages fixed by Act of Parliament, should have some statutory arrangement under which their rating might be specially dealt with. That may or may not be a very wise proposal. It is not one I have had the opportunity of considering or consulting upon with those more competent to express an opinion than myself. It is not, however, a matter to be dealt with in this clause. This clause is intended only to preserve the advantage which the existing law gives to those to whom it is

317
now given. It may be true to say that there ought to be further advantages given to agricultural labourers in all cases. I can quite understand the arguments addressed to that effect, but it is not for this Bill or this section or this Amendment. Although I am quite sure that this is a matter which will be most carefully considered by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health—I can promise the House it will be so considered—I cannot undertake that they will accept a proposal which they have not had the opportunity or the time to consider. I do not think it would be quite fair to say to them that we are going to put into this clause a paragraph which we hope deals with this matter, though I can assure your Lordships that it cannot have the effect of anything like what my noble friend Lord Dynevor or my noble friend Lord Harris desires. It is really dealing with a subject not quite germane to this Bill. The only reason Clause 65 comes in is to preserve the status quo and it is interesting to notice that it comes in, not as an independent matter, but as the first of a series of consequential provisions, this being con-
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
sequential on the fact that you are repealing the old Act and wish to retain the existing position. I can promise your Lordships that the matters which have been raised will receive careful attention.
LORD DYNEVOR: This question was fully raised in another place and discussed, and we have got nothing at all. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, says he wants to keep the status quo. What has upset the status quo? It is the legislation of the Government starting all these new assessments. These agricultural labourers are having their assessments put up, doubled and trebled, and the Lord Chancellor only says that the matter will receive consideration. I hope it will. In the meantime I am going to press my Amendment. If the Government like they can alter it on Report. Already we have received a rebuff on this question and I do not want to receive a second.
On Question, Whether paragraph (b) shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Abinger, L.

Avebury, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Chaplin, V.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Elibank, V.

Airlie, E.

Falmouth, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Ancaster, E.

Hood, V.

Faringdon, L.

Iveagh, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

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

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Howard of Glossop, L.

Onslow, E.

Knutsford, V.

Lamington, L.

Plymouth, E.

Peel, V.

Templemore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NON-CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Hastings, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hemphill, L.

Exeter, M.

Sidmouth, V.

Hindlip, L.

Reading, M.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Jessel, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Joicey, L.

Buxton, E.

Askwith, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Chesterfield, E.

Clinton, L.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Cranbrook, E.

Clwyd, L.

Olivier, L.

De La Warr, E.

Cranworth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

de Clifford, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Halsbury, E.

Deramore, L.

Sempill, L.

Lovelace, E.

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strachie, L.

Russell, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Suffield, L.

Forester, L.

Tenterden, L.

Allendale, V.

Harris, L.

EARL RUSSELL: Would the Government like to adjourn the House to consider their position?
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [Deductions from inclusive rents of industrial hereditaments in respect of rate relief]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Amendments to this clause are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 58, line 10, leave out from the beginning to the first ("the") in line 12, and insert:
("(2) Where any part of any premises for the time being assessed as an industrial hereditament is let out to a tenant, that part shall, notwithstanding that it is not separately assessed for rating purposes, be deemed for the purposes of this section to be a separate hereditament, and")
line 13, after ("landlord") insert ("to the tenant of that part")
lines 14 and 15, leave out ("the hereditament is separately assessed") and insert ("it is assessed as a separate hereditament").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67:
Removal of limit of borrowing powers of local authorities.
67.—(1) So much of any enactment as imposes any limit on the borrowing powers of any local authority by reference to the value for rating purposes of hereditaments within their area shall, as from the appointed day, cease to have effect.
(2) Paragraph (3) of section two hundred and thirty-four of the Public Health Act, 1875 (which, subject to the suspension thereof by the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Acts, 1923 to 1928, prohibits the Minister from sanctioning a loan in certain cases until one of his inspectors has held a local inquiry and reported to the Minister), is hereby repealed as from the appointed day.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to omit Clause 67. The noble Viscount said: If this clause is allowed to stand the security on existing loans will be adversely affected. At the present time the limit for borrowing powers is two years' assessable value for district councils and one-tenth the ordinary rate for county councils. It is quite true that in special cases these limits have been removed, but now the Government seek to make this a permanency without any hold by Parliament over borrowing by these councils. Then the inspector who is supposed to report to the Minister as to whether these loans are
320
to be made or not is to be done away with and nobody is to take his place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, leave out Clause 67.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This clause has two objects. The first subsection removes the existing limits on borrowing powers, which are based on value for rating purposes. Already these limits have become obsolete in many cases, because, as the noble Viscount said, Parliament has removed many subjects from their scope, notably education and housing, both of which are very important matters. This particular restriction on borrowing was a matter which came before the Royal Commission and it was shown in evidence that the restriction had been a very definite hindrance to sanitation in certain rural areas. Another point is the effect of the derating proposals. I think the object of the noble Viscount in moving the Amendment is to place a check upon any excessive borrowing by local authorities.
I think that that check is better obtained, not by an automatic limit, but by the necessity placed upon the local authority—with, I admit, certain exceptions, but not important exceptions, indeed I think I may say negligible exceptions—to obtain the consent of Parliament, or, in certain cases, of the appropriate Government Department. I do not think the absence of a limit will affect this check. It makes it much more clear that it is upon that check that reliance must be placed for prudent finance, and not upon an automatic limit. Now we come to subsection (2), which the noble Viscount seeks to delete. That subsection merely removes an antiquated piece of machinery, which has already been in suspension for some years. The Public Health Act, 1875, requires the Minister to hold a public inquiry where the loan would bring the total indebtedness beyond the assessable value of one year. This has been suspended, and no ill result has been found therefrom. I do not know if the noble Viscount would suggest the contrary. In those circumstances I hope the clause will be allowed to remain. It is one which I think local authorities are very anxious to see maintained and which will certainly, to the

321
sanitary services in rural areas, be of very definite value.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 67 agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: May I ask the noble Marquess whether he does not think the time has now come when your Lordships might fairly adjourn? Your Lordships are perfectly ready to sit not only to-morrow, but also on Monday, and in view of that I do not think it unreasonable to ask that we might now be relieved.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I sympathise with the noble Earl in his desire to go to bed, but we had hoped to get through this Part of the Bill. There are very few more Amendments; it looks more formidable than it really is.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: In my humble opinion my Amendment to Clause 68, which was very much in accordance with the Amendment moved last night by Lord Beauchamp, and, greatly to our disappointment, not pressed to a Division, is one of the most important matters in the whole Bill. It deals with the whole question of whether you are going to have a dictatorship of the Ministry or to keep anything for Parliament. I should deplore that that question, which must come up again on Clauses 122 and 123, should be debated for the first time at this late hour.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My only desire was to meet the convenience of the House, and if the noble Earl wishes to adjourn and thinks his Amendment important of course the Government will not stand in the way of the convenience of the House. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed accordingly.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
PARLIAMENT SQUARE AND OTHER STREETS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before twelve o'clock till to-morrow, 12 noon.

LLANELLY CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (RIVERS IMPROVEMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Redesdale be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Wemyss (E. Wemyss); and that the Lord Redesdale be Chairman of the said Committee:
Read, and agreed to.

ROMFORD GAS BILL [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

BRAUNTON AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
Special Order in respect of the parishes of Braunton and Heanton Punchardon, in the rural district of Barnstaple, in the County of Devon:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.