Sitting of 12 March 1929

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Southern Railway Bill.
Southern Railway (Air Transport) Bill.
Great Western Railway (Air Transport) Bill.
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport) Bill.
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill.
London and North Eastern Railway Bill.
London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport) Bill.
London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill.
Bills committed.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Sheffield Gas (Consolidation) Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.
Doncaster Area Drainage Bill,
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th day of March, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Doncaster Area Drainage Bill.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Iveagh Bequest (Ken Wood) [Lords].
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill,
Blackburn Corporation Bill,
Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill,
Southampton Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "VESTRIS" (INQUIRY).
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to inform the House when the Board of Trade investigation into the loss of the "Vestris" will be held; and whether he can state the composition of the full Court?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am not yet in a position to state when the inquiry into the loss of the "Vestris" will be held. The necessity for obtaining witnesses and much of the evidence from America renders the preparation of the case both slow and difficult, but every possible effort is being made to expedite the hearing. I have already informed the House that Mr. Butler Aspinall has consented to act as Wreck

    953
    Commissioner. The appointment of assessors will not be made until the date of the inquiry has been fixed.
    Mr. DAY: Will witnesses be brought from the United States?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Every effort will be made to get any witness whose attendance is really valuable for the purposes of the inquiry.
    Mr. DAY: Will the Board of Trade pay the expenses?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Board of Trade will, of course, be represented at the inquiry.
    Mr. DAY: I mean the expenses of witnesses who may be brought over—will they be defrayed by the Government or the Board of Trade?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should require notice of that question.

    AWARDS FOR GALLANTRY.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the President of the Board of Trade how many awards were made to officers and men of the British Mercantile Marine by the British Government and Foreign Governments during 1928; and whether it is possible to arrange for greater publicity to be given to these acts of gallantry?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of awards to officers and men of the British Mercantile Marine made during 1928 by the Governments of this country and of the Dominions was 32, and the number of awards made by Foreign Governments 68. With regard to the second part of the question, a notice is published in the Gazette of British medals awarded to British seamen, and particulars are sent to the Press of all awards to British seamen, whether British or Foreign, together with an account of the services for which these awards are granted.

    OFFICERS' EXAMINATIONS.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations from the Robert Gordon's Colleges and the Aberdeen Steam Fishing Vessels Owners' Association relative to the question of the places of examination of officers of the
    954
    mercantile marine; and what decision he has arrived at?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Representations have been received from the Robert Gordon's Colleges and the Aberdeen Steam Fishing Vessels Owners' Association, and are being carefully considered. A decision will be announced as soon as possible.
    Mr. BENN: Will there be an opportunity for Parliamentary criticism of any decision that is arrived at?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think there can be any Parliamentary criticism before a decision is taken, but certainly every representation will be considered in the ordinary way before any decision is arrived at, and then, if any hon. Member wishes to criticise it, it will be in order for him to do so.
    Mr. BENN: When will the decision be made?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot tell.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COPPER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he can submit a statement showing the stocks of electrolytic or other copper in this country at the close of the year 1925 and last year respectively; and if he is satisfied that in the event of national emergency arising His Majesty's Government have available adequate supplies of copper:
    (2) whether, having regard to the vital importance of copper in the provision of munitions of war and the fact that the production of copper is now completely under foreign control, and seeing that at the instance of this group the price of copper has been increased from £67 per ton to £84 per ton during the past 12 months, whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to encourage firms in this country to undertake the smelting of copper ore and the refining of copper for essential national purposes?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Stocks of copper in public warehouses in the United Kingdom, as recorded by the

    955
    London Metal Exchange, were 56,047 tons at 30th December, 1925, and 6,801 tons on 29th December, 1928. I have no information as to stocks in private warehouses or in manufacturers' hands. The position with regard to prices and stocks of copper will be watched, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 14th June, 1927, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil), a copy of which I am sending to him.
    Mr. HANNON: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the situation in this country in regard to supplies of copper would be very serious if anything were to happen—if, say, a war were to come on; and would he be good enough to answer the last part of Question No. 4, as to whether the Government are prepared to encourage the smelting of copper in this country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will refer to the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil) when the question was raised before.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the premise in Question No. 4, that the production of copper is now completely under foreign control? Is that a fact?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have stated in my answer such information as I have; I should not like to answer that particular question without further notice.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that he has had notice, and that it is a very serious statement to make? Might we know whether it is true or not? Surely the Board of Trade knows?
    Mr. WELLOCK: Do not these financial ramps prove the necessity for State control?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not quite see, if a raw material happens to be largely owned by foreigners in foreign countries outside Great Britain, how a system of nationalisation in this country is going to help.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY rose.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot enter into a discussion on that subject.

    RATIONALISATION.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the appointment of a departmental committee to inquire into the tendency towards the creation of monopolies which is involved in the realisation of the principle of rationalisation and into the effect of such monopolies upon the price of important commodities in general use?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The general question of the effect of combination is discussed in the report of the Committee on Industry and Trade which has just been published, and I do not think that any further general inquiry is necessary.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: If my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to set up a Departmental Committee, could he indicate what can be done to stop the mischievous tendencies that many of us see in rationalisation?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it is very unfortunate to make general observations of that kind, and I should be very sorry to endorse the proposition that the rationalisation of industry was a mischievous process.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rationalisation of the Press is in the interests of the country at the present time?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think that the Press is a productive industry.
    Mr. BROAD: Has it not been the policy of this Government to create and encourage monopolies in every sphere?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It has been the policy of the Government to encourage the rationalisation of industry, and it is a very proper policy to follow.
    Mr. BECKETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the rationalisation of the electrical industry under Lord Birkenhead?

    RUSSIA.
    Sir J. POWERasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the exports of Russia in 1928, or the latest period of 12 months for which the figures are available, were consigned to the United Kingdom; and what proportion of the imports into Russia came from the United Kingdom?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It appears from the trade returns published by the Soviet Government that, of the total imports into Russia across her European frontiers in the 12 months ended October, 1928, the proportion imported from the United Kingdom was 5.3 per cent. The corresponding figure for exports to the United Kingdom was 23.3 per cent.
    Sir J. POWER: Can my right hon. Friend say if we take more Russian exports than any other country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I could not answer that question without notice.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the figures of the Soviet Government, which he has quoted, as being reasonably accurate?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know; I really cannot say; but they are the only figures which are available. I have no particular reason to suppose that they are inaccurate.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Then, especially as in the past the right hon. Gentleman has declined to accept these figures as accurate, why does he give them in answer to a Parliamentary question?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not remember that I have ever said that the figures were inaccurate. I think they lump the exports and re-exports from this country together.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Do not these figures show what a great mistake it was to break off relations with Russia?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Kelly.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
    Mr. KELLYasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of ex-
    958
    service men discharged from the Enemy Debts Department during the last year who had been in the employ of the Department for seven or more years; and how many of these officers received a gratuity for completing more than seven years' service?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Leaving out of account 39 temporary ex-service men who were re-allocated to further employment in other Departments on the termination of their service in the Enemy Debts Department, the number of ex-service men with seven years' service who were discharged from that Department in the 12 months ended 28th February last was 21. Nine of these men received gratuities on discharge. The hon. Member is probably aware that gratuities are not awarded to persons discharged before 1st September, 1928. The staff of the Clearing Office are treated in the same way in this matter as are the temporary staff in all Government Departments.
    Mr. KELLY: Seeing that most of these men had more than seven years' service, and that seven years' service warrants a gratuity, can the right hon. Gentleman say why it was not given?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. That question was asked of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury some time ago, not with relation to this Department only, but to all the Government Departments. I am not sure on what date it was, but I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the Financial Secretary's reply, in which he set out the reasons why the date from which the period of seven years runs is the official date of the termination of the War.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Have the men discharged all been absorbed into other Government Departments,
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will read my answer, he will see that I excluded those whom I know to have been absorbed into other Departments. My answer deals with those who, so far as I am aware, have not been absorbed.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (BRANCH MANAGERS).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour the number of districts to which branch managers have been appointed

    959
    but in which no Employment Exchange is established; what rates of wages are paid to such branch managers; and are they allowed to take on extra staff when the volume of work warrants?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): There are 745 Branch Employment Offices. The fixed remuneration (which is on a part-time basis and covers the provision of an office) varies from £25 per annum in the smallest places to £200 per annum in the more important, together with cost-of-living bonus. A branch manager is responsible for the whole of the work of his office and engages any assistance he may require. Special payments are made to him on account of abnormal conditions.
    Mr. KELLY: Is the special assistance that has to be engaged paid on the same basis as those in the permanent service of the Ministry of Labour?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I think it is, but I am not quite sure. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

    HOSPITALITY COMMITTEE (SECRETARY).
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the resignation of Mr. Beare, secretary of the Government Hospitality Committee, has been accepted; and whether he retains or forfeits his pension rights?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The services of the officer referred to were terminated on the 8th January last. He is not eligible for the award of a pension.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (SUMMER CAMPS).
    Sir B. PETOasked the Secretary of State for War whether during the coming summer Territorial camps will be held in all areas as in past years and will not be interfered with by the expected General Election?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Arrangements for Territorial camps have been made as usual. I hope the training will not be interfered with.

    SOLDIER'S GRAVE, ALEXANDRIA (MEMORIAL).
    Sir B. PETOasked the Secretary of State for War, as representing the War Graves Commission, whether his attention has been called to the removal and destruction of the memorial erected by the family and comrades of the late Corporal Withecombe, of the 1st Royal North Devon Hussars, in the cemetery at Alexandria; whether his family were communicated with before this action was taken; the name of the representative of the War Graves Commission in Egypt on whose authority this action was taken; and whether, in view of the fact that it has distressed the parents and relatives of this deceased soldier, he will give orders that at least the marble scroll erected by his comrades shall be added to the memorial now placed on his grave?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The general policy of the Imperial War Graves Commission, which was explained to, and accepted by, the House in 1920, is to mark all graves with a uniform type of memorial. In Egypt, where a number of private memorials had already been erected during the War, the Commission did not replace them by the uniform type so long as they remained in good condition. But when these memorials, of which Corporal Withecombe's was one, have perished, they have been replaced by the standard headstone. Corporal Withecombe's relatives were informed of the proposed action. In view of the general policy to which I have referred, I regret that it is not possible to comply with the suggestion in the last part of the question.
    Sir B. PETO: Can my right hon. Friend give me any authority for the statement he has made that Corporal Withecombe's relatives were communicated with before this memorial was destroyed and another memorial substituted for it, as it seems to be in contradiction of a statement which I have had from the Imperial War Graves Commission?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I, of course, made inquiries of the Imperial War Graves Commission when my hon. Friend's question appealed on the Paper, and my statement is on the authority of the reply they have given me, that the

    961
    relatives were communicated with. I have seen a copy of the form which was sent to them. With regard to the other statement in my hon. Friend's supplementary question, it is not the fact that this memorial has been destroyed by the Imperial War Graves Commission. It perished because of the salt in the air and the climate, and, after it had perished, it was replaced by a standard headstone.
    Sir B. PETO: Is there any reason why, from the point of view of sentiment, the special memorial erected by this man's comrades should not be reproduced from a photograph and placed upon the grave?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must refer my hon. Friend to the Debate that took place in 1920, when it was undoubtedly the view of the House that uniform memorials should be placed on all graves, and I believe my hon. Friend will find that that is still the general feeling.

    CLOTHING DEPARTMENT (VIEWERS).
    Miss LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for War the respective duties, pay, and conditions of service of male and female viewers employed at the Royal Army Clothing Department?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: All viewers at the Royal Army Clothing Department are required to examine and inspect, under the general supervision and instructions of superior officials of the inspection staff, materials, garments and other articles of clothing, necessaries, etc., purchased from contractors before acceptance. But the work of the female viewers is restricted to the inspection of a limited number of articles and is carried out under the direct supervision of an assistant inspector. The wages of male viewers are on a scale of 44s. to 52s., plus a war advance of 23s. for a working week of 48 hours. After two years' service they are eligible for six days' leave with pay and for 12 days after seven years' service. The wages of female viewers are from 38s. to 42s. inclusive, for a working week of 48 hours. All viewers (male and female) are entitled to full pay for certain public holidays and their conditions of service are generally as laid down in the Regulations governing War Department civilian employés.
    Miss LAWRENCE: In view of the fact that the duties of male and female viewers are almost identical, why should there be so great a discrepancy in wages?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is because they are not identical that there is a difference in wages.
    Mr. KELLY: Do the Trade Board rates operate at the Pimlico factory?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must have notice of that question. I do not know.

  HOUSING.

    RURAL WORKERS ACT (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. BARRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in Scotland in the improvement of labourers' cottages under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act; how many applications have been received and how many approved; and the number of houses on which the work has been completed or is in progress, with the amount of grants promised and of those already paid?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Steady progress is being made in Scotland with the improvement of dwelling accommodation under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. As at 31st December last, the latest date for which information is available, applications for grants had been received in respect of 1,576 dwellings, of which 1,396 had been approved; work had been completed on 658 dwellings and was in progress on 655; and the amounts of grants promised and paid were £120,787 9s. 10d. and £48,002 5s. 6d. respectively.
    Mr. BARRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what Scottish counties are taking most advantage of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act; what rural housing authorities have not framed schemes under the Act; and what action the Government are taking to press these authorities to submit schemes?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: On the basis of the number of dwellings approved for grant, the Scottish Counties taking most advantage of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act are Haddington, Aberdeen, Roxburgh, Ross, Perth and Berwick. I am forwarding to the hon. Member a list of the

    963
    county local authorities in Scotland that have not framed schemes under the Act. As regards the last part of the question, the Department of Health for Scotland are in regular communication with those county local authorities that have not yet decided whether or not to adopt a scheme, and have brought to their notice the advantages of the Act.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Health how many slum-clearance schemes have been approved since January, 1925; in what areas are they situated; what is the amount of expenditure involved: and what is the number of people affected?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Since 1st January, 1925, 58 slum clearance schemes have been confirmed by my Department. Reliable estimates as to the amount of expenditure involved are not available. The number of persons required to be rehoused under these schemes is 34,396. As the list of areas in which the schemes are situated is rather a long one, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Are we to understand that in any or all of these schemes the work has been started?
    Sir K. WOOD: I was asked what schemes have been approved, and I have referred to what has been confirmed in the Department.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these schemes have been carried out?
    Sir K. WOOD: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Following is the list:
    Local Authorities whose schemes for slum clearance within their areas have been confirmed since 1st January, 1925.

    Banbury T.C.

    Chelsea M.B.C.

    Barking

    Town. D.C.

    Cheltenham T.C

    U.D.C.

    Chester T.C.

    Bath T.C.

    Darwen T.C.

    Bermondsey

    Exeter T.C.

    M.B.C.

    Finsbury M.B.C

    Brampton

    R.D.C.

    Halifax T.C.

    Bristol T.C

    Hitchin U.D.C.

    964

    Horsham U.D.C.

    Rotherham R.D.C.

    Knaresborough

    St. Albans T.C

    U.D.C

    St. Pancras.

    Leeds T.C.

    M.B.C.

    Liverpool T.C.

    Salford T.C

    London C.C

    Sheffield T.C.

    (6 schemes)

    (4 schemes).

    Newcastle-on-Tyne

    Stepney M.B.C.

    T.C. (3 schemes).

    Stockton-on-Tees

    Norwich T.C.

    T.c.

    (2 schemes)

    Sunderland T.C.

    Oldbury U.D.C

    (2 schemes)

    (2 schemes)

    Torquay T.C.

    Oldham T.C.

    Wednesbury T.C.

    Otley U.D.C.

    Welshpool T.C.

    Poole T.C.

    West Bromwich

    Poplar M.B.C.

    T.C.

    Preston T.C

    Wigan T.C.

    Ramsgate T.C.

    Worcester T.C.

    Rawtenstall T.C

    York T.C.

    Rochdale T.C.

  SCOTLAND.

    SHARE FISHERMEN (HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS).
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps it is proposed to take regarding the insurability under the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Acts of share fishermen over the age of 65?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It has been decided to exclude from the scope of compulsory insurance for health and pension purposes share fishermen over the age of 65 who were not insured persons on the date when they attained that age or on the 1st January, 1929, whichever is the later, and a special Order to this effect is being made.

    POLLING FACILITIES, COLONSAY.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that there is no polling station in the island of Colonsay, and that the electors, in order to exercise their franchise rights, are compelled to make a sea voyage of 15 miles to Portaskaig; that, with the existing steamer service, this means an absence from home for three or four days; and that there is no accommodation at Portaskaig; and whether, as the electors have made a petition for a polling station in Colonsay, he can take any steps to ensure that the electors' rights to the franchise are made effective?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The sheriff, as returning officer, is responsible under statute for appointing polling places for parliamentary elections so as to give electors such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances; and, if the arrangements made by the returning officer are not considered satisfactory, it is open to a local authority, or not less than thirty electors, to represent this to the Lord Advocate. I understand that, with a view to remedying the inconvenience referred to by the hon. Member, the question of providing a polling place on the island of Colonsay has been sympathetically considered by successive sheriffs and Lord Advocates. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, however, the date for the poll at a General Election is in all cases the ninth day after the date for the nomination of candidates, and the conditions make it uncertain, and in stormy weather improbable, that the ballot box and voting papers would reach the island before the day of the poll. In these circumstances it has not been found possible to appoint a polling place on the island.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Under these circumstances, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making every elector in Colonsay a postal voter?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course that would require fresh legislation.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the sheriffs have power now to put on the list of postal voters those electors who comply with the requisite qualifications in other respects?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I will look into it, but I hardly think it will be possible under the circumstances.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what number of new holdings and enlargements, respectively, were constituted in Scotland during the years 1927 and 1928; and what number of new holdings and enlargements, respectively, he proposes to constitute during the coming year?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: During the two year period ended 31st December, 1928, the
    966
    Board of Agriculture for Scotland provided, and gave applicants entry to, 146 new holdings and 63 enlargements of existing holdings. Arrangements in progress are designed to provide about 138 new holdings and 56 enlargements of existing holdings during the present year.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Have two of these holdings been granted to McDonald and McClellan, who were sent to prison for land raiding?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: That is quite a separate matter.

    LAND SETTLEMENT.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applicants have been settled on schemes of land settlement initiated since the present Government came into power; and how many of these applicants received holdings fully equipped with house and steading?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: 267 applicants have been settled on land settlement schemes initiated during the period referred to. Of these, seven were settled in vacated holdings, and 41 in enlargements. On the 219 new holdings, 125 dwelling houses and 110 steadings are completed, 26 houses and 28 steadings are under construction, 35 houses and 17 steadings are not yet begun, whilst in the other cases, buildings are not required on the holdings.

    BURIALS, SMAILHOLM, KELSO.
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that serious complaint is being made by householders at Smailholm, Kelso, that burials are now taking place in a hitherto unused portion of the local churchyard which is close to dwelling-houses; that, owing to the comparative levels of the churchyard and the houses, there is a danger to health if this practice is continued; and if, in view of the refusal of the parish council to reconsider this matter, the Department of Health will take whatever steps are necessary or desirable in the interests of public health?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In connection with a complaint made in 1927, the Medical Officer of Health for Kelso District advised that no nuisance within the meaning

    967
    of the Public Health Act then existed at the Smailholm Burial Ground, and the Scottish Board of Health could therefore find no reason to interfere with the decision of the parish council to use the ground in question for burials. No subsequent complain has been received, but I am having further inquiries made and shall communicate with the hon. Member.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    EXPORTS (DELAYS AT PORTS).
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary for Mines, if he is aware that after due notice the steamship "Cydonia," of the Stag Line, arrived at Blyth on charter on the morning of 12th January to load 4,700 tons of coal, the owners having been informed that the coal would be put on board in 168 hours, starting on the 14th January; that after lying in port for 17 days waiting for the coal none of it had been put on board; and what steps he is taking to prevent delays of this kind at the ports owing to the artificial restrictions on output put in force by the coalowners?
    Commodore KING (Secretary for Mines): I am aware of the delay in loading this vessel. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 7th February to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) of which I am sending him a copy.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that since that date supplies of coal are more plentiful for bunkers and export?
    Commodore KING: Yes. I stated in my reply that steps are being taken in Northumberland and Durham to meet the unexpected demand. There are no artificial restrictions on output in Northumberland and Durham.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that there are artificial restrictions in Northumberland and Durham and in the five county scheme, and that the same conditions that obtain at Hull are obtaining elsewhere?
    Commodore KING: I am not referring to the five county scheme or to the Humber ports. I am referring to Northumberland and Durham.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that there are restrictions in the five county area and in Northumberland and Durham as well?
    Commodore KING: No, I am not aware that any Yorkshire or five county coal is shipped at Blyth.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that Grimsby trawler owners who are unable to obtain coal from other Yorkshire collieries are obliged to apply to Northumberland?

    DISPUTE (ESTIMATED LOSS).
    Major OWENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £80,000,000 of revenue estimated to be lost through the general strike and the coal stoppage includes the Government's subsidy of £23,000,000?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the reply that the Government regard the Prime Minister's gift to the coalowners as a loss?
    Mr. BENN: Does the hon. Member mean that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech repeatedly named £80,000,000, he included the voluntary gift of £23,000,000?

    PETROL PRICES.
    Sir J. POWERasked the Secretary for Mines approximately the present retail prices of petrol per gallon in this country and the leading European countries, and the amount of taxation in each case?
    Commodore KING: The retail price of first grade petrol in London is 1s. 7d. per imperial gallon, in Paris, Madrid and Brussels, 1s. 8d., and in Berlin, 1s. 6d. With regard to taxation the only information available respecting petrol relates to the duty on petrol imported direct as such into certain countries. This duty in Germany is about 2½d. per gallon. In France it is about 4d. per gallon plus various surtaxes, including

    969
    an ad valorem duty of 2 per cent. of the imported price. In Spain it is understood that no duty is paid by the Government monopoly although an Import Duty of 5d. per gallon still remains in the tariff.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in France the Government have control of certain refineries, and will he inquire as to whether this accounts for the low price in France?
    Commodore KING: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not listened to my answer. I have stated that the price in Paris is 1s. 8d. as against 1s. 7d. in this country.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will also say that the tax is higher in France and the Import Duty is higher?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Excluding the Import Duty and the additional taxation, are not the prices generally higher in this country than in foreign countries?
    Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any answer as to the quality or the grade of the petrol in the various countries that he quotes?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir. I based the reply on the first grade petrol as being the same grade in each country.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether, when investigating the reasons for the rise in price of petrol, he intends to inquire into the reasons for the simultaneous advance in the price of benzol?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): As I indicated in my reply of the 7th March, the Government's request for information was confined to oil products. The price of other kinds of motor fuel must obviously be related to the price of petrol, especially when as in the case of benzol it is ordinarily sold in admixtures of which petrol is the main constituent. In these circumstances, the Government, as at present advised, do not propose to extend the field of inquiry.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the price of benzol will not be inquired into?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It means exactly what I have said.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In spite of the fact that benzol is not taxed and that it moved up in price with petrol when the latter was taxed, and also in connection with the recent rise?
    Sir B. PETO: Will the inquiry cover the retail price charged for paraffin?. Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that retailers are, in many instances, charging cottagers 2d. per gallon more for paraffin?
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to publish any statement as to the result of these inquiries?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at this period say.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: If the right hon. Gentleman does publish a statement, will it include some statement as to the effect of this rise in price on the motor industry?
    Sir B. PETO: May I ask for a reply to my question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet's supplementary question does not arise from the original question or from the Prime Minister's answer.

    HORSE-DRAWN TRAFFIC, LONDON.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the serious congestion of traffic in the London streets, he will consider making regulations that will prohibit horse-drawn vehicles using certain streets during busy hours of the day?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 11th March to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Maidstone Division (Commander Bellairs), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the great success that has been attained where these regulations have been introduced in America?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It does not follow that what is good for America is good

    971
    for us. This matter on three occasions, I think, has been thoroughly investigated, and on the whole those who investigated it came to the conclusion that we should not be justified in excluding horse traffic.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend not fix a time limit in years in order to enable the railway companies and brewery companies possibly to adapt themselves?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, because in some cases it is distinctly better to use horses.
    Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that in some of the very narrow streets experiments might be tried?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That has been considered, but on the whole that project has been turned down.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that in narrow streets it is slow traffic which should be allowed and not fast traffic?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL SCHEME.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Minister of Transport what was the estimated number of men for whom it was proposed to find employment in the making of the Forth and Clyde ship canal in the scheme which his Department has considered; and for what period these men could have been employed?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The employment involved in carrying out a scheme of the magnitude of a ship canal between the Forth and the Clyde would no doubt be substantial, but I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him on the 26th November last when I stated that the various estimates of the cost of constructing such a canal could not be satisfactorily tested until a detailed geological survey of the route had been carried out. In these circumstances, no reliable estimate of the employment likely to be afforded can be arrived at.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that
    972
    in a previous answer he stated that a considerable loss would be incurred in the scheme, and may I ask him how it is possible for him to estimate whether or not there will be a loss if he cannot give an estimate of the numbers of men who will be employed?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I do not accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman. It is impossible to ascertain what number of people would be employed on this project until a geological survey has been carried out. The Government consider that the onus of undertaking a geological survey to show a satisfactory result rests upon the promoters and not with the Government.
    Captain FANSHAWE: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether the shipping companies have ever been consulted as to whether they will use the canal if it is actually built?
    Major MacANDREW: Has my hon. and gallant Friend seen what the Balfour Report says about canals?
    Colonel ASHLEY: This is hardly a canal. It is almost a Suez Canal, if I may put it in that way. As regards the shipping companies, I do not know whether the Committee on Reconstruction in 1918 consulted shipping companies. I do not think that they did.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the shipping companies were originally consulted and that many favoured this scheme?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think so.

    REDRUTH.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour the number registered in Redruth as unemployed during the last two months and the labour transferred to Redruth from depressed areas during the same period?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Persons on the Register of the Redruth Employment Exchange in January and February,1929.

    Date.

    Men.

    Boys.

    Women.

    Girls.

    Total.

    1929.

    7th January

    Wholly Unemployed

    …

    …

    514

    9

    21

    6

    550

    Temporarily Stopped

    …

    …

    127

    —

    74

    7

    208

    14th January

    Wholly Unemployed

    …

    …

    523

    11

    25

    5

    564

    Temporarily Stopped

    …

    …

    65

    —

    67

    9

    141

    21st January

    Wholly Unemployed

    …

    …

    510

    7

    20

    8

    545

    Temporarily Stopped

    …

    …

    58

    —

    72

    9

    139

    28th January

    Wholly Unemployed

    …

    …

    500

    9

    25

    7

    541

    Temporarily Stopped

    …

    …

    57

    —

    78

    8

    143

    4th February

    Wholly Unemployed

    …

    …

    497

    11

    24

    10

    342

    Temporarily Stopped

    …

    …

    56

    —

    60

    8

    124

    11th February

    Wholly Unemployed

    …

    …

    484

    11

    26

    12

    533

    Temporarily Stopped

    …

    …

    57

    —

    61

    9

    127

    18th February

    Wholly Unemployed

    …

    …

    487

    13

    31

    9

    540

    Temporarily Stopped

    …

    …

    57

    —

    60

    9

    126

    25th February

    Wholly Unemployed

    …

    …

    518

    13

    28

    4

    563

    Temporarily Stopped

    …

    …

    54

    —

    52

    8

    114

    During the same period 14 men were transferred to Redruth from depressed areas.

    30-STAMP QUALIFICATION.
    Mr. T. SHAWasked the Minister of Labour the number of claimants to unemployment benefit who would be unable to satisfy the condition requiring payment of 30 contributions in the previous two years, if this condition were allowed to operate from next April onwards?
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Minister of Labour if he will publish, as a White Paper, the results of the sample investigation recently made as to the probable effect of the introduction of the 30 contribution condition laid down by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927?
    Mr. BETTERTON: A sample analysis was made on 29th January, 1929, of the persons aged 18 years and over, numbering 1,092,000 in all, with claims authorised for benefit at that date. From this analysis it is estimated that the number of such persons who had paid less than 30 contributions in the two years preceding that date, was about 120,000. This represents approximately the number who would have been disqualified by the 30 contribution rule if it had been fully
    974
    in operation when the analysis was made. As regards making an estimate for the future, however, there are so many uncertain factors that no precise figure can be given. Moreover, under the existing law, the disqualifications under the 30-contribution rule would not take place all at once, but would be spread over the 12 months beginning on 19th April next. As regards the details of the sample analysis, I will circulate tables in the OFFICIAL REPORT, giving the figures for the seven administrative divisions and for certain industries with large numbers of unemployed persons.
    Mr. SHAW: In view of the importance of the answer, may I ask the hon. Member to give us the figures of the actual number of unemployed, apart from those on the live register, or, if he is unable to do that, to give some analysis or some estimate to the House as to the real number of people unemployed in the country?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I will consider that point.
    Following are the tables:

    Sample Analysis of Claims for Unemployment Benefit 28 th January,1929.

    Insured persons aged 18 to 64.

    Analysis by Divisions.

    Division.

    Men.

    Women.

    Total number of claims authorised for benefit current on 28th January, 1929.

    Estimated number of cases in which less than 30 contributions had been paid in the previous two years.

    Total number of claims authorised for benefit current on 28th January 1929.

    Estimated number of cases in which less than 30 contributions had been paid in the provious two years.

    London & South Eastern

    136,300

    4,980

    19,380

    390

    South Western

    …

    56,100

    3,460

    6,870

    180

    Midlands

    …

    120,940

    10,690

    34,510

    1,160

    North Eastern

    …

    225,140

    41,570

    33,420

    1,250

    North Western

    …

    170,520

    14,560

    55,940

    3,270

    Scotland

    …

    108,030

    10,410

    17,460

    760

    Wales

    …

    103,270

    25,980

    4,040

    160

    Total Great Britain

    …

    920,300

    111,650

    171,620

    7,170

    BROADCASTING (PORTABLE RECEIVING SETS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he has any statistics that will show the number of portable wireless receiving sets in use in Great Britain; and will he give particulars?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): No, Sir. No such statistics are available.
    Mr. DAY: Is there any way in which the Post Office can tell whether licences have been taken cut for these sets?
    Viscount WOLMER: Yes, Sir; we have a number of ways, but I am not prepared to tell the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. DAY: Can the Noble Lord tell me whether any prosecutions of portable wireless set holders have taken place for not having a licence?
    Viscount WOLMER: Oh, yes, Sir.

  POST OFFICE.

    STAMP DESIGNS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to introduce any pictorial subjects of national interest in any forthcoming stamp designs?
    Viscount WOLMER: I think the hon. Member would do better to form his own opinion when the stamps are issued.
    Mr. DAY: Can the Noble Lord tell us whether the project is contemplated?
    Viscount WOLMER: I shall be delighted to show the hon. Member the designs.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: In considering those designs, will the Noble Lord represent to his right hon. colleague that one of the designs should be a picture of his right hon. Friend receiving a deputation?

    BEAM WIRELESS SERVICE (CHARGES).
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the substantial profits being made, it is contemplated to make a further reduction in the charges for beam wireless telegraphic communications?
    Viscount WOLMER: No general reduction in the charges for beam wireless telegrams is contemplated at present.
    Mr. WELLOCK: When the merger gets control of the beam wireless and has to cover profits of decaying cables, will it not then be impossible?
    Mr. AMMON: Can the Noble Lord say whether the Communications Company has yet been formed?
    Viscount WOLMER: In reply to the first question, I think the hon. Gentleman is entirely in error in that opinion. As regards the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), I do not think the Communications Company has actually been formed at this moment. If he wants an answer, perhaps he will put down a question.
    Mr. BENN: Have the Government begun negotiations for the contract for the use of this beam wireless?
    Viscount WOLMER: Yes, Sir.

    PARCEL POSTAL RATES.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE (for Lieut.-Colonel GAULT)asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the differentiation in parcel postal rates in force between England and the United States of America as compared with those in existence between England and Canada; and whether he will take the necessary steps to have this discrimination in favour of the United States rectified and, if possible, a preferential postal rates treatment introduced for the purpose of the development of communication within the British Empire?
    Viscount WOLMER: The differentiation as between the United States of America and Canada is due mainly to the credits for terminal services required by Canada being higher than those required by the United States, and partly to the cost of sea-transit to Canada being greater than to the United States. I fear there is little prospect of either the Canadian charge or the cost of sea-transit being materially reduced.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEE (NORTH-WEST WALES).
    Major OWENasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact

    979
    that there is no representative from South Carnarvonshire on the North-West Wales war pensions committee, he will consider the appointment on the committee of at least one representative from that extensive area?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The hon. and gallant Member has been misinformed. Three of the members of this committee are from South Carnarvon. The latter part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Major OWEN: Is it not a fact that there is not a single representative for that area from Pwllheli right down to Aberdaron, and is it not a fact that the representative who formerly lived in Pwllheli has now gone from that area further north?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, Sir; my information is that in that area there is one resident at Bettws-y-Coed and two in Criccieth.
    Major OWEN: Is it not obvious that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not know the geography of that county? Bettws-y-Coed and Criccieth are not within the area of South Carnarvonshire; they are in the central part of the county.
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I cannot say that I have any particular knowledge of the geography. I thought they were in South Carnarvonshire.
    Major OWEN: In view of that fact, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not consider the appointment of a representative for the area which I have mentioned, that is from Pwllheli down to the end of the Lleyn Peninsula?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The hon. Gentleman only asked whether there would be a representative from South Carnarvon, and there are three already.
    Major OWEN: Oh, no; there is one.

    EX-RANKER OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
    Sir R. HUTCHISONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Captain A. E. Cooper,
    980
    M.C., 11th service batalion, the West Yorkshire Regiment, has had his pension re-assessed on the basis of his pre-War non-commissioned rank, namely £123 5s. 6d. a year only and without addition for his Military Cross, whereas, if he had finished his service as a Royal Marine lieutenant instead of as an Army captain his pension would have been £274 a year; and whether, in view of the hardship involved in this and many similar cases, he will consider extending the terms of the Royal Warrant of 3rd May, 1918, to all pensioned warrant and non-commissioned officers who received temporary commissions in the Army during the War?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As regards the first part of the question the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. Captain Cooper would not be eligible for a higher rate of pension than he is receiving if he had been granted a temporary commission in the Royal Marines. As regards the last part of the question, this claim is one of those which were fully considered by the committee which reported on the claims of ex-ranker officers, and I am not prepared to re-open the question.

    ALIENS (BRITISH WIVES).
    Miss WILKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the, fact that the question of the nationality of British women married to alien; has been postponed pending the Report of the committee of experts, he will state whether that committee has ever met since its appointment; when it is proposed that it should meet; and whether he can give any assurance that His Majesty's Government will take steps to expedite the work of the committee?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply to this question. The committee of experts to which my right hon. Friend referred in his statement on March 7th is the proposed committee referred to on page 18 of the Summary of Proceedings of the Imperial Conference, 1926 (Cmd. 2768). A number of important questions will be considered

    981
    by this committee, and as explained by my right hon. Friend in his statement much work has already been done to prepare the way for it; but it has not yet been possible to fix a date for its assembly.
    Active steps are however being taken in consultation with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions with a view to the assembling of the committee as early as may be practicable.
    Miss WILKINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his right hon. Friend gave me the impression that the Government were behind this idea, whereas this committee of experts has, in fact, been a good way of shelving the whole thing? Are we to understand that the expert committee is to continue to be a screen for shelving the matter?
    Mr. AMERY: I do not quite understand the hon. Member.
    Miss WILKINSON: Are we to understand that absolute unanimity must be obtained before the committee can report favourably?
    Mr. AMERY: Generally speaking, in matters before the Imperial Conference the decisions have to be unanimous before we can act. I would not like to give a specific assurance on that point now.

    DISTRESSED AREAS (LORD MAYOR'S FUND).
    Mr. LUNNasked the President of the Board of Education the total amount allocated to the West Riding divisional committee for relief of distress in mining areas from the Lord Mayor's Fund up to the latest date?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The total amount issued from the Lord Mayor's Fund to the West Riding divisional committee up to the 11th instant was £32,500.
    Mr. LUNN: Is there any restriction laid down as to what can be allocated to the West Riding, other than what is laid down for any other district? Is the Noble Lord aware that there are more than 20,000 miners unemployed in the West Riding?
    Lord E. PERCY: There is no restriction.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the Noble Lord think that this sum is adequate to meet the known distress in the West Riding area?
    Mr. BECKETTasked the President of the Board of Education if he has received any requests that Gateshead should be scheduled as a distressed mining area; if he is aware that there are six collieries employing normally about 12,000 men in the town; and whether he is considering any action to remove the position in which this mining community is placed in comparison with men of the same occupation living a mile away outside the town?
    Lord E. PERCY: Grants amounting to over £3,600 have been made by the divisional committee for the North Eastern coalfields to the education and health authorities in Gateshead, and the education authority is also receiving assistance in the matter of school feeding. I understand that the committee received a request from Gateshead for assistance in other ways, and that the committee did not feel able to comply with this request. I am making further inquiries, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

    JAMAICA (SAVINGS BANK).
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government savings bank of Jamaica is patronised to a reasonable extent; and whether it is a financial success?
    Mr. AMERY: I have not received any complaints with regard to the working of the Jamaica Savings Bank and I believe that the facilities which it offers are appreciated. The bank is not, of course, maintained principally with a view to profit, but I observe from the latest report that the profit on transactions for the year 1926 amounted to £4,395.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Health whether there are any reciprocal arrangements as to the payment of pensions under the Pensions Act of 1925 with any of the Dominion Governments of the Empire?
    Sir K. WOOD: The answer is in the negative, but I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on the 29th November of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, to a question by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Bellamy).

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (TUBERCULOSIS).
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the Minister of Health if any other form of tuberculosis, except tuberculosis of the lungs, will be regarded as an infectious disease under the Local Government Bill?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is advised that any form of tuberculosis is an infectious disease for the purposes of Clause 15 of the Local Government Bill. As my hon. Friend is aware, tuberculosis is expressly excluded from the definition of infectious disease for the purposes of Clause 58 of the Bill.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (MINIMUM WAGE).
    Mr. BELLAMYasked the Prime Minister whether the Draft Convention for the Creation of Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery passed by the International Labour Conference in June last is to be submitted to Parliament; and, if so, when?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. In accordance with the usual procedure, a White Paper stating the action proposed by His Majesty's Government will be laid before Parliament. I am not yet in a position to say when this will be done.

    SUPER-TAX.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that interest paid by a trustee to beneficiaries and calculated day by day is not allowed by the Inland Revenue authorities as deduction from Super-tax assessment; and if he will explain why such allowance is not made?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not quite clear as to what my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he will furnish me with the particulars of any case to which he is refer-
    984
    ring I will cause inquiry to be made and communicate the result to him in due course.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. Is he aware that it is the practice that, when trustees pay interest to a beneficiary, they are allowed a deduction in respect of interest paid annually, but not if it is calculated from day to day? It seems to me that if deductions are allowed for annual payments, they should be allowed when the calculations are made from day to day.
    Mr. SAMUEL: If that be so, the hon. Member has answered his own question, but I do not admit his interpretation of the facts.
    Sir W. DAVISON: The question which I put down applies for information which I have received from the Income Taxpayers' Society and that it relates to a case where the Inland Revenue authorities have refused to do what I have indicated in my supplementary question.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Then I have not grasped the meaning of my hon. Friend's question.

    INFLUENZA (RESEARCH GRANT).
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the making of a grant to the Medical Research Council or any other body for the purposes of research into the pathology of influenza?
    Mr. SAMUEL: An inclusive grant-in-aid is made each year to the council from the Vote for Scientific Investigation (Class IV 8). The council has discretion to allocate any part of the grant to the purpose suggested, if it should think fit.
    Mr. MALONE: Is the hon. Member aware of the very high death-rate due to this malady in the last few months, and the apparent inability of the medical profession to deal with it? Have not the Government some responsibility in seeing that this particular research is carried out?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware of this un fortunate malady, but a question specifically relating to it should be addressed to the Minister of Health, who, I have no doubt, will deal with it.
    Dr. DAVIES: Is the hon. Member aware that the medical profession throughout the world are making deep and profound research into this question?

    ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (GOVERNMENT SHARES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what payments have been received in interest and dividend on the Government shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company since the formation of the company?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The total amount of interest and dividend received by the Government on its holding of shares and debentures from the date of the Government's first investment in the company in 1914 to the present date is £6,616,089 5s. 1d.

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of families and individuals who have applied since January, 1928, for assisted passages to Canada and Australia; how many of these have been approved by the Dominion authorities; how many of them have actually sailed; and what obstacle, if any, there is to the immediate migration of the remainder?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): During the 13 months ending 31st January, 1929, the number of applications from families for assisted passages to Canada is 6,583 and to Australia 4,634. The number of applications from individuals not included amongst the families is to Canada 28,466 and to Australia 21,417. The number of approvals and sailings during the same period is:

    (a) Approvals.—For Canada, 2,772 families and 18,718 individuals, and for Australia, 2,973 families and 10,444 individuals;

    (b) Sailings.—For Canada, 2,140 families and 15,381 individuals, and for Australia, 3,111 families and 10,909 individuals.

    With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the remainder of the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that for every three applicants there is only one opportunity?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Oh no. In the case of Canada, there are 18,718 individuals out of 28,000 applicants. The proportion going to Australia is still more than half.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the Under-Secretary inform the House whether Scotland is under the Dominions Office for allocating more people on the land?
    Mr. TAYLOR: Do the Canadian figures include the special scheme for harvesters?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Oh no. These, I understand, are entirely assisted passages under the Overseas Settlement Act.
    Following is the remainder of answer:
    The sailings to Australia exceed the approvals because the sailings within the period include persons approved before 1st January, 1928. In addition to the above, 3,930 persons have sailed to Canada and 34 to Australia, but pending the receipt of returns from the Shipping Companies, information is not available to show how many of these persons were members of families or single individuals. The obstacles which prevent the migration of those applicants who have not been approved or sailed are: (a) Lack of suitable openings overseas, (b) failure to satisfy the medical and other requirements of the Dominion Authorities.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Report of the Army Supplementary Estimate, 1928, may be considered this day before Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on the Reports of Supply of the 7th March and 28th February may be taken after Eleven of the clock and shall 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, 190; Noes, 83.

Division No. 264.]

AYES.

[3.28 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Albery, Irving James

Grant, Sir J. A.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Pilcher, G.

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

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Power, Sir John Cecil

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Grotrian, H. Brent.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Apsley, Lord

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Preston, William

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

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Atholl, Duchess of

Hacking, Douglas H.

Radford, E. A.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

Raine, Sir Walter

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Hamilton, Sir George

Ramsden, E.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Harland, A.

Remer, J. R.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Harrison, G. J. C.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Beflairs, Commander Carlyon

Hartington, Marquess of

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

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

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

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Berry, Sir George

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

Ropner, Major L.

Betterton, Henry B.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Ross, R. D.

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

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

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

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Salmon, Major I.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Brass, Captain W.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Sandon, Lord

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Bassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Briggs, J. Harold

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

Savery, S. S.

Briscoe, Richard George

Hurst, Sir Gerald

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

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Buchan, John

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

Bullock, Captain M.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Burman, J. B.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Campbell, E. T.

Lamb, J. Q.

Storry-Deans, R.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Charter's, Brigadier-General J.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Christie, J. A.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Thomson, Sir Frederick

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Lumley, L. R.

Tinne, J. A.

Colman, N. C. D.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Cooper, A. Duff

MacIntyre, I.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

McLean, Major A.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Macmillan, Captain H.

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

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Makins, Brigadier General E.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Margesson, Captain D.

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Eden, Captain Anthony

Meller, R. J.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Edge, Sir William

Meyer, Sir Frank

Watts, Sir Thomas

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Wayland, Sir William A.

Ellis, R. G.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

England, Colonel A.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Wolmer Viscount

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Womersley, W. J.

Falie, Sir Bertram G.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kinsley

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Fermoy, Lord

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Fielden, E. B.

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Wright, Brig-General W. D.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Forrest, W.

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

Ganzoni, Sir John

Nuttall, Ellis

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Gates, Percy

Oakley, T.

Major Sir George Hennessy and

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

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Major Sir William Cope.

Goff, Sir Park

Perring, Sir William George

NOES.

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

Clarke, A. B.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

Compton, Joseph

Hayes, John Henry

Ammon, Charles George

Connolly, M.

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Barnes, A.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Hirst, G. H.

Barr, J.

Dalton, Hugh

Hutchison, Maj. Gen. Sir R.

Batey, Joseph

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Day, Harry

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Bellamy, A.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Kelly, W. T.

Benn, Wedgwood

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Kennedy, T.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Fenby, T. D.

Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Broad, F. A.

Gillett, George M.

Lawrence, Susan

Bromfield, William

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

Lawson, John James

Bromley, I.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Lee, F.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Grundy, T. W.

Livingstone, A. M.

988

989

Longbottom, A. W.

Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Lowth, T.

Scurr, John

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Lunn, William

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Wellock, Wilfred

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

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Westwood, J.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Whiteley, W.

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

Shinwell, E.

Wiggins, William Martin

March, S.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

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

Smillie, Robert

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Murnin, H.

Snail, Harry

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Oliver, George Harold

Stamford, T. W.

Windsor, Walter

Owen, Major G.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Strauss, E. A.

Potts, John S.

Sutton, J. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Taylor R. A.

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.

Ritson, J.

Viant, S. P.

BASTARDY (WITNESS PROCESS).
Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to declare the Law with respect to the issue of process by justices for compelling the attendance of witnesses in bastardy proceedings."
Briefly stated, the object of the Bill is to re-enact Section 70 of the Poor Law Act of 1844, which was repealed by this House when the Poor Law Consolidation Act of 1927 was passed. It will be remembered that the greatest possible care was taken to make the Poor Law Consolidation Act purely a consolidation Act. There was a Joint Committee of both Houses, which considered the whole mass of Poor Law Statutes. When the Bill came to this House it was again debated, and there were reinserted certain provisions which had been struck out by the Joint Committee as obsolete, but which, in the opinion of this House, were still wanted. Notwithstanding all the care that was taken in the matter the law was altered in one respect—not the Poor Law indeed, but the law relating to the power of magistrates, for there was nothing to take the place of Section 70 of the Act of 1844 which had been repealed.
Section 70 of that Act gave the Justices power to summon witnesses in affiliation cases. When the House passed the Poor Law Consolidation Act it did not notice what it was doing, for though the justices have a general power of summoning witnesses under the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1848, that Act expressly exempts proceeding in affiliation cases, that power having been governed by the Act of 1844. We, therefore, deprived the magistrates of a power which they had exercised for very many years. The omission, as I have said, was not noticed at the time. As soon as the Act was passed
990
the legal profession and the magistrates did notice the omission. For instance, in Stone's "Justice of the Peace" Manual, in the 1928 edition, attention is called to the fact that Parliament had restricted the well-established powers of the magistrates, and certain magistrates of whom I have particulars have actually refused to grant these summonses when called for, though expressing great reluctance in doing so. The Association of Magistrates has discussed the matter and has expressed regret that magistrates should be deprived of these powers, for indeed they are very useful powers.
These cases are notoriously often very difficult. The parties concerned are often quite poor and ignorant people who could not get their own witnesses together. I think there is no doubt that the magistrates feel that in the interests of justice it is a pity that this power should have been repealed. The matter was brought to my attention by my friends among the women magistrates, who wrote to me explaining the circumstances, and adding, I am bound to say, some rather pointed remarks about the absent-mindedness of legislators. I then consulted the Home Secretary, and told him that I was thinking of introducing a Bill and asked his opinion. The Home Secretary replied that he would look upon such a Bill with favour, provided that he was absolutely assured that it did nothing whatever except restore the law, with regard to magistrates' powers, to the position in which it was prior to 1927.
The Home Secretary did more than that. He instructed the officials of his Department to draft the Measure itself in order that there might be no hitch arising from ignorant or amateur draftsmanship. Accordingly, the Bill which I now seek leave to present, is one which has been drafted by the Parliamentary

991
draftsman of the Home Office acting under the instructions of the Home Secretary. I feel therefore that I am presenting to the House as non-controversial a Bill as it is possible to imagine. It does nothing except restore to the magistrates a power which none of us desired to take from them. It is doing exactly what every Member of both Houses of Parliament desired to do in 1927. In the circumstances which I have detailed I think I can boldly say to the House that the form of the Measure is absolutely impeccable. I hope this small but quite useful Bill will meet with no opposition and that it may be fortunate enough to pass through all its stages in the life of this Parliament.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Lawrence, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Lunn, Mr. Grundy, Sir Henry Slesser, and Miss Wilkinson.

BASTARDY (WITNESS PROCESS) BILL,
"to declare the Law with respect to the issue of process by justices for compelling the attendance of witnesses in bastardy proceedings," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES.
Major ROPNER: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Section thirty-two of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923."
The object of the Bill is to correct what amounts to a drafting omission in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923. Prior to 1923 migratory trout were considered to be a species of salmon, but the Act of that year decreed that in future sea trout should be trout and more nearly related to brown trout than to salmon. The Act contains a Section which provides that where, by by-law, it is legal to catch salmon during the close season, the salmon so caught may be sold, but owing to an oversight no provision of a similar nature was made in the case of sea trout. The House will understand that when sea trout were legally salmon this was not necessary,
992
but now that migratory trout are legally trout, this anomalous position can and does arise—that in the case of all rivers sea trout may be caught on the last day of August, but may not be sold on the following day, 1st September, which is the commencement of the close season. In the case of the Tees, in which I am particularly interested, the Tweed, the Yorkshire Esk, the Trent, the Frome, the Devonshire Avon and several other rivers where by-laws allow sea trout to be taken during September, the fish so caught are precluded entirely from sale. The fish may be caught but they may not be sold. I am sure the House will agree that that is a ridiculous position. The effect of the 1923 Act has been to inflict considerable hardship on a number of net fishermen and the Bill seeks to remove that hardship. The only other point which arises is that the law, as it stands, prohibits the sale of frozen trout imported from Newfoundland and Canada during the close season when it would provide an inexpensive and valuable addition to the food supplies of the nation. Both difficulties to which I have briefly referred will be removed by the passing of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Major Ropner, Bear-Admiral Beamish, Captain Crookshank, Captain Briscoe, Miss Wilkinson, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, and Sir Walter Raine.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL,
"to amend section thirty-two of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
"That, in the ease of the Imperial Continental Gas Association [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolution agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  METHODIST CHURCH UNION BILL AND METHODIST CHURCH UNION (SCOTLAND) BILL (consolidated into "Methodist Church Union Bill").
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]
  REPORT [7TH MARCH.]
  Resolutions reported,

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1929.
  "1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. That a sum, not exceeding £6,586,000, 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.
  5. That a sum, not exceeding £450,000, be 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, 1930."
  First Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to raise a question of some importance on this Vote in regard to the system of recruiting cadets and apprentices, and to deal with certain facts which emerge from the relative figures. The Air Service, when it was constituted, began without any great traditions except the very glorious traditions of the War. It had not the long history extending over centuries possessed by the Army and Navy. Therefore it was possible for the new service to build up its own traditions, its own esprit de corps and its own customs from the beginning.
  1006
  The Army and the Navy were removed from the control of private enterprise, and became national services in an age when the existing tradition was an aristocratic tradition. The Royal Air Force, on the other hand, was established in an age of democratic tradition and whereas it might have been more difficult to alter the system of recruiting officers and the system of promotion from the ranks in the Army and Navy—
  Captain FANSHAWE: If the hon. and gallant Member is going to mention the Services, perhaps he will do so in the proper order and refer to the Navy and Army instead of the Army and Navy.
  4.0 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Good wine needs no bush. I do not think that anyone in the Navy who has any balance at all will be upset by any question about the order in which the Services are mentioned. I was speaking about the Air Force and was making a comparison. It has been a matter of slow and painful evolution in the two older services—the Royal Navy and His Majesty's Army—to break the aristocratic tradition and allow men from the ranks in the Army and from the lower deck in the Navy to reach commissioned rank. None of these traditional difficulties existed in the case of the Air Force. It started, as I say, with the glorious fighting traditions of the War and under a democratic regime. Yet, deliberately, the Air Force has been creating artificial class distinctions and class barriers. I make no excuse for mentioning these matters. They are obvious from a glance at this Vote and at the Estimates as a whole. First of all, I want to go into this briefly, though in some little detail, but before coining to the details, I would refer to another question which concerns only the highest ranks in the Air Service. I want to speak on this matter with delicacy, and I will not go into details. When the Air Service was originally formed, a number of officers were taken from the Navy and from the Army. They went through a very difficult time. They were pioneers, and they have risen, of course, to high rank, with the approval of the Service and on their own merits. I have become conscious and I have heard a good deal of evidence that the upper ranks of the Service are becoming almost

  1007
  entirely—I do not like to use the word "militarised"—but confined to officers who began their careers in the Army. I am sure there is no intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in any way to favour one section of officers as against the other. It may be only accidental, but a glance at the Air List will show that the upper ranks, the highest posts, are held by officers from the Army. It may be mere accident, but I want to be quits certain that those naval officers—and this is in the interest of the Air Service—who went through the heat and burden of the day, sacrificed their Naval careers and, indeed, risked a great deal by entering the Air Service at all, should not be now in any way differentiated. I do not want to go into this in detail, and it may be that it is only a mere chance that it is so to-day; but I do hope that the Naval officers, with their great services to the Air Force, will not be forgotten in the years ahead of us.
  With regard to the main question, the great future of the Force, it is to-day practically impossible for a boy, however able, however talented, unless his parents have means, to enter Cranwell, or so I understand. It may be that a few of the apprentices are able to go on, and, if that is the case, may I ask how many? At present there are 125 cadets at Cranwell. How many of those enter from secondary schools? In his explanatory statement, the right hon. Gentleman says that the conditions in the Service for permanent commissions must be such as "to attract the best material from the public schools and universities." I do not like that sentence. The conditions and the emoluments and fees should be such as to attract, not only the best material from the universities and public schools, but from the secondary schools, the grammar schools and, in fact, from the whole country. If you limit your choice to children of parents who can afford to pay £75 a year fees, plus £100 for equipment and books, the only type of boys who can enter Cranwell are these and the sons of officers killed on active service, and even they, I think, have to pay a fee of £40 a year. If that is the case, and if you do not have a free flow of the best of your apprentices into Cranwell—and I am asking for information on that point—you are drawing your future
  1008
  permanent officers for this mighty Force, which is of tremendous importance from every point of view, only from a certain limited fraction of the population. This is something which is, I submit, very mischievous indeed for many reasons. First of all, it is unfair to the general taxpayers. The cost of a cadet at Cranwell is put down at £561 a year, not counting the fees, which makes it £636 a year, and not counting the £100 that is put down by the parents for equipment, uniform, etc. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has gone into this question on the Public Accounts Committee, I think, and he has had something to say about the expense of Cranwell.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The particular subject with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now dealing is not on the Vote we are discussing to-day, but comes under the Educational Services, on Vote 6.
  Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: In that case I will not pursue the matter. I was not going into the details of Cranwell, but I think I shall be in order in asking how many of the 125 cadets who are on Vote A have, in fact, come from the apprentices' college at Halton, how many from the secondary schools, how many from service cadetships, and how many from the Dominions, from Colonial families? There is a scheme by which Colonial commissions, I believe, are given. What fees are charged in that case, and amongst these Dominion commissions are there any Indians, or are there any proposals to have a certain number of Indian cadets, as at Sandhurst? I would like to see, from our great Indian Army, a certain number, at any rate, of chosen candidates trained at Cranwell for the Air Service. The rest of the figures are: 320 warrant officers, 5,000 non-commissioned officers, 20,000 aircraftmen, and 3,500 apprentices. The total figure of 25,000 odd rank and file, if I may so call them, non-commissioned officers and aircraftmen, compares with the total commissioned officers of 3,400. What is the rate of promotion from the ranks in the Air Force—I do not know whether I use the customary term—from Aircraftman Shaw, for example, to commissioned rank? How many are promoted a year? When they are chosen for promotion, do they go through any

  1009
  special course; and may I ask whether it is made possible for a poor man to take a commission?
  One of the difficulties in the Navy in the past has been that expenses are so high that some of the best of our warrant officers are unable to accept commissions, because they cannot afford them, as in addition to the actual expenses they have to keep up a certain prestige, and we have lost some excellent commissioned officers because these warrant officers could not afford to take commissions. Is the right hon. Gentleman alive to that danger in the Air Force, and is he really trying, as I submit it is his duty, to democratise the Air Force? It is paid for by the whole body of taxpayers, and I think it is wrong that the fees should be so high as to preclude from permanent commission rank a very large portion of the population. In the Air Forces of two other great Powers, America and Japan, arrangements are made by which there are no fees at all, and anyone who can pass the examination and pass the physical test and so on, and is chosen, can become an officer, even if he comes from the poorest home in the land. That is the case in America, a Republic, and in Japan, a Monarchy, with a great aristocratic tradition. In Japan the young noble or the peasant's son can go into the Air Force or other service if he has not a penny in the world, if chosen and suitable. In England either his father would have to be killed on active service, and even so there is only a reduction, or else his parents would have to put down £75 a year and a lump sum of £100 for equipment.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how the Japanese enter the service? Do not they enter the Navy and Army and then the Air Service? Are they not permanent members of the Navy and Army?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, they specialise. I am talking, however, about the principle of the thing. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentle man will see what I mean, and he will be the last to decry the excellence of the material trained by the Japanese both for the Navy and Army and the force who specialise for the Air. If a poor country like Japan can pay the whole fee for the young men to go into the Air Service, why cannot we do the same?
  1010
  I do not want to go into the details of education, but the £75 a year, compared with the whole cost to the Exchequer, is only a fraction, and is an absolute bar to the poor boy. However brilliant, however great a genius he may be, whatever powers of leadership he may have, he is debarred unless that money can be provided. That is wrong in principle, and it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to correct it. But, as I say, there may be a channel by which promotion can be obtained from the apprentices. There may be a fairly wide channel for promotion to commissioned rank for the aircraftsman and non-commissioned officers. I ask, how wide is the channel? Is it narrow, or is it wide enough to allow a steady flow of promotion from the ranks into the officers' corps? Hon. Members, I am sure, will see that you cannot attract the very finest material of the country as recruits unless there is an opportunity to rise to the highest ranks in the service by merit and attention to duty.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I take the opportunity of answering the hon. and gallant Gentleman's questions, and let me say at once that I do not disagree with the importance of the object, with this single reservation. He said to me: "You ought to be democratising the Air Force." I do not want to democratise the Air Force or to aristocratise the Air Force I would much prefer to keep the Air Force clear of these political phrases altogether.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You are plutocratising it.
  Sir S. HOARE: We are not plutocratising the Air Force, for what we wish is to keep as open a career as possible for all classes, making the entry as easy as we can for all classes, and making the flow of promotion in the Air Force as swift and as easy as it is possible to make it. In connection with promotion, let me say to the hon. and gallant Member that the last thing in the world we wish to do is to draw a distinction between ex-Army officers, or ex-Naval officers or officers who have been neither in the Army nor in the Navy. We do hope that we have succeeded in getting the right men at the top, whatever may have been their past careers. It may be that

  1011
  a particular moment in the senior posts at the top of the Air Force there are more ex-Army officers than ex-Navy officers, but that is purely a matter of chance, and it may well be, if chat be the case to-day, that the reverse of it may be the case to-morrow; but the last thing we wish to do is to draw any distinction between officers in the way suggested.
  Let me come to what the hon. and gallant Member said about the chances of a poor boy getting into Cranwell and a man of moderate means being able to rise from the ranks to the commissioned ranks when he is once in the Air Force. I think the hon. and gallant Member will find, if he will go into the details connected with the entry into Cranwell, that we are really giving a remarkably wide opening to young men and families of moderate means. I will not go into any very great detail, but let me give one or two points connected with the entry into Cranwell which I think will reassure the hon. and gallant Member that we really are doing what we can to make it easy for a boy of poor means to get a cadet-ship. The numbers at Cranwell are something like 100, and about 50 new cadets enter every year. The total cost, to a parent, of the two years' course is not £560, as the hon. and gallant Member said just now; that is the cost to the country.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not say it was the cost to the parent. I said that the parent had to pay £75 a year and to put down £100 for the purchase of uniform, books, and so on, but that the cost to the State, additional to that, was £560.
  Sir S. HOARE: I misunderstood the hon. and gallant Member. The cost to the parent is £250. First of all, each half-year six prize cadetships are offered, of the value of £210 each, and pressure is brought upon the parents of the richer cadets not to take these cadetships, but to leave them open to families and cadets who are more in need of them. That means that six comparatively poor hoys have the opportunity of these prize, cadetships, which means that no less than £210 out of £250 is found from the Air Ministry Vote. Then the hon. and gallant Member will say, "What about
  1012
  the other £40?" I do not think the other £40 means a heavy burden upon parents, for this reason, that the cadet, during his time at Cranwell gets paid 7s. a day. First of all, there are six prize cadetships, involving a very small expenditure upon the toys' parents, and in addition there is a certain number of scholarships given each half-year from a fund provided by that great benefactor to the Air Force, Sir Charles Wakefield, expressly reserved for poor boys.
  Lieut.-Cotnmander KENWORTHY: Who finds the £100 book allowance in the case of those prize cadets?
  Sir S. HOARE: I think the parents do, but even so, with 7s. a day, I do not think it means a heavy burden.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This question surely comes under Vote 6, which is not down for discussion to-day at all.
  Sir S. HOARE: I was only answering a point made by the hon. and gallant Member, but after your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, of course, I shall not go further into detail. Perhaps, however, you will allow me to add a single sentence in answer to what the hon. and gallant Member said, and to say that every year from Halton there is a substantial number of cadetships given to apprentices and that in recent years these have amounted to as much as 10 a year. When you have taken into account all these opportunities for poor boys, you will see that, out of an output of about 50 a year, a very large number of opportunities is given to the boys who are leaving.
  As to the promotions from the ranks—and this comes directly under this Vote—there again each year we are giving a certain number. Last year it amounted to about six, but I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that the best opening for talent is that which is given to a cadet in early life; it is perhaps even more valuable than the opening given to an airman later. I hope I have said enough, without transgressing the rules of order, to give the hon. and gallant Member an idea of what we are doing and to reassure him that we are doing a great deal for young men and their families of poor means, but if he wishes to pursue the matter further, I shall be quite ready to give him further details.
  Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: There is only one point on which I am not quite satisfied, and that is the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) concerning the proportions of naval and military officers in administrative posts at the Air Ministry and throughout the Air Force. I attach importance to this, because aviation is primarily a naval science. The whole navigation of the air, the control of vessels that navigate the air, the development of navigation and of the scientific instruments required, and the keeping of formations in the air are all developments which come more readily to someone who has had a sea experience than to an Army officer, and I suggest that the Air Force has a great deal to gain by seeing that in important positions in the Air Ministry, naval officers are not pushed out and other people put in their places.
  Since my hon. and gallant Friend spoke, I have obtained the Air Force List, and I find that, without exception, all the important posts are held by officers—very gallant officers, very distinguished officers—who have been trained in the Army. I would remind the Secretary of State for Air that on the Air Council itself the Chief of the Air Staff, the Air Member for Personnel, and the Air Member for Supply and Research are all three officers who have held positions in the Army, and the only other members of the Air Council are the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Air and the very distinguished civil servant who is the Secretary of the Air Ministry. In the Department of Civil Aviation, the Director of Civil Aviation is, as we all know, a distinguished officer from the War Office; in the Department of the Chief of the Air Staff, under Sir Hugh Trenchard, the Director of Operations and Intelligence and the Director of Organisation and Staff Duties, are both military officers; in the Department of the Air Member for Personnel, the Director of Personal Services and the Director of Training are ex-Army officers, and I believe that the Deputy-Director of Manning—this is a sub-department—is the only one who has had any naval training at all; in the Department of the Air Member for Supply and Research, Sir John Higgins, the Director
  1014
  of Technical Development is a military officer, the Director of Scientific Research is, quite rightly, a very distinguished scientist, who is a civilian without either naval or military training, and the only naval officer in that Department again occupies a subordinate position as the Director of Equipment. Practically every important post is held by somebody who has been in the Army.
  Now we come to the Air Commands, and the same proportions hold good. The Air Officer Commanding Inland Area is a distinguished military officer, and so is the Air Officer Commanding the Air Defence of Great Britain. The only command held by a naval officer is that of the Air Officer Commanding the Coastal Area, which is a post having to do with supplying boats and so on, and that could not very well be given to anyone who has had no knowledge of the naval Service. I could go throughout the other commands shown in the Air Force List to prove that Army officers preponderate in overwhelming numbers over naval officers. This disproportion cannot be rectified in the future, because we are simply concerned with those pioneers who have built up the Service in the past and who have got experience of the beginning of the whole science of aviation. It would be absurd to suggest or to contemplate bringing in new naval officers from the Admiralty. That would not be tolerated for a moment, nor is it to be considered that such officers as may come through viâ the Fleet Air Arm will fill these posts at the top. I think the Air Minister ought to pay very close attention to this gradual driving out of the naval element from the Royal Air Force, which will tend to become much too much like a military machine, bringing back all the admitted evils of Army routine and Army methods, with which a new Service ought not to be hampered. I hope further attention will be given to this very important point.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone), but I submit that the difficulty is inherent in the separate organisation of an Air Force, which will always fall under military control. I rose, however, for the purpose of asking the Secretary of State for Air a question in regard to the young temporary service officers who are passing into the Reserve. I read

  1015
  a statement by the Secretary of the Air League the other day, in reference to these officers who pass into the Reserve and who accept a gratuity on so doing, to the effect that a circular has been issued telling them they are still under discipline and that they must not criticise the Air Ministry. If that statement is correct, I can only tell my right hon. Friend that the Air Ministry has no such power to prevent these officers from criticising it. When they are passed into civil life, they are free to come into this House, they are free to criticise, and they are not under discipline. By no power that my right hon. Friend possesses can he bring them before a court-martial.
  Mr. MALONE: They can have their pensions stopped.
  Commander BELLAIRS: There is no pension for these officers, who have already got their gratuities. The only control over them is that power which the Secretary of State for Air says he is exercising of recommending them for employment, and it would be far better that that power was possessed by some other body than the Air Ministry, because we are in this difficulty, that the Air Ministry has control over almost every single organisation connected with the air. No manufacturer of supplies for the air, for instance, dare criticise the Air Ministry, but I should be travelling beyond the scope of this Vote if I went into that subject in greater detail. This circular should be withdrawn because it is demanding a power which the Air Ministry does not really possess.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Second Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On the last Vote, reference was made to the cadets at Cranwell getting 7s. a day, and I take it that it is in order to discuss the question of pay on this Vote. It makes my mouth water to think of that 7s. a day, and so, I am sure, it does that of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs). When we were in the "Britannia" we not only got no pay, but we were only allowed a minimum of
  1016
  pocket money, which our parents provided. Indeed, the only pay I ever got as a cadet was 1s. a week for singing in the choir, and I was worth very much more.
  Commander BELLAIRS: The choir did not exist in my day.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That shows how much we have advanced. It is said there the 7s. a day enables a poor boy to become a cadet at Cranwell, but there is a catch in it. From this 7s. certain expenses have to be paid. Do not the cadets have to pay for their own messing?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The pay of the cadets at Cranwell does not come under this Vote. The hon. and gallant Member must wait until the Vote comes up.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the actual pay of cadets come under this Vote?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think not. If the hon. and gallant Member will look at page 119, he will find at the bottom, "Pay of Cadets."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will not pursue that matter. Should I be in order in asking about the pay of apprentices?
  Sir S. HOARE: That is in Vote 6.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to pursue it if I am not in order.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Third Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and question proposed,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution,"
  Mr. MALONE: I apologise for not giving the Air Minister notice, but I think that we might know something about the progress of the different airship mooring masts throughout the world.
  Sir S. HOARE: That matter comes under Vote 3—the Airship Vote.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This Vote includes estimates for new works, additions and alterations, and I would like details of the enormous sum for the cost of the air station at Singapore The total amount is £576,000. Up

  1017
  to 31st March, 1929, the probable expenditure is £206,000, and the probable expenditure this year is £100,000. If it is desired simply to prevent the passage of the Malacca Strait by hostile vessels, probably an air station suitably equipped is the best way of doing it. I would agree at once, and I would not criticise necessary expenditure on an air station at Singapore if I thought that it meant, on the other hand, a naval saving, but that is a question of high strategy which I do not propose to pursue. If it is simply a station for the defence of the new dockyard at Singapore, it is an extraordinarily large sum of money. What is the money for? Is it for barracks, clubs or churches? I understand that the ground has been given by the colony. Is the money required for clearing away jungle or the draining of swamps? I want to see the development of flying in this country, and I protest against this tremendous expenditure in the Tropics. It is a very unhealthy place. I know it from personal experience. Men sicken and die very quickly there. You will send young airmen who have been expensively trained, and after a few years their vitality will be gone. I could have understood the expenditure two or three years ago, before the signature of the Kellogg Pact. I can see no trace in these Estimates of any change of policy since the signature and the solemn acceptance by this country of that Pact. I do not believe that, except the Secretary of State for Air and the hon. Baronet the Under-Secretary, anyone at the Air Ministry has heard of it, and the two Ministers have heard of it only because they are Members of this House.
  The other matter which I would like to raise is the very heavy expenditure on the college at Cranwell. I raised this matter last year, and the hon. Baronet said that the Government were providing £10,000 for this purpose that year, and that hon. Members would have an opportunity of criticising the item in future years as the expenditure developed. This year £25,000 is asked for the college, and £26,000 for the electrical and wireless school. That is over £50,000 this year, and the total expenditure will be over £350,000 on these two establishments. Once more I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it would not have been possible to obtain one of the great country houses
  1018
  which are empty all over the country, and which could have been picked up for a song because people cannot afford to live in them? These places are practically given away, and they have beautiful surroundings and wonderful parks where aerodromes could be made. Probably there is some suitable house near Cranwell itself. To build in these days, with the high cost of building, at an expenditure of over £250,000, a cadet college, is an extravagant policy, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has embarked upon it.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: We see by the Estimates that a total of £274,000 is still required to be spent on the Cadet College at Cranwell. Instead of asking for £10,000 last year and another £25,000 this year out of the total required of £299,000, the Minister should have given to the House some details of the whole scheme. The House should be given full details of the Cadet College, and whether the amount of money which we are to be asked to vote for it is going to justify the proposal. If we are to have a college, we should have a proper college and not one adapted, as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) suggested, on the ground that it would be more economical. It would not be more economical in the long run. It is better to build exactly what you want, and to build it properly. I would like to ask the Minister a question with reference to the Works Account. The aerodrome at Filton, Bristol, is nearly completed. The sum of £128,000 has been spent this year and a further £2,500 is to be voted next year. It looks as though the Air Minister does not anticipate finishing it this year, as a further £6,200 is required in future years. I should be glad if the Minister could give us particulars of this new aerodrome. Is it being provided for one of the new regular squadrons, and a cadre squadron, and is the building work nearly completed? When it is completed, is it proposed to transfer one of the present units to it, or is it for an additional unit yet to be found? Can he also say whether the £6,200 will complete the work?
  Mr. GILLETT: The point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) raised with regard to the ex-

  1019
  penses at Cranwell came under my notice when I was looking at the net charges in connection with the maintenance of buildings, plant, etc., and other miscellaneous expenditure, and it is rather extraordinary to find that at Cranwell, where the number of cadets is 98, this figure is put down at £7,750 for the year. At Andover, where accommodation is provided for 30 students, the figure is only £800. I can only conclude that the exceedingly heavy figure has something to do with the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has just raised in regard to the cost of the buildings. It may be due to debt charges or otherwise. This item, being so heavy, naturally has an effect upon the average cost per student, which at Cranwell is £561 a year. That figure is nearly £100 higher than it is at the military colleges, for at Woolwich it is £473 and at Sandhurst £483. I think these are comparable figures, because in both cases the sum includes allowances. Perhaps the Minister could explain why the figure at Cranwell is so exceedingly heavy.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions, but if I criticise the expenditure on some of these stations I hope it will be understood that I have no desire that the officers or men who are there shall not be properly provided for. The right hon. Gentleman has to carry out the orders of the Government, and his Air Estimates provide us with some interesting sidelights upon the policy of the Government. We are entitled to ask what his orders are. In Egypt, for example, I observe that we are spending at Aboukir a matter of £40,000, and at Abu Sueir, at Heliopolis, at Ismailia, and generally, there is an expenditure of about £250,000. What are the orders which the right hon. Gentleman gets about Egypt? Is he told that he is to put up substantial buildings because our occupation is to persist for another 20 or 25 years? I do not suggest that those who have to live in the desert in the summer ought not to have proper accommodation, but we do wish to know what are the financial implications of the policy of the Cabinet. Take, again, the question of Singapore. When the Singapore Base was first discussed we said that the sum of £10,000,000 which was
  1020
  spoken of would not include a dozen things which would be necessary. I do not know to what the Estimate has risen in the Navy Estimates, but I believe it exceeds £10,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman has to make substantial provision for the Air defence of the Base, and may have to make far more substantial provision in the future. I imagine that very little of this; large item is concerned with the provision of a civilian flying station, although I presume there will be an aerodrome available for the air line to Australia when that is in operation.
  In Iraq there is a Vote, for more or less permanent expenditure, of about £20,000 or £30,000. What are the instructions regarding Iraq? We are in treaty relations with Iraq. The political issue is whether Iraq can defend itself. I have never thought it could defend itself. I never believed in its transition into an independent member of the League of Nations; but that was the Government's explanation of their policy—that we were there for the time being, until this infant State was set upon its legs, and that then we should be able to retire with the feeling that we had helped a new nation to come into being. This expenditure does not point to that state of affairs. I notice that we are spending £17,000 on improvements to barracks. I am very anxious that proper provision should be made for the men, but is this a permanent provision or merely a temporary provision? It is in these Estimates that you get the reflection of the true Government policy, as against the avowed policy which is put forward in Debates on foreign affairs. Then there is £31,000 for the defence of Trans-jordania. Does that mean that we are permanently charged with the defence of that Emirate? Does not this expenditure reflect the secret fears which the Government have about their whole Middle Eastern policy? Against whom are we spending £31,000 in Trans-jordania? We are protecting ourselves, I suppose, against the Wahabis, or the Emir of Nejd. In view of these items, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what class of instruction it is which is given to his Department to carry out by the Cabinet in respect of Egypt, Iraq and Transjordania. Are his instructions that he is to make such provision as will

  1021
  enable us efficiently and with security to the health of the men to maintain a permanent occupation of those places?
  Mr. KELLY: I wish to put a question with regard to the men in the Air Force. I notice that there is a deduction from their pay.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question which the hon. Member raises was dealt with on Votes A and I, and we are now discussing Vote 4.
  Mr. KELLY: In that case I will reserve my point for another occasion. On page 75 of the Estimates there is a reference to the construction of a new air station in East Anglia. The total estimate for the work amounts to £360,000. The sum of £1,000 is to be voted in 1929, leaving £359,000 to be provided in the future. May we be given some justification for being asked to vote this considerable sum for this station? Then I am wondering why we need an aircraft park at Peterborough, on which no less than £108,000 is to be spent in the future, and for which we are asked £10,000 this year. Will the Minister justify this enormous expenditure? The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) referred to the expenditure in Egypt, and I wish to call attention to what is being done at Malta. What is the reason for the enormous sums which are asked for in respect of Malta? This year we are being asked for £1,600 for additional quarters for married officers and airmen, no less a sum than £70,000 for additional accommodation, and £10,000 towards the construction of an additional aerodrome, the total cost of which will be £60,000.
  On page 96 there is a heavy item in respect of machine tools. I do not know whether it has been found necessary to go abroad for these machine tools. If so, we ought to be told why it is our own people are not able to manufacture them for us. But why do we require to spend £30,000 this year on machine tools when we expended a good many thousand pounds last year? Machine tools do not wear out as rapidly as that. Is a new factory being constructed, or are these tools required to replace old ones which have been discarded? We are entitled to a further explanation than that which is provided on page 97. Next I wish to refer to the wages paid. One finds
  1022
  store men being paid 35s. a week, rising to 40s. by an advance of 1s. a year. Packers are paid 30s. a week and porters 27s. a week, while writing assistants get 17s. Does the Minister feel comfortable about being responsible for a Department which pays such unduly low wages? It is impossible for men to live on such wages, and there is not a member of the Government who could defend them. It must be a case of semi-starvation for the men who are on such low wages, and I trust the Minister will make an effort to increase their pay to a level which will enable us to hold up our heads when we think of those who are employed by us in the various Departments of the State.
  Sir S. HOARE: Three groups of questions have been addressed to me. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) have asked questions with regard to certain foreign stations at Singapore, in Egypt and in the Middle East. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen asked about the policy of the Government in those places. That is not a subject for this Vote; that is a subject for debate on the Foreign Office Vote. What I can tell him is that naturally we take all the relevant conditions into account. When I go through my programme with the Treasury, and afterwards with the Cabinet, questions of future policy must be taken into account, but meanwhile I have to see that the barrack accommodation is fit for the Air Force. Unfortunately, we have found in Egypt and in the Middle East, where the accommodation has consisted of Wartime hutments, that we have reached a point at which we have been forced to make substantial expenditure on buildings during the last few years.
  Mr. BENN: The question I put to the right hon. Gentleman was, What are his instructions? Is he instructed to provide such buildings as will be sufficient for the permanent air occupation of that country?
  Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir; I can only answer by saying that each case has to be taken on its merits. If I ask for a large sum of money for a particular station the particular considerations applying to it have to be taken into account. We have

  1023
  reached a point in the Middle East where further building has become necessary. We have scrapped a number of uneconomical stations during the last few years and we can point to very big reductions in the building programme in the Middle East during the last three or four years as showing that our policy is not altogether a failure. [Interruption.] It is not that I do not want to give an answer to the hon. Member, but each case, as I have said, has to be considered on its merits.
  Mr. BENN: It is quite a simple thing to give an answer if the right hon. Gentleman is willing to answer. The question is: "Are your buildings for the permanent occupation of those particular places or not?" That is a perfectly simple question.
  5.0 p.m.
  Sir S. HOARE: I cannot give an answer like that. If the hon. Member were in my place he would give exactly the same answer—each case has to be taken on its merits. At Singapore the Air expenditure is part of the general expenditure on the Air base. Assuming, as we have to assume for the purposes of this Debate, that the Singapore Base is going to be organised in the next few years, the Air side of it is a necessary part of it. The provision we are making is on an economical scale. There is not sufficient accommodation there at present for the air squadrons.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the aerodrome to be built on the mainland or on the island?
  Sir S. HOARE: It is to be built on the island.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this air station at Singapore simply for the defence of the dockyard, or is it to be an offensive air station? Can the Air Minister give us some details on that point?
  Sir S. HOARE: It will serve a double purpose. It will be part of the naval base and capable of being used for defensive purposes, and it will also be a very important air station in the Far East. The station at Singapore will form a cardinal point not only in the local system of aerial defence but in our line
  1024
  of communications as well. For these reasons a considerable expenditure on air services is inevitable at Singapore. Questions have been put to me about our home defence stations. With regard to Cranwell I honestly regard that station as one of the most important in the Air Force. It is the station where the cadets are educated, and it is one of the central stations of importance to the whole force. At the present time the cadets are living mostly in war-time huts; these huts are beginning to tumble down and they are not economical to maintain. At Cranwell, we have had therefore to undertake a large expenditure upon up-to-date buildings. Of course I cannot be expected to go into every point of detail of that kind without notice. We made no secret of the total expenditure last year on this Estimate. At that time we had got out the plans, and now we are proposing during the next 12 months to spend £25,000 on the foundations and other preliminary work in order to make a start. Of course, we cannot concentrate too much expenditure of this kind in any one year and we try to spread the expenditure over a number of years.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: Then you are doing the work by direct labour instead of by contract?
  Sir S. HOARE: No. The work is being carried out by contract and we are spreading it over a considerable period. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked me a question about the stations in East Anglia and at Peterborough. Both those stations are part of the home defence scheme and they will both be necessary when we raise our numbers from 31 to 52 squadrons which is the total strength to which we are working. The station in East Anglia will be a very important one capable of housing two squadrons, while the station at Peterborough will be in the nature of a park or depot. At the present time there is a good deal of wastage of technical material going on owing to bad accommodation in the hangars and the park is being established at Peterborough to remedy this defect which has been very apparent during the last few years.
  Mr. KELLY: Are the new stations at East Anglia and Peterborough additional stations or are they intended to replace others?
  Sir S. HOARE: At the present time we have no park, and as our units increase it has been found necessary to have a depot of this kind. The hon. Member for Rochdale asked mo a question about the increase in the Estimate for machine tools. We do not go abroad to purchase our machine tools and they are all purchased in this country unless under very exceptional circumstances. The large amount for machine tools in this year's Estimates is partly due to the transfer of the Wireless School from Flowerdown in Hampshire to Cranwell in the interests of economy. With regard to the proposed new station at Bristol it will be completed by the end of the year and we propose to place there one regular and one non-regular squadron. I am sure that a great centre like Bristol will welcome the opportunity of having a non-regular squadron stationed in the locality. A number of questions have been put to me with respect to Malta which has now become a very important air base owing to the increasing strength of the Fleet air arm. The growth in the Fleet air arm has rendered it essential that we should have more buildings and another aerodrome at Malta.
  Mr. KELLY: Does the responsibility for housing the Fleet air arm fall upon the Air Ministry.
  Sir S. HOARE: Yes it does fall upon the Air Ministry.
  Mr. KELLY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question about the lower wages which are paid by the Air Ministry.
  Sir S. HOARE: We pay the local trade union rate of wages. If the hon. Member for Rochdale knows of any cases in which this is not done if he will draw my attention to them I will inquire into them.
  Mr. KELLY: Surely 27s. a week is not a trade union rate of wages.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Fourth Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. MALONE: The Secretary of State for Air has already informed us that at some stage of the Estimates he con-
  1026
  sulted the Treasury and the Cabinet. The most important item in this Vote is £6,585,000 for material. Before a total like that goes into print in the Estimates I understand that a figure like that undergoes a certain amount of change first of all inside the Air Ministry, secondly at the Treasury, and lastly before the Cabinet. I want to know is there any point in these negotiations at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister brings together the heads of the three fighting departments and says to them: "If we reduce the Army and Navy Estimates by £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 and increase the Air Estimates by £6,000,000 or £10,000,000 will that provide an adequate defence for this country?" What I want to know is whether at any stage in the evolution of these figures the point I have just put is considered.
  I know I cannot discuss the Committee of Imperial Defence on this Vote, but I think we ought to be told how these figures are arrived at. There is a sort of feeling that when the Estimates are prepared at the end of August those who are drawing up the Estimates look at what they were last year and the year before, and then they fix their Estimates within a few hundred thousand pounds of what they were before, and trust to luck that they will go through. I think this question of reducing the Estimates is one of the most vital questions the Government can undertake. An enormous sum of money is being spent every year on the lighting services, and I am sure that there would be no difficulty in cutting down this Vote and the Votes for the other fighting services by three or four times the amount of the reductions which are now being proposed. The Secretary of State for Air can come to this House and ask for twice as much money to be spent upon aeroplanes and seaplanes as was spent last year and there would not be a single member of this House who would attempt to thwart him.
  With reference to the programme of aeroplanes and seaplanes, I would like to know how many years ahead is contemplated in that programme. In a new industry of this kind you cannot live from month to month or from year to year, and yon must try to get a programme covering a period of years. The Air

  1027
  Force employs a highly scientific staff of designers and engineers, and when you have to reduce the staff those highly skilled men go back into the engineering world and they are lost to the national service. Consequently, it is well to develop as long a construction programme as possible in order to retain the services of these highly skilled men. I am told by friends of mine in the Air Force that the technical standard of the air mechanic is rapidly deteriorating, and the reason they give for this state of things that all the large contracts are put out to private firms.
  I know that the Air Ministry is desirous of keeping private firms going, and as we are not building so many new aeroplanes these firms are given the contracts to repair the old ones. In the early days of flying I know you could not find a more skilled mechanic anywhere than the man who works on the construction of aeroplanes. If all this scientific repairing work is put out to contract, it means that the mechanics have only the humdrum routine work of the aerodrome with which to keep their hands in, and I should like to hear something from the Secretary of State on that point. With regard to Sub-head L—Petrol and Oil—I do not want to develop that subject, because others will be speaking upon it, but I want to ask a question. The Air Ministry is probably the largest consumer of light petrol oil in the whole country. The Admiralty uses a good deal, but not so much light petrol as the Air Ministry. When the Secretary of State saw the recent negotiations taking place—and he must have been informed of them—and when he saw, in particular, a rise in the price of petrol, what steps did he take to get into touch at once with the Cabinet and see whether the price could not be kept down? He must have known that the Government, through their directors on the board of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, have a very material holding in the petrol supplies of the world, and I should like to know what steps were taken to see that the Government had not to pay an extra price in order to satisfy certain private interests who had formed a monopoly combine in the petrol and oil world. That is a very important matter, which interests, not only this House, but hundreds of thousands of motorists out-
  1028
  side who are aghast at the lassitude and slowness of the Government.
  Then there is the question of airships. This is an appropriate moment at which to ask the Secretary of State for Air if he can tell us something about the development of the airship. There is a short reference to it in his statement, but in his remarks last Thursday he omitted any reference to airships at all. I approach this question with very great diffidence. I am very 10th to criticise any new invention or any row development, and I do not think that any charge of doing so could be brought against me. In the early days of airship development, in a minor position which I then held at the Admiralty, I tried to help the initial development of airships, but I feel to-day that we must look upon the whole question of airships from a quite different point of view, namely, from the point of view of cost. If we had unlimited money, if we had millions of pounds to spend on experiments, then I should say by all means go in for airship development; but, from the meagre allowances and the small number of machines that are being employed in civil aviation, it is perfectly obvious that, rightly or wrongly, there is no money available for spending on experimental purposes of this sort. Already we have spent, according to the Estimates, £270,000 on R100, and on the Government airship, R100, we have spent £527,000; and the airships have not vet nearly reached the stage of taking the air. We have gone on from month to month and from year to year waiting for these airships to take the air, and I am not sure that the time has not come for a review of the whole state of airship development.
  We have seen in the last 12 months the magnificent flight of the German Zeppelin, the "Graf Zeppelin," across the Atlantic; but anyone who followed the diary of that flight must, I think, realise that the airship only just got across, and it got across, not because of its own construction, but because of the dogged endurance of Herr Eckener and the extraordinary endurance and energy of the crew who went with him. To what extent are we benefiting from the experience of the Germans? Are we going on building these two airships, picking up what we can here and there? One hears that

  1029
  there is very little co-operation between the constructors of the two airships, one of which is being constructed by Messrs. Vickers and the other by the Air Ministry. Are they working in the very closest co-operation, and, if so, are they, also, working in collaboration with the Germans? Are they getting the benefit of the flight of the "Graf Zeppelin" across the Atlantic, and, if not, what steps are being taken so that all the details of the experience and information gained by that flight, of which there must have been a tremendous amount, whether the flight was or was not a success, will be applied to the development of our airships here? The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney), apparently, feels that the situation is serious, as I understand he is not going to contest his seat at the General Election. [Interruption]. I thought that his anxiety for his airship was so great that he could not devote any time to an election contest.
  The time has come for a review of the whole policy in regard to airships, in order to see whether, while so little money is available for civil air transport, we can afford to spend millions of pounds on what is admitted by everyone, in every country that Has tried it, to be a tremendous experiment. The money already spent amounts to over £1,000,000, and, if weekly services of airships are going to be run between this country and India, tens of millions will be required. Every airship will cost £500,000, every shed £250,000, and every mooring mast another £10,000 or £20,000. Preliminary experiments have cost well over £1,000,000. Therefore, to run routine services once a week, with allowances for casualties, repairs, spare parts and so on, it will be necessary to lay out tens of millions of pounds for every year that the service is kept running, until some day in the future when it pays.
  See, however, what can be done now—and, after all, we are in favour of getting results. If one-half of this money that is being put into airships were put into civil air transport, using machines that we know can fly, using machines such as the Secretary of State himself used in his flight to India, it would be possible to operate a daily service between this country and any other part of the British Empire. That is a very important con-
  1030
  sideration, and it emphasises my argument in favour of reviewing the whole question of airships before any more money is spent on this Vote. There is one other point in this Vote to which I should like to refer. Under Sub-head P, there is shown an Appropriation-in-Aid in favour of the Air Ministry, payable by the Admiralty in respect of the Fleet air arm. Can we be told whether the arrangements for co-operation between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry are working out quite satisfactorily? I simply ask that question for information. I shall be glad if we contribute replies on some of these points before we pass this Vote.
  Mr. WELLS: In the first place, I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State on the splendid progress that has been made in regard to heavier-than-air machines, and also in regard to safety devices for the benefit of those who fly them. At the same time, I think it would be a pity to limit our interest in the Air Force in this direction only. I welcome the statement of the Secretary of State with regard to the airships R.100 and R.101, from which I understand that these airships are to fly this spring. It will be remembered that when the scheme was adopted the Government invited the co-operation of the Dominion Governments, and that invitation was accepted. A mooring mast has been built in Canada, and one is being built in South Africa. I am not sure what the position is in Australia and New Zealand, but there are mooring masts in Egypt and also in India, and a great deal has been done in regard to the meteorological services. A valuable Report was issued a year or two ago by the Secretary of State, and it is regarded as being most useful, not only in this country, but in all parts of the world, for air purposes.
  The Dominions, perhaps, realise the value of an airship service even more than we do in this country for the speeding up of communications. It has been said that there is no portion of the British Empire within 3,000 miles of the British Isles except Malta. The Secretary of State told us in the Debate last week of the speeding up which has taken place in communication with both India and South Africa by means of heavier-than-air machines, but I think

  1031
  we must realise that, if airships once come into use, we shall be able to halve the time that he told us it would take to get to South Africa or India. It is a question of only a few days by airship, as against many days by aeroplane. It is quite possible that, within the next few years, we may have many long-distance flights by airships in this country.
  The opponents of airships seem to me to overlook the achievements that have been attained in the past with these lighter-than-air machines. It is now known that, during the War, over 1,000 long-distance patrol flights were made by German airships, and, after the War a small ship was built—the "Bodensee"—which carried out 80 flights to schedule time in 98 days, carrying passengers, without, I believe, a single mishap. Perhaps one of the most wonderful flights that has ever been made by an airship was that of R.34, which flew across the Atlantic and back under the command of Major Scott. That, however, is not an experiment that we should like to repeat, because it is obviously bound to be attended by very great risks; but what put an end to airships in this country for the time being was the tragedy of the R.38. Since that time, tremendous advances have been made in airship design.
  I should like to mention three phases of airship development which I think are of very great importance. The first is that of construction. We have just about doubled the size of any airship that has been built in the past. That is in order to get strength and make the airship safe. It is interesting to note that both the United States and Germany are following on the lines which were adopted by the Government four years ago, when the scheme was brought forward for building an airship of a capacity of something like 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 cubic feet, in order to obtain strength. The second point is with regard to fuel. Airships in the past have been driven by petrol, and it is obvious that the use of petrol involves considerable danger from fire. I understand that in the case of the R.101 experiments are being made, and it is proposed that the airship shall be driven by Diesel or semi-Diesel engines. That, if successful, will be a long way ahead
  1032
  of anything that has been done in the past. Germany has developed a fuel gas, which, however, I do not think is as safe as the heavy oil, though at any rate it is safer than petrol. The last point is with regard to lifting power. In the United States, as is well known, they have supplies of helium, whereas we have to rely upon hydrogen. I hope that the Secretary of State will approach the Canadian Government to see whether it is possible in Canada to develop the supply of helium in sufficient quantities for airship work.
  If we can succeed in these three directions of strength in construction, the use of heavy oil as fuel, and the use of helium gas, we can make our airships of the future safer than ships are on the sea, and immense developments, both commercial and imperial, will follow. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) mentioned the cost, both of the R. 100 and of the R. 101. I am not sure, but I believe that a great deal of that cost has been taken up by experimental and scientific work with a view to getting as high a degree of safety as possible, and no doubt a great deal of new knowledge has been gained in the last year or two. It is possible that in the next few years we may see considerable alterations in design and equipment, and very great advances taking place in that direction. I hope that the Secretary of State, when these airships have finished their trials, will see that they are properly provided with parachutes, and also, should they cross the ocean, I think it would he very wise if they carried collapsible boats, in case of its being necessary to coins down on a long-distance crossing. I notice that both airships are provided with smoking rooms, but I hope that smoking will not be allowed. I do not thick that, where you have hydrogen used for lifting or petrol for power, any naked light at all should be permitted, on account of the danger to passengers and crew, and I trust, therefore, that, as long as hydrogen or petrol is used, no smoking will be allowed, even though accommodation may be provided for it.
  There is one special point that I should like to mention, with regard to the designers and workers on both of these airships. The trials will take some months to complete, and meanwhile no work will be going on in the sheds, and

  1033
  there will be a grave danger that we may lose some of the most skilled airship designers and workers that we have. Later on it is possible we may want these men back, and they will be dispersed all over the country, and perhaps even outside the country. I notice that in America great difficulty was experienced in handling their big airships in and out of their sheds, and they are now designing mechanical means. These ships are double the size of anything that has been built before, and it is very necessary that we should have some mechanical means to save them from being damaged in moving them in and out of the sheds. At present we are leading the rest of the world in airship construction. Other countries, both Germany and the United States, are rather following on the lines we laid down three or four years ago. The Press have created a good deal of interest and curiosity with regard to airships but we have very little enthusiasm in this country for them. In Germany there is a great deal of enthusiasm—in fact I believe public money was raised to carry on airship construction—and when a German workman sees an airship in the sky he looks at it with pride as part of his work. I wish we could get more enthusiasm, not only in this country but in the Empire, to carry on the development of this service. I believe it has a very great future.
  Mr. GILLETT: The point I wish to bring before the House is the final stage of a matter that has been referred to in the accounts of the Air Ministry on at least two occasions, the last being in the Report for 1927. It is in connection with the construction of the framework of Airship R.101. There may be a good deal of difference as to whether work should be put out to contract or not, but it seems to me it is very difficult to defend the principles on which this work was put out to contract. Nor can we say it has been specially successful, looked at from the financial and business standpoint. In the Auditor-General's Report for 1925 we find that the framework was put out to contract, and the reason it was given to the particular firm was that the employment of any other firm would result in delay. I asked a few days ago why the contract was put out, and the answer was that it was
  1034
  placed without competition in view of the fact that only one firm had the particular experience that was required to enable it to collaborate in work of such a highly experimental character. The contract was not for a fixed or comprehensive sum, certain of the elements of the contract price being contingent upon actual costs. Although, as the Auditor-General says, this contract was placed with this one firm without competition in order that there should be no delay, as a matter of fact we did not get the advantage of having a fixed price, which is what is gained usually by having a contract, because the figure was based upon the actual cost. It was only as the work was done that it was possible to find out exactly how much was going to be paid.
  Then we come to the curious fact that, if the Ministry was anxious to do it without delay, they themselves were responsible for the delay, and we find that, with the sanction of the Treasury, £14,800 was paid in compensation to the contractor because the Ministry was not in a position to fulfil their side of the contract, I suppose in connection with the plans and specifications and so forth. So that the advantage which had been gained, if there was an advantage, by the contract seems to me to be entirely lost. Had we given the making of this airship to our own works, at any rate there would have been no need to pay a contractor compensation on account of delay. We now come to the accounts which have just been presented, and here we find the last stage, as we hope, of the construction of the framework of this airship, and then once again the Auditor-General refers to the delay that has taken place and, as I understand it, another sum of money had to be paid to the contractor because once again the work was not ready. An extraordinary thing is that work to the extent of £1,000 that the contractor was to have done was given to our own employés, but apparently without making any difference to the contract. The work under the contract is not yet completed. The answer to my question went on to say that the total contract was approximately £176,800 and it was expected that £8,000 more would have to be paid in order to complete it. I cannot see what has been gained in any way by placing this contract with the firm. The only argument

  1035
  I can imagine the Minister will give is that he wishes to keep the firm employed. I know that at the end of the War it was impossible to get building contracts otherwise, and they had to be placed under these conditions, but everyone who has placed a contract of that kind knows how unsatisfactory they are, and when you find, first of all a suggestion that it is done in order to expedite work, and then we have to pay £14,000 or £15,000 compensation because the Minister was not ready, the whole affair seems to me to be most unsatisfactory.
  The accounts of the Air Ministry in some ways are the least satisfactory accounts that one sees for any of the Departments. Anyone who reads the criticisms of the Auditor-General during the last three years will have noticed many other points referred to which seem to be unsatisfactory. In the accounts for 1927 there was a reference to the misappropriation of petrol and to a considerable loss over an extended period. It will be interesting to hear whether the right hon. Gentleman has any explanation to give in reply to the Auditor-General's criticisms. Another point is the difficulty of finding out exactly what are the stores held by the Ministry, and this applies to the Army and Navy as well. It is impossible to know fully what has been spent by a Department unless the stores are mentioned. On page 55 a number of stores are mentioned, the larger part of which are connected with this Vote. The total amount is £1,200,000. In the previous year the figure was £1,484,000. Considering the right hon. Gentleman's expenditure, note ought to be taken of this reduction of stores. If he had kept the stores up to the level of 1926, I presume certain savings on the Estimates which have been reported would have been considerably less. However, the chief point to which I wished to draw attention is in conenction with the building of the airship. We ought to be given an undertaking that contracts on these lines are not likely to occur again.
  Sir S. HOARE: I am glad that more than one Member has raised the question of airships. I purposely said little or nothing about them the other day, though I hoped that someone would raise the subject on the Report stage. The House is entitled to a statement of the position.
  1036
  The programme has been in operation for a number of years, and hon. Members are rightly curious as to the progress and anxious to know when the airships will actually be flying, and what has been our experience in the great experiment in which we have now been engaged for a considerable length of time. It has been a very great experiment, perhaps greater than we contemplated four or five years ago. We were not content to base it simply upon War experience or upon the lessons that might be drawn from the construction of Zeppelins in Germany. We went, as we believed, back to bedrock and started the experiment almost ab initio. We could perfectly well have built two airships, indeed we could have built 20, in half the time if we had been content simply to repeat the construction of the old War-time Zeppelins, but we took a different course and, as a result, we have taken a long time and we have spent a considerable sum of money. I believe it will be shown that that time and money have been by no means wasted, and we are to-day, both in the design of the two airships and in our general knowledge of the operations of airships, far ahead of any other country in the world. I agree that only the results of the experiment can show whether or not I am right, but I can say that we have spared no effort, scientific, technical or operational, which we believe could inure to the success of the experiment.
  To-day the two airships are within sight of completion, and it is interesting to note that, although they are designed and have been constructed in somewhat different conditions, they have taken about the same time to complete. The airship constructed by the Airship Guarantee Company took less time in the initial stages, but is now taking a longer time in the later stages. The reverse was the case with the airship being constructed at Cardington. As far as I can see, it looks as if the two airships will be finally completed about the same time. That ought to be some time in the spring or in the early summer. It is also interesting to note that, as tar as we can now judge, the two airships seem to have cost about the same amount of money, in each case, I am afraid, substantially more than the original estimates. But in a great experiment of this kind it is almost inevitable that the final expen-

  1037
  diture exceeds the original estimates. From the information which we have at our disposal it looks as if each of the airships when finally completed will cost about the same amount of money.
  The House will want to know what is the next stage in the programme. The next stage in the programme is that as soon as the airships have finished their shed trials, which should take place in the next few weeks, and assuming those trials are satisfactory, we propose to have other trial flights round these shores and within reach of Great Britain. Assuming that these internal flights are successful we then propose to fly R.101, that is the Cardington airship, first of all to Egypt, and, after flying to Egypt, then to India, where already a mooring mast and a shed are in existence at Karachi. Supposing these trials to India are successful, the next step—and I hope that this step will also take place during the next 12 months—will he to fly R.100 across the Atlantic to Montreal. I am glad to say that the Dominion Government, who have most sympathetically co-operated with us in our experiment for some time, have constructed a mooring mast near Montreal, and we should hope that the second big Imperial flight—the first being the flight to India—would be across the Atlantic to Montreal. In the meantime we shall be doing other experimental flights with R.100. Hon. Members will see that there is every reason to suppose that during the next 12 months they will see these airships regularly flying, flying, as we hope, successfully and beginning to make the Imperial flights to which we all attach so much importance.
  As to the future, that, of course, must depend upon the result of this experiment, but I am confident that if this experimental period is successful, we shall look back with pride and satisfaction to the work that we have devoted to airship development during the last five years, and we shall look back to it as marking a new stage and a new era in Imperial communications. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells), who naturally takes a very close and sympathetic interest in this question, drew my attention to a number of detailed points, and I will certainly give them careful thought. Let me tell him that I am just as much alive as he
  1038
  is to the need of keeping, as far as we can, the key personnel for future developments. We are already considering that question. We realise that it will be most regrettable to lose this small nucleus expert staff, and we hope to be able to make arrangements under which, at any rate, some of that personnel will be for the present retained. Finally, as the experiment has now reached this interesting point, may I suggest to hon. Members on all sides of the House that they would really be extremely interested if they went down to Cardington, near Bedford, and saw R.101. If any hon. Member would like to make the visit, I should be delighted to arrange it. I think that if he would go there he would confirm what I have said, namely, that we have been engaged in a very big and a very interesting experiment, and that we have spared no effort to make that experiment succeed.
  I come to a number of other more detailed points raised on this Vote. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone), for instance, asked me whether the standard of the air mechanics had not deteriorated in the last few years. I think that, so far from it having deteriorated, the standard has actually risen, and if I could give him evidence in a single sentence, I would draw his attention to the smaller sums every year which we spend upon spare parts and wastage material. It is very significant that as the standard of training in the Air Force, whether amongst officers or men, goes up, so the wastage in material, machines and engines, goes down. There are reductions here of no less than £156,000 as compared with an even greater reduction a year ago. That goes to show that the standard, so far from falling, has actually risen. He asked me a number of questions as to what the procedure was as between the Air Ministry and the Committee of Imperial Defence and the Cabinet before the Estimates were actually agreed. I am afraid that on this Vote I could not go into matters of that kind, but I can tell him in a sentence that the figure with which it is dealing has run through a number of very fine sieves before it reached its place in this year's Estimates.
  The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) asked me some questions about the contract for R. 101 with the firm of

  1039
  Messrs. Boulton and Paul, of Norwich. I agree with him that the contract has been an exceptional contract. There are several exceptional conditions connected with it. It was for a new kind of work, work of a very novel description, stainless steel of various kinds, new kinds of light girders that had never been constructed before. Although it is our desire always to place orders of this kind out to tender, this kind of work was not susceptible to tender. Indeed, my advisers informed me that they were satisfied that the firm in question were really the only firm that could successfully undertake the work. We gave the work to the firm on condition that we paid them for the labour and the material, and we had a definite limit from the very start upon their "overheads" and their "profit," and I am told that we made so good a bargain from the point of view of the Air Ministry that it appears as if the firm will be substantially down on the transaction. I think that if we had tried to do the work by direct labour, or if we had put it out to tender, the result would have been not less but greater expenditure, and for this obvious reason. The work was of such an exceptional kind that there was no data upon which we could base tenders or estimates for direct labour. If the hon. Gentleman would like to go further into the question, I should be glad to go into it with him in greater detail. I am satisfied that his is work of a very exceptional kind, and that when judged by results, the Air Ministry has made a very good bargain.
  Mr. GILLETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how, if the arrangement was for the Air Ministry to pay cost price, the firm could possibly have been out of pocket?
  Sir S. HOARE: We made a very stringent limit in the "overheads." We found that the work took longer to completed and was more costly than we thought, and the firm were quite definitely out of pocket.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman made a satisfactory statement, which will stop a lot of very unscrupulous propaganda, when he said that the Cardington airship will cost approximately the same as the Vickers
  1040
  airship, and also, apparently, that the date of the completion of these two gigantic air vessels will be about the same time. The reason why I say this is satisfactory, is that I do not think that the Vickers Company have quite played the game. There has been continual propaganda put out to the Press that the Cardington airship was no good—they have been inspired paragraphs, information that could only have come from within—that the Cardington airship would cost twice as much or a great deal more than the private enterprise ship, and that the private enterprise ship would be more efficient, and so on. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will follow this up and later on let us have the exact cost of the two airships—the one built by Vickers and the one built at his own factory—and let us see what the comparison is. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having, apparently a very efficient staff at Cardington, and I hope that he is proud of it, and that in the next few months he will announce his Socialism on the platform.
  6.0 p.m.
  I should like to ask a quest ion about a matter to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells) in his very interesting speech about airships. Is any step being taken to obtain any supplies of helium? I understand that the Americans have a certain amount of helium. The advantage, of course, is that it is non-inflammable and therefore if ever these airships are used for the support or assistance of the Navy, the use of helium will be essential. Otherwise they will be absolutely vulnerable to modern aircraft and aeroplanes, and will be set on fire at once. From the point of view of carrying passengers only it is necessary to have helium in order that you can get passengers to go up without any fear of being burnt in the air. I think that that is a matter of prime importance. With regard to the whole of the rest of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, I think there was far too much of the experiment. The airship is not experimental now, with great respect to the Air Minister. It is really a comparatively tried means of travel in the air. Our own airship was the first to go across the Atlantic and back. It is sometimes forgotten that the first feat of crossing the Atlantic and back in the same

  1041
  machine was carried out by the British. There is the extraordinary flight of the German airship which went with small arms ammunition to the Germans in East Africa during the War; I think it was in 1916. They went all the way from Germany to East Africa and back, and there was no mooring mast or shed. It was an extraordinary feat. I remember someone coming down to my room and asking for a question to be put to our own Admiralty: "What is an airship doing over East Africa?" No one could imagine why it had gone there. Next, there came a commercial flight. Then we had the recent voyage to Australia, and there was the suggestion that this was a wonderful new invention, being tried for the first time, that local flights were to be taken, then rather wider flights, and then the flight to India. That is given as the justification of the Air Ministry for this tremendous expenditure of money. This airship programme was started by a former Conservative Government, Mr. Bonar Law's last Government, in 1923. It was then that the new airships were started. We were to have eight airships, of large size. Lord Thomson inherited that programme from the Conservative Government, but he very wisely and prudently cut it down to the present two airships. Now, in the year 1929, six years later, the Secretary of State for Air is talking about making experimental flights, and I suppose the total cost by the time the first airship reaches India will be from £1,000,000 to £1,250,000. The result will be that we shall have two airships. These very costly experiments will result in nothing more. I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) that if half this money had been invested in civil aviation we could have produced a regular aeroplane service, which we know-could operate and function, to carry mails and passengers between this country and Australia, perhaps once a week; a far more practicable and important service from the Imperial point of view. However, there it is, and as we have gone so far I suppose we shall have to continue with this airship experiment. I hope that it will turn out well, that there will be no accidents and that the expenditure will be justified.
  1042
  I should like to know how many men are required as the ground staff for the airships, of which R. 100 and R. 101 may be taken as representative types. Is it a fact that over 100 men are required for taking the airships in and out of their sheds? If so, would the number of the ground staff be reduced if we had revolving sheds? Has the idea of revolving sheds been considered or tried? The revolving shed can be turned round by a motor to suit the wind, so that the airships can get in and out without danger. It seems to me that that might be a very important factor in bad weather, and that it would make all the difference between the possibility of losing one of these airships or not. I suppose that if we have another disaster there will be another great reversal of policy, and that everything will be scrapped once more, and all this money will be lost.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to a question which was raised by my hon. Friend, the supplies of petrol. On page 51 of the Estimates, there is a rather remarkable sentence. It says that the Estimate for petrol for the Air Service has gone up from £430,000 last year to £500,000 this year, although the amount of lubricants used has gone down in value from £90,000 to £60,000. There is a note which states that
  "The increase is due mainly to the Petrol Tax offset by the reduced requirements in lubricants."
  What does that mean? It is unintelligible language to me. Surely the Air Ministry do not pay Petrol Tax.
  Sir S. HOARE indicated assent.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I to understand that the Air Ministry pay Petrol Duty to the Government?
  Sir S. HOARE: Yes.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: To the Treasury?
  Sir S. HOARE indicated assent.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: An extraordinary state of affairs. Is there not an Appropriation-in-Aid? Does the Air Ministry not get it back?
  Sir S. HOARE: No.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:I should like an explanation of that matter, because it is the first time I

  1043
  have ever heard of such a thing. Do the Air Ministry pay duty on the artificial silk used in the airships?
  Sir S. HOARE: Certainly.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The next sentence in the Estimates says that
  "The aviation petrol and motor spirit for the Air Force are obtained as required from running contracts."
  I suppose those are not long-term contracts, and that the petrol contracts are made from year to year. Therefore it is possible that this Estimate will have to be revised or a Supplementary Estimate brought in to make up for the extra cost of petrol. Obviously an increase of 2½d. in the cost of petrol per gallon on a contract amounting to £500,000, is a very considerable sum. Does this mean that a Supplementary Estimate will have to be brought forward, or will there be less flying or less training?
  Sir S. HOARE: We shall have to see.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Either there must be a Supplementary Estimate, or savings in other respects, or there will have to be less flying and less training. Has the right hon. Gentleman contact with the Government directors on the board of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company? It is obvious that the Air Ministry is probably the biggest buyer of petrol in the country, and it is ridiculous that if we have Government directors on the board of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, that the right hon. Gentleman should not have full information as to future movements in prices. Does he anticipate any further rise? Has he considered any alternative source of supply? I am glad that the Secretary of State for War is now present, because he has a mechanised Army, and he will be interested in this question. Have any sources of supply been sought outside the ring? Whenever you have a price ring or a monopoly, sooner or later some independent person or company comes along—we must hope it will be so in this case—and attempts to break it. If we are helpless in regard to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, has the right hon. Gentleman instructed his Contracts Department to see whether petrol can be bought from some other source outside the combine?
  Mr. MALONE: Shale.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My hon. Friend suggests shale oil, but the trouble is that the home-produced article has gone up also. The advantage that was supposed to be obtained from the tax-free home spirit has been lost, because the home producers have not resisted the temptation to make an illegitimate profit. The right hon. Gentleman must have the very best spirit for the Air Service. Is he looking for alternative sources of supply? Certainly, a contract for half a million pounds worth of spirit is in a position to encourage an alternative source of supply. I do not suggest that we should go to Russia, because Russia is in the ring. The owners of the stolen oil, the usurpers of the property of widows and orphans, have become complete robbers. They are in the ring from which the right hon. Gentleman gets his petrol.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I can hardly see where fraternity comes in on this Vote.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Fraternity comes in where you have a gang of people who are exploiting the people of this country. Therefore, they may be brothers in crime. Is there any alternative source of supply, not controlled by the shale oil people, or the American group, or the Russians, or the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, so that petrol can be obtained for His Majesty's Forces at a cheaper rate and, incidentally, a service performed for the unfortunate private user of petrol?
  Mr. CONNOLLY: The right hon. Gentleman said that several private contractors were "down" upon the work that they had done, on account of the limitation of overhead charges. He said that material was estimated for and paid for, and also labour, but that the firms were "down" because of the strict limitation of overhead charges. That is a most interesting statement, and I am desirous of finding out upon what basis the overhead charges are put down. Are they put down on the basis of material and labour, with a percentage over? I put this question because on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in the Estimates in regard to overhead charges, a very extraordinary discrepancy is shown in the other charges. Take the last two years. We find that in 1928 the overhead

  1045
  charges, out of a total expenditure of £161,000, amounted to £37,000, compared with £31,000 in the previous year, on a higher expenditure of £183,000. In 1925, we find that the overhead charges are 60 per cent. of the material charges, the following year 40 per cent., the following year 27 per cent., and the following year 50 per cent., and average of about 40 per cent. for the four years.
  In fairness to private firms, who are down upon their contracts, according to the Minister's statement, it is right to ask what basis has been taken for estimating reaonable overhead charges for private firms, and what estimates the right hon. Gentleman takes for his own. Is he applying the same rule to private firms that he is applying in his own Estimates? The Ministry is right in fixing some limit for overhead charges. "Overhead charge" is an elastic term, and a very convenient term into which one can put all kinds of provision for mistakes. I have done it myself, so I know all about it. So far as the private firms are concerned, we ought to be informed what percentage on material and labour costs are put in as overhead charges. What explanation is there between this seemingly great inconsistency in the figures far the various years which I have quoted, under the term "overhead charges." Looking at the tables we find, roughly speaking, that there was slightly over 20 per cent. for overhead charges on the four years. During the past years you find considerable inconsistencies. I should like to ask what explanation there is for these figures; what method is employed in estimating the overhead charges of the Ministry and the basis the right hon. Gentleman takes for estimating the overhead charges of private firms.
  Mr. BECKETT: I am sorry that I missed the right hon. Gentleman's opening statement because I have given him notice that I was going to raise the matter which I propose to deal with now. While I am not at liberty, for obvious reasons, to give the House the sources of my information, I think the matter is sufficiently serious for it to be brought to the attention of the Air Minister, but nobody in the House will be more pleased than I if ho is able to say that the facts which have been brought to my notice are entirely inaccurate. The matter
  1046
  relates to the supply and use of petrol by the Air Force during the past year. In a number of newspapers peculiar statements have appeared with regard to the use of petrol, and I have had brought to me, on what seems to me reasonably reliable information, a number of serious charges in connection with the use of petrol at the Henlow aerodrome, near Hitchin. My informant tells me that at this aerodrome, although the petrol is kept in a large shed and there are big notices up forbidding private motorists and motor-cycles to enter, that they are constantly to be found in the shed, that the private cars of highly placed officers and officials in the aerodrome are constantly filled there, and that this has led to the smaller motor vehicles being filled as well, and that the average amount of petrol used for air flying time is extraordinarily excessive.
  I am informed that at an inspection held recently two officers who did not know anything about the particular type of machine said "Well, you cannot expect us to know about it because we have not been up in it," and they were then shown entries in the sheet showing that they were supposed to have taken flying practice in these aeroplanes. This matter is commonly discussed outside this House. I have heard it stated by responsible people, and it is commonly said in important centres in London that the Air Ministry have not taken action because the matter involves such a large number of people and is of such a serious character. As I have said, nobody would be more pleased than I if the Minister for Air can tell us that the whole of this information is without any foundation, but the facts I have received—I cannot publish the sources of my information, although I shall have no objection to supply them privately—certainly warrant a statement in this House.
  If the statements are untrue, we shall be pleased to hear it, but, if there is any doubt in the matter, then I should like to hear what attitude the Air Ministry is taking; what number of flying officers are employed at this aerodrome, the number of flying hours that were reported last year, the average amount of petrol used, and how it compares with similar flying hours at similar aerodromes on similar aeroplanes, and how it compares with the average amount of petrol used

  1047
  by the force in other districts. If the Minister can give us that information it would be very useful. I should like to know exactly what steps the right hon. Gentleman takes to check the supply of petrol and the reports as to the number of flying hours. I am well aware of the very serious nature of the suggestions I have put forward, but they are too important, and certainly are too widely discussed in London, to be ignored altogether. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to deal with them.
  Mr. KELLY: When the Minister was replying, I hoped that he would have dealt a little more clearly with this question of petrol. I cannot understand yet how this item occurs, "the increase is due mainly to the Petrol Tax." Does it mean that the Ministry imports this petrol and pays the tax direct, or does it mean that the Department is purchasing from contractors and that the Ministry is counting the increased price that is being paid as being due to the Petrol Duty? If the right hon. Gentleman is purchasing petrol through contractors and retailers he is not only paying the increase due to the Petrol Duty but also the further increase which the petrol people place upon the oil in order to recoup themselves and make greater profits. If that is the position then it is time that the Air Ministry looked into the matter and, instead of lining the pockets of the contractors, looked after the interests of the taxpayers of this country. I was hoping that we should have heard a little more about Farnborough factory, which is referred to as a place for experimental work and research. I would not hesitate to vote money for the purposes of research for civil aviation, but I think the House is entitled to know whether the Farnborough establishment—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Ought not this to have come under the last Vote for Works, Buildings and Land?
  Mr. KELLY: You will find the Farnborough factory referred to on page 38 in connection with Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services). I think the House should know whether this factory is engaged upon the manufacture and construction of aircraft used by the Air
  1048
  Force or whether in their research and experimental work they have constructed machines for civil aviation. In a huge establishment like that at Farnborough I certainly say that much more than research work is carried on. Then, is there anything in this Vote which Allows the men employed to have holidays with pay? There is nothing in the Vote about it, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will take it into account and before coming to the House for further moneys will see that those employed receive at least one week's holiday in the year with pay. Some of them according to this Vote get very inadequate wages. People employed on the manufacture of airships and aircraft, and engaged in experimental work, cannot have those high flights of thought which the Air Minister has when he deals with aviation questions, if they are given these, rates of pay. I hope some consideration will be given to the wages of the people employed at this factory.
  Again, can we be told anything with regard to the item "Chemical Warfare"? Whenever one thinks of chemical warfare one has some doubts as to this being an advancing civilisation. We should be told what is being done in this so-called progress in the matter of chemical warfare, and, as this is being done in conjunction with the War Office, may I ask whether there has been any consultation between the various fighting Departments on the matter? If the Secretary of State for War had been present this evening he could have told us whether he was consulted beforehand. Reference is made to the sale of material at Farnborough and Cardington. May we have some explanation as to what is meant by this, particularly with regard to the sale of material at Farnborough, seeing that this is not a place for the manufacture of aircraft for sale but exists for experimental purposes? This item of some thousands of pounds requires some explanation, and I hope we are going to have it.
  Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I want very respectfully to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Air to a difficulty in connection with a man who has been receiving training at Cranwell. As a result of the treatment he has received.

  1049
  I think that some hardship is being inflicted upon him and his family. It is the case of a man who was receiving training, and, when he had completed the course, he was appointed to service overseas. The lad in the judgment of his family was unfitted to undertake these duties overseas owing to health reasons, and his father approached the Department with a view of obtaining his release from the service.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does not this come on some other Vote? This Vote does not deal with the question of training.
  Sir D. NEWTON: It is all connected with training and service. I do not know where the border-line comes in, but I hope that you will perhaps permit me to state the case.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This Vote, which is for "Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services)," does not deal with training at all.
  Sir D. NEWTON: In that case, I must raise the matter on some other occasion.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I would like to answer some of the questions that have been asked. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked what we were doing in connection with supplies of helium for airships. With the advent of the heavy oil engine it is not at all certain that in future hydrogen, which is a much lighter gas, will not be more suitable for ships fitted with heavy oil engines. I am not laying down a definition about the matter, but it is quite likely that that may be the case. We are doing everything we can to get into touch with the United States of America and with Canada on this question of helium supplies. The hon. and gallant Member waxed very eloquent about our regarding these new airships as experimental. He said there was nothing extraordinary or new about them. But there is something new about the building and testing of airships of a capacity of 5,000,000 cubic feet. It is quite a new experience. The two ships that are being built are quite novel and do need a great deal of experiment, for in themselves they are great experiments. With regard to these airships and the number
  1050
  of ground staff necessary for them, with the mooring mast, of course, very few ground staff will be needed. It is hoped that the airships will in most cases be moored to these mooring masts, and if and when they have to be housed in sheds no doubt some of these ingenious suggestions of the hon. and gallant Member about revolving hangars may he considered.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That is not my suggestion. It is a very old one, and I take no credit for it.
  Sir P. SASSOON: Nevertheless an ingenious suggestion. With regard to the rise in the price of petrol, no one can regret this more than we do. That is natural, for we are great consumers of petrol. As to alternative means of supply, I do not know where there are any other means of getting petrol than those which we have adopted, but it is the fact that in common with all users of petrol we regret the rise. With regard to the possibility of a Supplementary Estimate, of course, we shall have to wait and see if one is necessary. We may be able to meet the added expense out of savings. But, whatever happens, it will certainly not mean less flying. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) raised a point of which he gave us notice just before the Debate began. He admitted that it was rather short notice. Certainly the very serious charges which he made are quite novel to me. I had heard nothing about them at all. I shall be pleased, therefore, if the hon. Member will give us particulars. At the present stage we cannot either deny or accept them in any way.
  Mr. GILLETT: Are they not in connection with the same incident as is referred to in the Auditor-General's report, to which I made reference?
  Sir P. SASSOON: No, it is not the same incident.
  Mr. BECKETT: No doubt one of the suggestions that I made the Under-Secretary is disposing of. I understood that the Air Ministry were aware of it, and had investigated it and taken action.
  Sir P. SASSOON: The hon. Member knows that we will go into the matter, but without definite particulars of all these very serious charges it would be

  1051
  quite impossible for me to make any reference to them here across the Floor of the House. If the hon. Member will give us particulars we will look into the matter.
  Mr. BECKETT: I do not want to interrupt, but am I to understand that this is the first that the Under-Secretary and his Chief have heard of this matter?
  Sir P. SASSOON: So far as we know, it is. One or two questions were asked by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). First with regard to contracts for petrol. We year by year have a contract with the three principal companies. With regard to "industrials" and leave without pay, that is not a special rule applying to the Air Ministry, but is one which applies to all three Service Departments. There is no special arrangement in the case of the Air Ministry.
  Mr. BENN: When the Under-Secretary speaks of a yearly contract, does he mean that the price of petrol is fixed every year in advance?
  Sir P. SASSOON: No.
  Mr. BENN: Then there is not a contract.
  Sir P. SASSOON: As the hon. Member knows, it is for special aviation spirit. A price basis is fixed with provision for variation in accordance with market price.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: With regard to overhead charges—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken, and on the Report stage he cannot speak more than once.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: If there has not been any answer to the question that I have put with regard to the basis upon which overhead charges are laid down for private contracts, can I not ask for an answer?
  Sir S. HOARE: With the permission of the House I will answer the question One cannot give any general answer. Each item of overhead cost has to be analysed. In this case we very carefully costed the overhead. There is no general rule that applies.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: What method is there? In your own estimate for 1926
  1052
  you have 100 per cent. overhead charges on material and labour costs That is £21,000 for each. What is the method that is adopted?
  Sir S. HOARE: Each cost has to be taken separately. The hon. Member will see the full details set out on page 50 of the Appropriation Account of 1927. He will see the exact way in which we did cost this particular contract.
  Mr. CONNOLLY: But the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that firms have lost on a contract. What is the basis? The Minister says there is a careful estimate made. The estimate cannot be careful if firms are losing.
  Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid that in this case the costs were under-estimated and that we took too sanguine a view of the transaction.
  Mr. BENN: The House is entitled to a little more information about the effect of the Petrol Duty and now of the rise in the price of petrol. This rise is going to cost the Air Ministry over £20,000 a year. Have the Government asked for a special report on the subject? It is extraordinary that the Air Ministry, which is the biggest purchaser in the whole country, should not be able to provide not only against paying the duty—it seems a very odd affair—but that they have also to pay the small addition which the companies make for the cost of collection. The companies have explained in the "Times" that the price is made up not only of the cost of the material, but of a certain commission for the cost of collecting the duty. The Air Ministry appear to be paying all that as well as the Churchill Tax. There is the rise, which is due to the combine, and in addition there is the commission which the combine charges for collecting the duty. All this is being paid by the Ministry under some annual contract, I understand. I do not know what sort of annual contract it is that permits persons who contract to raise the price whenever they like. We want a little more enlightenment on the subject.
  Mr. GILLETT: May I have an answer to the question that I put earlier?
  Mr. SPEAKER: All this is very irregular. Hon. Members had an opportunity in the Committee of having a discussion of this kind.
  Mr. GILLETT: On a point of Order. I referred to the matter in my speech, and specially asked that the Secretary of State would give me an answer. Am I not at liberty to ask for that answer now? The right hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the question. The point I raised was referred to by the Auditor-General in his Report.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the Minister overlooked it in his reply no doubt he will answer.
  Sir S. HOARE: I was out of the House when the hon. Member put his question. Of course, we are fully aware of the case to which the Auditor-General drew attention. We at once took disciplinary action. There was no secret about the case. It was due to fraud, and we severely punished everyone who had anything to do with it. As to the more general case raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett), naturally we shall look very carefully into very serious charges of that kind and see if there is justification for them or not.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Fifth Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. PILCHER: I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would use this occasion to tell the House and the country a little more about the regular flights to India which are to begin on the 30th of this month. The other day we discussed this matter very briefly, and I remember that my right hon. Friend recommended Members to take fortnight's holiday before the General Election and fly to India and back. Is it not a fact that in the first month at least after the start of these flights there are to be no passenger bookings? When are passenger bookings to begin? The country at large will be glad to hear something as to the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the number of passengers who are likely to book by that service. I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the extraordinary courage and perseverence with which, for five or six years, he has pursued that great plan. It is going to revolutionise our
  1054
  position with regard to civil aviation. I imagine that he is relying largely on the great eastern and southern routes to provide him steadily with the reserves and raw material out of which the fighting service can ultimately be built and maintained. Would the Minister also tell us something about the organisation of the aerodromes and caravanseraies which I presume, have been established at places like Tobruk on the coast of Libya and at the new station near Alexandria. It is, indeed, a wonderful achievement that these places should have been developed and that facilities should exist there for a constant stream of European passengers, passing through to and from India. I would also like to know if it is considered possible that these flights can be continued through the Monsoon, from the month of July to the month of October.
  With regard to the continuation of the route from Karachi to India, that is a subject upon which many people would like to hear something. We have not heard a great deal as to the Indian organisation between Karachi and Calcutta and beyond. The Minister has, several times, suggested the possibility of a southward and eastward extension down to Australia. I think in reply to a question he informed the House that there was not an aerodrome yet at Rangoon and I am sure the House would be interested to hear more on the subject of the Calcutta-Rangoon and the Rangoon-Singapore routes, if the right hon. Gentleman can spare a few minutes to say something about those points. Last week the Minister was asked what would be the cost of an air passage to India. I understand that there is to be a single fare of £130 or approximately that figure. I am interested to know exactly how it is considered possible for this service to compete with the Peninsular and Oriental first-class steamer rates. The proposed fare by air seems to be an addition of something like 50 per cent. to the ordinary first-class steamship passenger rate.
  If the Minister has any particulars as to the extent to which this great service is likely to be utilised by people resident in India, they too might interest the House. It has always seemed to mo that one of the difficulties of this great experiment was the fact that the population

  1055
  of India are for the most part extremely poor, with an average income of only £3 or £4 a year, and of course a great deal of the success of the scheme must depend on the demand for passages from the Services, and from people of a European habit of life in that country. For any information which the right hon. Gentleman can give us on these points, I am sure we shall all be extremely grateful, particularly those of us who are interested in the East. Our best wishes go with the Minister's great experiment. We hope that this new means of communication between the home country and India will be firmly established and will result in linking two great peoples of the Empire much more closely together.
  Colonel APPLIN: I desire to raise some questions on Vote 8, Sub-head F, relating to civil aviation subsidies which J notice amount to £107,000 more than last year. At present one of the principal means of training civil pilots is provided by the light aeroplane clubs. These clubs have been subsidised by the Ministry and are receiving subsidies to-day. I think I am correct in stating that there are 13 light aeroplane clubs and that they receive a subsidy of £55 for each pilot trained. These clubs have done great service in the past. They have trained more than 450 pilots, and, in addition, they have re-trained, or kept in training a number of their members who belonged to the fighting service in the past. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that he owes a debt of gratitude to these clubs. Their subsidy comes to an end in August of next year—after that date the clubs will receive no subsidy. One would not complain of that, if the subsidy had been found to be a failure, and if it had been taken away altogether from clubs and flying schools and everybody else. But in place of these flying clubs and their subsidy, we are to get a new company which is to get a monopoly—a form of subsidy—from the Minister. It is a monopoly which I think the House will agree is in the circumstances not only against the encouragement of civil aviation, but is, in itself, something which we ought to examine carefully before passing this Vote. On page 8 of the Memornadum we see:
  "In addition to the sum of £16,000 provided for subsidies to 13 light aeroplane clubs under existing agreements, £3,000 has
  1056
  been included as an estimate of the payments to be made to National Flying Services, Limited, for capitation grants in respect of pilot members of flying clubs affiliated to that company."
  I think the House ought to realise that last summer the chairman of this proposed company invited the representatives of the 13 flying clubs to meet and pointed out to them that the club subsidies were coming to an end very shortly. He pointed out also that unless they joined his company they would find themselves in very considerable difficulty. The matter was put in such a way that I believe one of those present described it as a threat. It was explained that it was not intended as a threat, but, undoubtedly, there is the threat that those flying clubs who do not join the new company will go out of existence. The question of this subsidy is a very interesting one. It requires at least 10 flying hours to train a man, and it costs on the average £5 per flying hour. I believe the clubs usually charge anything between £6 and £7 per flying hour. The subsidy which it is proposed to give through the company is £10 per pilot trained and I put it to the House that such a subsidy is so small as to be almost useless. I cannot see how they are going to train civil aviators on this subsidy nor how these flying clubs can go on training civil aviators, unless they are absorbed into the new company.
  Now I come to the gravamen of the charge. Why should there be a subsidy given, as a monopoly, to a new company? Is it right that Government money should be given as a subsidy, exclusively to one company and that others where have borne the heat and burden of the day, should be compelled, willy-nilly, to join that company or in the alternative lese their subsidy. That is the situation and I have no hesitation in saying that there is not a single flying club which desires such a method of existence. Furthermore, I believe that nobody connected with civil aviation, whether members of flying clubs or flying schools, or even the producers of flying machines, would desire to see the clubs absorbed into this company. The Minister courteously pave me an interview and explained that the company was going to provide 20 aerodromes and 80 landing grounds and in the White Paper will be found a passage which alleges that these flying grounds will be

  1057
  supplied. But if hon. Members read the last paragraph, they will find that it is as follows:
  "The payment of the grant will be dependent upon the fulfilment by the company of the undertaking to provide and maintain, directly or indirectly, 20 new areo-dromes and 80 new landing grounds in this country."
  What does "directly or indirectly" mean. It means that they need not provide anything, but can leave it to somebody else to do so, if they put up a few tin sheds. It is no guarantee that we are going to get these grounds and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would have done much better if he had encouraged municipalities and local authorities to provide their own grounds, as they are anxious to do. Aerodromes can be used also as sports grounds. They can be taken advantage of by tennis clubs, and for other games, and it would be far better if we encouraged municipalities by subsidies to provide aerodromes in connection with the sports grounds which are so much needed all over the country. May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the public have already subscribed over £30,000 to these 13 clubs. Is that money to be lost? Are these clubs to die because a monopoly has been given to a single company? Is the public to see that money wasted? These clubs, as I have said, have done great service to aviation. Every single one of them has organised an air show or an air pageant or something of that kind, and a sum running into four figures has been collected by the Treasury in Entertainment Duty alone as a result of their efforts in this direction. I appeal to the Minister to consider once again the necessity for keeping these clubs in existence, and I ask him not to confront them with the alternative of perishing or joining a company in which they do not believe, and which I, personally, do not believe will ever be able to raise the capital which is required if it is to come into effective existence at all.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. VIANT: I think the time has arrived when the House would be doing justice to itself and the country by pausing to give some consideration to the effect of these subsidies both on the companies concerned and on the national finances. It will be within the recollect-
  1058
  tion of some hon. Members that the Hambling Committee made certain recommendations on this matter. The Hambling Committee suggested, firstly, that any air operating company should have a capital of £1,000,000; secondly, that £500,000 should be subscribed as a first instalment, and, thirdly, that the whole of the subscribed capital should be guaranteed before the Government commenced to subsidise the company. In view of what has transpired, the House will appreciate the importance of those recommendations. The Government side by side with that suggested, or offered, a subsidy or £1,000,000 to be spent over a period of 10 years in such yearly amounts as to enable the financial group to raise the share capital. The Government subsidy was essential in the view of the Hambling Committee by way of being an inducement to private subscribers. On page 14 of the Report, paragraph 34, there appears the following:
  "We are also satisfied that no effective spending of Government subsidies by the companies can be obtained unless the companies themselves are concerned in the risking and the expenditure of their own resources."
  Again, on page 16, paragraph 43, the finding of the committee were as follows:
  "An essential condition, however, to such a proposal (of a subsidised air operating company) is that the company should have large resources of its own, so that, in the expenditure of capital on operational experiment, and on the development of new and extended routes, the company is primarily risking its own resources."
  These are very reasonable recommendations which, I think should have been insisted upon by the Minister of Air, and should have been carried out to the full. I find that Imperial Airways Limited are heavily subsidised by the Air Ministry to-day. The issue of their prospectus showed an authorised share capital of 1,000,000 in pound shares. There were 99,168 shares credited to vendors as fully paid. As a matter of fact, they are only half paid. There were 499,993 shares of which 15s. only was paid. The total amount of capital subscribed was £375,001 45s. On the other hand, we gave as a direct subsidy paid on account of cross-channel services for four years—1924–28—£137,000 per annum, making no

  1059
  less than £548,000. The subsidy for 1928–29 was £112,000, and there was an additional subsidy—for what reason I do not know, and we are entitled to know from the Minister in charge—of £25,000, making the total £137,000. There was a direct subsidy of £93,600 on account of Eastern Services for two years, making a total of £187,200. In addition, for what reason I cannot say, during 1927–28, another subsidy of £19,400 was given, making the total amount of the direct subsidies paid by the Government for the five years, 1924–29, £891,600, or more than twice the amount of capital subscribed by the shareholders of this company. That is totally in opposition to the recommendations of the Hambling Committee, and I think in view of those facts we are justified in asking the Minister to throw some light on the reason why the recommendations of the committee should be departed from. As regards the shareholders in the company it is interesting to note that, at the meeting on 7th September, 1928, the chairman said:
  "There is still no necessity for the Board to call up the outstanding 5s. per share, and I would assure you that the call will only be made when your directors are satisfied that it can be profitably employed in the development of your company."
  In regard to the new agreement, the chairman said:
  "Another provision of the new agreement is the transfer to the company of two large three-engined all-metal flying boats, built largely to our specification of most modern design on favourable terms."
  We then find that the most favourable terms amount to this, that the Government have extended the period of the subsidy to 10 years from April, 1929, making an actual period of 15 years in all. The direct subsidy of £1,000,000 is to be increased to £2,490,000 with an extra sum for machines. The Air Ministry are evidently handing over to the Imperial Airways the two experimental Calcutta flying boats recently completed under the civil aircraft experimental programme, but provisions will be made for the payment by the Imperial Airways for these boats corresponding to the subsidy for the first year of operation for the Aden-Egypt section. At the annual meeting on 2nd September, 1926, the chairman said:
  1060
  "As you have seen from the Report, your board purposes to call up the remaining 10s. per share of share capital almost immediately. The first call of 5s. will be made payable in October and the second 5s. per share will be payable in December."
  These calls were in respect of the Cairo-Basra services. The first call was made and the shares went to a discount. On one day the shares stood at 13s. 9d. discount. I would ask the House to note that. It means that 3s. 9d. per share was paid to get rid of a share. The second call was never made. That is most significant. I know right hon. Members on the Front Bench are smiling at these facts. I want to submit that if the taxpayers knew these facts they would not smile.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: Were they pound shares?
  Mr. VIANT: They were pound shares, 10s. of which was subscribed. The other calls were not made. The company has already received from the Government more than twice the amount subscribed by the shareholders. If we find it necessary to subsidise a company in respect of our air services, I ask that, when recommendations are made by a Committee, the Minister in charge of the Department concerned should carry out his obligations, or see that the subsidies made are in keeping with the recommendations of the Committee. The significant thing is that, as a result of this subsidising of Imperial Airways, the shares are now worth on the market to-day 31s. 6d., proving conclusively that as long as the public purse is available for shareholders the directors will put their hands into it. There are always people ready to put their little bit into these companies. If an air service is necessary at all, it is preferable that it should be a proper, nationalised service and not one which is putting money into the pockets of private speculators. We are not getting the best results. That, I think, is borne out by the facts. The private companies have not delivered the goods, and the expenditure in that respect has been enormous, as far as the Government is concerned. I hope the Minister will give some enlightenment to the House on the points which I have raised. They are so important that from my own point of view I think the Opposition would be justified in refusing to pass these Estimates and holding them

  1061
  up until we had some greater control of the money which we are handing out to these private companies.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: When the right hon. Gentleman (Sir S. Hoare) made his admirable statement introducing the Estimates, he made one or two points. One was that he felt that during the course of the Debate there would be many opportunities of going into the matter of the National Flying Services, Limited, and he said:
  "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1929; col. 598, Vol. 226.]
  I hope that before this Debate is finished the Minister will make some definite statement about these light aeroplane clubs and their relation to National Flying Services, Limited, about which several questions have been put to him on the Paper and several speeches made during the discussions on the Air Estimates. Last week, the right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol, North (Captain Guest), who has done a great deal for civil flying and has had great experience at the Air Ministry, spoke about this new company, and we want to know whether or not these clubs are going to be snuffed out entirely through the formation of this company. The Minister tells us that the agreements are to be carried out. That may be so, but at the same time these light aeroplane clubs may be squeezed out of existence altogether by the subsidy and by the encouragement which is being given to this new body. The work and the value of these clubs have been many times recognised by the Minister. Some of them have been formed for five years, and undoubtedly they have been the pioneers in creating an air sense among the public, in teaching sportsmen to fly, and in making flying a sport in this country.
  All these clubs have been carried on efficiently, and the work has been done by voluntary subscriptions, except for the grant from the Ministry based on the results obtained by various pilots. Many great air enthusiasts have been developed through the efforts of these clubs, and a great deal of money has been collected to help the clubs in their work, first, in
  1062
  the interests of sport and, secondly, in the interests of the nation, if they should be required at any time in the future. One has only to remember the volunteer spirit in the old days that came before the Territorial Force was created and the great service that resulted during the War, and if the Minister will only see to it that these clubs are not going to be crushed out of existence, I am sure they will be of great service to the country and will carry on the work which they have commenced. There are 13 subsidised clubs, and there are several more being formed in various parts of the country which are not getting the grant, and through the spirit of rivalry and sportsmanship between these clubs they continue to do good work in every part of the country.
  They are anxious to know whether, when the arrangement made with the Ministry comes to an end, their existence will cease because there will be no renewal of this grant from the Ministry. If the Minister will let the clubs know that he is prepared to extend this small grant to them, and to let it go on a little beyond the two years, it will be a source of great satisfaction to them, because they will feel that the time has not come for them to cease operations directly the two years of the subsidy ends. It is impossible for them to carry on with their own funds entirely. The grant for the work that has been done is always of the greatest service to them. The right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol North was quite true when he told these clubs that he wished to help them in every possible way, and we agree that he has done a splendid work for aviation, especially on the civil side, but this arrangement which the National Flying Services, Limited, has come to with the Government, although it seems a very good one for the Government, might, on the other hand, become a very dangerous one. If it is not going to encroach on the good work that has already been done in other directions, then it ought to have our support, and if it is going to provide 20 new aerodromes and 80 new landing stations, that is further all to the good of the smaller clubs as long as they exist; but, as the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) mentioned, what is going to happen to the municipal clubs?

  1063
  I should like the Minister to explain to us how far he has gone in his arrangements with regard to the municipal aerodromes about which he spoke in introducing the Air Estimates on a previous occasion. If the municipal aerodromes are already in existence, or if preparations are being made for them, I think it is to the interests of the country that we should have municipal aerodromes rather than these private aerodromes belonging to the National Flying Services, Limited. Then, again, suppose these light aeroplane clubs fail, at the end of two years, to have made any fresh arrangement with the Minister, and they cease to exist, and supposing this company that is going to provide these aerodromes also ceases to exist, we shall have lost the whole of our public-spirited work, which we might have retained if we had allowed the light aeroplane clubs to carry on and to provide their own aerodromes and flying stations. I would ask the Minister to make some definite statement that at the end of the agreement with the light aeroplane clubs he is prepared to give them some undertaking that he will extend it beyond that time, so that they can carry on as they have done for several years past.
  Sir S. HOARE: I will deal at once with the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) and Enfield (Colonel Applin). At present we have 13 light aeroplane clubs in different districts receiving a subsidy, besides which there is a number of unsubsidised clubs. These 13 clubs are doing a most excellent work. I look back with very great pride to the fact that, I think, I originated them. Indeed, there is no branch of the activities connected with the Air Ministry during the last five or six years that has been more satisfactory than the development of the light aeroplane clubs. It was a new idea. No other country had started it. It succeeded here, and it is being copied in many other parts of the world, including several of our Dominions. The defect, however, of the present arrangement is that it only provides flying facilities for a certain limited number of districts and a certain limited number of pilots, the 13 subsidised clubs producing, so far as I remember the figure, about 350 trained pilots. Any hon.
  1064
  Member who wishes to increase the air sense of the country will agree with me that we ought to extend the opportunities-for flying in other districts.
  My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bristol North (Captain Guest) came forward with a proposal, not to compete with the light aeroplane clubs in their own districts, but to provide flying facilities in other districts that do not at present possess them, to provide flying facilities, moreover, at a much smaller cost than the sums we are now paying to the subsidised light aeroplane clubs; and, if his scheme is successful, to provide flying facilities on a much bigger scale than the existing light aeroplane clubs could ever hope to reach. I am not saying that in criticism of the existing clubs, but the scheme of the right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol North is on a much bigger scale, designed to give wider facilities to people and districts that do not possess them. From the point of view of increasing the flying opportunities of the country, obviously a scheme of that kind presents many attractions, and I, therefore, agreed, subject to the approval of the House, to make to the National Flying Services, Limited, a small annual payment, based entirely upon results, and first of all upon the number of pilots produced—£10 for each pilot, as compared with the £40 or £50 that we are now paying for the pilots in the existing clubs.
  The other result that I am asking from the Company, and making a condition of paying the grant, is the provision, direct or indirect, of a number of new landing grounds and aerodromes, which is of immense importance from the general point of view of flying and also from the point of view of air defence. One of our great difficulties with air manoeuvres or any system of air defence is the deficiency in landing grounds and aerodromes, and if, by means of this new venture, we can obtain 100 new landing grounds and aerodromes, it will be of almost incalculable advantage to the Air Force, quite apart from the benefit to the people and districts desiring flying facilities. My two hon. and gallant Friends say, "That may be all very well, but it may react harshly upon the existing clubs." That is the last thing in the world I should like to see. As I say, I started them, I have watched

  1065
  them month after month with the greatest interest and satisfaction, and the last thing in the world that I should wish to see is any harm done to any of the existing clubs.
  I believe that this scheme will do them no harm at all. It is not going into the districts where they are already providing flying facilities. It raises no question of altering anything in the agreements that I have made with the existing clubs, and those agreements, as my hon. and gallant Friend has just pointed out, run for some considerable time further. They were based upon the principle that the clubs required a subsidy for three years and that at the end of those three years the clubs would be self-supporting. I hope they will be self-supporting. I should like to see an end to subsidies of every kind, and the sooner we can reach that point the better. Therefore, I hope they will be self-supporting, but, supposing it is found in actual experience that they are not, between now and the time the agreements run out, quite obviously we shall have to meet together and reconsider the position. For the moment, I can give no further pledge, and I do not think that any hon. Member ought to ask me for any further pledges. These agreements were made for a definite period; the clubs know that they have in me and everyone at the Air Ministry sincere friends, and we shall be perfectly prepared to discuss things with them if they go badly in the next eighteen months or two years. I hope that I have said enough to show how great are the advantages to be gained from the project known as the National Flying Services, Limited, that will provide flying facilities where they do not exist and aerodromes necessary for our Imperial defence at a very reasonable price based entirely upon payment by result.
  I pass to the other questions put to me by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant). I was not quite sure what were the conclusions to which his arguments led. He seemed to imply that we had been repudiating the recommendations of what is known as the Hambling Committee, and that we have not been disclosing to the House the full extent of the subsidies which we have been making to Imperial Airways Limited.
  Mr. VIANT: My point was that the Government had not conformed to the recommendations of the Committee, because the subsidies have gone far in excess of the recommendations.
  Sir S. HOARE: That is wrong. We have followed in every essential feature the recommendations of the Hambling Committee. The subsidies have been based on the two principles initiated by the committee, namely, that they should be spread over a period of years, and that they should be on a descending scale. We have gone consistently on those principles ever since the Hambling Committee reported.
  Mr. VIANT: They have been ascending.
  Sir S. HOARE: They have been ascending from one point of view, because we have been demanding greater services from the company. In the last 12 months, for instance, we have entered into the new agreement for the India service, which was not contemplated in the original recommendations of the Hambling Committee. I am afraid that the upshot of the hon. Member's remarks is that civil aviation at present cannot exist without subsidies. I am sorry that that is so, but I believe that we are nearer making civil aviation self-supporting and nearer the point of being without subsidies than is the case in any other country in the world. I object just as much as the hon. Member does to subsidies of any kind, but it is only because in the early stages of civil aviation subsidies of some kind were necessary that this item appears year by year in the Estimates. I hope that the time will come when it will go out of existence, and that civil aviation will exist without the need of payment from the Air Ministry.
  Some questions about the route to India were raised, but the answer to the greater part of them must be obtained from the Imperial Airways Company. This is a commercial service, and not a Government service, and the details about costs are details which the company must settle itself. As far as I can judge, I think that there will we a considerable demand for passenger accommodation on this air route. At first, it will be mainly for mails and

  1067
  freights, but I am sure that the passenger demand will tend greatly to increase as the regularity of the service shows itself to the world at large. So far as they accommodation on the route goes, the Imperial Airways and the other authorities have, so far as they could, made suitable accommodation the whole way along the route, and I do not think that passengers will be put to any undue discomfort. I feel that the inauguration of the service marks a new era in communications between this country and India, and I feel sure that it will have most satisfactory results.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: One does not often find a Conservative Member attacking the Government, and on this occasion I cannot see that the Air Ministry is very much to blame. The National Flying Service has had the effect in the East of Yorkshire of already stirring up interest in flying. They have already got into touch with the municipality of Hull and arranged, not for aerodromes for recreation purposes, but for a recreation ground in the form of a racecourse to be used as an aerodrome—a reversal of the process. We are asked for only £3,000, and I do not think that the case is very strong against them. I notice that there is a considerable expenditure on this particular Vote for oil and petrol. I should like to know if this will have to be recast and reintroduced in view of the recent rise in price. With regard to the new National Flying Service, may I ask the hon. Baronet, who I always like to hear, and who takes my imagination to the desert whenever I hear him speak, if the National Flying Service propose to extend their flights outside England and Scotland.
  This brings me to my point, which is that I hope that the Air Ministry will really tackle the question of a passenger service across the North Sea. In the north, we get little advantage from the air passenger or mail services from London to Paris. There is an excellent steamer and train service, but it would be a great advantage if we could get a regular service, at any rate in the summer when the weather is good, of large flying boats able to alight on the water in case of accident and not needing any land aerodromes. If we could have a regular
  1068
  service from Hull for passengers and mails across the North Sea to Germany or Denmark, it would be of great advantage to business men, and I cannot understand why the Air Ministry have neglected this important route. If we had such a service, it could be connected up with the Northern European air services. The finest passenger mail services are in the north of Europe, owing to the enterprise of the Germans and their neighbours, and, if we could connect up with that tremendous network of air lines, going all the way to Asia across Europe, it would be a great advantage to our own people.
  One of our services which will begin in a few weeks—the India service—was helped enormously by the Air Ministry. One of the most important links in that route, from Cairo to Bagdad, was flown for 18 months or two years by machines belonging to the Royal Air Force with Royal Air Force pilots and all the technical assistance that they could provide. That was how the service began. Why cannot the aeroplanes and flying boats belonging to the Royal Air Force, which have flown round the Mediterranean, to Australia and back, and round Africa, inaugurate a summer service from, say, the Humber or Harwich across the North Sea to Hamburg or Antwerp, or some other convenient landing place? Why cannot they begin and show the way and find out the difficulties and the obstacles, if there be any? That is the sort of thing which I would like the Air Ministry to do. After all, they are building a passenger airship at Cardington and carrying out the same principle in that direction. They started the Cairo to Bagdad service, and why should they not start this service across the North Sea? My complaint against the Air Ministry is that they will develop anything abroad, in the Middle East, Asia, Singapore, and the East Indies, and neglect affairs at home.
  With regard to the service to India, I do not like the Air Minister's statement about fares. He said that that is a matter for the company. After all, we have subsidised the company, and surely a question such as fares and passenger accommodation must be within the cognisance of the Air Minister, and he must have something to say in such matters. I do not put nearly so much importance

  1069
  on the question of passenger fares as on the necessity and desirability of sending mails by air. Are we going to take the mails from the P. and O. Line and send them to India by air? That is what the Indian merchants want; they want quicker services between London and India. If the mails are still to be sent by steamer, we shall not gain the advantage that our trade would have from a quicker communication with what is still our greatest single market, namely, the great Empire of India. May I ask whether the great network of European services that is run by the Lufthansa will be able to extend their services to Teheran and to the aerodromes in South Persia, and also fly to India. If so, we shall at once have two things. In the first place, we shall have competition, but I do not object to that at all. We shall have the Germans flying from Berlin to Moscow and Teheran, and then, if they can fly on to the South Persian aerodromes, they will be able to fly to Karachi. Secondly, if we do not make a regular and cheap service with plenty of machines, they will take a good many of the passengers who would otherwise go on our lines. The question I ask is this: Will the other Powers be able to use the Persian aerodromes in South Persia between Basra and Karachi? Will some other foreign company be permitted to fly there? I think myself it would be shortsighted and illogical to hamper it. It would be a foolish policy in the long run, because it would only bring about reprisals, and we are dependent on the goodwill of other Powers if we are to link up the outermost parts of the Dominions by air.
  It is also important that Imperial Airways, which is going to run the Indian service, should have a sufficiency of machines. On the London-Paris route they have not always had enough machines, and when there are a lot of passengers at holiday times our people, against their will, have had to be transferred to French or German machines, when they would have preferred the British machines. The Imperial Airways Company seem to have gone on the policy of supplying the fewest number of machines which would suffice for the bare minimum requirements of the service, and I suggest that is opposed to the best interests of aviation. Lastly, I must ask the Air Minister what prac-
  1070
  tical steps are being taken to extend the service on to the Straits Settlements and then to Australia. Round Australia there is a splendid sub-Continental service, subsidised and fostered by the Australian Government, which is opening the interior of that Continent in a wonderful fashion. We shall have our own service going India in a few weeks. What practical steps are being taken to extend it to the Straits Settlements and then, by way of the Dutch East Indies, to the northern territory of Australia, so bringing London within aerial reach of Sydney? That is a matter of the highest importance but there is no mention of it in the Air Ministry's Memorandum. All the Minister talks about there is the further extension to the Cape of Good Hope, of which we have heard every year for five or six years. We must know what is being done as regards Australia, because if we do not start other people will step in and do the flying for us. I do not know whether we are waiting for airships, but when we look at the Estimates and see enormous sums spent in all sorts of directions, we feel it is a pity that the small extra expenditure required to extend the air line to Australia is not being made and that we are not getting on faster with one of the great main air routes of the future.
  Sir P. SASSOON: The hon. and gallant Member has asked what steps the Air Ministry has taken to extend the air routes to Australia. The central link is, of course, India, and the Indian Government are considering this question, but until we know what their decision is, and what they are going to do, it is impossible for us to take any effective steps to link up with Australia other than we already have, which is to survey our landing grounds and keep in touch with the Commonwealth Government on the subject. With regard to the landing grounds on the Persian coast, the aerodromes there are Persian aerodromes and it is for the Persian Government to settle who shall use them. They are for international use, but the matter is one for the Persian Government.
  Mr. BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us anything about the proposed non-stop flight to the Cape? I do not know whether that comes under his

  1071
  Department. It is proposed that there should be a non-stop flight from Cranwell, I think, to the Cape.
  Sir P. SASSOON: That question does not come under this Vote.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  REPORT [28TH FEBRUARY].
  Resolutions reported,

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1929.
  "1. That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 150,500, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.
  2. That a sum, not exceeding £8,730,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army at home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.
  3. That a sum, not exceeding £2,848,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Lands, including military and civilian staff, and other charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.
  4. That a sum, not exceeding £3,738,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.
  5. That a sum, not exceeding £4,294,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, and Kilmainham Hospital; of Out-Pensions. Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.
  6. That a sum, not exceeding £233,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Additional Allowances, Gratuities, Injury Grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.
  "7. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £116,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1929, to meet the excess cost involved in the em-
  1072
  ployment of extra troops in China not provided for in the Army Estimates of the year."
  First Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agreed with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. LAWSON: When the Army Estimates were introduced I asked, amongst other questions, one dealing with the question of recruiting, but evidently it was overlooked at the time. I thought that in his speech, and also in the Memorandum, the Secretary of State for War showed himself rather apprehensive as to the possibility of meeting the needs of the Army in the future. As I pointed out at the time, there has been a reduction of the standard of height, and a lowering of the standard in other directions. When we remember that the young men of the country who offer themselves as recruits are a barometer of the physical condition of our people, these things are rather discouraging, especially as only some 36 per cent. of those who offer themselves are accepted. It would be interesting to know how the present height standard compares with the average height which has beer demanded during the last 10 years, and how the general standards demanded of recruits compare with the general standards since the War, and even before the War.
  We would also like to know whether the War Office and the Army Council have formed any opinion as to the cause of the lowering of the general physical standard of the men who offer themselves as recruits, because their standards are an indication of the physical condition of the still larger mass of this people who do not offer themselves for the Army. One of the things we accept as a matter of course—we never speak about it—is the splendid conduct of the troops generally, their general demeanour and their bearing wherever one sees them, whether it be in this country or any other country. That is something of which those of us in particular who come from the working-class ranks have every reason to be proud. It is a reflex of the general educational standard which has been reached by young men to-day. When dealing with this point previously I think the Secretary of State rather misled the House by a terra which was used. The right hon. Gentleman stated

  1073
  that the leaving certificate was equal to the leaving certificate of the elementary schools.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans)indicated dissent.
  Mr. LAWSON: That was the general impression created. As a matter of fact, there is no leaving certificate in elementary schools.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I said public schools.
  Mr. LAWSON: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has corrected that impression. We are told in the Memorandum that more than half of the men in the Army obtain the second-class certificate. I find that the actual number who have attained to that standard is 85,516. I find also that 13,164 men obtained the first-class certificate, which is the equivalent of the school-leaving certificate. Further, 620 men reached matriculation standard. This, it appears to me, is a tribute to the educational system in the Army; but there are, I think, other factors at work which would help to account for it. I am not sure that the mechanisation of the Army is not stimulating the men. In spite of the criticisms we hear of it I think it can be said of our modern educational system that it has produced generally a higher standard of individuality and personality, and I feel that the Army educational system is fortified to some extent by the growth of the mechanisation of the Army.
  This question, it seems to me, has a bearing upon one which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman himself when he said there was a shortage of officers. That ought not to be a matter for very great regret if we encourage the men in the ranks to take commissions. I know there are those who criticise that idea, and say that a man who comes from the ranks does not make quite the same kind of officer as the man who has had a public school training. My answer to that is that there are good, bad and indifferent in all classes, whether of rankers or officers. I think the figures show that a good many of the men in the Army are reaching a standard which would warrant their being seriously considered for commissions. It is true that at the present
  1074
  time a certain number out of the ranks are given commissions. I am not sure what the number is, and I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us.
  8.0 p.m.
  I would be glad also if he would give us some indication of the test made for promotion; incidentally, it would be a good thing if the War Office would give us an indication of the general standards required, setting them out on one of the pages of the Estimates next year. It would be interesting to know what are the general tests which are set for the men who leave the ranks to take commissions. The barriers between what are called "the rankers" and "commissioned officers" are generally disappearing in so far as the growth of personality and individuality is concerned. I think we ought to give very serious consideration to the admission of rankers into the higher ranks of the Army. I am not going to labour this question, but it seems to me that it is one that merits more serious consideration than it has received up to the present.
  We are spending something like £200,000 on Army training and Army education. I know we are spending much more on the technical branches of the Service, but on Army education and vocational training we are spending something like £200,000. I think we see some of the results in the general conduct and bearing of the rank and file of the Army. I do not want to use this as a matter for propaganda, but I think it can be truly said that in recent years the dry canteen has become far more popular than it was. The recreation side has developed very well in the Army, and that has proved one of the most profitable things we have done in recent years. On a previous occasion, I asked a question about vocational training, and I criticised the weekly charge made to the ranker, amounting to 7s. 6d., as being rather an abnormal charge to make in the case of men who have such a limited amount of pay. We should do everything we can to encourage men to consider vocational training as part of their regular service activity.
  I want to see the time when, instead of a few men being trained in the vocational centres, it will be considered as part of

  1075
  a soldier's regular training that during the last six or twelve months of his service he should go into one of the vocational training camps for the purpose of refitting him to meet the conditions of civil life. Those of us who know anything about barrack and camp life know very well that men tend to get out of touch with normal civilian life, more particularly when they have served their full time in the Army. When these men leave the Army, they feel that they are beginning life afresh and going into a new world. For these reasons, there is a growing need that we should pay more attention to the vocational training side of this question. That is why I deprecate the charge which is made when the average soldier goes to the vocational training establishment. It seems to me that that charge is rather on the side of encouraging the highly paid non-commissioned officer than on the side of encouraging the ordinary soldier himself. I have already paid a tribute to the Secretary of State for War for extending these facilities at Chisledon. It seems to me that the point I have raised about this charge of Vs. 6d. requires a more satisfactory answer than that which has been given up to the present time. With these few remarks, I will leave the question of the number of men, and when the answer is given dealing with recruiting, I hope the Secretary of State for War will be satisfied in his own mind that some general effort is being made to meet this very difficult problem.
  Viscount SANDON: I wish to emphasise what was said a week or two ago when these Estimates came before the House, and what I think has been said on every occasion when the Army, Navy and Air Estimates have been brought in, that is that I do not believe we shall ever get down to a satisfactory basis until we can discuss all the three fighting services together, because all the detailed aspects of these Estimates are tied up with the relative merits of the different Forces and the expenditure which we can fairly allot in each direction. There is one point in particular on which I think the Secretary of State for War scored very heavily and that was when he stated—I think he convinced us all and certainly he convinced me—that our case was absolutely complete as regards leading the way towards
  1076
  disarmament as shown in tangible figures by increasing economies year by year in the Army. That makes it more incumbent upon us to scrutinise these Estimates more closely in order to see in what further direction we can apply this admirable principle, always bearing in mind, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us quite fairly, that these economies cannot be made at any sacrifice of the strength and above all of the efficiency of the services for which he is responsible.
  There are three directions in which economies can be made which struck me in going through these Estimates, and in following some of the replies given to questions in this House by the Secretary of State for War. In the first place, there is the question of the Supplementary Reserve. I notice that the establishment of this Force is now 23,000 all told and it consists of 2,700 officers and 20,250 other ranks. There are three categories. Categories A and B do some training and consist of 2,387 officers and 8,557 other ranks. There is a third category—C—which does no training at all and this category consists of 357 officers and 11,706 other ranks. The cost of this Force is at the rate of £25 per officer and £8 of £20 for other ranks making £248,000 in all and that is exclusive of the cost of training. That is computed on the basis of 17,790 as the likely strength. Of course, the number would be more if a full establishment was reached.
  Obviously, people must be paid for the work they do but that £248,000 is exclusive of training pay and is given for nothing. The Under-Secretary of State for War told us in 1927 that, this money was regarded as a sort of retaining fee because the personnel was liable to mobilisation. We know the type of fellow who comes up on mobilisation with a run. Mobilisation has appealed and always will appeal to the very best instincts of the very best people in this country, and those people who have abilities which they think can be utilised by the State and the War Office will come up quick enough without a retaining fee, and they will be on the spot badgering the War Office to give them work. If we find those means inadequate, then we are quite capable of bringing in compulsion to secure what is requisite, as we have in the past.

  1077
  There is another direction in which we, might economise and that is in regard to remounts. In 1924—we might consider that a significant date!—there were 77 officers in this Force. In 1927 there were 82 officers, and in 1929—that is to-day—59 officers. Why should not, this Force be put on a pro rata basis. It will be noticed that in the three years between 1924 and 1927 there was an increase of five officers. Does that increase of five mean that the increase was pro rata, as to horse needs? Furthermore, is the drop of 23 between 1927 and 1929 pro rata and does this correspond with a similar falling off in the horse needs of this country? It seems to me that the two things should go pari passu. If the number of horses required in the Army decreases, surely the amount of staff required to look after them should also decrease in proportion. I feel confident that the present basis is the more accurate one of the three but that leads me to reflect what a waste there must have been in previous years when we had a far larger staff. This service costs the country in pay and allowances £18,000 irrespective of 415 civil and military staff dependant upon them. I do not see any representative of the Treasury on the Front Bench but it would be interesting to know why the Treasury who are so eager to spot out means of saving money very often at the expense of things where money is badly needed did not let their eagle eye light on this question. We were told in July 1927 in answer to a question that the function of this Force was to classify some 75,000 horses. Is it really necessary in these days of mechanisation to have this organisation to deal with a problematical 75,000 horses which we might want only after all for a large scale mobilisation.
  A case which strikes me, perhaps, more than any other, is that of the Medals Department. The right hon. Gentleman will possibly remember, as a great many questions have been asked on this subject, that in 1927 the staff of this Department at the War Office consisted of 35, namely, two officers and 33 other ranks; and they issued, we were told, 37,000 medals, or less than three medals per day per man. At the present time the staff consists of 22—one officer and 21 other ranks—and they issue 28,500
  1078
  medals per annum, or 3½ per man per day; so we are getting on! It makes my heart bleed to think of the awful sweating that must be going on in that Department! I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what firm in business could ever make things pay on such a footing as that, or make any satisfactory report to its shareholders? It is only natural that we, as shareholders in the military security of the State, should be interested to know how our money is feeing spent. The cost of the staff is at the rate of £5,000 per annum.
  In answer to a question the other day, we were told by the right hon. Gentleman that there were "other duties" attached to this work. Many questions have been asked on this subject during the past three or four years, but, unless I have been very careless in examining them, this is the first occasion on which any "other duties" have been mentioned. I should like to know how it is that these "other duties" are mentioned now, while they have not been in the past, what these other duties are, and why, here again, we cannot get down to a pro rata basis and establish a fair scale of labour in that Department as regards output of medals distributed. After all, it is now 10 years since the War. As I said in the case of remounts, why is the Treasury eye not here also? Even the difference between 3½ and three medals per day represents a very considerable total saving in expenditure and personnel, and, if we can have that saving now, what waste must there not have been in the days when we did not have it, before questions started to be asked about it in this House! Surely, here again, we can get down to something much more satisfactory and economical than even a 3½per-day basis for this Department. I would not be a party to stopping any man from getting the medal that he deserves, but there must be by now comparatively few people to whom medals are due on account of the Great War and who have not yet put in their claims or have not had an opportunity of getting them substantiated or otherwise.
  I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to think that I am a harsh critic. His Department is, perhaps, the most encouraging of all to criticise, because one's criticism is reduced to small Committee points of this kind. Broadly, he has

  1079
  established his case, and the task is the more encouraging because one feels by his major economies that the appeal is falling on sympathetic ears. To a certain extent, I confess, logic is on the side of the right hon. Gentleman, but I feel—and I am not alone among people of my own political complexion, or among people in the country, in feeling—that there is a good deal of justification for the complaint of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) as to the use of military personnel in their private time for the purposes of civil occupations. I do not base the case altogether on the same grounds as the hon. Member. Obviously, a strong case can be made against interfering with any man's private time, and obviously, any attempt to do so may well result in ill-feeling, but, at the same time, people who wear His Majesty's uniform—the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; I know that they are not then wearing His Majesty's uniform, but they are soldiers, and the responsibility for behaving like soldiers rests upon them as long as they are in His Majesty's Forces. I feel, and, as I have said, I am not alone in feeling, that there is something unseemly in serving soldiers, in their off time, taking part in work such as has been described, and, of course, it is quite easy to imagine that they might undertake work of a far less desirable character unless some step were taken.
  There is one thing for which the right hon. Gentleman deserves every credit, and that is the encouragement which is being given by his Department to the liaison or affiliation—I do not know whether he would agree with that word, and perhaps it is too strong a one—between regiments in this country and regiments overseas. I believe that that will have a big practical result, as he intends it to have, both as regards the employment of men on going out of the service and also as regards the moral effect, both on the units in this country and on the units overseas, which latter are, after all, new units, units in building. It shows an extent of imagination which I must say surprises me, and makes me believe that the War Office is almost a human institution! I have come to the end of what I wanted to say, and I would just like to emphasise a point—which was touched upon by the hon.
  1080
  Member who spoke for the Opposition—on the civilian side. I think it would be interesting to go and see, another year, what is being done in the vocational camps; and perhaps an even greater work is being done by the right hon. Gentleman in his progress as regards education and the preparation and training of men in the service for their ultimate entry into civil life That was a matter which was absolutely lost sight of by his predecessors in pre-War days. The character of the Army to-day is changing, and, although it would be intolerable and inaccurate for me to criticise the standard or type in pre-War days, the change for the better has been most marked since the War, as a result of the enlightened regime of the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office as a whole in realising their responsibility for these men, not only while they are in the Army, but when they leave it and try again to enter civil life. I believe that it will make the service more attractive, that it will make it easier to get the right type of ambitious young men and that it will generally mark a real turning-point in the fighting efficiency of the Forces.
  Mr. KELLY: One pleasing feature of these Debates has been the fact that the Ministers, when presenting their Estimates, have themselves spoken of economy, of the desire for a smaller expenditure, and even for a reduction in the Forces; but, with all that, pleasing and in the right direction as it is, it is still a matter of some wonderment why we require such a large number of men in the Army at the present time. I am not going into the question of the numbers of our troops that there are in various parts of the world, but I do want to ask the Secretary of State what a the necessity for our retaining over 7,000 men on the Rhine? When one looks at the details of that number, one wonders still more what is the necessity for it.
  I certainly had hoped, and I think that everyone will have been hoping, that these men would have been home in this country long before now. I would ask what it is that they are engaged upon while they are there, and, as training has been referred to a great deal, what training, apart from military training, is being given to them to enable them to take up

  1081
  occupations when they return to civil life, as I hope they will speedily do. I should like to ask approximately how many men in the ranks are engaged in the workshops and are having sufficient real training on the mechanised side of the Army to be able to look after these machines in the event of repairs or replacements being required? This will certainly have some bearing on the position these people will occupy when they return to civil life. I hope we shall have some explanation on these few questions and on the general question why it is necessary still to retain 150,000 men in the Army. I should like to see, and I am sure we could manage with, a much smaller number than the force we are asked to vote to-night.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) asked one or two questions in the course of a very suggestive and helpful speech. He asked again with regard to the reduction in height of recruits during the present year, what that really signified, and whether it was the opinion of the Army Council that it was a symptom of decline in the health and physique of the present generation. I can reassure him on that point. The Army Council is not principally concerned with forming an estimate on a subject of that nature, but there is no reason whatever to suppose that there is any decline in the physique of the country. The lowering of the height standard is merely a normal way of increasing the supply of recruits for a certain branch of the Forces when necessary. At present, recruiting for many branches is satisfactory, but it is below the normal for infantry. One reason for that is, very likely, that the men, naturally, are more anxious to join corps in which they get better opportunities of training in mechanisation and things of that sort. That is one of the reasons why we have reduced the height. Another is that during the next two or three years, an abnormally large number of men are due to leave the infantry, and, therefore, the supply will be lower still, and also during the next two or three years we shall be suffering from the abnormally low birthrate during the War, which is an additional reason. The men of shorter height who are now accepted as recruits are men
  1082
  who have to come up to exactly the same chest measurement and weight standard as before. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are in any way in worse health or worse general physique than men who are tall. A man is no less healthy for being shorter than another man.
  The hon. Member also asked what is being done in mechanisation, and the education of the men in mechanisation. It is impossible at present to give an exact figure of those who have been perfectly trained in mechanisation. If I could, it would be a low figure of those who are really fitted to pass a high standard of examination and to act as factory workers in a mechanical factory, but the numbers who are receiving mechanical education, and who are perfectly fitted now to do running repairs, and are gradually taking further instruction, is very large, and that is one of the great values of mechanisation as a branch of education in the Army to-day.
  The hon. Member asked about ranker officers. He suggested that more officers should be recruited in this way, and hoped the Army Council would give consideration to this possibility. It is a matter which the Army Council have constantly in mind, and they have increased the number of officers coming from the ranks in recent years. The numbers at present accepted for Sandhurst are 15 each half year, and last year, or the year before, which was the first time it was introduced, we also sent three officers to Woolwich. There are always plenty who are anxious to go to Sandhurst and who succeed in passing the examination. The system is that they are recommended in the first place by their commanding officers, and then they have to pass an examination. The standard at Woolwich is slightly higher. The mathematical standard is relatively very high, and there has been some difficulty in obtaining cadets fitted to pass that examination.
  With all that the hon. Member said about the need of vocational training and the admirable work that has been accomplished at Chiseldon, I am in entire agreement, and there is no one more anxious than my right hon. Friend to extend that training still further. The difficulty is the one that we find in all these justifiable and praiseworthy desires—the financial

  1083
  difficulty. The extension of the training, of course, involves further expenditure. The only point in connection with that part of the hon. Member's speech with which I am not in complete agreement, though I entirely see the point, is the complaint that we charge candidates for Chiseldon 7s. out of their pay. I have always realised the objection to this procedure, and I have often told the hon. Member the reason for it, which is to make sure that we get people who will really take advantage of the possibilities there and are not going merely to have an easy time. Whether that charge could or should be reduced is a matter that deserves careful consideration, but at present there seems no real reason to reduce it, because we have no difficulty whatever in obtaining candidates who are anxious to go there.
  The Noble Lord the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) objected to the number of people in the Supplementary Reserve and the money spent upon them. He is doubtless aware that the people who constitute this Supplementary Reserve are specially trained and have special technical qualifications, and, as he says, they receive an allowance more or less in the way of a retaining fee. The first people to come forward are not always the best qualified people, and it does not always follow, when you get a sudden rush of recruits in an emergency, that they are exactly the people you want or that you know exactly where to send them. We have the Supplementary Reserve ready to our hand. We know what they can do and where they are wanted, so that, when they appear, we can tell them exactly where to go. Their places are waiting for them, and there is not the confusion that naturally results when you have thousands of people offering their services, as we remember at the beginning of the Great War, when highly qualified people were put in the wrong places and people who were not qualified at all put in positions that the others ought to have occupied.
  Viscount SANDON: I see the hon. Gentleman's point, and no doubt he makes his case there, but I do not see the ease as regards payment. The question of organisation rests on the Department. As far as the man is concerned, I do not quite see what service he renders.
  Mr. COOPER: The reason far payment is that you cannot be quite so sure of a man turning up for his job when wanted unless you pay him. If the hon. Member was constantly plunging into lawsuits, or was one of those unfortunate people who live surrounded by lawsuits, he might think it worth while to keep counsel on a retainer in order that when he wanted him he might be there. Another question with which he dealt related to the remount department. There, again, I can only say, as he himself admitted, that expenditure is being continually reduced, and we believe that it is being reduced as rapidly as possible at the present time. There are still great demands in the way of horses, and we find that it is impossible to satisfy them by spending less than we do at present. In respect of the medal department, from the case presented by the Noble Lord it sounds rather absurd to have so many people engaged in the task of dealing out medals. The saving possible in that department is not so much as the hon. Member would lead one to suppose. I think that the majority of people employed in it are officers who would be employed in other capacities if not engaged there. When he talks as if we were a commercial house, and that it would not be fair to the shareholders to keep up an establishment of this kind, he forgets that the object of the medals department is not to pay. We do not intend to sell people medals. People are given medals. We expect to lose money on the medals department, and it is necessary to keep a certain number of people there. As the War gets further away, and as the date when these people earn their medals becomes more distant, it involves increased research.
  Mr. BROAD: One medal a day then, I suppose?
  Mr. COOPER: We hope that people will claim their medals.
  Viscount SANDON: The figures were 21 other ranks, and one officer. I think the hon. Gentleman stated they were mainly officers.
  Mr. COOPER: They are other ranks. The hon. Member also spoke of the point raised in the Committee stage in regard to soldiers being employed on the stage and in various capacities. I do not think that it is at all an unseemly occupation

  1085
  for a soldier in his spare time to take part in a serious stage play. I think that, on the contrary, it would be very much better that small parts in stage plays dealing with military affairs should be played by proper men trained as soldiers than by those who are not soldiers, and much more likely to bring discredit upon the British Army.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked why the troops were still retained on the Rhine. He knows that that is not a question for which the War Office can answer. That is a question of foreign policy, and he knows that it is the policy of this Government to withdraw the troops as soon as possible. It was agreed at Geneva last September that we should explore with the French and the Germans the possibility of withdrawing them as soon as possible, and negotiations, I understand, with that object in view are still going on. He asked about the education of these men. They enjoy the same educational facilities as if they were at home. A branch of the educational corps is out there, and those who qualify can equally avail themselves of the facilities for lectures and vocational training. Therefore, they are not worse off in that respect than they are at home. As a matter of fact, they may have the additional advantage of learning a foreign language. [An HON. MEMBER: "And pick up foreign wives as well."] Hon. Members opposite sometimes consider that they are internationals, and I should have thought that they would have regarded this also as a great advantage. I think I have dealt with most of the points raised in the Debate.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Second Resolution agreed to.
  Third Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. KELLY: I should like to ask a question—I am sorry I have not been able to give notice of my intention with regard to Chilwell. In page 194 a very big sum of money is set down in connection with this matter. While we are being asked for only £2,000 for the year 1929 there is facing us in the years to come a sum of £102,000 for the Chilwell Ordnance Depôt. Is this the old Chilwell munitions factory or munitions depôt? It
  1086
  seems to be a very large sum, and I think we are entitled to an explanation. Another point I wish to raise has reference to Singapore. In page 202 of the Estimates a sum of £123,000 is put down for the year 1929, leaving us to face the huge sum of £885,000. What is this money being expended upon? We had this matter in the Air Estimates, where a considerable sum was provided. I believe that we are to be faced with the question in another set of Estimates which we are to consider in the course of a day or two. We have had no explanation why in that distant part of the world we should spend such a huge sum of money except that we are told that we must have some defences in that particular part of the Far East. May we have some explanation given as to the item of £123,000 and as to the amount with which we shall still be faced as far as the Army Estimates go?
  Mr. LAWSON: I want to ask whether we have now reached the limit of expenditure for the Catterick Camp. I think that Members of the Committee know quite well that the original estimate for this camp was somewhere about £1,000,000 for reconditioning. It was subsequently estimated, I think, that it would cost something like £3,000,000 for new accommodation for the housing of the troops and so forth. The total estimate is for £1,438,000. Can we have some guarantee that we have reached the limit of expenditure for this camp? No one begrudges the building of barracks and the making of proper housing accommodation for troops in a part of the world like that where we know it is a very exposed area and no one begrudges the provision of proper recreation facilities for the troops. It was only to be expected that re-arrangements would have to be made in regard to this military centre, owing to the Free State Treaty, and that it would be necessary to expend a considerable amount of money in rearranging for the housing and training of the troops; but the House has some right to expect that, after eight or nine years we have reached some definite limit of this expenditure, and I hope that the Secretary of State will give us some guarantee to that effect.
  Sir HENRY BUCKINGHAM: I should like to preface my few remarks by assuring my right hon. Friend the Secre-

  1087
  tary of State for War that I am not desirous of placing any unnecessary difficulties in his way or in the way of the War Office, but I feel it to be my duty to bring to the notice of the House certain activities of the War Office in my constituency which have caused considerable consternation amongst the residents in the Guildford Division of Surrey. This is also a matter in which the general public are taking a very lively interest, because the War Office has partially enclosed, and is continuing to enclose, certain lands to which from time immemorial the public have had unrestricted access. Whether that unrestricted access was a legal access I am not prepared to argue, but the fact remains that at all times within living memory the public have been able to gain access to this very beautiful land without any restriction whatsoever. The particular piece of land to which I refer forms part of the prettiest portion of Surrey, and includes a place called Kettlebury Hill, a viewpoint which is one of the finest in Surrey and much frequented by the public for recreation and amusement.
  I should like to speak of the sort of activities that the War Office are pursuing. They are erecting, to say the least of it, a very hideous fence around this large acreage of land. A friend of mine who has had experience of savage animals told me that it was very like an elephant kraal. I have no knowledge of what an elephant kraal looks like, but I can assure the House that this fencing, this barbed wire entanglement, which is being erected around this land is quite unnecessarily forbidding to the gentle and long-suffering members of the British public, either for the purpose of exclusion or restraint. Last year, an agreement was come to between the Lords of the Manor of the Common Land which adjoins this particular piece of land to which I am referring, and I think my right hon. Friend will agree that in that matter the Lords of the Manor met him very generously. In that agreement, which was made with Lord Midleton's Committee for the protection of the Surrey Commons last year, it was stated that:
  "The Secretary of State shall do nothing to exclude the public from the common or from the freehold land except when the same may be in use for the purposes of a camp."
  1088
  On the face of it, it looks as if the War Office were making a direct breach of that agreement, but I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend would not do anything of that sort. Whether it can be regarded as an actual breach of the agreement or not, it certainly appears to be a breach of the spirit of the agreement because now, owing to the erection of this fence, the public are restrained from entering this land, which is most desirable land from every point of view and to which they have had access for so many years. I know that my right hon. Friend may say that he is unable to give access to this land owing to the terms upon which he has bought it. If that be the case, I wish to make a suggestion to him that it might be possible for him to introduce into the terms on which he bought, the land a clause so that the public shall continue to have access to the land over the roads which have been cut across the small intervening piece of land for the purposes of the troops. If he could arrange such a thing in the terms of his purchase he would go a long way to allay the feeling of alarm which, undoubtedly, affects the public 10-day as to an infringement of their rights. If my right hon. Friend can see his way to do something of that sort the public would be extremely grateful and he may rest assured that those of us who are anxious not only to maintain any public rights that there may be, but also to encourage as far as we possibly can the necessary activities of the War Office shall do everything we can to help forward that arrangement.
  Mr. HUGH MORRISON: I should like to raise on this Vote the question of the roads of communication of the Southern Command and to make a further appeal to the Secretary of State to consider the closing down of this particular department. I appreciate his attitude towards the Wiltshire Members of Parliament in agreeing to a further extension of the closing date for a period of four months after the 31st March, but I should like to urge upon him to bear in mind that we are in a special position in Wiltshire. This department was started eight or nine years ago, and there is no other work on Salisbury Plain except agriculture and Army work. The men have come from all over the country, and if

  1089
  the department is closed down there will be no work for them to do in the district. The manager of the Employment Exchange in Salisbury views with considerable alarm the prospect of closing down. Some 95 per cent. of the men are ex-service men and 75 per cent. of them are married.
  I have had a communication this morning from a body of my constituents, and on this point I should like specially to ask for the consideration of my right hon. Friend. In Wiltshire, we used to let out the roads to contract, but it was a failure, and they are now under the direct control of the county. If it can be shown that this Department is working at a profit I should like my right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter. Then the amount in this Vote in regard to the scheme of cottage building on Salisbury Plain is very small indeed this year. I am always having it brought to my notice by local authorities in that part of Wiltshire that the War Office might do rather more to house their employés, both military and civil. I know that it is not very easy for an hon. Member to put a question of this kind when everybody is asking for economy, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend and the Financial Secretary are anxious, in any part they play in Wiltshire, to maintain the reputation of the old-fashioned landlord in the best sense of the word.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I desire to draw attention to the proposed new by-laws issued by the War Office in connection with the Sheerness Defences. These Regulations relate to firing practice in the Thames Estuary. Under the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903, the War Department may, with the consent of the Board of Trade, issue Regulations for regulating firing practice. The existing Regulations framed in regard to the Thames Estuary have imposed certain restrictions and limitations in regard to firing practice; first, the area over which firing practice may take place; secondly, the number of days in the year on which firing practice may take place and, thirdly, the number of hours in each day, whether by day or night. The proposed new Regulations go further. They propose to remove, first, the limitation on the number of days upon which firing may take place and also on the number
  1090
  of hours; secondly, they extend the area over which firing may take place.
  I have here a plan showing the proposed extension of the area, which is very considerable. If these new Regulations come into effect the area will be extended eastwards as far as north of the North Knobb Buoy, which will mean the enclosure of a very considerable additional area to that over which firing may now take place. The inconvenience to shipping of all kinds through this very necessary firing practice is obvious, but facilities are afforded to the ordinary coastwise traffic for transit through the area while firing practice is taking place. As regards the fishing industry, the matter is much more serious. A real hardship is imposed on the fishermen who come to these particular waters from the coasts of Essex and Kent and who depend for their livelihood on the captures they can make in these waters. The Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee have asked for an inquiry before the proposed Regulations come into force. This Committee is a statutory body charged with safeguarding the interest of the fishermen of Essex and Kent. If that inquiry is held there will be no difficulty in producing evidence as to the number of men and boats employed in the fishing industry in the Thames Estuary, and the main grounds of objections, which are, first, that there would be an unlimited control by the War Department over almost the whole of the Thames Estuary; secondly, that this particular area is thought to be in excess of what is really necessary for carrying out efficiently the necessary firing practice; and, thirdly, the great disability which will be inflicted on the fishermen of the Kent and Essex coasts in carrying out the earning of their livelihood.
  9.0 p.m.
  These fishermen come from Brightling sea and Tollesbury and Burnham-on- Crouch. There is also a cockle industry carried on on the Macklin Sands, which will also suffer. The importance of this industry can be estimated by the fact that £30,000 worth of fish were caught and landed in this particular area in 1927. The fishermen are perfectly aware of the necessity for this firing practice. They recognise that in this matter the needs of the State are paramount. I recognise that fully as well. I happen to be in command of a

  1091
  brigade of my own county Territorial Artillery and, therefore, I quite realise the necessity for firing practice, but it is obvious that when new Regulations of this kind are made that the interests of a body of fishermen should be fully considered. I have had the privilege on a former occasion in this House to defend the fishermen of Essex. Some six years ago I defended their interests against the encroachment of a private company which desired to enclose for its own use and profit an additional area of fishing in the Thames Estuary; and on that occasion I was successful. I hope I shall be equally successful on this occasion, and I am fortified in that hope, because I am well aware that the Secretary of State for War has always had the interest of the fishermen of Essex fully at heart, and I feel certain that in this matter he will go as far as he reasonably can in meeting the interests of the fishermen in all respects, while at the same time safeguarding the interests of his Department.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I reply to the various questions which have been put to me. First, with regard to the work at Chilwell: We have put in a sum of £2,000 for this work, but no official decision has yet been come to in regard to it. It is a very small sum and would not permit of work continuing through the year, because it would soon be spent. It is rather in the nature of a Token vote, and in order to carry on until we can settle exactly what is wanted at Chilwell. We can then put the work in hand during the year.
  With regard to Singapore, the amount to fie spent has been reduced this year because some of the work of providing artillery has been postponed. It would not be in order for me to discuss the general question of Singapore, whether we ought or ought not to have a base there. All that I can answer for is the, military expenditure. The nature of it is preparation for the establishment of heavy guns to assist in the defence of Singapore. It also means the provision of gunners and a garrison, and of buildings for their accommodation. All of these items are included in the general lay-out of the work under the Army
  1092
  Vote, and the expenditure in this year's Estimate is part of the current expenditure for that work.
  Can I say that there is a limit to be put to the expenditure on Catterick? That is a question that I was asked. In the book of Estimates there, is set out in detail all the expenditure at Catterick. From anything that I can now see I do not anticipate that there will be any large additional expenditure at Catterick. Of course if the number of troops that are to be housed there is increased, that increase will cause extra expenditure, but so far as I know there is no large amount of extra expenditure likely to take place. I do want a little extra expenditure because I want to improve the amenities of Catterick. I do not know whether any hon. Member has been there lately. If is not very well kept at the moment. The roads are very bad. They were inches deep in mud when I was there. That is not good for the men, for they carry the mud into the barrack huts. I am anxious that the roads shall be improved, that there shall be some trees planted and a layout of the gardens. There will be some expenditure on that score this year, but no great expenditure. The contractor originally was not bound to put in the gardens, and that work is now being done.
  Several other matters of real substance have been raised during the Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. H. Morrison) asked me whether the Roads Department could not continue. I have done my best to meet the hardship which inevitably results from closing down any works which employ men. There is some work that will be continued, but the main part of the work has come to an end. The work that will be continued will be continued finally under contractors, but so that there shall not be any abrupt dismissal of men I am spreading the change-over over four months. I do not say that the four months will be rigidly maintained. If great hardship is being caused we must try to see where we can ease the difficulty.
  Mr. H. MORRISON: Would my right hon. Friend inquire if the Department has been carried on at a profit?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There cannot be a profit in removing rubbish which was left over from a camp, or in building roads. There is no profit in that work. You cannot test it by profit unless you say that if it had been put out to contractors they would have charged more than the expense that was incurred by the Department. That question has been gone into. It is because the bulk of the work has come to an end, and because it is impossible to maintain the staff for the smaller number of men to be employed in future, that it is considered that it would cost less to do the work through contractors than departmentally. That is the reason why the change is being made. My hon. Friend also put in a plea for more housing on Salisbury Plain. If my hon. Friend will look at page 198 of the Army Estimates he will see that the Avon Valley housing scheme will cost £195,000, of which £134,000 has been spent. We are continuing it this year, and in future there will be still further sums spent. Larkhill quarters for married officers total £60,000, and £21,000 is to be spent this year. Salisbury Plain quarters for non-commissioned officers and men or civilians—the cost of the scheme is £121,000, and £21,000 is to be spent this year. I can assure my hon. Friend that all the money I can squeeze out has been going into housing. It is a great burden that has to be carried by Estimates which are called military or Army Estimates. Our military expenditure is judged partly by the amount that we have to spend on housing. I cannot hold out much hope that I can spend further sums on housing in the Salisbury district.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon Division (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise) put forward a very eloquent plea on behalf of the fishermen who might be affected by the firing from Harwich. I am very interested that no damage should be done to those who are carrying on their legitimate calling on the sea in the neighbourhood of Harwich. I have personally looked into the proposed regulations to see whether there was any way in which the reasonable fears of the fishermen could be met. Some negotiation has already been taking place between the officers in charge at the War Office and representa-
  1094
  tives of the men. The men have asked that the number of days in July and August during which firing shall take place by day should be reduced to sixteen. We had proposed twenty-five. I cannot reduce the total to sixteen, but I can reduce to twenty and I shall be willing to do that.
  In the same way the men asked that a concession might be made by reducing night firing from eight nights to six. Again, while I cannot contract the area for all purposes I can say this—that the wider danger area will not be wanted on all the days when shooting takes place. We will use half charges so as to keep the danger zone smaller for at least 60 per cent. of the time that we are firing. So I hope that there may be some means of still maintaining what is absolutely essential, namely, the range from Harwich, and yet meet the fishermen and those who wish to use those waters. I can also say that the regulations will not be put into force without local inquiry. That inquiry will be held by the Board of Trade and the fishermen can be represented. I have no doubt that my hon. and gallant Friend wil represent them as well as he has done on other occasions. Of course, my case must also be put. I hope that we shall be able to find some ground which, while preserving the rights of the State, will not necessarily hurt the fishermen.
  I have kept to the last, the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir H. Buckingham) because I wanted to cool down after the attack which he made upon the War Office. He said that the War Office were acting in breach of the Midleton agreement. That was an agreement which was reached after a great many unnecessary fears had been aroused last year that the War Office intended either to enclose certain commons, or to exclude the public from certain pleasure resorts. The War Office never had that view. I will not go into the past but that matter was settled by agreement with the owners of the commons who met me most fairly. We have come to a perfectly amicable arrangement which the War Office intend to carry out to the utmost. When I am charged, therefore, with breach of that agreement and, with the intention of excluding the public from land over which they have hitherto had unrestricted access, that is a serious charge which

  1095
  must be met. The piece of land to which my hon. Friend is referring is Kettle-bury Hill and the land adjoining. That land is not common land and never was common land. It is freehold land which belonged to the Cubitt estate. I have got the land from the Cubitt estate—I think 439 acres—and, by the terms of the lease, I am obliged to put up what my hon. Friend calls hideous fences of barbed wire strands.
  I am obliged by the lease to put up these fences from one point X to another point X, which is all the fencing that I am doing. I am not putting up one yard of fencing that I am not compelled to put up under the lease. These alleyways, these "rides," which are marked "for troops only," are also to be made under the terms" of the lease. I am obliged to do it. I cannot get the lease unless I do it and it is provided that access to the land at the back shall be through these "rides" and shall be only for troops. I am allowed to let the public have access to the land provided I make by-laws to the satisfaction of the Cubitt estate, and the lease says:
  "Any such by-laws or regulations shall give to the public no rights of access, ingress, or egress, from, or to, or over, the several strips of land coloured pink."
  These are the drives which I have marked "for troops only." It is because I am literally compelled by the lease to put up these wire fences and to reserve these entries for the troops only, that I have taken the action which has been taken. Now let me look at something else. The hon. Member said that the public had had unrestricted access to this land from time immemorial. For the last five years the whole of this land has been obstructed and the public has not had access to it. There has been a fence along the whole of this parcel of land. The whole of the 340 acres were fenced in, because that land has been under the Forestry Commission, and the public have been excluded from it. As a matter of fact, the public will have a great deal more access than they have had, latterly at any rate, when our arrangements are complete. As soon as the by-laws are made I intend to throw open to the public the whole of that land which I have leased subject, of course, to military user. I have bought another 600 acres of land on the other side—freehold land—which I intend to
  1096
  throw open to the public too, so that, actually, the public will have not common land, but freehold land which the War Office has bought, as to 600 acres, and which the War Office has leased as to 400 acres—a total of 1,000 acres. The public will have access to that which they have never had before.
  I am surprised that my hon. Friend should have been misled by some of the headings which have appeared in the papers. I am surprised to find that he reads them. I notice one of these papers, the "Daily Chronicle," has headings like this: "War Office breaks pledge to public." "Beauty spot surrounded with barbed wire." "Approach to commons made difficult." "Surrey scandal." "Definite undertaking made last year violated." I have told the House what are the facts. There is not the slightest justification for this sort of political propaganda.—for it is nothing else—that has been indulged in by the "Daily-Chronicle," the "Daily News" and some other papers. I think I have answered all the questions addressed to me by hon. Members, and I hope they will now allow me to have the Vote.
  Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give further consideration to the claim which has been put forward from my constituency in respect of property damaged as a result of firing practice. We have put one or two cases up to the right hon. Gentleman regarding breakages resulting from the very proper and necessary firing exercises which have to take place on the coast, and to which my constituents do not object. They claim, however, that when the military authorities do damage of this kind they should pay for it, and that proper care should be taken to provide beforehand for the property and also for the comfort of the people concerned. In respect to the claims now before the Minister, I want the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers to give this matter further consideration and to take into consideration especially the case of the fishermen. A strong committee of the fishermen on the coast have put forward a case showing that they are not able to ply for their livelihood as a result of these firing exercises as sometimes practised by the batteries. I want the House to remember very distinctly that there is no more patriotic community than that

  1097
  which we have in the Hartlepools and which I have the honour to represent. I think 1915 proved that; and when it comes to pots and earthenware and other household property being broken in this way, it should be remembered that these are the property of poor folk, many of them very poor who cannot afford to fight the War Office in the Law Courts. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt can take up a perfectly legal stand in the matter, but I want to ask him if the Department cannot show a little of the milk of human kindness in this matter. If these claims are just and if the War Office have had the benefit of this firing practice by reason of greater efficiency in the Service, then I think they ought to pay for the breakages and I would ask
  1098
  the Minister to go into our case once again and to see if he cannot do a little more for my people.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Resolutions agreed to.
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes after Nine o'clock.

  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
SCOTLAND.
  SASINES OFFICE STAFF (EXTENSION OF SERVICE).
  SASINES OFFICE STAFF (EXTENSION OF SERVICE).
  HOUSING (STATISTICS).
  HOUSING (STATISTICS).
  EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
POST OFFICE.
  AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE EXCHANGES.
  AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE EXCHANGES.
  OPERATING PROFIT.
  OPERATING PROFIT.
  BAIRD TELEVISION (DEMONSTRATION).
  BAIRD TELEVISION (DEMONSTRATION).
ROYAL NAVY.
  FOOD SUPPLY.
  FOOD SUPPLY.
  RESERVES.
  RESERVES.
  PERSONNEL.
  PERSONNEL.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (FOOD SUPPLY).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (FOOD SUPPLY).
BRITISH ARMY.
  ORDNANCE STORES (STOCKTAKING, JAMAICA).
  ORDNANCE STORES (STOCKTAKING, JAMAICA).
  WAR MEDALS (NATIONAL RESERVISTS).
  WAR MEDALS (NATIONAL RESERVISTS).
  POOR LAW RELIEF, EAST HAM.
  POOR LAW RELIEF, EAST HAM.
  HOUSING (DAISON SCHEME, TORQUAY).
  HOUSING (DAISON SCHEME, TORQUAY).
  COAL INDUSTRY (AMALGAMATION, LANCASHIRE).
  COAL INDUSTRY (AMALGAMATION, LANCASHIRE).
TRANSPORT.
  FINSBURY PARK STATION.
  FINSBURY PARK STATION.
  AUTOMATIC TRAIN CONTROL.
  AUTOMATIC TRAIN CONTROL.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  MOTOR SPIRIT (HOME PRODUCTION).
  MOTOR SPIRIT (HOME PRODUCTION).
  EXPORTS (DENMARK AND THE NETHERLANDS).
  EXPORTS (DENMARK AND THE NETHERLANDS).
  PENTONVILLE PRISON (EX-WARDER R. BAILEY).
  PENTONVILLE PRISON (EX-WARDER R. BAILEY).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, &c.) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before we come to the business upon the Paper, I should like to ask the noble Marquess who leads the House whether he is in a position to make a statement as to future business, and particularly as to the Report stage of the Local Government Bill.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I had thought that it was well understood in your Lordships' House that we were going to ask the House to be so good as to consider the Report stage of the Local Government Bill on Thursday, March 14, but I hear murmurs of a certain doubt about it. I hope, however, that it is quite understood. In order to give the House ample time for the discussion of the Report stage, I was going to ask if your Lordships would be willing to sit after dinner on Thursday, if that be necessary. I do not anticipate
396
a very long discussion upon that stage. Undoubtedly there are a considerable number of Amendments to be inserted, but most of them are agreed Amendments and are not likely to lead to discussion. In case we find ourselves plunged into long discussion, I was going to ask the House to be so very good as to sit after dinner on that day if necessary.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Marquess has said, and I see no reason why the discussion should be a long one. I have been trying up to now to get a copy of the Bill as reprinted with the Amendments inserted in it. I am told that it is now available, but I came down to the House on purpose to get a copy and I failed. I am not quite sure whether on the Report stage, as a, matter of practice if not of order, Amendments have to be put down beforehand in order that they may be considered by your Lordships. I do not know whether any objection will be raised to the form of the Amendments or to the fact that they are stated to your Lordships at the time when they are moved, but we have only to-morrow, and clearly the opportunities for formulating and printing Amendments are very limited.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can only give my opinion for what it is worth. There is no rule of order against moving Amendments without notice on the Report stage, but undoubtedly the practice of the House is to give notice, and it is a very convenient practice, for it is very difficult for your Lordships to discuss manuscript Amendments without having an opportunity of considering them. At the same time I understand that the reprinted Bill is actually in the Vote Office now, and has been there, I think, for some hours. The noble Lord has pointed out that he has only one day in which to consider it, but I am quite certain that a man of his industry does not employ only the daylight hours in which to consider a measure, and therefore I have no doubt that he will make himself familiar with the new additions to the Bill to-night, and that will leave to-morrow in which to formulate Amendments.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not raise any objection if I can be sure of one thing.

397
Supposing one does study the Bill sufficiently to formulate Amendments to-morrow for the Report stage, if such Amendments are sent in before to-morrow night will they be printed in time for the sitting on Thursday?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Oh, yes.

AGE OF MARRIAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be again put into Committee read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I think some words of explanation are necessary in order to show why it is that I ask that the House should once more resolve itself into Committee upon this Bill. The history of this measure might afford the moralist a text for the purpose of showing how easily things go wrong, how easy it is to be misunderstood, and how very difficult it is for people to make their meanings plain to one another. It has come to my knowledge since I first put this Bill down that People have regarded me as acting in this matter on behalf of other people as if I were some kind of conduit pipe for conveying outside ideas to your Lordships' House. The power of representing views that are not your own is a very admirable one in advocacy, and it is indeed essential to a fair administration of the law, but in politics, unless the fact that what you are stating is being stated on behalf of others is made plain, to represent other people's views as your own appears to me to be an act of detestable insincerity, and it is one to which I at least have never stooped.
I would like to tell your Lordships how it was that I became acquainted with this Bill. My attention was drawn to the extract from a paper containing an account of the case to which I called your Lordships' attention. I then at once communicated with a well-known lady who is connected with work for women and girls. She gave me the information that the League of Nations anxiously desires the raising of the marriage age here as an essential step for stopping the traffic in girls, and she told me that there was a Bill ready if I would introduce it, and gave me the Bill. There, from beginning to end, has been my association with outside sources. I may say for myself that when once I read
398
what had happened in the Press, and when once I heard what was desired at Geneva, I became strongly impressed with the view that every day that passed before our existing laws were altered was a day misspent. I placed this matter before your Lordships and told you the facts to which I have referred. I regret to say that it appears to have shocked the susceptibilities of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, who in the course of the debate has complained that I placed before your Lordships details which he has called at intervals, "nauseating," "morbid" and "horrible," and wished that I had based my case on other grounds. It is unfortunate that the facts of life are harsh and grim, and that I cannot make them delicate and rare to suit the noble and learned Lord. Nor will I ever consent to hinting at veiled evils and dealing with them before your Lordships' House in terms of language that might be well adapted to a junior class at Miss Pinker-ton's Academy in Chiswick Mall.
Your Lordships at least showed no feeling that I had in any way overstepped what I considered to be my duty, and gave a welcome to this Bill which, but for the fact that it might have been an unusual phenomenon, would almost show that it was carried by acclamation. From that time difficulties began to arise. If any of your Lordships have any knowledge of attempting to get a Bill through this House, you will know quite well that the operation of finding convenient days is not unlike a game which children sometimes play, when a certain number of children seek to find accommodation on an insufficient number of chairs. At the moment when you think there is a vacant chair and rush to take it you find it is already occupied and have to look for another. There was a very convenient day two days after the Second Reading of the Bill. I agree with what the noble Marquess said. He thought it unwise of me, though I broke no rule of the House, in selecting that day. I only saw there was an empty seat and sat in it at once. But there was more in it than that. I found myself unable, to understand, and I still find myself unable to understand, how members of the House who accepted the principle of a Bill which contained nothing but one clause, that the marriage of persons under

399
sixteen should be void, should think it was possible to do anything in the way of amendment. I was wrong, and I was further misled by this: that the only Amendment put down was an Amendment to declare that such marriages instead of being "void" should be "voidable."
I hope that the use of these words, which are not particularly pleasant ones, misleads no. one. Everyone knows what a void contract is. It is a contract which, when made, has no operation of any sort or kind. It is just as though it had never been. A voidable contract is a contract which either party to the proceedings can declare to be void. Such an Amendment was put down without any qualification at all. It has since been amended. It meant that a man could do exactly what was done in the case I quoted to you. He could live with the girl until she was over sixteen, or any age he pleased, and then declare the marriage void, because he had married her before she was sixteen, and so effect a simple process of divorce which I, even in my most hardened moment, have never ventured to suggest to the House. It appeared to me to be a most monstrous proposal. That is the way in which it struck me. I could not think that such an Amendment could be seriously proposed, and throughout the whole time my anxiety was to get to grips with this astounding Amendment on the floor of this House.
Then Lord Desart asked for further time. The real difficulty is this. Things do not appear to everybody in quite the same way. I very much doubt whether any two of us in this House at this moment are seeing identically the same scene, and I am quite certain that no idea presented to our mental vision appears to any two of us alike. And what seemed to me so simple, and what I was so anxious to do, appeared a very different thing to the noble Earl, Lord Desart; and I think, but for the fact that I was so extremely anxious to get to grips with that horrible Amendment, I should have been prepared at once to admit it. I was not and I regret it; and though I am sure that the noble Earl would be the last person to expect me to apologise to him, I would gladly do so. Then you would have thought that the matter might still have gone right. But
400
it did not, and for another reason. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, I am sure desiring to give advice which I should have been glad to take, did a thing which, I am sure, he did not mean to do. He addressed me in terms which were strangely and unpleasantly reminiscent of the lecture room and I am quite certain that your Lordships would react as I reacted if any such reminiscence as that were ever aroused in your minds. And so instead of the noble Marquess accomplishing what he wished I am afraid he drove the thing further off, and it was left to the clear and cool good sense of the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, to put the matter right. There ended the first chapter.
But the second was quite as full of incident. I then sought to find a suitable day and I found it on a Wednesday, five or six days later, and I announced twice to the House, as you will find in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that that was the day I had selected. Now it so happened that that was the day that had been arranged by the noble Marquess, with the consent of the Leader of the Opposition and my noble friend Lord Beauchamp, to be appropriated to the Local Government Bill. Of that I knew nothing whatever. I had not the faintest idea that any such arrangement had been made. I suppose that these things are forgotten, and they are not the kind of interesting information that you keep in your pocket book. So I said: "Now at last I have my day, and we will have all these Amendments properly and fully debated, for my Bill is right at the top of the list." And there it remained. Nobody—neither the Government Whips nor anybody else—told me that I was already occupying somebody else's seat, and that, unless I wanted to throw myself right across the whole feeling of the House, the sooner I got out of it the better. But that information was conveyed to me late on the Tuesday, the day before my Bill was coming on. What was I to do? To say: "Well, nobody has spoken to me about this; I am entitled to take the day that I have selected"—which nobody could deny—would, of course, have nut me and my Bill in a very awkward and unpleasant relationship to your Lordships, which, above all things, I should desire to avoid. I am quite satisfied that the noble Marquess will at least assent to

401
this, that I have never attempted in any way to impede the business of this House, and that I have even occasionally tried to help its progress, though not always in accordance with the views of those among whom I sit. So I could not do that.
Then I got another day, and I had to go off again. This time there was presented to me a Notice Paper that contained comparatively trivial items of business for the following day. "Well," I said, "those things will not take any time; you can put your Bill down, that will be perfectly satisfactory." I put it down for that day. Unfortunately, the printed list I saw was not the list that had been arranged for the next day at all. Things had got in, two, at least, measures of considerable consequence, and the result was that this unfortunate Committee stage of my Bill, that I was anxious to have, and have fully discussed, before your Lordships' House, never came on until seven o'clock at night. Your Lordships know what happens then. Nobody is very willing to receive mental sustenance at seven o'clock at night in this House—minds are set on other things—and when the Amendment was moved and I proceeded to deal with it, it was obvious that there were several people who were interested in supporting that Amendment, which had now got a little altered; it was a more presentable Amendment, though I cannot say that it was much more palatable to me. Then various things happened. The noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan, explained that they had already in his Communion raised the age to sixteen and fourteen respectively. I thought it was an odd reason why he should not try to help to raise it in ours.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: I said I was in favour of the Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is what so often happens with this unfortunate measure—I never can find out where the opposition comes from, or what it is I have to fight. Anyhow, he was speaking in favour of this Amendment, which I do not think is an amendment of the rules which his Church has introduced. He was followed by Lord Hanworth. Lord Hanworth certainly said things which caused me very considerable pain, quite apart from my being told that I had been using morbid and nauseating
402
language. He reproved me for expressing my indifference to the law, and said:—
"I have such respect for tradition that I prefer the law which has stood and lasted from generation to generation and has proved to be sound, and has found its place constantly in repeated editions, because it is good law."
Well, after that, people who say that the Tories and Lord Eldon are dead must revise their views. For myself, I can imagine nothing that would disturb the true flow of my feelings much more than that, for I tell your Lordships frankly I would as soon worship a gargoyle on the Cathedral of Notre Dame because it happened to be part of a sacred edifice as I would pay the least respect to some vicious and contorted anachronism because it happened to be part of the stately fabric of the law. To show reverence where reverence is not due is to rob reverence of its respect, and devotion of its grace.
Well, at any rate, after that you may well be prepared to believe that the course of true debate did not run smooth. This went on until the noble Marquess got up, moved that the House be resumed, put on the Government Whips, and bludgeoned the life out of the discussion. As I watched the thin stream of independent Peers trickle slowly through my Lobby I could not help saying to myself:
"O! it is excellent
To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant."
We upon these Benches know better than any the bitter truth that is enclosed within those words, but we know also that the use of such machinery is an essential part of Party Government, carried on as it is to-day. We know that it is only through collective agency of that kind that the Government can, as it must do, use every means to carry out its measures. But though we feel that, we do feel at the same time that it is a little hard that the mighty engine of authority should be employed when the matter in dispute is surely not one upon which Party feeling can decide the issue. I have only one favour that I beg, and it is this, that in the ensuing controversies upon this Bill the House be left to its own judgment. Then, if defeat awaits me, as well it may, and the Bill be lost, I shall at least con-

403
sole myself with this, that I have been defeated by the only verdict that I have ever sought, the free, independent and collective judgment of this House.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene at this moment, but the closing words of the eloquent speech to which we have listened called in question, in a very kindly way, the action which I ventured to take on the last occasion when this Bill was before your Lordships, and I think it is only due to the great regard I have for the noble and learned Lord that I should say why it was I ventured to take the action I did take on that day. Let me say in the first place how much I sympathise with the noble and learned Lord in the account which he has given of the fortunes and misfortunes of this Bill. It is indeed a very laborious and often a very ungrateful task for an independent member of your Lordships' House, however distinguished, to pass a Bill through the House without the assistance of the machinery which is at the command of the Government in power. I am very sorry for the noble and learned Lord, all the more because I know that he sets such great store by this important Bill for which he has made himself responsible, and I can assure him he has nothing but the respect of all of us for his earnestness and zeal in this matter.
The one thing he said which I confess did find a joint in my armour was that I had been guilty of the great solecism of delivering a lecture to him upon something or other. I did not believe that charge would ever be made against me in the whole course of my life. In my early life I know there was nothing I disliked so much as lectures. If I erred this time may I express my profound apology to the noble and learned Lord for having ventured to assume the rôle of pedagogue even for a second. That is not at all what I desire to do. Undoubtedly the position of one who seeks even for a few years, to lead your Lordships' House is a difficult one. He has not only responsibility as representing the Government of the day in his own capacity: he has also, if he possibly can, to see that the business of the House is
404
properly conducted, and conducted with due regard to what may be considered the general interests and wishes of the House, and if it appears to a man in my position that the House evidently desire more time for the consideration of a Bill, then I think I should fail in my duty if I did not voice as far as I could what I believed to be the general wish, in order that that should be brought about.
On that occasion I was convinced of it, and, if I may, I will tell the noble and learned Lord why I was convinced. It was this. At an early stage of the proceedings which the noble and learned Lord has related this afternoon to your Lordships, he did tell us that he had behind him the support of a great number of people, which is indeed true, but also I think he said he had the support of representatives of some of the great religious bodies in the country. I observe the noble and learned Lord shake his head. I thought he had said so, but it must have been some other person interested in the matter who told me so. As the debates went on I discovered that was not altogether true. Although every religious body, as far as I knew, approved of his Bill, yet they were not altogether convinced of every particle of it. It appeared in the course of the proceedings that the Roman Catholic body desired a little more time, and I was informed that the authorities of my own Church, the Church of England, also required more time. That made a profound difference in estimating what ought to be done in the circumstances of the moment, and therefore I took the course, which I think almost everybody in my position would have taken as Leader of the House, that appeared to be necessary in order that the matter should be adjourned. If I erred I am very sorry.
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING had an Amendment on the Paper to move, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hesitate, after the speech of the noble and learned Lord, to rise to address your Lordships because of the punishment which he has administered to all of those, except myself I think, who have spoken before. There was a moment when I thought I was alluded to as the gargoyle of Notre Dame, and that I should not like, because I have seen the gargoyle and it is

405
said to be the gargoyle of the devil. I do not think it resembles me at all. On thinking it over, and knowing the real, kindly disposition of the noble and learned Lord, I have come to the conclusion that he did not mean that person. I have an Amendment on the Paper and it is simply for that reason I now rise to address your Lordships. I beg to assure the noble and learned Lord and all of your Lordships, that if this Bill simply raised the age when marriage is possible in this country to sixteen (the age at which he fixes it) I would not have said a word. I think it would have been carried, as the noble and learned Lord said, with acclamation. And that is my view now. If it did only that there would really be no opposition.
If it did that alone it would leave the law of England with regard to the contract of marriage, and what I think many would call the sacrament of marriage, absolutely untouched. But the contract of marriage is not the ordinary contract that the noble and learned Lord seemed to think. He said a contract may be void or voidable, but the contract of marriage involves a great deal more than any other form of contract. It gives a particular status to the man and particularly to the woman. It involves, or it oftens does involve, the bringing into the world of children. Children who come into the world as the result of such a contract as that are legitimate children, bearing their father's name and having all manner of rights and privileges and duties. But this Bill of the noble and learned Lord would make the children of people, one of whom was under sixteen, although born in wedlock, apparently bastards, and to get out of that state they would have to take advantage of some recently passed laws which I need not explain to your Lordships. I thought (and I still think) not that it necessarily follows that the marriage of people under sixteen or of persons of whom one is under sixteen, should not be void, but that it was inexpedient to enact such a great change as that in the law relating to marriage without further consideration and advice.
This Bill touches people of different races who are His Majesty's subjects. It would alter the law, as I have said, as it now stands about marriage, because as the law of England stands a marriage
406
solemnised between people under the statutory age, which is now twelve for a girl and fourteen for a boy, is still voidable. The children born of such a marriage as that—of course they would not be born unless one or other were somewhat older, somewhere on the verge of sixteen—as the law stands at present are not bastards. They are legitimate children with all the rights of such, but the marriage is voidable. It can be avoided if it is expedient that it should be avoided, and that is all I propose with regard to the Bill of the noble and learned Lord. All my Amendments are "horrible Amendments." I am thankful the noble Lord did not compare me with Lord Eldon, as he did my noble and learned friend Lord Hanworth, although I dare say I should survive that and my reputation as a lawyer would rise. But at the worst my Amendments only propose that the law of England with regard to the result of the marriage should be left alone, although the marriage age would be raised to sixteen years.
It seems to me, that that is a question which should be fairly and fully considered. The question is whether the whole foundation of the law of marriage should be altered in an afternoon with practically no discussion, by acclamation as the noble and learned Lord opposite said, or whether those who alter the law should take time to consider all the consequences and should determine whether the marriage should be void ab initio or whether it should be, as at present it is, merely voidable. Therefore in order that that may be considered, not in the heat of debate in this House, but where nobody talks about Lord Eldon, I beg to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of this House.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and insert ("the Bill be referred to a Select Committee").—(Lord Darling.)
LORD DAVIDSON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I venture to appeal to the noble and learned Lord, whose eloquence has delighted us on this, as on many other subjects, to agree that it is desirable that a little more time and inquiry should be given to this Bill before it goes forward to become the law of the land. The sympathy of us all was evoked by the noble and learned Lord in the account he gave us of his position, his

407
reminiscences of musical chairs, and the position in which he is in regard to the Bill. We all feel that. His characteristic cogency, enthusiasm, and eloquence in appealing to us on behalf of this Bill were, I think, absolutely unanswerable. I entirely supported the Second Reading of this measure. I believe we did exactly what was right in giving a Second Reading to the Bill for the reason that we all desire to raise the age of marriage, but when we come to details it is surely in accordance with the ordinary usage of your Lordships' House that some care should be taken to see whether or not any modification in the exact terms is necessary.
I would say to the noble and learned Lord that as regards the purpose which he has put so forcibly before us now and on several different occasions, always usefully and effectively, he is pressing an open door. No one in all the speeches made in the several debates has said one word adverse to the principle of raising the age of marriage beyond what it is now. That is the principle of the Bill as he has told us. That is what he desires to bring about, and I, for one, am whole-heartedly in favour of it. But it is another question to say what the precise form of that alteration should be, or what exactly is the form which the new law should take when the alteration has been arrived at. I think that before we are in a position to discuss that usefully in Committee it is desirable that there should be more time for consideration of the facts, both at home and overseas, which bear very markedly upon the question. This is a matter on which we cannot legislate lightly. I would venture to say with the greatest genuine respect for the arguments of the noble and learned Lord that it would really seem as if he were dealing with some matter, like shop hours, which can quite well be altered if we find that the law does not work well and which does not require any profound consideration of fundamental principles before we arrive at it.
We are here altering the laws of marriage which have prevailed in this country for very many years, and which I think need alteration. You are doing something which will affect not only England but presumably the Dominions overseas, because usually they follow suit in such a matter as this. The matter is a very
408
important one indeed, and the results may last far beyond our time as they will extend far beyond our shores. The particular question upon which difference of opinion first arose was between the words "void" and "voidable." I express no opinion about that. I really do not feel competent to do it. It is a legal question on which no one is better entitled to hold a strong opinion than the noble and learned Lord. It is a question for legal experts and not, it seems to me, for some of us who can make no such claim. But that is not the only point to be considered. I am myself by no means sure what are the best ages to choose. Whether sixteen and fourteen mentioned here——
LORD BUCKMASTER: Sixteen and sixteen.
LORD DAVIDSON OF LAMBETH: Whether sixteen and sixteen are the best ages to choose I am by no means clear, and I think that a great deal, or at any rate a certain amount of careful inquiry is necessary, to find out what has been the experience in our own country and in countries other than our own before we come to a decision which may be of enormous and long standing importance upon the subject. I think we want to know all the relevant facts and I believe that the way in which we can best do that is by referring the Bill to a small Select Committee. This is one of the cases in which what we make permissive on paper may differ widely from what is wanted in practice. The noble and learned Lord brought out most clearly in one of the debates how there have been changes of public, opinion and usage in this matter. His pointed reference to Romeo and Juliet and the rest called our attention to the fact that the age at which marriage is ordinarily contracted is now considerably higher than the age at which it used to be contracted not so many generations ago. He called attention to that, and we have very clear evidence of it if we look into the facts as recorded in registry offices and elsewhere.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, as such, has necessarily a great deal to do with that. It was my duty for many years to preside over various offices in which marriage licences are given, and the three of them, the Faculty Office, the Vicar-General's Office and the Diocesan

409
Registry, were all constantly under my supervision. I carefully examined what was happening with regard to marriages. I have been interested, on examining the facts now, to note how very few licences were issued for the marriage of a girl, not under fourteen but under eighteen. The numbers of marriage licences issued from those offices even for a girl under eighteen are exceedingly few, much fewer than people who have not thought about it realise. I agree that the consent of the parents has to be given for the marriage of a minor, whether bride or bridegroom, and in any ease of the marriage of a girl under eighteen the consent of the parents would not be regarded alone as adequate by those responsible, but they would look into the matter further.
In the Vicar-General's Office and in the Faculty Office, where hundreds of licences are issued every year, great care is taken not only to see that the parents have consented to the marriage of a girl of seventeen, but to see whether on other grounds it is desirable The Vicar-General himself has looked carefully into all such cases, and the matter has been carefully considered in every case that has come up. The number of such cases is indeed very few. In 1926, 624 licences were issued through the Vicar-General's Office and of those three were for girls under eighteen; in the next year out of 613 there were two for girls under eighteen; and last year out of 535 there were three. That is to say, there were eight such licences applied for out of 1,772. It is perfectly true to say that we are advancing markedly from what used to be the case a few generations ago as to the age at which people applied for or obtained marriage licences.
That is not all. Your Lordships will remember how the noble and learned Lord a fortnight ago called our attention to the importance of a common standard of marriage being established so far as possible among the various nations who meet at Geneva to discuss these questions. He spoke with effectiveness on the terrible reasons why this matter is brought urgently to our notice by some of those who have at heart the welfare of our women and children—the white slave traffic and all the rest. He said emphatically—and I agree with him—that we ought to be the very first to arrive at the best possible solution of the marriage
410
age. To find ourselves in the lower grade as compared with other nations is an exceedingly undesirable and humiliating position. What are the facts as regards a common standard? He said that a common standard was necessary as regards the different nations who have their marriage laws under consideration. We find ourselves in the position of being in the lowest grade of the nations as regards the age laid down by our marriage laws.
We find great variety among the nations in the age for marriage, but a still greater variety as to the correspondence between the age given as the minimum age of marriage and the age of consent, a most difficult point and deserving very careful consideration indeed. In twenty-three countries at this moment the minimum age of marriage is higher than the age of consent, which is all in the direction which the noble Earl would desire. In our country the age is much lower. We find ourselves in that respect in rather strange company. Great Britain, Greece, Siam, Venezuela, Cuba and one or two others are in that category. I do not think it is a satisfactory thing that we should pass that lightly by. When we look into it further we find there may be interesting arguments as to the reasons for the different rules in different countries. I will remind your Lordships of what these ages are. In France the age is eighteen for a man and fifteen for a woman; in Germany, twenty-one for a man and sixteen for a woman; in Norway, twenty and eighteen; in Sweden, twenty-one and eighteen; in Switzerland, twenty and eighteen; in Japan, seventeen and fifteen. Then comes a great group in which Great Britain has a prominent place. Greece, Great Britain, Venezuela, Poland, Cuba and our Australian Dominions have the ages of fourteen and twelve. Turkey is higher than England with fifteen for both sexes. In Spain the ages are sixteen and fourteen, while in the United States there is a very great variety among the different States of the Republic.
These figures cannot be taken quite simpliciter because examination shows that in many, though not all, of these countries there are possibilities of obtaining leave to marry under the age mentioned with the consent of the parents and of a magistrate who may give special permission. It would be a

411
mistake to take these figures as themselves ultimate and decisive in the matter. Roughly speaking, this is quite clear. We in England stand with a group of nations with whom, however much we may respect them, we do not usually find ourselves markedly acting in common when we and other nations are discussing questions of this kind. That being so, it is beyond question that a further inquiry is desirable. If, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has urged, we are to get sonic uniformity of system and if we are to be foremost, or among the foremost in bringing about such a change, we need a further examination of two or three different sets of facts. First, there is the relation between the age of marriage and the age of consent. That is exceedingly difficult, as any one who reads the full paper of the League of Nations will see. Any one who does that will see that different countries have come to different conclusions. Next, there is the question as to "void" or "voidable." There is a good deal to be said on either side and I am not prepared to express judgment on that as it is a legal question. Then there is the important question of what is the right age to be fixed for allowing marriage.
All these call for examination and the material is ready for us. If we refer this matter to a Select Committee it does not mean that they have to make inquiries throughout Europe or bring witnesses from overseas. The material is in documentary form and easily consulted, and they will find arguments there which have not been brought forward in this House with regard to a good many of these different facts. All that is a legitimate argument for spending some time now before we are asked to come to a decision, bearing on our social life both at home and over-seas, which may be so far reaching in its consequences and so long standing in its durability. It is to me intolerable that, in the inquiries which are now beng made and in the efforts which are being put forward to remedy all the horrors of the white slave traffic and the rest, Great Britain should find herself constantly exposed to the taunt that for all we say about what we desire in these things, our age of marriage is far lower than that of the other nations with whom we are contending. For that
412
reason I am wholeheartedly with the noble and learned Lord in his desire to get this matter considered in such a way that it can be fully judged and examined on all the available information. That is a step which, I think, ought to be taken in a matter so far-reaching before we go any further. Accordingly I entirely approve of the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the only question involved at present is between a Committee of the Whole House and a Select Committee. I agree with much that the noble Lord, Archbishop Davidson, has said, but, having occupied for twenty-five years the position of Vicar-General, I know that the evils at which this Bill aims are fortunately not of common occurrence. It is very important that this matter should be fairly considered at the present time, because it is being considered as an international question at Geneva by a great many people and, as matters stand, this country is really in the lowest grade so far as the age at which marriage is allowed is concerned. I do not want to go into the questions raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling. I think that would be premature, but I wish to state most clearly that in my view these marriages ought to be void and not voidable, and that this is how the law stands.
I would quote in that connection Lord Stowell's well-known dictum that marriage stands in contract. The entire question, so far as our law is concerned, is as regards the contract of marriage, and the age should be made higher than it is now because the ages of fourteen and twelve are to be regarded as ages at which a contract of this kind cannot be entered into. The age was fixed because it was thought that the parties concerned were incapable of entering into the contract in question. I do not wish to go further on that point. Surely the House itself, in a matter of this importance, is a better tribunal than a Select Committee. I quite agree that all the facts have already been ascertained. I do not think that there is any question of taking evidence or anything of that kind. It is the principle that is the matter for discussion, and there is no place where it can be discussed more profitably or in

413
a wider sense than in the House itself. I hope, for these reasons, that the Bill will not be sent to a Select Committee but will be decided by discussion in your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, as a very humble member of the Bar, but one who has had considerable experience of cases that raise this question, I think it possible that I might be allowed to address your Lordships very shortly. I have met very many eases that raise this very difficult question and I am perfectly certain that this is not a matter that ought to be decided absolutely on a short discussion without careful consideration by people who are familiar with these questions. One point was made in a very short speech by the mover of this Amendment, Lord Darling, with which I do not find myself in agreement. He said that the ages of marriage were fourteen and twelve, but that, of course, you would not get children born at those ages, though you might get a child born when the girl was fourteen years of age. I have come across two cases in my experience at the Criminal Bar of a girl under twelve having a baby. These are things that have to be gone into and we have to see what the result is going to be. I would only say—I said that I was going to say a very few words and I am sitting down on this—that my experience in these matters has been carried over a considerable number of years at the Criminal Bar and I think it would be deplorable if this House decided the marriage age without due consideration by a Committee of the views of people who have experience in these matters and who know a good deal about what happens in practice.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, as a plain member of your Lordships' House, I must say that I find myself hopelessly confused and puzzled by this discussion. We had a speech from the noble and learned Lord who moved to refer the Bill to a Select Committee and we had a longer speech from the noble Lord, Archbishop Davidson. They told us a large number of interesting things about the marriage law and the practice in this and other countries, and they said there were all sorts of interesting matters that might be enquired into. So, no doubt, there are, but I cannot feel the difficulty. The
414
question, to my mind, is a very simple one. Do we or do we not think it unseemly, and even disgusting, that marriages should take place at the age at which the English law now allows them to take place? If we feel that—and we do not require a Select Committee to tell us whether we feel it or not—why should we not at once remedy the position? I do not care if the remedy causes some possible inconvenience. I dare say that inconvenience arises from the ages of marriage being fourteen and twelve. The question is one that we can all perfectly well answer for ourselves. Do we think that this is a disgusting state of things and ought not to continue? Nothing that I heard this afternoon seems to me to go very far towards answering that question. The noble Lord, Archbishop Davidson, said that the question between "void" and "voidable" was a legal question. It is nothing of the sort. It is a question that we can perfectly well understand for ourselves. It is the question whether we are going to allow these horrible marriages to take place or not. For my part I require no instruction from a Select Committee and no looking up of ecclesiastical precedents to guide my vote.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I cannot but think that it is unfortunate that this Amendment should have been moved, and particularly that it should be pressed. In spite of the arguments that have been addressed to you by my noble and learned friend, I feel that this Bill, as has been said so frequently, is a very simple one. Let me remind your Lordships of one point that seems somehow to have dropped out of Consideration. When the noble Lord, Archbishop Davidson, was speaking it struck me that we seemed to be omitting the fact that it is already a criminal offence to have intercourse under the age of sixteen. That is already settled and there is nothing to enquire into. What is the 'Select Committee supposed to do? Is it suggested that the Committee is to enquire whether that age should be lowered? I do not think this could be done under this Bill. The only question is one of marriage. Having started from that point, all that this Bill is attempting to do is to enact that that which is a criminal offence shall not be

415
rendered an act for which no punishment or penalty can be imposed provided there is marriage.
The question was mentioned by the mover of the Amendment, my noble and learned friend Lord Darling, of marriages being voided by a person being under age. Surely the whole question is this. I need not remind your Lordships of the stages through which we have passed, and how, for reasons which appeared to be stronger each time, we have altered the law with regard to the age of consent. We have done that deliberately, because it is thought to be immoral, unwise, and injurious to the welfare of the people generally that these things should be. Why then should we not all say that a marriage with a person under that age is to be void? I confess that I am more puzzled than ever after hearing the speech of Lord Davidson, because of the suggestion which he made, as I understood, that there might be as a result of this Select Committee some change made—that you might require to lower the age at which a girl could be married; that is to say, less than sixteen. Therefore it would mean that the Select Committee was going to enquire into the possibility of making that which is now a criminal offence, and must remain a criminal offence until the law is altered, no longer an offence if a marriage takes place.
It is difficult to understand the reasoning. If a thing is wrong under the age of sixteen how can it become right if it is cloaked by a marriage? That was the whole point that puzzled me as I listened to the argument. I know full well that difficulties do arise in the Courts with regard to age, but they always will arise, and those are matters surely which we have not to consider. All that my noble and learned friend is asking in the Bill is that we should say that a marriage of persons under a particular age should be void. The second, and I think only other ground on which it is said that there should be further consideration by a Select Committee, is, as proposed by Lord Darling in his Amendment, whether the marriage should be voidable at the instance of the person under age. Here, again, may I ask your Lordships to consider whether there is any reason why we should seek to perpetuate the law? If you once declare by your law that
416
henceforth such a marriage is void there can be no difficulty about it. I have no doubt that your Lordships are affected by considerations of the legitimacy or otherwise of children, but it seems to me best to declare the law by this very simple Bill and to clear up any doubt with regard to it. Having done that, it is very difficult to understand what a Select Committee is to do in regard to this matter.
I cannot help recalling to my mind a question of this kind which arose while I was in India, where an attempt was made to pass a Bill raising the age of marriage, and there were many difficulties into which I need not enter. Your Lordships may remember that there was a book written upon the subject. The same kind of argument was used and the Government had to accept a Bill with some alterations by which there could be marriage at thirteen, but the age of consent remained at fourteen. Since that time those interested have failed to understand why it was that this change had to be made. What is said now is very much the same thing. I would ask your Lordships to say with regard to the two points that have been put that there is nothing for the Select Committee to consider and no reason why we should not come to a conclusion.
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, who moved that the House should go into Committee upon this Bill, began his speech by moralising upon the extreme difficulty there is in one person conveying his thoughts in clear meaning to another. As he went on in his speech, and was good enough to refer to what I had said, or what he thought I had said, or the meaning which I had conveyed to him, I could not help thinking how very cogently he had proved his opening remarks. I did not rise, however, to make any further remarks about that, and I will not detain your Lordships on such trivialities. What I did rise to say was that all the speakers were in favour of this Bill passing. I want it to pass in the most perfect form, and to pass in a way in which it shall not be discovered hereafter that it has caused either difficulty or injustice to one spouse or the other, or to any children.
There are questions connected with this subject which apparently to the noble

417
Marquess who spoke last, present no difficulty, but they may present some difficulty to some minds. May I remind your Lordships that if we want this Bill to pass we must not only pass it ourselves but secure that it shall pass in another house; and that when this matter comes before the House of Commons it will come with greater force and make a stronger appeal, I am confident, if it has come after due deliberation and after a Select Committee has considered it? If it goes down in its present form, without further consideration, after having merely been considered in a Committee of your Lordships' House, I feel quite certain, with some knowledge of the House of Commons, that there will be an even greater divergence of views presented there than has been presented here. This divergence might be overcome and brought into agreement if it were known that this Bill was sent down from this House after most careful investigation and consideration by a Select Committee, and that your Lordships had come to the conclusion that the right age had been chosen, that it was unnecessary to add any other clause, and that the interests alike of both spouses, in all circumstances, and their possible children, had been preserved and provided for. It is in that spirit that I shall certainly support Lord Darling's proposal, for I believe that we are thus taking a step which is in the interests of the success of the Bill.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord knows, from the very first my object has been only to obtain an inquiry, and therefore it is quite obvious that I shall be a supporter of Lord Darling's Amendment. The noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, said just now that this was a simple Bill, and he, like Lord Buckmaster, agreed that, as a necessary and regrettable consequence of the Bill to other people, it would produce the illegitimacy of the offspring of any union under the age in question, and would prevent a child being legitimised, whoever might be willing to consent to the union being turned into a legitimate marriage. Well, among other things which call for an inquiry are those very questions, and there was a curious illustration of that in something quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Davidson, about
418
one of the countries to which he referred, when he spoke about provision for the consent of parents. I have in my hand particulars of three or four cases in which children have been conceived, the parents of both the boy and the girl said, "For heaven's sake, let them marry", they were married, and the child became legitimate in consequence. Whether those marriages turned out well or ill I do not know, because nothing was heard about them. So there is no presumption either way.
I do not suppose that Lord Buckmaster has been able to trace from the statistics what has happened in these cases. It would be difficult to do so. But it is some evidence that nothing very serious happened when we find that no separation order has been applied for. Separation order: are now easily—too easily—applied for, and where there is matrimonial trouble the cases come before the magistrates pretty quickly. It is not as if by making marriages void you affect morality. The immoral connection is the first evil, and it is independent of Acts of Parliament—it is propinquity, opportunity and character which are the cause. There is the connection and the child, and what you do in this Bill is to make it absolutely impossible to give any remedy, to legitimise the child, to give the mother a status by which she is entitled to maintenance and support from her husband, instead of being thrown back upon an affiliation order as the only remedy. It would be interesting to find out how frequent those cases are. I have four here, which can be proved. In one case that was brought before the Court the learned Judge who tried the case approved of there being no prosecution, in order that this might be done. It is not quite correct to say that the defence under the Act of 1922 to the charge no longer exists. It remains a defence in some cases and in many of these the girl looks far older than her real age. It frequently happens that girls who look over age, for the purpose of getting marriages solemnised before the registry, make false statements as to their age and as to the consent of their parents. That is very common.
I only refer to these things as matters about which evidence can be obtained. Lord Parmoor, I think, said he did not

419
see whom you could ask outside this House. I think there are sources from which a good deal of evidence can be obtained, and I am sure this Bill will have a much better chance of passing if such inquiries have been made. I therefore certainly shall support this Amendment, as a thing that will produce the sort of inquiry for which I have always sought, and not from any hostility to the Bill. In fact, I believe if it had been introduced in a different form, leaving the law of England as it stands, and merely saying that the age of marriage should be changed, it would have passed without difficulty. But where you make the marriage void you raise other problems which at least deserve consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am in this position: I think if I were asked now to vote upon the issue—void or voidable—I should vote for void and against voidable, because on the whole the argument which the noble and learned Lord advanced on a previous occasion, and I think mentioned to-night., that it is really in the public interest to discourage these marriages altogether, prevails. But I recognise that the point raised is a very difficult one, and there are considerations of great importance on both sides. But that is not the issue we are trying at this moment. The Question which has been put from the Woolsack is whether we should have this Bill considered by a Committee of the Whole House or by a Select Committee. That is, in one sense, only a question of procedure. It is only a question as to which form of your Lordships' methods is the better one for the purpose, and there is no doubt that, for consideration in detail of difficult issues of this kind, a Select Committee is in many respects the more suitable plan of the two.
An appeal has been made to your Lordships to give that opportunity. That appeal has been made by noble Lords of great importance in this House. There is the most reverend and noble Lord who sits upon the Cross Benches (Lord Davidson). There are the learned Judge, Lord Darling, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Desart, with his great legal experience. They have all asked that this should be considered in a Select Committee. Why should it not be considered in a. Select Committee? What is
420
to be lost by considering it in a Select Committee? I should think what the noble and learned Lord would say is that it is time that would be lost. There is nothing else that should be lost. I should not think it ought to take very long to consider the Bill in Select Committee. Your Lordships are not accustomed to dawdle in matters of this kind, and really it lies in the hands of the House and of the members of the Committee. I agree that the net ought not to he thrown too wide. I was a little nervous at one or two words which were used by the most rev. and noble Lord just now. I should be sorry to see the whole question ripped open; that might take rather long. But, as to the sort of issues which are raised in the Bill, these ought not to take very long, and surely it is a very strong measure to refuse an inquiry if it is asked for.
After all, everybody knows that legislation, even of this importance, coming from an independent Peer, has very little chance of passing into law this year. I agree that it is conceivable it should, but only by general consent. That is obvious. Nothing else could carry it. Are you likely to get general consent if you are obliged to confess that you have refused an inquiry? I must say I think that in the interests of the Bill itself—I with my noble and learned friend behind me in that respect—much its best chance is to let it have a Select Committee. To pass the Bill as it were in the teeth of a request for an inquiry, and carry it perhaps through your Lordships' House, then send it to another place and expect them to pass it sub silentio—really it is incredible; whereas if, as the result of the inquiry by a Select Committee, there was practical unanimity in your Lordships' House and in public opinion outside, then it is conceivable, though I am afraid not very likely, something might be done. For those reasons, not that I am an enemy of the Bill, not even that I oppose the noble and learned Lord upon the specific issue of void and voidable, but in the general interest of business and of the Bill itself, I should have thought the noble and learned Lord would have done wisely to accept a Select Committee.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, it would be a very easy thing for me to accept the proposal, to agree with my

421
noble friend Lord Desart and say we will accept the special inquiry, and let the matter end. It would be a very easy thing to do, but I am quite satisfied that by doing it I should kill the Bill. It is perfectly plain to anybody, I think, who has heard this discussion that if this Bill is referred to a Select Committee, and the Select Committee considers the history and the variety of cases and proceeds to call evidence and to enquire, the chances of this Bill getting through in the lifetime of this Parliament are so remote that they need not be considered. I do not share the view that your Select Committee here is going to impose this Bill upon another place. My own belief is that the Bill, introduced into another place would meet with universal acceptance, and the matter would end. I may be wrong, but those are the reasons that move me.
I will deal further in detail with what it is that it is said this Committee should do, but first of all I would like to ask the noble Marquess, who is thoroughly familiar with the procedure of this House, if he can recall any case where a Bill, after passage of its Second Reading and after considerable discussion in this House, has been referred to a Select Committee against the will of the Peer who was responsible for its introduction? I, of course, have only had the opportunity of sitting here for some fourteen years, but I can recall no such case. I do not say for a moment that such a case may not have, existed, but I do say that the ordinary procedure with regard to Select Committees—and the noble Marquess will correct me if I am wrong—is this, that when the Bill is brought before the House in the first instance it is often made a condition of the acceptance of the Second Reading that it shall be sent, to a Select Committee, as was done in the case of the Bill of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, which referred to motor traffic. Again, even if that is not done, it may be that the Bill is of such a character that it involves highly difficult and technical matters which are incapable of being discussed upon the floor of the House. A Bill relating to some electrical undertaking would, I think, answer that description. It would necessarily follow then that such a Bill would be referred to a Select Committee. But to conduct the business of your Lordships' House
422
through the medium of a Select Committee is, I submit, to run straight across the whole course of Parliamentary procedure.
All who are interested in public questions are, I respectfully submit, entitled to have them discussed and debated in the public light of this House and on the floor of this House and not elsewhere. Personally I should resist the idea that I should have imposed on me the opinion of people, however eminent, however wise they might be, who had been influenced by arguments which I had never heard. The reference, therefore, to a Select Committee of cases in regard to which your Lordships are competent to form a judgment is to my mind not only an unusual thing but a thing which I most earnestly ask the House not to force upon a private member, because that would be depriving him of what I submit is his strict and proper right. That being so, what are the reasons—the special technical reasons—that are to take this Bill out of what I do believe everyone of you would accept as being the normal and proper course of Parliamentary procedure? Really I am positively puzzled.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said I do not know how many difficulties he had to meet with. I know he has had to meet with difficulties, but those difficulties have nothing to do with this Bill, nothing at all. The cases he is referring to, no doubt, are cases of outrages upon children—sad, horrible, terrible cases—but they have nothing to do with this Bill. What is the difficulty he has had to meet with that you are to refer to the Committee? I ask the noble Earl, Lord Desart, who has given much thought to this matter, what is it that the Committee is going to do with regard to those cases he mentioned—the four cases where the people got married? Are you to say: "Well, then, you had better not pass your Bill because four people got decently married and the end was good"? Why, the whole object of this Bill is to prevent that from happening in the future. Be it so. What is there that is left? The League of Nations has said in plain terms that the raising of this age is essential if you are to stop the traffic in girls, because the bait of marriage is one of the commonest of all the baits used to lure these girls away from their security, and the bait

423
is absolutely the same whether your marriage be voidable or void. It makes no difference.
For the rest are you going to say that you are really not fit to decide whether a marriage should be voidable or void, that there is a special and extra case upon which you desire to be informed and not to argue on the floor of this House? I most respectfully submit to your Lordships that to come to that conclusion is to abrogate your true position. We are here to decide that very class of thing. There is no mystery about the law. The whole of this legal notion has really been raised for the purpose of suggesting that there is some extraordinary legal obscurity which requires to be removed. I have the gravest doubt whether the law is as it has been stated to be, but that I do not care about, because, even if it is, my own opinion is that the sooner it is altered the better for everybody must it be. While the Common Law may have declared that this is or is not the law that regulates questions of marriage, the Canon Law declared in the plainest terms in 1812 that:—
"Civil disabilities, such as a prior marriage, want of age, idiotcy, and the like make the contract void ab initio not merely voidable."
Therefore the whole of this agitation has been based upon an assumption that the law is what I think it is extremely doubtful it is, but, whether it is or not, now we are to have a Select Committee to examine this matter.
Again, if there is going to be evidence called I cannot think what it is going to be. We do not want to be told what is the result of men marrying these children. You do not want to be told
that by doing that they escape the result of their crime. That we know. You do not want to be told what people are saying in Geneva. They have told us that already. There is no need for a Select Committee for that. In the end this matter really comes down to this contrast between a thing that is void and a thing that is voidable, and, as I have already pointed out, the ecclesiastical law has already declared that these marriages were void as the law stands, keeping and maintaining the position which the noble Lord, Lord Hanworth, said was so enormously important.
I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. I do believe there is a chance for this Bill. I am not prepared to let one single day go by before I have done my best to remove what I regard as a great evil. I am not prepared to let a single day go by before I do my best to provide what the League of Nations says is a safeguard against girls who are lured into lives of shame and misery, and I cannot accept the delay even of a further six months, which is the very least that can be hoped for in the present political position of affairs before this Bill can be again considered. Your Lordships may think otherwise, but I claim the right which I say has not been taken away from private Peers during my experience in this House and oppose a course which I say is to cut straight across the whole course of Parliamentary procedure.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to he left out shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lawrence, L.

Monkswell, L.

Buxton, E.

Knutsford, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Parmoor, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Redesdale, L.

Northbrook, E.

Sandhurst, L.

Russell, E.

Arnold, L.

Sandys, L.

Strafford, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

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

Allendale, V.

Buckmaster, L.[Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hemphill, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hood, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Wharton, L.

NON-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Halsbury, E.

Midleton, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Onslow, E.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Iveagh, E.

Plymouth, E.

Lucan, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Bath, M.

Macclesfield, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Danesfort, L.

Hanworth, L.

Novar, V.

Darling, L. [Teller.]

Howard of Glossop, L.

Peel, V.

Daryngton, L.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon., L.

Davidson of Lambeth, L.

Jessel, L.

Addington, L.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.) [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Bledisloe, L.

Dynevor, L.

Saltoun, L.

Carnock, L.

Ernle, L.

Sinclair, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Templemore,

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Order for the House to Committee discharged, and to a Select Committee.

BRIDGES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
Moved, That the Report be now rereceived.—(The Marquess of Londonderry).
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, on the Second Reading of this Bill I suggested to the noble Marquess that I might possibly desire to put down some Amendments and he was good enough to give ample time before the Committee stage. The Amendment that I should have specially desired to put down would have been one to the effect that railway companies might be ordered to give facilities for new roads by Order of the Ministry of Transport for new bridges to be built over their lines. That would have been a highly controversial Amendment, and I have ascertained by inquiry that this is practically an agreed Bill. I therefore put no Amendment down. I do not want in any way to interfere with the passage of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 1:
Application of Act.
(2) The powers conferred by this Act on a highway authority shall be exercisable—
(a) in the case of a bridge in a county borough, by the council of the borough.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY)THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY) moved, in subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (a), to insert: "(b) In the case of a bridge in the City of London by the Common Council of the City." The noble Marquess said: This Amend-
426
ment is put down because it is desirable to include the City of London among the highway authorities who may take action under the provisions of this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("(b) In the case of a bridge in the City of London by the Common Council of the City").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
Clause 3:
Power to make orders as to reconstruction, maintenance, etc., of bridges.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act the Minister on any such application may make an order, and may by the order—
(c) modify, so far as he considers necessary to give effect to the order, any statutory provisions applicable to a bridge other than the provisions of any general Act; so, however, that, in the case of a bridge crossing a railway or a canal, he shall not without the consent of the owner of the railway or canal modify any provisions relating to the headway of that bridge or the width of the canal and, in the case of a swing bridge, he shall not modify any provisions relating to precedence of traffic;
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (e). The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph (e) introduces the Minister and says that, notwithstanding any statutory provisions, he may modify, so far as he considers necessary to give effect to the Order, any statutory provisions applicable to a bridge other than the provisions of any General Act. The effect of that is that, the railway companies having agreed with the Minister that he shall not exercise these powers where they are concerned, the Minister is left to exercise these powers and over-ride statutory provisions in the ease of private people. I therefore desire to leave out that provision. It is of no use in the Bill. Leaving it out would not affect the Bill, but it would emphasise the opinion held

427
in both Houses that the power of Ministers to vary Acts of Parliament must stop. If it is thought necessary to alter an Act of Parliament, let us alter it, but do not let us leave it to the opinion of a Minister to decide whether he will alter it or will leave it.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, leave out paragraph ("(e)").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the noble Lord is always very vigilant in defending the rights of the private individual and I feel sure that most of your Lordships are thoroughly in agreement with him on that principle. I would suggest to him that in this Bill the dangers which he sees really do not exist and that the powers invested in the Minister are of a very limited and minor character. In the first place, he cannot alter the effect of any Public Act as applied to a bridge and in the second place the Minister can only alter the effect of a Private Act in so far as it is necessary to give effect to the Order. I mean by that that he can only do so in cases where the provisions of the Private Act would defeat the intentions of this Bill. All the really vital points from the owner's point of view, such as the headway, or the width of a canal, and the precedence of traffic, are specifically excluded.
The sort of provision in a Private Act which might have to be modified would be one providing that a bridge should be maintained to a certain width between the parapets. Unless the Minister was in the position to modify such a provision it would be impossible for the bridge to be reconstructed to a width adequate to the volume of traffic on the road. One of the main objects of the Bill is to provide a ready means for overcoming impediments which are created by the provisions of Private Acts. Without such means, reconstruction of a bridge maintained by a statutory undertaking might in many cases require a separate Act of Parliament. The noble Lord will see that the object of the Bill is to overcome all those difficulties which now exist by reason of there being no powers for the highway authority to be brought in contact with the owners for the purpose of removing disabilities or for the proper working of
428
all the matters connected with bridges throughout the country.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: To what bridges does this clause actually apply? It does not apply to railway bridges or bridges over canals.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think the noble Lord is wrong. It does apply to bridges over canals.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Then I do not understand the object of these words of the paragraph:—
"so, however, that, in the case of a bridge crossing a railway or a canal, he shall not without the consent of the owner … modify any provisions."
That, of course, I agree to. If it is applied to bridges crossing a canal, what is the use of it?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I thought I had been able to explain to the noble Lord that there are various provisions in Private Acts which it is only possible to overcome by another Private Act. This Bill enables the Minister to make such Orders for the purposes of this Bill as are necessary to bring bridges up to the requirements of modern traffic.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Then what it amounts to practically is this. If there is a bridge with certain provisions under a Private Act then, with the consent of the owners, certain things can be done. If that is so, I have no objection to it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I can say to the noble Lord that nothing will be done under this Bill which is not in accordance with our modern ideas. I doubt very much whether any occasion will arise when the Minister will find himself in conflict with any private individual.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) Before making any. Order under this section with respect to a bridge in a Metropolitan borough upon an application to which the London County Council are not parties, the Minister shall consult with that council."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment provides that before any Order is made by the Minister in respect of a bridge in the administrative County

429
of London he shall consult with the London County Council unless they are parties to the application. The position in London is a peculiar one in that the Metropolitan boroughs are the highway authorities but the London County is the improvement authority for the whole County.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 4, line 27, at the end insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
Clause 4 [Provisions as to bridges of railway and canal companies]:
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage there were a number of Amendments introduced by my noble friend Lord Younger. They were all incorporated in the Bill, but we have found that they can be put into the Bill in a better form and I therefore move the same Amendments in another form. This is the first of this series of Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("an Order made under this Act").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("company or dock authority") and insert ("owners of a bridge").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("company or dock authority") and insert ("owners").
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("company or dock authority") and insert ("owners").
Page 5, line 28, leave out ("company or dock authority") and insert ("owners").
Page 5, lines 34 and 35, leave out ("company or dock authority") and insert ("owners of the bridge").
Page 5, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("the railway or canal or lock, passage or other work") and insert ("that railway, canal, lock, passage or work").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
Clause 6 [Apportionment of Costs]:
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I have a number of drafting Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 40, after ("authorities") insert ("entitled to exercise with respect to the bridge the powers conferred by this Act").
page 7, line 3, leave out ("or any") and insert ("of a railway company or of a canal company or a").
page 7, line 5, leave out from ("the") to ("by") in line 7, and insert ("owners of that railway, canal, lock, passage or work").
page 7, line 7, leave out from ("alteration") to ("due") in line 9, and insert ("thereof").
page 7, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("company or authority") and insert ("owners").
page 7, line 31, leave out ("or lock or passage") and insert ("of a railway company or of a canal company or a railway, lock, passage or other work of a dock authority").
page 7, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("owner of the railway or canal or lock or passage") and insert ("owners of that railway, canal, lock, passage or work").
page 7, lines 38 and 39, leave out ("of the railway or canal or lock or passage") and insert ("thereof").
page 8, line 2, leave out ("for") and insert ("of").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following new clause:—
For protection of Weaver Navigation Trustees.
" . An order made under this Act with respect to a bridge owned by the Weaver Navigation Trustees shall not without the consent of the Trustees either require any reconstruction or improvement of the bridge to be carried out otherwise than by the Trustees or direct the structure of the bridge to be maintained otherwise than by the Trustees or transfer the property in the structure of the bridge to a highway authority or in the case of a swing bridge require the bridge to be operated otherwise than by the Trustees."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was put down on the Committee stage, when the noble Marquess promised to give it his consideration. I understand that he is prepared to accept it in its present form and accordingly I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, you will remember that the noble Lord moved the addition of this clause on the Committee stage and I gave him an assurance that I would have the matter considered if he would bring it up again on Report. I am authorised to say that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. The Weaver Navigation Trustees are in a very exceptional position because: (1), members of the county council and nominees of the county council constitute the majority of the trustees; (2), any profits on the undertaking go to the reduction of rates; (3), the navigation is used by seagoing vessels of large tonnage and most of the bridges are, in consequence, exceptional in character as regards headway and width; and (4), the navigation therefore presents certain analogies to a dock undertaking. Accordingly the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment.
Clause 13 [Definitions]:
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I have two consequential Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 12, at end insert ("and the common council of the City of London").
Page 10, line 13, after ("means") insert ("the owners of").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power of Board of Trade to make orders increasing authorised amount of share capital or of loans.
1.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment (including this Act) imposing a limit on the amount of share capital which
432
may be raised or of money which may be borrowed by undertakers, not being a local authority, for the purposes of their undertaking, the Board of Trade may, on the application of any such undertakers and subject to the provisions of this section, by order authorise the undertakers on such conditions as may be specified in the order—

(a) for the purposes of their undertaking to raise, at any time during the period of three years after the date on which the order comes into operation, any such amount of share capital as may be specified in the order; and

(b) to borrow on mortgage of their undertaking or by the creation and issue of debenture stock any amount not exceeding the aggregate amount of the paid up share capital of the undertaking for the time being and of any premiums paid in respect thereof.

(2) An order shall not be made under this section except with the consent of the local authority:
Provided that if, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, the consent of the local authority is unreasonably withheld, the Board may, in the case of applicants who have within the period of fifteen years preceding the date of the application obtained in relation to their undertaking either a special Act or a provisional order confirmed by an Act, make the order not-wthstanding that such consent has not been given.
(3) An order under this section may contain such modifications of any enactment applying to the undertakers in respect of whom the order is made as, in the opinion of the Board, are necessary in order to give full effect to the order.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out (a) at the beginning of paragraph (a). The noble Earl said: This is a very small Amendment which really amounts to a drafting Amendment. If your Lordships will look at subsection (1) you will see that there are two paragraphs, (a) and (b), and that the words "for the purposes of their undertaking" apply, as the Bill is at present drafted, only to paragraph (a). I suggest that these words should immediately follow the words "as may be specified in the order" and that (a) should then follow, so that the words that have been transferred shall apply to both paragraphs. I rather gather front what I have heard that this is a proposal to which the Government raise no objection.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("(a)").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I agree to that.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, after ("undertaking") insert ("(a)").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to add to subsection (1): "Provided that any such mortgage or any debenture stock so created and issued shall rank both for principal and interest after any existing mortgage or debenture stock." The noble Lord said: This is, I think, a very important Amendment, which touches the security on which millions of money in various undertakings have been lent by trustees and others. If your Lordships will look at this clause you will see that it says:
"Notwithstanding anything in any enactment (including this Act) imposing a limit on the amount of share capital which may be raised or of money which may be borrowed by undertakers, not being a local authority, for the purposes of their undertaking, the Board of Trade may, on the application of any such undertakers and subject to the provisions of this section,"—
and this clause differs from the next—
"by order authorise the undertakers on such conditions as may be specified in the order"—
to do certain things.
That is to say, they may increase their capital, of which I say nothing, and they may increase the amount that they have borrowed by way of debentures or mortgage on some security. The result would be something like this. I have lent a certain sum of money, or have invested money in a debenture stock which has been authorised by a Department, and the amount of which has been limited to a certain fixed sum, and I may now find myself, not with the security which I thought I had, but with that security pledged for double this amount to other people. The extraordinary part of this is that under Clause 2 of this Bill:—
" … undertakers, not being a local authority, may borrow on mortgage of their undertaking or by the creation and issue of debenture stock, any amount not exceeding one half of the aggregate amount of the paid up share capital for the time being …
That is the proportion which is generally considered by the best judges in the City to be a right proportion—namely, one-
434
third debentures or mortgage and two-thirds share capital. That is contradicted by Clause 1, which gives power to raise an equal amount of mortgage or debentures to the amount of the share capital; that is to say, it doubles the amount that may be raised. In those circumstances I hope the Government will accept my Amendment.
This is not the first time a proposal of this sort has been introduced. All impecunious companies are desirous of borrowing as cheaply as they can, and on what security they have got, and they are not always careful not to borrow on security which they have already pledged to someone else. Many years ago, when I was a member of the House of Commons, late one night a Bill embodying a provision of this sort was introduced by an Irish railway. That Bill did exactly as this Bill does. It empowered the Irish railway to increase the amount it had borrowed on debenture stock. I objected strongly, and was told that they could not raise money unless they did this, and that they would be able to borrow more cheaply. I said that that did not touch the point, which was that where a person had borrowed money on security he must not borrow fresh money from somebody else on the same security. I went to a Division, but it was late, and probably I explained the matter badly, and I was beaten.
I came to this House and I saw Sir John Lubbock, the well-known banker, who had just been made Lord Avebury. He said that he thoroughly agreed with me that it was a most pernicious principle, which would be quoted as a precedent and might lead to the diminution of security on which hundreds of thousands of pounds had been lent by trustees; and he promised to do his best to get the matter put right in your Lordships' House. And he did. It was rejected in this House and the House of Commons accepted the rejection. Now the same thing is brought forward again. I object for other reasons to Clause 1, but the chief point of my objection is the taking away of security which has been already pledged to somebody else. Therefore my Amendment is to add the words:—
"Provided that any such mortgage or any debenture stock so created and issued shall rank both for principal and interest after any existing mortgage or debenture stock."

435
It is a simple provision. It does not prevent these people, if they get the share capital increased, from borrowing money, but it says that if they borrow money it must rank after the security which they have already pledged to somebody else. No doubt it is a dry proposal, and I am sorry that more of your Lordships are not present, but it is really an important matter and I hope that you will accept the Amendment which I now move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Lord's Amendment, I am advised, is really at the present moment covered to the extent of about nine-tenths of the companies by the Bill as it now stands. It has been ruled that lenders under a former Act of a company will have priority over lenders who lend under the present Bill. The only exceptions to that are some companies where the enactment was made under the Companies Clauses Act, which was modified by Clause 14 of the Model Act passed by your Lordships' House, which enacted that money borrowed on a subsequent occasion should rank pari passu with that of lenders on a former occasion; but I must remind the noble Lord that even in that case the original lenders knew perfectly well what was their liability with regard to any further money that might be raised for the purpose of the gas company. I do not know whether the noble Lord quite realised that. With regard to all others, who, I am told, will be the large majority of the gas undertakings in the country, I am informed that the conditions upon which money is borrowed would remain exactly the same even if the noble Lord's Amendments were put in. They would have priority over anybody who lent money under this Act. In that case also I would remind the noble Lord that nothing can happen in the way of borrowing money except with the consent of the shareholders themselves. Nobody can go above the shareholders and borrow.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It is not the shareholders but the debenture holders.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I do not think the Government can accept the Amendment, because it would add nothing to the existing law, and I am advised that
436
full security is given to the lenders up to now. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am afraid I must press my Amendment. May I ask my noble friend this very simple question. He says nine-tenths of the cases are met by the Bill and that the other tenth is a special case which does not arise because it was under certain model clauses, and that the people who took money on mortgage knew perfectly well what they were doing. With regard to the others, if my Amendment meets a case which is already met why not put it in? It makes the matter quite clear, and it does not do anything except what my noble friend says is already done.
LORD DANESFORT: May I appeal to the noble Earl or to the Lord Chancellor on this point If the intention of the clause as it stands is that no money is to be raised on mortgage or debenture under it, except subject to existing mortgage or debenture, what is the real objection to putting in the Amendment? If it is doubtful, and looking at it, somewhat hastily perhaps, it seems to be doubtful, it would be very unfortunate if the question should have to be settled by expensive litigation. May I appeal to the Lord Chancellor or to the noble Earl to tell us whether they would be prepared to consider this matter before Report, so that if there is any doubt in the matter it can be made clear?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): As I understand the position, it is this. There are two cases—one is Harrison and the Cornwall Minerals Company in 18 Chancery Division, and the other is in re Mersey Railway Company [1895] 2 Chancery. Both have decided that where there is a limit of borrowing powers, and where subsequently an Act passes enabling further borrowing powers to be created, those subsequent powers rank behind the debentures already created under the earlier powers, and therefore, so far as the ordinary company is concerned, the provision suggested by the noble Lord in moving the Amendment is unnecessary, because it is only re-enacting the existing law. Then, says my noble friend, "If that is so, why not put it

437
in and make it clear?" The answer is that there is a certain number of companies which have in their special Acts what is known as the model clause, which is a clause put in in this House in Private Bills, under which it is provided that mortgages shall rank pari passu with any mortgages created under the Act in question or any subsequent Act. In those cases the lenders have lent with the express notice that there will be subsequent Acts which will extend the mortgage clause and in such case the money so issued under that subsequent Act will rank pari passu.
If the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, were passed, its effect would be to destroy the position created in all those Private Acts, and to take away from those companies the rights which they have in their model Clause, and to confer upon the existing mortgages or debenture holders in the companies a right which they have not bargained for, and which they have not got. Therefore the Government thought it was better to leave the matter as it stands, thinking it clear that in the great majority of cases where there is no special Act containing the model clause the provision is unnecessary, and in the cases where there is in existence the model clause the provision would be unjust. That is the reason why the Amendment does not, at present at any rate, commend itself to the Government.
LORD PARMOOR: Judging from what the Lord Chancellor has said, which I have no doubt is quite accurate in law, what Lord Banbury desires is already within the Bill, that is to say, there is no power here to place new mortgages or new debentures beyond those which are already in existence, except so far as, under the model clause, that can be done. I sympathise very much with Lord Banbury, but I think that what the Lord Chancellor said meets his point.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for his very clear statement. May I put this question to him? As I understand from the Lord Chancellor, what has taken place is that under two decisions given in the Courts of Law any money borrowed after the existing amount ranks after that which has been borrowed
438
before. If that is so, I have no objection. But I want to put this to the Lord Chancellor. Clause (1) says:—
"Notwithstanding anything in any enactment (including this Act) imposing a limit …"
and so on. Does not that do away with the decisions which have already been given in the Courts of Law? If a decision is given in a Court of Law on a certain point, and afterwards an Act is passed altering that point, will not the people affected say: "Well, that may have been so in those days, but now you have passed a new Act which says Notwithstanding anything in any enactment' certain things may arise." I should like to have an answer to that. I would put this further point. I quite agree that any question relating to the model clause should be left as it is now. But I do desire to prevent this: as I read this clause people who have borrowed money on a certain security let that security to somebody else. What I suggest to the Lord Chancellor is that he should give me an undertaking that he would, between now and Report, consider an Amendment which would have the effect of my Amendment, while leaving the model clause as it is now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Most certainly. Any suggestion of that kind will be carefully considered, and I should be the last person to suggest that even those who do claim to be learned in the law can speak with absolute confidence on intricate effects as to Statutes. But I think the answer to my noble friend's first question is this, that the subsection does not over-ride the previous decision, or indeed affect it. The decision to which I have called your Lordship's attention was that where there is authority to lend a certain amount of money, and where there is subsequently created further power to borrow, then the further borrowing ranks behind the original loan. This clause does not interfere with that at all. This clause merely allows an increase in the borrowing powers, hut it says nothing about the borrowing powers so created ranking pari passu with the existing ones, and it is that which the existing decision says does not result. And therefore this is merely a Bill saying that, although there are existing limits to borrowing powers, those borrowing powers may be

439
increased. It does not say that the further loan shall rank pari passu with the existing one. But most certainly I can assure the noble Lord that the points shall be re-examined, and if there be any risk no doubt it can be dealt with. I do not think there is any.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: On that understanding I will not press the Amendment. I would point out that the point could be met by saying that it shall not rank pari passu. I think it is necessary that something of that sort should be put in, because any ordinary person reading this would come to the same conclusion as I did, and I would venture to say that a clause of this sort would create a very bad impression in the City and would tend to depress stock if this gets about. It is far better to have it quite clear.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 1. The noble Lord said: I object to the clause because it is contradicted by Clause 2. Clause 1 says certain things, and Clause 2 says something quite different. The drafts-man of the Bill knew this, because Clause 1 says:—
"Notwithstanding anything in any enactment (including this Act) …"
Having in No. 2 contradicted No. 1, they put that right by putting in No. 1: "including this Act." As a humble layman I think that is very careless drafting, and we ought to have some explanation of it, and, if possible, the drafting should be improved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I should like to support this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, for another reason. As your Lordships are aware, before 1920 gas undertakings that wished to raise new capital had to promote a Private Bill in Parliament. Since 1920, under the Gas Regulation Act of that year, they have been able to obtain new capital by a Special Order requiring the assent of Parliament. Apparently, under this clause, the Ministry can authorise new capital to be raised without any assent of Parliament. I object to this from the point of view of the local authorities, and particularly from the point
440
of view of the London County Council. Before 1920, in Acts affecting London, the London County Council could raise questions of public interest before Parliament, and, since 1920, it has been able to raise those questions before the Board of Trade and also before Parliament. Now, apparently, the Council is not to have any chance of putting its point of view before Parliament, and the Board of Trade is alone to have the last say. It is on those grounds that I would like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am afraid I cannot enlighten the noble Lord as to why Clause 2 is apparently contradicted by Clause 1, but. I will find out and let him know at a later stage. It is a question of drafting which I had not gone into. As regards what the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said, this clause, no doubt, does away to a certain extent with Parliamentary control, but this was strongly recommended by the National Gas Council to the Committee to whom it, was referred. The reason it was strongly recommended was in order to save the gas companies expense. I did not have an opportunity on Second Reading of explaining that this Bill is being promoted now by the Board of Trade on the representations and the strong recommendation of the National Gas Council which, I understand, represents 90 per cent. of the gas sold in the country. It would be very much more expensive for the companies, especially the smaller companies, to obtain power to raise their capital by a Bill or Special Order, and, therefore, this form of procedure by means of Departmental Order was recommended.
Although Parliamentary control is lost to a certain extent your Lordships must remember that these companies cannot get facilities for raising their capital without going to Parliament, and one of the objects which the National Gas Council have had is to compel the companies to come to Parliament periodically. As your Lordships will have seen no Order is made by the Board of Trade unless the company does come to Parliament, and if they have not been to Parliament for fifteen years it is not given at all. By an Order relating to share capital an increase in the authorised amount may be given sufficient for a

441
period of three years. Although Parliamentary control is lost in one way, you do get more control of the companies in another way. The increase in the borrowing powers of undertakings is the full amount of paid-up capital. This was recommended by the Public Control Committee of the London County Council when reporting to the Council in May, 1928, and it was suggested with regard to the Metropolitan companies that it would be a good thing to give the companies power to increase their capital to that extent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I can help my noble friend Lord Banbury; not that I am in any way concerned with the drafting, but I am familiar with the history of this matter. He asks why Clause 1 seems to contradict Clause 2? I do not know, but I think it is probably for this reason. A good many years after I was first honoured by your Lordships by being elected Chairman of Committees, and, therefore, having to criticise Private Bills, it was the custom of Parliament to authorise gas companies to raise, either by debenture stock or on mortgage, an amount equal to one-third of their capital, but, at a later date, Parliament was persuaded, after consulting a certain number people—I am afraid my noble friend Lord Banbury cannot have been one of them—to increase that amount of one-third to one-half. Of late years quite a number of clauses have been passed for certain authorities substitutiing a half for a third, lint they have not all been to Parliament, and, therefore, my suspicion would be that Clause 2 had been put into this Bill so as to bring all the companies on a level—that is to say, allowing gas companies to borrow up to a half. But then Clause 1 comes in. If they want to exceed the half I presume they will have to follow the procedure laid down under Clause 1, and, for that reason, Clause I has been drafted to contradict Clause 2. What I am saying to the noble Lord is only based on suspicion, but I expect that is the explanation.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I do not want to detain your Lordships, but the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said that the County Council had reported in favour. I have here the Report of the Public Control Committee to which he referred, in which it is definitely stated that the
442
proposal that the Board of Trade should be empowered to authorise the raising of capital or the borrowing of money by gas companies would reduce the opportunity of reviewing the working and management of the companies, and that such proposal would be opposed. For those reasons I am opposing the clause.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: What is the date of that Report?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: May 22, 1928.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: May I read what the Public Control Committee of the London County Council said when reporting to the council in May, 1928, on this matter? They said:—
"The practice of the London gas companies in recent years had been to apply for authority to borrow up to one-half of the amount of their ordinary and preference capital, and this proportion has been allowed by Parliament when asked for. The Council has not objected to this as a general principle, seeing that it is to the interest of the consumers that capital should be raised as cheaply as possible. For the same reason it does not seem necessary to object to the proposal of the National Gas Council to raise still further the proportion of loans to capital. In our opinion, the question of the ratio of borrowed money to the capital issued may be safely left to the shareholders, whose interests, in the ease of sliding scale companies, are identical in this matter with those of the consumers."
That is what I went on.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Authorised amount of loans.
2. Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, undertakers, not being a local authority, may borrow on mortgage of their undertaking or by the creation and issue of debenture stock, any amount not exceeding one-half of the aggregate amount of the paid up share capital for the time being of the undertaking and of any premiums paid in respect thereof.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved, after "borrow," to insert "for the purposes of their undertaking." The noble Earl said: I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Halsbury. I understand that the Amendment may almost be described as consequential upon other Amendments in Clause I which have been accepted by the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, after ("borrow") insert ("for the purposes of their undertaking").—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Increase of authorised amount of reserved fund or of special purposes fund.
3.—(1) Section thirty-one of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, (which provides for the formation of a reserved fund of a limited amount) shall, in the case of undertakers not being a local authority, have effect as if for the reference therein to a sum equal to one-tenth of the nominal capital of the undertakers there were substituted a reference to a sum equal to one-tenth of the aggregate amount of the paid up share capital of the undertakers and of any outstanding loans raised by the undertakers on mortgage or by the creation and issue of debenture stock.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (1), after the first "amount," to insert "and Section thirty-three of that Act (which provides for the case where that fund amounts to the prescribed sum)." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really consequential on the proposal to increase the limit of the maximum amount of the reserved fund and Section thirty-three has to be added as well as Section thirty-one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, after ("amount") insert ("and Section thirty-three of that Act (which provides for the case where that fund amounts to the prescribed sum)").—The Earl of Lucan.)
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("reference") and insert ("references").
Page 2, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("a reference") and insert ("references").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The next Amendment is to insert in subsection (1), after the last "undertakers" but one, words which by inadvertence were omitted from the Bill as introduced. The amount of share capital which a gas company is authorised by its Private Act to raise is stated to include any premiums, and consequently such premiums are part of the authorised capital of the company
444
and must be carried to capital account and used for capital expenditure. It is therefore logical to base the reserved fund on premiums as well as on share capital.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, at end insert ("of any premiums paid in respect thereof").(The Earl of Lucan.)
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, after ("undertaking") insert ("of any premiums paid in respect thereof").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Undertakers supplying more than a certain quantity of gas to charge on basis of British thermal units.
(4) So much of any special Act or provisional order applying to any such undertakers as makes provision with respect to the quality, pressure, or purity of gas supplied by them shall, as from the appointed day, cease to have effect.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: My noble friend Viscount Bertie of Thame is not well and has asked me to move this Amendment for him. This subsection says:—
"So much of any special Act or provisional order applying to any such undertakers as makes provision with respect to the quality, pressure, or purity of gas supplied by them shall, as from the appointed day, cease to have effect."
My noble friend fears, and it rather looks as if his fear is correct, that the result of this subsection would be to remove any liability on the part of the gas company to supply gas of a certain pressure, quality or purity. I can hardly think that that was intended, and I move the Amendment in order to get a reply from the Government on this point.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 22, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord, Banbury of Southam.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Viscount is wrong in his fear. This clause brings companies which have not hitherto supplied gas on the therm basis—there are very few left—into line with those who are already supplying on that

445
basis and puts all companies in the same position. This subsection does repeal certain safeguards but it only repeals safeguards which were necessary under the now obsolete form of producing gas for candle power. If the noble Lord looks at Clauses 5, 6 and 9, subsection (3) in each case, of the principal Act, he will see that that includes safeguards as to purity and pressure. Safeguards as to candle power are no longer necessary owing to incandescent mantles being used.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: After the noble Earl's explanation I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Extension of Board of Trade's power to make special orders under principal Act.
6. The power of the Board of Trade to make special orders under section ten of the principal Act shall include power to make a special order—

(a) authorising the applicants therefor to construct gasworks or manufacture or supply gas in any area within the limits of supply of any existing undertakers who have failed to lay down or provide mains for the supply of gas in the area, and prohibiting the existing undertakers from exercising in the area any of the powers conferred on them in respect of their undertaking;

(b) providing, where the applicants for the order are a company authorised by any enactment to supply water or electricity as well as gas, that any loan lawfully raised by the company for the purposes of so much of their undertaking as relates to gas may be secured by a charge upon the whole of their undertaking;

(c) Making provision for modifying any enactment regulating the gas undertaking to which the order relates by inserting therein provisions corresponding to provisions contained in any special Acts or provisional orders regulating other gas undertakings:

Provided that no order shall be made under paragraph (a) of this section in relation to any area within the limits of supply of existing undertakers unless five years have elapsed since the date on which those undertakers first obtained their powers to lay down or provide mains for the supply of gas in that area.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Falmouth. Under this paragraph the Board
446
of Trade will have power to insert in any enactment governing any gas undertaking provisions contained in the enactment governing some other gas undertaking. This Amendment was put down at the instance of the London County Council who were rather afraid that possibly when they had succeeded in inducing some undertaking to reduce its prices, that undertaking might, through the opportunity given to it by this paragraphs, get the Board of Trade to insert in its governing enactment provisions contained in the Act of some small gas company in the country which would enable it to raise its price. It seems that the power given to the Board of Trade is very much wider than the Board possesses at the present moment, and I hope your Lordships will agree that it is very much too wide.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, leave out paragraph (c).—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment. I am advised that the powers which the Board of Trade will be given by this paragraph will not be stronger than those they possessed before. In this case the Board of Trade cannot proceed by Departmental Order but will have to proceed by Special Order. All Special Orders have to come before both Houses of Parliament and in the case of your Lordships' House before the Special Orders Committee as well. I am advised that all the safeguards which the London County Council have now are continued undiminished, and I hope therefore the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 6. The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment for the reason that the clause says:
"The power of the Board of Trade to make special orders under section ten of the principal Act shall include power to make a special order—
(a) authorising the applicants therefor to construct gas works"—
I leave out a few words—
"in any area within the limits of supply of any existing undertakers …"
That is to say, Company A having received power from Parliament to construct gas works and supply gas in a cer-

447
tain area, the Board of Trade may come down and authorise somebody else to supply gas in the area already allotted to Company A if Company A has failed to lay down or provide mains for the supply of gas in the area. It then may prohibit Company A from exercising in the area any of the powers conferred on them in respect of their undertaking.
At the end is a proviso that no Order shall be made under paragraph (a) in relation to any area unless five years have elapsed from the date when the undertakers first obtained their powers. What it means is that if Company A, having obtained powers to do certain things in an area, have not within five years completed their work of supplying gas in the whole of that area the Minister may then come down anti order somebody else to go into the area already allotted by Parliament to Company A and begin work on their own account. If it is argued that Company A have neglected their duty, then the Courts of Law should be the people to interpret that. Why should the Minister have power to say: "You have not done this, you ought to have done it, and so I will let someone else go into your area"? Surely, if Company A have been granted certain powers by Parliament and they abuse those powers are not a Court of Law and the Judges of the realm the people to decide how an Act of Parliament is to be interpreted?
Are we now going to start new ideas and say that, when an Act of Parliament is passed and people affected by it do not carry it out, instead of going to a Court of Law and having the judgment of impartial Judges, we are to go to a Minister, or rather to the people in his Department, who are probably not versed in legal phraseology and probably have not legal minds and may possibly be influenced by the getting of votes or the nearness of a General Election? Is our property to be affected by the action of these gentlemen and are we to do away with the old principle and watchword of an Englishman that in trouble he has a Court and a Judge for whom he has respect and admiration? Is a Department, of whom he knows nothing, to judge whether or not certain rights which have been assigned to him by Parliament are to be taken away?
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The answer to my noble friend's question is that a similar clause to this is inserted in nearly all Gas Bills, because the case sometimes arises where the undertakers, who have power over a certain area, are for some reason unable or unwilling to carry out the work and it is very desirable that residents in that district should not thereby be deprived of gas. This power is therefore given by Special Order, a draft of which has to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament and, in the case of the House of Lords, is examined by a Special Orders Committee. The noble Lord may rest assured that no injustice will be done to any company. This is only inserted for the sake of residents in certain districts and also for patriotic reasons because many people who cannot get gas use foreign oil in the many oil stoves that are sold to-day. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied that this power is very carefully controlled.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I cannot say I am satisfied because the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has repeated an argument which has very little force in it. He says that this clause has already been in another Bill. I remember many years ago Sir Charles Dilke saying: "Mr. Speaker, do not quote a precedent. A bad precedent is not to be continued but should be abolished." That had a very great effect upon me and I have always held that the argument that such a thing has been done before, if such a thing is bad, is not a reason for perpetuating it but for cancelling it. If under certain Bills the right of an Englishman to trial by a Judge and jury is taken away and trial by a Department is put in its place, I say it is a bad precedent and ought not to be repeated. It is now past seven o'clock and there are not many of your Lordships present or I would be tempted to divide the House. In the circumstances I will only have the Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I am sure that my noble friend realises that he is now dealing not with the orders of Departments but with the Special

449
Orders which are submitted to Parliament, and, therefore, I think that the watchword of an Englishman is this time saved because it is in the hands of Parliament. Thanks to the energies of the Leader of the House, this Special Orders procedure has been working in your Lordships' House for some time, and I would like to take this opportunity of saying how very helpful the Board of Trade and the other Departments concerned have been in bringing all the facts before the Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House on every possible occasion. They have been meticulously careful in bringing every new point to the notice of the Special Orders Committee. There is only one thing wrong with the Special Orders Committee and that is that my noble friend is not a member of it. I shall bear that in mind.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Interpretation]:
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 39, after the first ("stock") insert ("in relation to any undertakers").
Page 5, line 42, at end insert ("as applying to those undertakers").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule:
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The Amendments to the Schedule are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 6, leave out from ("following") to the end of line 22, and insert ("provision:—
If at any time it appears to the Board of Trade, in relation to any undertakers, that there has since the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and fourteen, been any increase or decrease in—

(a) the rate of interest which the undertakers are obliged to pay on capital raised or money borrowed for the purposes of their gas undertaking; or

(b) the cost to the undertakers of providing works, plant or apparatus for the supply of gas; or

(c) the annual output of their gas undertaking; or

(d) the efficiency with which that undertaking has been carried on;

450
the Board may make an amending order under this section revising the powers of charging authorised by the original order with respect to the undertakers, in such manner as to secure that they are not prejudiced by any such increase or benefited by any such decrease").
Page 7, line 30, after ("themselves") insert ("the").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order).
Clause 2 [Provisions as to company]:
VISCOUNT NOVAR VISCOUNT NOVAR moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (c), to insert: "Provided that no applicant for a loan shall be debarred merely by reason of the fact that he not a customer of one of the shareholding banks." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I apologise to the Leader of the House for having placed an Amendment on the Paper so late as Third Reading. I plead in extenuation that the life of a Scottish Peer on the railway north of Hatfield is an exacting one. I had not contemplated that the Committee stage would be taken at midnight nor that there would be no Report stage. On the Second Reading said all I had to say and I had no answer. Therefore, to save repetition I merely move the Amendment which is on the Paper. This Amendment was defeated in the Standing Committee in another place by five votes, but the Committee were not aware that half of the Scottish banks had declined to participate in the scheme. All that I need say is that, if a client of a non-participating bank is by this unprecedented interference with the freedom of the individual, to be forced by the Government not only to deal with a particular bank but nolens volens to become a co-operator, this will constitute a restraint of trade and an abuse of the taxpayer's money. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Never.)
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, a similar Amendment was proposed during the Committee stage of this Bill in the House of Commons, and the point was pressed by the noble Viscount in this

451
House on the Second Reading. It was argued on both occasions that the only bank at all adjacent in many parts of Scotland might not be one of the constituent banks, and that surrounding farmers, particularly the smaller men who would be most likely to need assistance and at the same time least likely to be able easily to change the bank with which they had hitherto dealt, might consequently be unable to take advantage of this measure. The noble Viscount, on the Second Reading, went so far as to say that this might happen to about 50 per cent of the Scottish farmers. It was also argued in favour of the Amendment that the constituent banks ought not to be allowed to bar an applicant because he did not happen to be one of their customers, seeing that public money is being advanced to support the company. It is perfectly true that there will, no doubt, be cases in which the only bank in a district will not be one of the constituent banks, but I am inclined to think and venture humbly to suggest that the noble Viscount's statement that 50 per cent. Of Scottish farmers might be affected is over-estimated.
There is undoubtedly some confusion of thought about the position generally. In the first place, it is the company which it is proposed to set up who will make the loans, and the Bill, as it stands, does not preclude the company from making these loans to applicants who are not customers of the constituent banks. In the second place, the proposed Amendment would not, according to its supporters in the House of Commons, compel the company to make a loan to a customer of a non-constituent bank. On that footing it would not materially alter the position, and would, as pointed out in another place, be merely a "pious expression of opinion." If that were all that the proposed Amendment would achieve, there would be little purpose in it and no use in bringing it into the Bill. If, however, this Amendment is read as imposing, actually or by implication, a measure of compulsion on the company, there are serious objections to it. It would be depriving the company who will make the loans of one of the ordinary elements of security in transactions of this kind. It is not merely a question of "vetting" the original application, although that is important. It has to be
452
remembered that the loans are repayable over the considerable period of 60 years. Obviously banks cart keep in closer touch with the position of borrowers who happen to be their own customers than would be practicable or possible if loans were made to customers of other banks.
The noble Viscount also urged that the non-constituent banks would be in as good a position to advise the corporation as any constituent bank, and that it should not be inferred that only those who saw eye to eye with the Government would be honourable men. It does not seem that this is a question of honour. It is a question of plain hard facts and of business methods. However readily the dissenting banks might supply the information required there could not, in the nature of things, be the close touch between lender and borrower, especially over so long a period as these loans may be outstanding, as there would be if the borrower were a customer dealing from day to day with a bank that was responsible as a constituent bank for the operations of the company. Everyone knows that the possibility of borrowing through one's own bank is definitely greater than through another bank at which one has not an account. The reason is obvious. The would-be borrower, his character, reputation and resources, are generally known in the one case and not in the other, and no report upon him by the bank at which he has hitherto dealt can put another bank in as good a position to judge of his reliability as can be secured from day to day dealings with him.
Lord Novar also urged that it was never suggested during negotiations that any bank that stood out would have its customers debarred from facilities, and argued that the Lord Advocate's statement during the Committee stage of the Bill—namely, that if anything were done that obliged the company to lend through other than constituent banks, it would be open to the latter to say that the arrangements had been altered—did not fairly represent the position. This, however, is not quite how the matter stands. The banks were approached with a view to getting up a company. The basis was, as it still is, that the company would make the loans, and the company would be composed of the constituent banks. The negotiations were with the banks as a

453
whole. Had they all supported the proposals—I am not suggesting that there is any reason why they should—they would all have been constituents and all would have been concerned as to the manner in which, and the persons to whom, the loans should be made; but it would undoubtedly be altering arrangements if, after setting up a company composed of only a number of these banks, a condition were imposed that loans must be granted to customers of other banks who had not elected to join. I venture most humbly to suggest that to do so would be to commit unwarrantable interference with the operations of the company who, subject to its articles and memorandum of association, which are in turn subject to Government approval, ought not to be fettered as suggested. It seems to me, therefore, that, from whatever point of view one looks at this Amendment, it does not appear to be entirely suitable to the Bill, and accordingly, with much regret, I fear that the Government cannot accept it.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the very clear explanation that he has given. It only confirms me in the view which I expressed on the Second Reading, that the best thing to do would be to recast the Bill, because the unfortunate provisions of this Bill, which could not be accepted by half the Scottish banks, and which I understand were very reluctantly accepted by the other half—very much the same situation as in England when the Midland Bank stood out—the provisions of the Bill which make a, farmer go to a bank which is not his own to raise a loan, and which compel him to become a co-operator, which is not the case in England, constitute an abuse of the use of the tax-
454
payer's money. I very much regret the decision to which the Government have come, that they cannot accept the Amendment, but as I see Lord Saltoun, alone with myself, as representing the Scottish Peers, I feel that it is of no use dividing the House, which otherwise I would have done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed.

  IRISH FREE STATE SILVER COINAGE.
  IRISH FREE STATE SILVER COINAGE.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Refered to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Referred to the Examiners.

TORQUAY EXTRAMURAL CEMETERY COMPANY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Llanelly Corporation.
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
Iveagh Bequest (Kenwood).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the Imperial Continental Gas Association ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill:
Read, and agreed to.

IMPERIAL CONTINENTAL GAS ASSOCIATION BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); read la; and referred to the Examiners.
OLDBURY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 19th and 27th of February last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.

NEWPORT (SALOP) URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the County of Cornwall Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Newport (Salop) Urban District Council Bill [H.L]. Read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
STOKE-ON-TRENT EXTENSION
BILL. [H.L.]
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WARRINGTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
YORKTOWN (CAMBERLEY) AND DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
GRIMSBY CORPORATION (DOCK, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
TUNBRIDGE WELLS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl Cawdor and the Lord Wynford be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Viscount Bertie of Thame and the Lord Ruthven of Gowrie: Read, and agreed to.

MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
GOSPORT AND FAREHAM OMNIBUS SERVICES BILL. [H.L.]
CHATHAM AND DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS COMPANY (TROLLEY VEHICLES, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAM-ROADS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
HASLINGDEN CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Avebury: Read, and agreed to.
BARNARD CASTLE GAS ORDER,
1929.
GLASLYN AND DEUDRAETH RURAL
DISTRICTS ELECTRICITY ORDER,
1929.
NORTH SOMERSET ELECTRICITY
(EXTENSION) ORDER, 1929.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.