Sitting of 25 March 1930

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    SOUTH WARK.
    Mr. DAYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether any schemes or proposals have been made to him by the borough of Southwark to date for the purpose of relieving unemployment and with what result; and whether he has any plans for the relief of unemployment in this borough?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to him on this subject on the 10th December, 1929, and the 11th of this month to which I have nothing to add.

    CANADA (BRITISH COAL).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can now make a statement concerning the proposal for the purpose of mitigating unemployment that vessels carrying grain from Canada might secure return cargoes of British coal?
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir, my information is that very considerable orders for British anthracite and soft coal have been obtained in Canada and that a substantial volume of tonnage has been chartered for this trade for the opening of the St. Lawrence navigation.

    LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL (NEW OFFICES).
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can make any statement regarding the scheme put forward to him by the Lindsey County Council for the completion of the new county council offices as an aid to helping local unemployment?
    Mr. THOMAS: It has not yet been possible to give a decision on the scheme
    244
    which is still under consideration by the Unemployment Grants Committee.

    DERBYSHIRE.
    Major GRAHAM POLEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether any further schemes to deal with the unemployment problem in Derbyshire have been submitted to his Department since the 21st January last; if he will give the names of the authorities which have submitted these further schemes and particulars as to the nature of the work involved; and if he will state which of these schemes and which of the schemes under consideration on the 21st January have been approved or are still under consideration, and the total amount of money involved in each case?
    Mr. THOMAS: As the answer is a long one and involves considerable detail, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate in it the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    I understand my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind the districts of Long Eaton, Borrowash, Alvastone, Melbourne and Swadlincote. No formal applications for grant in respect of schemes of work for the relief of unemployment have been received from these districts by the Unemployment Grants Committee since 21st January, 1930. The Committee are in communication with the Swadlincote Urban District Council regarding a scheme of road reconstruction which that council have in contemplation. Since 21st January, 1930, a road improvement scheme costing £1,753, submitted by the Alvastone and Boulton Urban District Council, has been approved for grant by the Committee.

    MOTOR INDUSTRY.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Lord Privy Seal if his attention has been called to the increase in unemployment in the motor vehicle manufacturing trade of which the Ministry of Labour March Gazette makes special mention; and whether he has any proposals with regard to its alleviation?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am aware of the increases in unemployment to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. With regard to the second part of the question

    245
    I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the White Paper which I presented to Parliament a few days ago, which shows the large amount of Government assistance given to schemes of national development. I have also repeatedly explained to the House the policy which I am actively pursuing with a view to encouraging by every means possible the extension of British trade both in home and overseas markets.
    Sir A. POWNALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in addition to those which he has already made, with regard to the danger of taking off these duties?
    Mr. DAY: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the reason that there is so much unemployment in this trade is due to the horse-power tax put on by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    BRISTOL.
    Mr. ALPASSasked the Lord Privy Seal how many of the schemes that have been approved by the Government for the relief of unemployment in the city of Bristol have been commenced; and when the rest of the schemes will be started?
    Mr. THOMAS: Two schemes in the Bristol district have been approved under Part I of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929. One of these, estimated to cost some £1,200,060, was commenced on the 5th March, the other, involving expenditure of £144,000, is due to start by the 14th May. Under Part II of the Act, 15 schemes submitted during the period 1st June, 1929, to 28th February, 1930, have been approved for grant by the Unemployment Grants Committee. Work has started on at least 11 of these schemes, two of which have already been completed. As regards the remaining four schemes, my information is that work should start at a very early date. Seven road schemes estimated to cost £180,580 have also been approved. Work has started on four of these schemes.
    Mr. AYLES: May I ask whether the trade union rates of wages are being paid in connection with these schemes?
    Mr. THOMAS: The usual Fair Wages Clause is always inserted, but I cannot speak for any definite or particular
    246
    scheme. If the hon. Member has any case in mind, perhaps he will draw my attention to it.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    HEALTH CONDITIONS.
    Mr. THOMAS LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state when the joint advisory committee set up by the Ministry of Health and the Board of Trade to consider matters affecting the health of the mercantile marine will make their report?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) on the 24th December, 1929, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Can the President of the Board of Trade say something more as to what is the real position, because that is a long time ago?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I was not asked that in the question, but, if the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question on that point, I will give him the information up to date.

    BRITISH SEAMEN (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government proposes to introduce legislation providing that every ship flying the British flag shall carry a certain number of British seamen?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: While I am anxious to secure the greatest possible amount of employment for British seamen, I am afraid that the course suggested would not necessarily help in that direction.
    Mr. ALBERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he has received any representations lately on this subject from the Seamen's Union or any other union?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir, not representations, but I have answered questions which have been asked in the House recently to which I have given rather long replies.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that

    247
    legislation on these lines exists in a number of countries, and has been most successful; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider this fact in view of the abnormal unemployment among seamen at the present time?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That point has been put in previous questions. As regards ships trading (here, they are subject to regulations, but, as regards ships trading abroad, the position is difficult, because, as I have already told the House, I am afraid that any effort may lead to ships being registered abroad, and, in that case, it might lead to more and not less unemployment.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that ships regularly trading here are paying off British crews arid engaging foreign crews, and can nothing be done to stop that?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have already replied to questions on that point put to me by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I find very great difficulty in dealing with the question.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present number of British seamen registered as unemployed; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. GRAHAM: At 24th February, 1930, there were 21,143 wholly unemployed seamen on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, but statistics of the numbers who were British subjects are not available. As regards the second part of the question, no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend is aware of the efforts which are being made to extend trade in the hope of reducing unemployment.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to receive a deputation from the seamen concerned when he has seen the Coal Bill successfully through the House?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly, I shall be very glad to do so.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: In view of the serious unemployment which has just been disclosed, will the right hon. Gentleman consider some
    248
    means of endeavouring to raise the percentage of British seamen above that figure?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have already replied to numerous questions on that point. As far as I have any influence in the matter, it will be exercised in that direction, but the difficulties are very considerable.
    Sir H. CROFT: Is there any good in influence without legislation?

    DUNDEE (PORT CONFERENCE REGULATIONS).
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the President of the Board of Trade whether representations have been made to him regarding the position of Dundee under what are termed the port conference regulations, whereby vessels discharging at that port are debarred from receiving there return cargo, which, although available, must be sent to Glasgow at increased cost; and will he take steps to facilitate the removal of the embargo?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: No representations have been made to me in the matter, and I am informed that vessels discharging at Dundee also load there. If my hon. Friend has any information to the contrary, and will send it to me, I will have the matter investigated.

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS. ACT.
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any representations have been made to him, either by the associations or societies connected with the cinematograph industry or by private exhibitors, asking that Part I of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, should be amended, in view of the inability of the exhibitors to procure sufficient good British films to comply with the requirements of the Act?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have just received a resolution on this subject from the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association which is under consideration.
    Mr. DAY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if the Act is allowed to remain as at present, it will bring a great amount of ruin to the British cinematograph industry, and cause still more unemployment?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I know there are matters in that Act which are in dispute, and I have always indicated that in regard to past legislation. I shall be most willing to consider any matter arising under the Act.
    Mr. DAY: Does that also concern cinematograph exhibitors' quotas?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is on the quota that this resolution has been based.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could we not repeal the whole Act?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think the Government have already enough on hand for the moment.

    WHEAT AND BREAD PRICES.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade if and when the reduction in the price of bread suggested by the Food Council is likely to become effective?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I understand that the price recommended for bread by the London associations of master bakers was reduced yesterday to 8d. per 4 lb., which is within the scale approved by the Food Council.
    Mr. ALBERY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that bread has been sold recently in Liverpool at 2½d. per two-pound loaf, and can be give the House any information on that subject?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I could not do so without notice. I have answered the hon. Member's question which referred to the price of bread in London. If any more information is wanted, perhaps the hon. Member will put down a further question.
    Mr. HANNON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks 8d. for a four-pound loaf is a fair price in present circumstances, in view of the low price of wheat?
    Major NATHANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give figures for any definite dates to show the extent to which variations in the price of wheat affect the retail price of bread?
    Mr. GRAHAM: With the hon. and gallant Member's consent, I will circulate
    250
    in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving a comparison of the average values of imported wheat and of the price of bread in London, during a period before the War and a recent period, which will illustrate the relation between the prices of wheat and bread.
    Sir H. CROFT: Is it not the fact that the price of wheat has varied by something like 17s. in the last eight months; and, if that be so, would it not be possible for the Government to put a duty of 10s. a quarter on foreign wheat without varying the price of bread to the consumer?
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Food Council to the disparity between the present price of wheat and the price of the loaf; and does he think that 8d. a loaf is a suitable and adequate price at the present time?
    Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to the second Supplementary Question, this matter is constantly before the Food Council, and, in fact, a question was asked upon it by an hon. Member opposite earlier to-day.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that private enterprise supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite is responsible for the discrepancy between the price of wheat and of the loaf?
    Following is the table:

    —

    Average value per cwt. of wheat imported into the United Kingdom.

    Average selling price of dread per 41bs. in London.

    s.

    d.

    1899–1903

    …

    6·72

    5·2

    1904–1908

    …

    7·46

    5·5

    1909–1913

    …

    8·46

    5·8

    1922–1925

    …

    12·13

    9·1

    1925‒1929

    …

    11…67

    8…9

    This statement shows that, during the 15 years preceding the War, while wheat was rising in price, bread was rising less rapidly; and that, in recent years, while bread has not been as cheap in relation to wheat as immediately prior to the War, it has not been as dear, in relation to wheat, as in the first of the three pre-war quinquennia. In making use of these comparisons, the fact that the bread

    251
    prices relate to London only, while the wheat with which it is compared is the entire imported supply should be borne in mind.
    Owing to differences in the proportions of wheat of various origins that contribute to the supply of bread in different localities and at different times, the prices for any specified grades of wheat may fail to provide a satisfactory measure of variations in the cost of the principal ingredient in bread, apart from changes in the cost of baking, of flour milling, and of distribution.

    COMPANY LAW.
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation for the establishment, in the case of companies of diffused ownership, of a supervisory council representing the shareholders?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would remind the hon. Member that the directors are appointed by and responsible to the shareholders, and I do not think it would be desirable to diminish the directors' authority and responsibility by the institution of a council to supervise them.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not the case that in many large public companies the shareholders have practically no control and no knowledge of what is going on?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Various proposals have been made for the amendment for the Companies Acts, but I confess that it is difficult to believe that a suggestion on these lines would be valuable. I will consider this among other proposals, but I ought to indicate that view now.
    Major GEORGE DAVIES: Is not the Liberal party a company of diffused ownership at the present time?
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the President of the Board of Trade to what number the 2,600 companies which till recently neglected to publish balance sheets and to hold statutory meetings has been reduced; and what he proposes to do about those which have not yet complied with the provisions of the Act of Parliament?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I presume that the hon. and gallant Member refers to the 2,600 public companies which my hon. Friend indicated on the 18th February last had at that time failed to file with the Registrar an annual return in respect of 1929, such return including a balance sheet. The procedure in regard to this matter was set out in the reply to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. F. Owen) on 4th February. This procedure has been followed, and, as a result, the number of cases in which no re-terns, or incomplete returns necessitating correspondence, has been received, has been reduced below 1,500.
    Mr. THURTLE: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the time has come for taking rather sharper measures with these delinquent companies?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That might involve amendment of the Companies Acts, which has been the subject of recent legislation; but my hon. Friend will see the very great improvement that has taken place on this point within the short space of about four weeks.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TARIFF TRUCE.
    Sir A. POWNALLasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the outcome of the proceedings at Geneva with regard to the suggested tariff truce?
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the abstention of all the British Dominions from the Tariff Truce Conference and the rejection by that conference of the Government's proposals, he intends to take further part in its discussions?
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any statement to make regarding his negotiations for a tariff truce at Geneva?
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade the result of his recent negotiations with the European Powers at Geneva as to a tariff truce?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The House will be aware that I recently visited Geneva and took part in the discussions which have

    253
    for some time been in progress for the conclusion of an international convention on this subject. I am glad to state that a Convention was signed yesterday, as well as a Protocol regarding future negotiations for reducing trade barriers. Both documents were signed on behalf of Great Britain; the former also by 10 other countries, and the latter by 14. The text of these documents will in due course be laid before the House.
    Sir A. POWNALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the chairman of this committee, as reported in the daily Press, stated that, if they had taken a first hesitating step, it was all that they had taken; and does that justify the optimism that the right hon. Gentleman has always shown in regard to this matter?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly. While it is true that the Convention now signed falls short of the original draft, it is nevertheless, in my opinion, a very valuable document.
    Mr. HANNON: Will this document which was signed yesterday preclude the taking of any step at all by His Majesty's Government during the next two years to safeguard any enterprise in this country?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think the effect will be to give a basis on which to proceed with negotiations for the discussion of the reduction of tariffs in Europe, and I believe that that will be of very great importance to the trade of this country.
    Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: None of the questions to which the right hon. Gentleman has replied suggested a Debate on this matter.

    RUSSIAN TIMBER IMPORTS (FORGED LABOUR).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the fact that convict labour is being employed in Russia in the production of timber; and, if so, will he take steps to prevent its importation into this country under the powers conferred upon him by the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act, 1987?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The Foreign Prison-made Goods Act, 1897, is administered by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, who have power to
    254
    take the necessary action in the matter on evidence being tendered to them proving to their satisfaction that the goods in question arc prison-made goods within the meaning of the Act. Any representations in regard to any particular consignment should, accordingly, be addressed to the Commissioners.

    ENGINEERING INDUSTRY.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Government to set up an inquiry into the engineering industry on the lines of those now being held into the cotton and iron and steel industries?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: There is no present intention of appointing such a Committee.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extent of the unemployment prevailing in the engineering industry, especially on the North East Coast?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, that is unfortunately true; but various committees are investigating,, at all events, allied subjects, and just at the moment we do not propose to appoint another on this subject, but the condition of the industry is constantly before us.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the engineering industry, as regards the number of unemployed, compares unfavourably with either of the two industries which are at present being investigated by committees?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I could not, off-hand, reply on that point, but I can assure the hon. Member that we have the condition of engineering under constant review. It is, unfortunately, serious.
    Mr. HACKING: Are the other two industries really being considered?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, certainly.

    DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) ACT.
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in order to allay uncertainities in industries, he can now state the intention of the Government with regard to the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act when it expires at the end of this year; and whether it is intended to renew it in any form?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have at present nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 17th December.
    Mr. MANDER: Could the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the date when he will be likely to make a statement about this very important matter?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. I think, speaking from memory, that the Act expires in January, 1931. The matter is at present under consideration, and a statement will be made as soon as possible, but I could not at the moment promise a date.

    STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Major THOMASasked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive a Report from the committee which is examining the position of the steel industry in this country; whether this Report will be published; and whether he will also publish the evidence upon which the Report is based?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I understand that the committee hope to be in a position to submit their Report to the Government shortly after Easter. The question of publication cannot be considered until the Report is received. The evidence taken by the committee will not be published, as it has been submitted on the express understanding that it would be treated as confidential.

  SAFEGUARDING AND IMPORT DUTIES.

    MOTOR INDUSTRY.
    Sir A. POWNALLasked the President of the Board of Trade how many foreign motor cars have been imported since 1st February; and how that compares with the figure for 1929?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: As shown in the current issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom," to which I would refer the hon. And gallant Member for details, the total numbers of motor vehicles and chassis, excluding tractors, recorded as imported during the months of February, 1929, and February, 1930, were 2,710 and
    256
    1,458 respectively. Data are not available to show how many of these were of foreign manufacture.
    Sir H. CROFTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that cranes for salvaging broken-down motor cars, which are bolted to motor vehicles, have been imported free of duty; and, in view of the law relating to parts or accessories of motor cars and the fact that they are not used except when bolted to motor vehicles, what action does he propose to take?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): Representations have been received by the Customs regarding the liability to import duty, as motor car parts or accessories, of certain cranes which are capable of use for salvaging broken down motor cars. The cranes in question however are not made as parts of any particular motor car chassis but can be bolted to any flat surface. They are suitable not only for motor breakdowns but also for general use and it is understood that they are commonly so used. In the circumstances these cranes cannot be regarded as liable to import duty as parts or accessories of motor cars.
    Sir H. CROFT: In view of the fact that the trade are of opinion that these cranes are only used when bolted to a motor car, are they not obviously part of a motor car under the Act?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have already stated that that is not the view taken by my advisers.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is not the percentage of the cranes used for any other purpose so small that such an argument cannot have much weight?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot tell what was the percentage without notice.

    WRAPPING PAPER.
    Major THOMASasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the apprehension entertained with regard to the effects of any repeal of the duties on imported foreign wrapping paper; and mill he state what answer he has given to the petitions initiated and organised both by the em-

    257
    ployés of various firms and by trade unions concerned which he has received that these duties should not be repealed?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I cannot trace the receipt of any petitions of the kind described.
    Major THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman send an answer if I supply him with the petitions this afternoon?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think that that is the proper way. If the people who forward the petition send it to me, of course an acknowledgement will be made.

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of coal produced in Great Britain in 1929, and the figures showing separately its distribution among the various classes of consumers, including industrial undertakings, gas companies, householders, and the export trade?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ben Turner): With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as is at present available as to the production and consumption of coal in Great Britain during 1929.
    Following is the information:

    1929.

    Million Tons.

    Output of Coal in Great Britain

    257.9

    Quantity Shipped Abroad:

    Exports of coal …

    60.2

    Exports of coke and manufactured fuel (coal equivalent) Coal shipped for the use of steamers engaged in the foreign trade …

    16.4

    Shipments to Northern Ireland …

    2.4

    Total quantity of coal shipped abroad and to Northern Ireland …

    84.4

    Quantity of coal available for home consumption for all purposes …

    173.5

    Particulars of the quantity of coal consumed at gas works during 1929 are not
    258
    yet available, but in both 1927 and 1928 the figure was just under 17 million tons (exclusive of the coal-equivalent of gas-coke exported).
    The estimated quantity of coal consumed for domestic purposes, including miners' coal, is approximately 40 million tons per annum.
    The remaining quantity of coal available for home consumption was used for general manufactures and all other purposes including the production of electricity, iron and steel, for colliery engines, by railways and for coastwise transport.

    WOMEN EMPLOYÈS.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary for Mines the number of women employed at the pithead, coalmines, in this country in 1911, 1921, and 1929, respectively?
    Mr. TURNER: The total number of women and girls employed at coalmines in Great Britain in 1911 was 6,210; in 1921, 6,084; and in 1929 approximately 4,070. Of the number in 1929, 765 were clerks. Separate figures of clerks for the earlier years are not available.
    Mr. BATEY: Can the hon. Member say what the rest of the women will do, what kind of work they will do?

    HORSES AND PONIES (CASUALTIES).
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Secretary for Mines how many horses and ponies have been killed and injured in the coal mines of Great Britain for the years 1920 to 1929, inclusive?
    Mr. TURNER: For the period up to the end of 1928 I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 16th July last to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor, of which I am sending him a copy. For the year ended 30th June, 1929, the number killed or destroyed in consequence of injury or accident was 1,840, and in consequence of disease or old age 1,519. The number injured was 5,674.

    MACHINE COAL-CUTTING, LANCASHIRE.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Secretary for Mines what proportion of coal was cut by machinery in Lancashire in 1913 and in 1928, respectively?
    Mr. TURNER: Of the total quantity of coal raised in Lancashire in 1913, 8 per cent. was cut by machinery, and in 1928 the proportion was 20 per cent.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CHEMICAL WARFARE LABORATORIES (EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS).
    Mr. AYLESasked the Secretary of State for War the numbers and kinds of animals that have been used in each year for experimental purposes at Porton chemical warfare laboratory since the establishment of the laboratory; and the number that have been killed each year as a result of the experiments?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): I am having this information obtained, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT in due course.
    Mr. AYLESasked the Secretary of State for War whether animals are used for experimental purposes at the chemical warfare laboratory at Sutton Oak?
    Mr. SHAW: No, Sir.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL AND SMALL ARMS FACTORY, ENFIELD.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) if he will state the nature of the new proposals he has made concerning short time at the Woolwich Arsenal; and what is the estimate of the savings which will be effected by such proposals;
    (2) if he will state the estimated saving which will be effected by the Government decision officially announced this week at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock, to abolish piece-work at the end of this month; and what it is estimated will be the reduction in earnings of the men concerned?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Shinwell)I have nothing to add to the information which I gave to the House last night during the Debate on Army Estimates.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is not the hon. Gentleman ready to state to the House now, owing to the considerable anxiety which is being caused in both these areas, when he will be able to make a definite statement on the matter?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The negotiations are not quite complete. I expect to meet the representatives of the workpeople this week, and I hope to be able to give an answer very shortly.

  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of Sate for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the progress being made in the improvement of housing in the rural districts of Scotland under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, in those counties and county districts in which the Act is being worked; whether he has yet decided what steps to take to deal with the housing situation in those districts in which the local authorities are unwilling or unable to put the Act into operation; and whether proposals for improving Scottish rural housing will be included in the Housing Bill which is about to be introduced?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): Without in any way disparaging the good work done by several county councils, I regret to say that as a whole I am not satisfied with the progress made under the Act referred to. As regards the second part of the question, in view of the fact that district committees as housing authorities wilt, in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, cease to exist as from 15th May next, I do not propose to bring further pressure to bear on those of them that are not already operating the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, but the attention of the new county councils will, immediately after that date, be directed. to the provisions of the latter Act. As regards the last part of the question. I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the introduction of the Bill.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Seeing that the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the progress that is being made even in those counties that are working,.he Act, that he admits that there arc a number of counties in which the Act is not being worked at all, and that it comes to an end next year, cannot, he give an assurance that this vital question will be dealt with in the new Bill?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I have already assured the hon. and gallant Gentleman that immediately after 15th May, when the new authorities are constituted, I propose to draw the attention of such authorities as are not operating the Act to its provisions.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Even those that are operating the Act are not doing it to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman, or of the people of Scotland. Cannot he give us an assurance that some better legislation will be introduced to deal with the rural housing situation under the new Bill?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better await the introduction of the Bill.
    Major ELLIOTIs it not the case that there is more work being done under the Act in Scotland than in the whole of England with its very much larger area?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Questions of comparison of that kind are very difficult to answer on the spur of the moment.
    Major McKENZIE WOOD: May we take it that the Government propose to introduce a Bill to deal with rural housing during their term of office?
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can say what has been the total expenditure incurred since 1918 by local authorities in acquiring land for housing schemes under the Housing Acts; what is the total acreage acquired; what proportion of that expenditure and acreage had reference to compulsory acquisition decided at arbitration; and, in respect of such compulsory acquisition, what was the total amount of legal costs falling upon the public funds, in addition to the actual cost of the land?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I regret that the information desired is not available.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is there any chance of getting a grip on what the question asks for in the course of, say, three months?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: We are advised that a special return would be required from all local authorities on the subject, and it is doubtful whether the expenses of obtaining and tabulating it would be justified by the results.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not going to be the business of the Department to obtain reports so that the Government may understand the extent to which they will have to give financial assistance?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: It is very doubtful whether the results of such an inquiry would justify the expense.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the intention of the Government to make sure that, wherever they are spending money, they have to know every detail?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The Housing Acts do not provide that we ought to be informed of every detail. The amounts of the subsidy are fixed by the House.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the returns will be made by the local authorities and that, therefore, very little expense will be thrown upon the Government Department itself?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: No, that is the point. We do not get the return now, and we should require to ask for a special return of all those figures.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Would not the return be submitted by the local authorities?
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total sum paid to date from public funds as subsidies on houses under the Housing Acts; and if he can give an estimate of the total deficit on such houses that has been borne by the local authorities out of the rates apart from State grants?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: As at the 21st, instant, the total amount paid in Scotland in housing Exchequer subsidies was £10,880,258. I regret that the information desired in the latter part of the question is not available.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not going to be the duty of the Government to know all that takes place? Surely the Government could put pressure on the local authorities to make returns giving details of where the expenditure has taken place?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Whether the Housing Acts ought to be altered would be a matter for discussion in the House. As the law at present stands, we are not called upon to ask for the provision of all details from local authorities in the matter of how they spend their share of the housing money.
    Major ELLIOT: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the time of the local authorities which might usefully be used in getting on with housing is not taken up by filling up forms?
    Mr. McKINLAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the annual contribution made during 1929–30 or latest year in respect of housing schemes in Scotland under the Housing Acts of 1919, 1923, 1924, and 1926, and the number of houses in each case in respect of which subsidy was paid, including houses reconditioned under the last Act?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The information desired will not be available for the financial year 1929–30 until after the end of the current month, but I am sending my hon. Friend a statement giving particulars for the financial year 1928–29.
    Major ELLIOTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses at present under construction by local authorities with State assistance, and the numbers under construction at the corresponding date last year?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: As at the 28th February, the latest date for which particulars are available, the number of houses under construction by local authorities with State assistance in Scotland was 7,269. The number under construction at the corresponding date last year was 11,838. The figures, however, began to decrease, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, in September, 1928, and the rate of decrease between that date and June, 1929, is as great as since the present Government took office. It must also be remembered that last year the then Government were allowing about 60 per cent. of two-roomed houses, whereas the proportion now permitted unless in exceptional cases has been reduced to 25 per cent.
    Major ELLIOT: Does not the hon. Member consider that it is a very grave dereliction of duty on the part of his Government to do nothing to implement its election pledges about accelerating the rate of house building and, further, does he not think that by standing on a petty point about two-roomed houses—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be asking for the Minister's opinion.
    Major ELLIOT: On the point of the size of the houses. it is of very great importance to local administration in Scotland to know the opinion of the hon. Member, because the opinion of the hon.
    264
    Member and his right hon. Friend prevents certain houses being built.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must put down a question to ascertain the policy of the Government with reference to these matters.
    Earl WINTERTON: What does the hon. Member propose to do to accelerate the programme of building at present going on in Scotland? Does he not think that it is more necessary to build houses than merely to attack his predecessors in office?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: It has been frequently announced in this House that the Government propose to introduce a Bill for that purpose, and I would advise the Noble Lord to await that Bill.
    Earl WINTERTON: When will it be introduced?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: At an early date.
    Major ELLIOTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of building trade workers at. present employed on local authority housing schemes; and the number so employed at the corresponding date last year?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: As at the 28th February, the latest date for which particulars are available, the number of building trade workers employed on local authorities' housing schemes in Scotland was 4,723. As at the corresponding date last year the number was 4,838.
    Major ELLIOT: Does not the hon. Member think that the necessity of bringing in housing legislation at an early date is greatly reinforced by the figures he has read to the House?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: There is a difference of 100 building trade workers. To the extent of that 100, certainly I agree.
    Mr. BOOTH BY: Does the hon. Member mean by that answer that be is quite satisfied with the rate of progress? Does he not look for acceleration and increase in the houses built?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The fact that the Government are not satisfied is evident from the fact that they are bringing in a Bill.
    Sir K. WOOD: It has taken them nine months.
    Mr. JAMES WELSHasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of his staff are engaged upon work in connection with local authorities' housing schemes; and what has been the amount of Departmental expenditure in salaries, etc., upon such work during the past 12 months?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: A total of 38 officers of the Department of Health for Scotland are engaged whole-time on work under the Housing Acts. The expenditure on salaries during the present financial year is approximately £14,300.
    Mr. HARDIE: Do not the duties of these officers include what I have asked in previous questions to-day, the obtaining of information as to what has taken place?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: No, Sir. They do not at all involve meticulous examination of the expenditure of local authorities.

    WESTER IIAILES FARM (BUILDING EQUIPMENT).
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can state the estimated cost of the housing which will be created by the Department of Agriculture on the farm of Wester Hailes; and from what financial sources this cost will be met?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson)The estimated cost of the building equipment on the 17 holdings to be formed on the farm of Wester Hailes is £12,805, and the cost will be met from the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it right that the cost of housing within the area of a wealthy corporation like the City of Edinburgh should be borne out of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund, which is so urgently needed to provide small holdings in the rural districts?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The allocation of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund depends on the provisions of half-a-dozen different Acts. The matter is too complicated to be discussed within the limits of a Parliamentary question.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it right that the money should be used—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hardie.

    FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is prepared to extend the period during which applications may be made by fishermen for Government loans for the replacement of nets and gear; and whether he will arrange that fishermen who have been unsuccessful or only partially successful in their applications for grants from the voluntary fund will be given facilities for applying for Government loans?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: As intimated in the course of the Debate on 6th March, I am anxious to give all reasonable facilities to the fishermen to apply for the loans referred to, and I have decided that the period should be extended. 30th April is in view as the new closing date. The extension of time will, I hope, meet the point raised in the second part of the question.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Have the Government under consideration any permanent scheme in addition to the present one to provide for these fishermen?
    Major WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his inquiries into the question of the destruction by foreign trawlers of cod nets in the Moray Firth have been completed; if so, what is the result of his investigation; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that in future the local fishermen will be allowed to pursue their legitimate calling without interference from foreigners?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: The investigations made into the damage which occurred during the week-end from 8th to 10th March have been completed. I am communicating the particulars to the Board of Trade for consideration whether any action towards recovery of compensation can usefully be instituted. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave him last Tuesday.
    Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he gave me no reply on this point?
    Mr. MILLARasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of

    267
    fishery cruisers and other vessels employed in policing the seas round the coasts of Scotland; and whether it is proposed to add to their number?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Eight vessels—two of which are equipped with hydroplanes—are regularly engaged in this service. It is not meantime proposed to add to their number, but another cruiser will shortly be equipped with a hydroplane, subject to the money being voted by Parliament.
    Mr. MILLAR: Does this refer to any of the Admiralty vessels which are involved?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes, Sir, they include one Admiralty vessel, His Majesty's Ship "Spey."

    POOR RELIEF.
    Mr. TRAINasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any agreement has been reached with regard to the relief of the able-bodied poor coming from the South of Ireland who have not acquired a settlement in Scotland?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The negotiations begun by our predecessors in office have not yet led to any definite result.

    EXCHEQUER GRANTS.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give a return showing totals for the counties, burghs, and all other rating authorities, respectively, of moneys payable in 1929–30 by the Treasury in respect of grants in aid, with particulars under the following heads: in compensation for rate-relief under the Agricultural Rates Acts and the Local Government Act; housing subsidies; education; Poor Law relief and mental deficiency; highways; and police, public health, and other services, apart from the housing subsidies mentioned above?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I shall be glad to send these figures to my hon. Friend as and when they become available.
    Mr. MILLAR: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to see that these figures, as well as being supplied to the hon. Member who asked the question, are circulated to all Members of die House?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: If that is the desire, perhaps an hon. Member will put a question at a later date to enable the figures to be circulated in the OFFPICIAL REPORT.

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any decision has been made as to the date upon which the raising of the school age will come into operation in Scotland and, if so, whether he is now in a position to state the date?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: The proposed date for raising the school-leaving age is 1st April, 1931.

    PIGS (SLAUGHTER).
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of local authorities in Scotland who have adopted the Ministry of Health model by-law 9b in regard to the slaughter of pigs up to 28th February?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to his question on this subject on 17th February. The position as I then explained it remains unchanged.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to the efficacy of the methods adopted under the model by-law 9b with regard to this. matter?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: No, Sir. As I understand the matter, the conditions explained in the previous answer have not changed since that date.

    RATING RELIEF (LEGAL COSTS).
    Mr. McKINLAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount expended by the local authorities in Scotland upon legal costs in connection with the rate reliefs under the Local Government Act?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The information desired in the question is not in my possession and it could only be obtained by inquiry which would involve an undue expenditure of time and money.
    Mr. McKINLAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can, with reference to the Local Government Act, state the original gross rental and the reduced assessed rental. respectively, of

    269
    the agricultural, industrial, and transport lands and heritages that have benefited under the Act; and if he can state what is the total rate-reduction on each of these classes of land and heritages, and what is the amount of the grants the Treasury has to pay in compensation to the local authorities?

    Lands and Heritages.

    Estimated Unreduced Rateable Value.

    Estimated Reduced Rateable Value.

    Estimated Rate Reduction.*

    Agricultural

    …

    …

    …

    2,831,636

    707,909

    950,000

    Industrial

    …

    …

    …

    3,735,195

    933,799

    1,600,000

    Freight Transport

    …

    …

    …

    1,644,438

    411,109

    650,000

    8,211,269

    2,052,817

    3,200,000

    * The rate reduction in each case is the same as the amount of the grant that the Treasury will have to pay in compensation to Local Authorities.

    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
    Mr. JAMES WELSHasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the actual cost of the Scottish Health Department in salaries, office establishment, and general expenditure in 1929–30, and the cost in 1913–14 of the Department and other Departments since coalesced with it; and how the expenditure in connection with agriculture and housing in the latest year compares with that in 1913–14?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The estimated net expenditure to be incurred by or on behalf of the Department of Health for Scotland during the year ending 31st March, 1930, is £3,160,000. The combined expenditure incurred by the Local Government Board for Scotland, the National Health Insurance Commission (Scotland) and the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Board in the year 1913–14 was £674,000. As regards the latter part of the question the estimated expenditure of the Department on housing during 1929–30 is £1,652,000, while the corresponding expenditure in 1913–14 was nil. The gross expenditure from the Vote for the Department of Agriculture for Scotland (which is a separate Department) for 1928–29 was £522,536, as compared with £246,591 in 1913–14.

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (CENSORSHIP).
    Major ELLIOTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to
    Mr. JOHNSTON: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The following table contains the information desired, based on the rates payable in the years 1927–28:
    the fact that the Home Office issued a circular letter on 16th December, 1929, to licensing authorities with reference to the local censorship of films for children and young people; and whether it is his intention to issue a similar letter to licensing authorities in Scotland?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, notwithstanding decisions of the Courts in England that local authorities may attach to licences under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, conditions other than "safety" conditions, I am advised that the Courts in Scotland would be unlikely to take the same view. In the circumstances I do not propose in the meantime to issue any circular to Scottish licensing authorities.
    Major WOOD: Has the hon. Member received copies of resolutions passed by several education authorities in Scotland with regard to the necessity of doing something in this matter?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes. Sir.
    Major WOOD: What does the hon. Member propose to do?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: That does not arise out of the question.

    AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.
    Major WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the proposals for the

    271
    incorporation of a company to operate Part I of the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, which was passed a year ago; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among Scottish farmers at being denied credit facilities which are available to farmers in England?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: For reasons which I have explained in reply to questions put to me on 28th January, 4th, 11th and 18th February, it has unfortunately not been found possible, as yet, to bring Part I of the Act into operation. Negotiations are, however, being actively pursued in two different directions, and I am still hopeful that some way out of the difficulty may be found.
    Major WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the agricultural community of Scotland some idea when they may get the advantages that were proposed to be given by that Act?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The agricultural community realise the difficulties in regard to this matter as keenly as I do myself. The agricultural community are satisfied that I am doing my best to overcome the difficulties.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it not a fact that four of the eight Scottish banks have agreed already to co-operate with the Government, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman proceed to put Part I of the Act into operation with the co-operation of those four banks, and leave out the others?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that the banks in Scotland have been primarily responsible for the condition of agriculture in Scotland by refusing to give these credits before?

    LONDON NAVAL CONFERENCE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister if he can state the approximate number of resolutions and petitions he has received asking the British Government to make proposals to the Naval Conference for definite reductions in naval armaments, and particularly for the abolition of battleships
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have received a large number of resolutions and petitions from bodies representative of
    272
    every shade of opinion urging limitation of armaments and the abolition of certain categories of ships. As the hon. Member will, I am sure, appreciate, it would take some considerable research to ascertain the number of such resolutions, which continue to be addressed to me from day to day.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Does the right hon. Gentleman attach any serious value to these resolutions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make any statement regarding the Naval Conference?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No useful purpose would be served by any statement at the present time.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is there any truth in the statement that the Conference is about to adjourn for about six months?
    Mr. MILLS: Mischievous!

    ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the nature of the investigations now being undertaken by the Economic Advisory Council?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The nature of the investigations of the Economic Advisory Council is fully set out in the recent White Paper (find. 3478). The proceedings of the Council are confidential; and it would be contrary to the public interest for details of its inquiries in every instance to be made public.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman from time to time make arrangements to publish the conclusions, or some of the conclusions, arrived at by the Council?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the bon. Member will look at the White Paper, he will find that those conclusions are all set out.

    REVENUE APPEALS (COSTS).
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he

    273
    will consider the advisability of including in the next Finance Bill a provision to give the trial judge or superior tribunal, before whom a case might come, resulting from an appeal by the Inland Revenue from a decision in favour of a taxpayer, power to direct that the Inland Revenue pay the taxed costs of the taxpayer, even though the taxpayer fail, lf the judge or tribunal is satisfied that the case raises a point of principle not covered by previous authority?
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the case of Jones v. James Leeming; and whether he proposes to take action to revise the instructions respecting the taking of Income Tax cases to the House of Lords?
    Marquess of HARTINGTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the case of Jones v. Leeming, the costs of the action in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords will be borne by the Crown or by the respondent?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider taking steps to ensure that, when the Inland Revenue authorities appeal against a decision of the courts in favour of a taxpayer, the costs of both sides shall be borne by the Inland Revenue if the result of the action is unfavourable to the latter?
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the inclusion in the Finance Bill of a provision giving the trial judge or superior tribunal before whom an Inland Revenue case had been tried power to direct that the Inland Revenue should pay the taxed costs of the taxpayer, even though the taxpayer should fail, if the judge or tribunal was satisfied that the case raised a point of principle not covered by previous authority; and what action he proposes to take in this matter?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I do not think that legislation in the sense suggested is necessary or desirable. The case specifically referred to was one in which the Board of Inland Revenue felt bound to seek an authoritative ruling from the highest tribunal on a point of income tax law on which the guidance given by previous judicial decisions in other cases
    274
    was uncertain. In accordance with their established practice in appeals of this type they undertook from the outset to pay the taxpayer's costs, whatever the event, both in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords. I see nothing in this case that calls for an alteration in the existing law or practice as regards Revenue appeals.
    Sir C. CAYZER: In view of the fact that the Income Tax authorities have twice received a very severe rebuke from the highest legal tribunal in the land, can the right hon. Gentleman take some action to stop this bluffing and bullying of Income Taxpayers?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think that a question addressed in such offensive terms calls for a reply.
    Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted before the case was taken to the House of Lords?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I suppose they were, but it is quite evident from the supplementary questions that the purport of my reply has not been appreciated. This was a matter upon which there was some doubt, and the Inland Revenue authorities were anxious that there should be a decision by the highest judicial body in the country, and therefore they undertook to pay the whole costs, both the costs of the Crown and the costs of the taxpayer, in order to get that decision. I do not see that anybody has any grievance at all.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the Law Officers of the Crown are employed for the purpose of advising the Chancellor of the Exchequer on these matters?
    Sir W. DAVISON: In view of that statement, is it quite clear then, that in future, in eases where the Law is in doubt and which the Inland Revenue take to the highest court, the costs to the taxpayer will be reimbursed by the Inland Revenue Department?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member must draw no such conclusions.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the House of Lords has passed such comment before?

    IMPORT DUTIES (REVENUE).
    Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount collected by the Inland Revenue from duties on foreign imported goods of any kind during the current financial year?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The approximate net amount of revenue derived from the duties on imported goods up to the 28th February of the current financial year was £110,615,000.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman impressed by the magnitude of this amount?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am impressed mainly by the fact that the bulk of that is made up by the Tobacco Duty.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the revenue derived from duties on sugar imported from the British West Indies during the current financial year as compared with the previous financial year?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Up to the 28th ultimo the duty collected on sugar from the British West Indies during the present financial year amounted to £321,000 approximately, as compared with £402,000 for the corresponding period of the previous financial year.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On a point of Order. I wish to ask a supplementary question on Question No. 56.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I had called on the hon. Member to ask Question No. 57.

  POST OFFICE.

    ELIIBRIDGE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, SURREY.
    Sir GEORGE PENNYasked the Postmaster-General whether the new Elmbridge telephone exchange in Surrey will be completed by the 1st July; the date upon which existing subscribers in the Surbiton area have been officially notified that they will be transferred and the new charges come into operation; and whether, in view of the increase in subscribers in that area necessitating this transfer, he will investigate the whole position and see if it is possible to extend the radius from London to a mileage which would include the Elmbridge
    276
    exchange, so that subscribers will not have to bear an increased charge for London calls?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): The new Elmbridge exchange will be established on the 1st July next. The London radius for assessing call charges is at present 10 miles from Oxford Circus. On financial grounds that radius cannot be increased, and I regret that I am unable to make an exception in the case of any particular locality. I should add that, on the transfer of subscribers to Elmbridge, rentals will be reduced by £1 per annum per line, and a large proportion of the subscribers concerned will benefit by reason of the transfer.
    Sir G. PENNY: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that the Elmbridge exchange will be completed by the let July? In view of the very strong feeling which is held locally in regard to his arbitrary action, will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation from the District Council and the Chamber of Trade, so that he may be apprised of the great hardship that has been placed upon the people of that locality?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I shall be glad to receive a deputation. In regard to the exchange, it will be completed in April, but I do not think that it will be established then on the new site.
    Mr. DAY: Will it be an automatic exchange?

    MICRO-TELEPHONE RECEIVERS.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Postmaster-General what is the added cost to his Department of the new micro-telephone receivers as compared with the standard instrument; and how many telephone subscribers have agreed to pay the added charge of 16s. a year demanded for the installation of the improved receiver?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The initial cost of the new instrument is substantially higher than that of the standard pattern, but the hon. and gallant Member will realise that the actual contract price must necessarily be regarded as confidential. A more important factor than the heavier initial cost is that the new instrument is expected to prove more expensive to maintain owing, inter alia,

    277
    to the transmitter being of a more complicated design. Costs in this respect are necessarily problematical at the present stage. The additional rental of 4s. a quarter charged for the new instrument has been fixed to cover the extra cost involved under both heads, but the charge will be reviewed in the light of experience. Up to the present about 3,500 subscribers have ordered the new instrument.
    Commander BELLAIRS: If we may not know the cost of the instrument may we know how much more it costs than the original instrument?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I could not give that figure off-hand, but the point of my answer is that the reason for the extra rental is not the extra initial cost, but the fact that it is a delicate instrument which requires more looking after, and, in fact, requires three times as much in the way of repairs as the original.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is so much more reliable as to justify the extra cost?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: We have only been using it for a few months, but the results up to the present have led us to increase our orders.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the Postmaster-General give a guarantee that no profit will be made by the Post Office out of the extension to the public of this undoubted convenience?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I may say that I propose to review the finances of it at the end of 12 months, and, if it is found that any undue profit is made, I propose to reduce the cost.

    OVERSEA WIRELESS TELEPHONY.
    Sir HILTON YOUNGasked the Postmaster-General what success has been achieved in the Post Office wireless telephony tests with Australia which have now been proceeding for seven months; how many average hours commercial service per day can be guaranteed as a result of tests covering the complete 24 hours; and how many average hours commercial service per day were guaranteed by Imperial and International Communications, Limited?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The average hours of service per day taken over the whole year guaranteed by the Imperial and International Communications Company are 13 under one proposal and 15 under alternative proposals. As I have already stated, I am advised that the Rugby and Baldock Stations are capable of maintaining telephone services for as many hours as the Beam stations and probably for more. But the important question is not the total number of hours of service but the possibility of providing service during hours which cover effectively the common working or waking day. The Post Office experience confirms my belief. that it will be possible to provide service via Rugby and Baldock during longer portions of the waking day common to. both countries.
    Sir H. YOUNG: May I ask the Postmaster-General if he will be good enough to reply to the first part of any question as to what success has been achieved by the Post Office wireless telephone system, referring to the actual achievements.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Very great success. has been achieved.

    MAIL STEAMERS (BRITISH POSTAGE STAMPS).
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Postmaster-General whether, in any future-contracts to carry mails between Great Britain and our Dominions, the British Government will always be a party to. such contracts and have a clause inserted so that it may be possible in future for British subjects, travelling on British lines carrying British mails, to purchase British postage stamps during either the outward or homeward journey?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am afraid I am not in a position to give any undertaking in the sense which the right hon. Member desires.
    Mr. HACKING: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is very degrading for British subjects on a British steamer not to be able to purchase British postage stamps?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: There is no steamer on which a British subject cannot purchase stamps, but there are certain

    279
    steamers on which letters have to be sent with the stamp of the country making the contract.
    Mr. HACKING: May I ask whether it is not a fact that on the Union Castle line to South Africa, you cannot purchase a British stamp?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is not the stamp of a Dominion of the Crown a British stamp? Is it degrading to use the stamp of a British Dominion or Colony?

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

    PHYSICAL DRILL INSTRUCTION.
    Mr. DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received representations from the British Broadcasting Corporation for granting permission to broadcast a series of early morning instructions and lectures on physical drill, similar to those that are daily broadcast in the United States of America?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: No, Sir; but no such representations would be needed, since this is a matter within the discretion of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    Mr. ALBERY: Would not the hon. Member be able to obtain the necessary exercise by buying a gramophone?

    CHAIRMANSHIP.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMANasked the Postmaster-General whether the new Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation has been appointed yet?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: No appointment has yet been made.
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman expects to make this appointment?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I cannot give the exact date.
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great dissatisfaction caused by the semi-political stuff that is being broadcasted at present?
    Mr. ALBERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this appointment, when it is made, will be, so far as is possible, of a non-political nature?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The hon. Member will have an answer to that when the appointment is made.

    INDIA (BENGAL CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT).
    Mr. THURTLE(by Prix ate Notice) asked the Secretary of Stale for India whether lie is now in a position to make any statement of the Government's intention as to the continuance in force of the powers of arrest and detention without trial embodied in the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I am obliged to my hon. Friend for this opportunity to reply also to questions asked on previous occasions on this subject. With the approval of His Majesty's Government, a Bill is being introduced in the Bengal Legislative Council to-day to amend the present Act, the five years' term of which ends on the: 23rd April. The effect of this Bill is to retain for five years more the provisions in the first 10 Sections of the Act for the trial of certain offences by a curtailed procedure. The remaining sections of the Act which grant the executive powers of arrest and detention without trial will be repealed; but, if the emergency recurs, these powers will be resumed. If I may, I will read to the House a statement which has been made to-day by the Governor of Bengal with the approval of the Governor-General and myself, and which explains the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter. The following is the statement by the Governor of Bengal:
    "After anxious thought my Government has decided not to propose, on the evidence at present before them, the continuance of that part of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act which grants to the executive powers of arrest and detention without trial. These powers have unfortunately been found essential in the past, but for the last three years it has been possible to keep the situation under control without fresh recourse to them. My Government have desired to do everything they could to seek in co-operation with Indian opinion a solution of our present difficulties, and are therefore reluctant to invite the Legislature

    281
    to continue in existence powers the occasion for the exercise of which we must all deplore. They sincerely trust that no emergency will necessitate their resumption, but they cannot conceal from themselves the possibility that such an emergency might again arise which might make it essential for them to be in possession of these powers. They have accordingly been in communication with the Government of India on this matter, and I am authorised to state that the Governor-General in Council and His Majesty's Government, if they are satisfied of the existence of such an emergency, will be prepared to approve the necessary steps for securing these powers to my Government again."
    Mr. THURTLE: Since my right hon. Friend's reply indicates a return to the good British tradition of no imprisonment without trial, may I congratulate him?
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is more of a criticism than a supplementary question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what subjects will be debated on the Second and Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill?
Mr. P. SNOWDEN: On Wednesday, the day for the party opposite, I understand the subject to be debated is beam wireless telephony, and, after that, the situation in Russia will he discussed. On Thursday, which is the Liberal day, I am informed that the conditions of the cotton industry will be the subject of debate.
Captain P. MACDONALD: Will it be possible to raise the question of the West Indies sugar industry?
Mr. SNOWDEN: That is not a matter which is in the hands of the Government. It is a matter for the two sections of the Opposition.
Ordered,
"That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Report of Ways and Means [24th March] may he considered this day before Eleven of the Clock and the Business of Supply taken after Eleven of the Clock, and that the Business of Supply shall be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir Leolin Forestier-Walker reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Bill): Mr. Bowen and Captain Hacking; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. McShane and Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]
  REPORT [18 th March].
  Resolutions reported,

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1930.
  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, 1931."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,731,000, 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 conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,720,000, 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, 1931."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,596,000, 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, 1931."
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £500,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931."
  First Resolution 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."
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir SAMUEL HOARE: There are one or two questions I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air. My first is with reference to the after-careers of the short-service officers. As the House knows, about half the officers in the Air Force are engaged upon a short-service basis. That means that after a limited number of years in the Air Force they revert to civil life, and it is obviously very important that the Air Ministry should behave as a 4.0 p.m. good employer, and should do what it can to find careers for these officers when their term of service is ended. The Under-Secretary of State
  308
  was asked a question on this subject in the previous Debate, but he did not in his answer quite cover the point that would ask him to touch upon this afternoon. When I was connected with the Air Ministry, we had a number of inquiries into this problem, and eventually, about two years ago, after a series of meetings with representative employers in London and the country, we were able to arrange a system under which certain big firma gave a chance of employment to short-service officers who a the end of their time bore good characters, and so successful were those endeavours that I was able a year ago, in introducing the Estimates, to give some figures showing that a very large percentage of those officers who had ended their short-srvice periods were able to find suitable jobs at a suitable salary in private employment. I know from my experience that this is a question in which Members of the House have always taken a very close interest. They have always felt that it was the duty of the Government to do what they could for these men who served them very well in very important years of their life, and I think t would be of interest to the House generally this afternoon if the Under-Secretary of State could give us some further information as to the progress of the scheme, and let us know whether a large percentage of these short-service officers are helped to find employment when thy come to the end of their contract.
  There is only one other question that I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman upon this Vote, and that is connected with another matter. I meant to have given him notice of it before the Debate, and I must apologise to him for not having done so; but I dare say that in the course of the Debate he will give me an answer. It is in connection with what is called the high-speed flight. The House may remember that when during the last few years there was a British entry for the Schneider Trophy, a unit called the High Speed Flight was organised for training the pilots and the crews, and generally developing high speed. We heard in the Debate the other day that the Government. were not intending to give any further assistance either by way of officers or machines in any future entry for the Schneider Trophy. This afternoon I do not wish to enter

  309
  into any controversy on the subject as to whether the decision is wise or not, but I should like to know from the, Under-Secretary of State whether the high-speed flight is still going on and whether experiments are still being made with these high-speed machines. My own view, for what it is worth, is that it is most important that in a highly technical, scientific service like the Air Service, a unit of this kind should continue. The Air Service and flying generally have much to gain from the high-speed experiments that have been made in recent years, and which, I hope, will be made again in the future. As one who has very much interest in this class of flying development, I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could give us a little information on the subject during the course of the Debate. These are the only two questions I wish to ask at this stage of the Debate. There are others I should like to raise when the particular Votes are called from the Chair.
  Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air two questions on this Vote. The first is as to how those officers who are posted to Iraq and the Sudan, and are not allowed to take their wives and families with them, will fare under these new allowance schemes which the Estimates state wilt come into force on 1st April, 1930. If I am correct, married officers previously have drawn their allowances, I believe, when stationed in Iraq or in the Sudan. They have to keep two homes going, one in England, and are entitled to the maximum rates. In the Estimates I see it is stated
  "The presence of wives and families in Iraq and Sudan is not recognised for allowance purposes, and married officers in those countries therefore draw the rate for single officers."
  If it is a fact that these officers are to be deprived of a very great proportion of the allowances which permit them to keep their wives and families in a respectable state in England, I should be glad to have that information, and as to how much these officers are to be penalised.
  The other question I should like to ask is on the item "Recruiting Staff and Expenses." I presume that it is the desire of all parties in the House to cut down expenses as far as possible con-
  310
  sistent with efficiency, and I want to know if the hon. Gentleman could tell me whether it has been considered that the recruiting staff of the Air Ministry could get through their work possibly at a cheaper and quicker rate if certain inducements were given at the time of enlistment, particularly the inducement that men of the Royal Air Force should be allowed to leave their stations in the evening and wear plain clothes, as can men, for instance, in the Brigade of Guards. I know that every man in the Royal Air Force is, doubtless, quite rightly, proud of his uniform. At the same time, when they leave their stations in the evening, men like to change into fresh clothes, and go to places where they will not be conspicuous in their uniforms. Once a recruit in the Brigade of Guards—and remember the Air Force discipline started with the non-Commissioned Officers of the Brigade of Guards training the Royal Flying Corps—once a recruit has passed his drill and is a credit to the Brigade, he is allowed to put on plain clothes to go out in the evening. I venture to think that if the hon. Gentleman could say that the Royal Air Force is considering copying such a practice, "Recruiting Staff and Expenses" might appear as a lesser item when the Estimates come up next year.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The first question I was asked by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) was in reference to the after careers of short service commission officers. I think it is possible for me this afternoon to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman and to show that the Air Ministry is fully alive to the interests of the short service commission officer, and is at least endeavouring to be a model employer so far as the after-service interests of these officers are concerned. I have in front of me an analysis which shows the present position in regard to short service officers seeking employment. The machinery of the scheme has been indicated by the right hon. Member for Chelsea. The number of officers whose names have been on the books of the association during the year is 245; 20 of these have been granted permanent and medium service commissions; 64 of them are known to have been placed privately; 33

  311
  are presumed to have been placed privately, as they have failed to keep in touch with the association; 107 have been directly placed by the association, leaving only 21 who are still to be placed. I think it will be agreed that that is a very satisfactory record.
  The other point which the right hon. Member for Chelsea raised was the question of high speed flights. The Air Ministry is fully seized of the importance of the research work that has been done, and the desirability of research work of that kind in the future, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this question is one of very great importance. The answer is that high speed research of this character will go on at Felixstowe and, as the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, high speed officers have been posted there and will carry out, with the aid of the Air Ministry's high speed aircraft, further research work which will be as valuable to the force as the work that was done previous to the Schneider Trophy Race.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) asked me a question with reference to the allowances of officers when they go to Aden, Egypt, Palestine and Transjordan.
  Captain BALFOUR: I asked the question about the allowances of officers when they go to the Sudan and Iraq, and I do not know about Aden. I asked about places where married officers' establishments are not allowed, as they are in India.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: The Colonial allowance is reviewed periodically, and that revision is made entirely on the basis of the difference in the cost of living.
  Captain BALFOUR: I do not think that is quite an answer to my question. I am referring to the allowances, which are presumably for lodgings, fuel, and so on, on married and single scales.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: The hon. and gallant Member will see that those are dealt with on pages 11 and 12 of the Estimates, and I do not think he desires me to go into elaborate detail.
  Captain BALFOUR: I apologise for interrupting, but what I want is a comparison with what they were last year
  312
  before these new scales came in, in order that I may know how a married officer is worse off when he is posted to one of these stations now as compared with his income if he had been posted to the same station last year.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Speaking generally, although the matter is complicated by differences in rank and so on, he is no worse off, and my answer in reference to the general question of Colonial allowances is that the review takes place periodically on the basis of the cost of living. The other point raised was in regard to airmen who may desire to wear civilian clothes when they are not on duty. That question has been raised in the House on a number of occasions, but I do not think there is any real evidence of that desire existing to any appreciable extent. The hon. and gallant Member must remember that when an airman goes on leave, he is entitled to wear civilian clothes. It is only a question of whether he may wear those clothes in the evenings or at the week-ends round about the camp or barracks, and the feeling of the Ministry is—and I believe it is a feeling generally shared among the members of the Force—that the uniform is a proud one to wear and that there is no reason, except perhaps when going on leave, for relaxing that particular restriction. So far as the comparison with the Guards is concerned, I am afraid I cannot enter into that. That is the Air Ministry opinion on the matter, and I think it is the general feeling in the Force.
  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."
  Sir S. HOARE: I should like to ask a question about a subject in, which many of us have been interested very closely during the last few years, and that is in regard to the progress of tIe new building at Cranwell. Cranwell, the House will remember, is the cadet college for the training of the permanent officers in the Air Force. Hitherto these young men have been housed for the most part in War-time huts, which have year by year become more unsuitable for accommodating the Air Force cadets. Last year we were able to make a start with the permanent building for the college.

  313
  There was a ceremony of laying the foundation stone at the college nearly a year ago, and, as the House has always taken a very close interest in this question, I should like to know what progress is going to be made this year and whether the Government are going to press on with a very necessary building—perhaps one of the most necessary buildings connected with the Air Force in any way. I shall be glad, therefore, if the Under-Secretary of State can assure me that during the next 12 months the Government are going to press on with this very necessary building.
  Captain BALFOUR: I should like to ask one question with regard to the items on pages 85 and 86 of the Estimates dealing with the work to be done in Egypt. In the Memorandum published with these Estimates, the Secretary of State said that only as little work as was necessary was being done in Egypt, owing to the probability of troops and Air Force being moved to the Canal zone, but I think it would be well if the House could be informed whether, when this move to the Canal zone is made, we are to obtain such good quarters and such good technical equipment as is being provided in these Estimates for bringing these stations up-to-date. For instance, at Aboukir there is an additional generating plant, and at Heliopolis there is an additional hangar. It seems rather a late date for a hangar to be replaced at Heliopolis, even although it is structurally unsound, when perhaps there would be accommodation for machines at Aboukir, Helouan, and other aerodromes in Egypt, whose strategic importance need not now be considered. I think it would be well if we could have some details as to what this additional electrical generating plant is for, whether we are going to take it with us when we remove, and whether we have guarantees that such fine equipment as it is customary to put into these stations will be provided, brand-new or at least in as good a state of repair as the equipment which we leave behind when we go to the Canal zone.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I want to refer to Item No. 80 on page 89, in regard to the provision of a base and accommodation at Singapore. I see that £100,000 is to be voted in 1930, and a further
  314
  £167,000 for completing the work later. Would the Under-Secretary of State be good enough to let me have an answer to the question as to what exactly is going on at Singapore at the present time? Has the work been suspended, and can the hon. Gentleman give us some sort of idea of how we stand at that important base for the Fleet?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: With regard to the work at Cranwell, I can assure the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) that the Ministry is pressing on with the greatest possible speed with the object of completing that establishment, and there need be no doubt about an assurance of that kind. The question in reference to the Canal zone is one which has been raised in a number of connections, and I do not think it is necessary to say more at this stage than to assure the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) that in all those cases where work has to be undertaken outside the Canal zone, it is work which it is absolutely necessary should be done. It must be done at present apart from considerations of the Egyptian Treaty, and no expenditure is undertaken that will be unnecessary or that will be wasted. I think that is a sufficient answer to that question. With regard to Singapore, I must remind the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) that the Air Force station at Singapore is really a Far Eastern air station, apart altogether from any question of policy with regard to the Singapore base as a whole, and as far as I know, there is no likelihood of the efficiency of that station being interfered with in the slightest degree.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I did not suggest that it was being interfered with I wanted to know whether the hon. Gentleman could say that the work was going forward, or whether it is being suspended.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: It is going forward.
  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.
  Sir S. HOARE: There are two or three questions of detail that I should like to put to the Under-

  315
  Secretary of State in connection with this Vote, and I should like to ask in particular about a certain experimental machine called the Autogyro. I dare say several hon. Members have seen it at recent Air Force displays. It is a machine invented by a Spanish scientist, that is claimed to rise almost vertically off the ground and to descend almost vertically upon the ground. Obviously, if we could develop a machine of that kind, it would prove of the greatest value in extending flying opportunities in the future. A machine that can rise vertically and alight vertically would be of the greatest value. As a civil flying machine it might land on the flat roof of a house or railway station, and a civil flying machine coming to London would not, therefore, have to land at Croydon or some distant aerodrome, with the consequent loss of time to the passengers who have to spend half-an-hour or so in coming into the centre of London from the aerodrome.
  Obviously, therefore, a machine of this kind might in future be of the greatest value as a civil flying machine. It also might be of great value for certain military uses. If you can develop a machine that can rise vertically, without the need of a long take-off, and that can descend vertically, you would have a machine that could rise easily from the deck of any big ship and descend again upon it. From the point of view, therefore, of aeroplanes working with the Fleet, the development of this machine might be of very great value in the future. I am glad to say that when we first heard of this invention, now some years ago, we were the first country in Europe to take it up seriously, to buy the rights for developing it in this country, and to make a series of experiments with it. Since then, I admit, as is often the case with a new scientific development, the experiment may not have progressed as quickly as many people thought it would two or three years ago. To-day I should be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State if he could give us some further information about this experiment, and let us know, in general terms, what stage it has now reached, how near we have got to being able to make use of it, either for civil flying purposes or for spotting purposes
  316
  with the Army, or for deck landing purposes with the Fleet. is a very interesting experiment, and I am sure an answer from the Under-Secretary will be of value to many hon. Members in the House.
  There was another experimental machine, somewhat of the same kind, called the "Pterodactyl," a tailless machine which has been exhibited at recent Air Force displays, and has very much impressed the spectators, and anyone who has seen it by its very remarkable controlability in the air. I shall be glad if the Under-Secretary can tell us how that experiment is progressing. In these Estimates and in the Secretary of State's White Paper, allusion is made to flying boat development. Here again there are very important developments in the field of aviation. One of the most satisfactory features of technical development in aviation during recent years in Great Britain has been the development of the flying boat. New types have come into use, and new uses are being made of flying boats. In the last 18 months we have had a conspicuous illustration of this development in the unit of flying -boats that flew out to Singapore, and is now being based upon that place.
  I need not deal in detail with all the many uses to which the flying boat might be placed, both in our system of defence, and in our system of Imperial air communications. Recent years have shown occasion after occasion when the possibility of flying boats have become more and more apparent. I am therefore very glad to see in these Estimates further progress being made with this very important line of development. I should imagine, from what I remember of developments of this kind in the past, that there must now be quite a number of new types of flying boats, that is to say, flying boats with a greater range, speed and carrying capacity, now actually coming into use. I shall be greatly interested if the Under-Secretary can tell us a little about the developments which he actually contemplates in these Estimates.
  Lastly, I should like to ask a question about the development of civil flying machines. We have always in the past included in the Estimates the expense of a certain experimental machine for civil flying purposes. There, again, these machines are becoming every year more

  317
  and more important as greater use is being made of Imperial air communications. It is most important to press on with these developments of civil machines side by side with the developments that are being made with military machines. I gather from the Under-Secretary's speech the other day that he is fully alive to the needs of this development. He alluded, for instance, to the investigations that are being made by the Aeronautical Research Committee and other scientists into the question of noise. Noise is a very important factor in flying generally, but particularly important in the case of civil flying machines.
  Anyone who has flown a great deal in civil machines—and I suppose that I have flown as many miles as most people—will agree with me when I say that what tires a passenger more than anything else is the noise. I am sure that, looking to the future, one of the most urgent questions with the civil machine is the elimination, so far as is possible, of the excessive amount of noise. I admit that year by year we have made great improvements, and that the newer civil machines are a great deal less noisy than the machines were three or four years ago. I quote this instance to show the great importance of providing in this Vote substantial sums for experiment on civil machines, and for further investigation into such questions as noise and the other features of civil flying that are apt to make it unpopular with many people who would otherwise make use of it. If, therefore, the Under-Secretary can give me some information about the way in which the money for experiment with civil machines is to be expended during this year, I shall be very grateful.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would also like to put one or two questions to my hon. Friend. I agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) in one or two of his points, but I am afraid that he gave rather a wrong impression with regard to noise. The noise is, of course, rather a nuisance, and prevents people talking, and I have heard that that is why civil aviation will not make progress in some countries. As the right hon. Baronet also said, however, there have been great improvements here in this direction. I think that if the right
  318
  hon. Baronet's speech receives credence and notice, people may get a bad impression. I have also done a good deal of flying recently over some of the ground over which the right hon. Baronet blazed the trail, and I found that passengers were able to sleep peacefully in aeroplanes. I hope that it is not going to be noised abroad that the noise is so excessive that it tires people. The progress made has been very great in this respect, and especially in the very latest type of flying boat. Of course, anything that can help to lessen noise will be very useful, and will help to popularise flying.
  The Government have devoted in this Estimate a considerable sum of money for research purposes, and I want to be certain that the result of the research and experiments carried out by the Government, where they are applicable, are made available for civil aviation. I will give an example. There are still two enemies of flying—in the northern latitude, fog, and in the southern countries, dust—and anything that can make landing in fog or flying in dust safer, will be of enormous advantage and save much life and property in years to come. I understand that important experiments have been undertaken with regard to flying in fog, both here and abroad, and I want to be sure that the results of these experiments are made available for civil aviation in this country. I have a feeling that there is still a certain amount of hush-hush policy with regard to the results of very valuable experiments which are carried out with public money, and which would be invaluable to civil aviation.
  As an example of that, I believe that there is still on the secret list—although I do not see any reason why it should be on the list—a special gyroscopic compass, which is extraordinarily useful for flying in fog, and it is not allowed to be sold to the ordinary commercial user because at one time it was secret. There is a terrible tendency in Government Departments to make things a mystery when they ought not to be a mystery at all. Government officials love to write "Strictly confidential," "Secret," and "Very Secret," and put their documents in red or green jackets to show that they are terribly confidential, and that they must not be exposed to the world. That is all part of the bureaucratic plot to

  319
  maintain their short lease of power, but it can be very obstructive in the case of a rapidly developing science like this, which even still is only in its infancy and depends so much on research and experiment.
  Furthermore, I would like to know whether we pool our discoveries, as far as we can, with those of other countries. Have we, for example, any liaison with the civil aviation departments of Germany, America or France? Have we some arrangement for exchanging information, not of a military nature, but of a scientific nature, affecting all flying? In the general scientific world, there are no frontiers at all, and I hope that aviation will eliminate all kinds of frontiers, but we can do a great deal, I am sure, by pooling knowledge where there is no danger to military secrets, so-called. I did not give my hon. Friend notice about the special compass, and, if he is not able to answer me on that point, perhaps he can let me know a little later on.
  Captain BALFOUR: There are one or two points which I would like to ask the hon. Member on this Vote. I do not propose to embark into the realms of the bureaucratic plot, or what we would call practical Socialism, which was raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I would, however, comment on one point which he made with regard to noise. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) said that he had flown a great many miles. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, who recently carried out a long-distance flight, has also flown for a considerable number of miles. I can speak as one who has flown as a pilot for 15 years, and still survive. Noise is the most tiring, and the most monotonous and devastating ordeal with which a pilot has constantly to put up. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that people sleep peacefully while this terrible noise is going on. One of the peculiar factors of this noise problem is that there is some sort of monotony which sets up a vibration. Medical experts will tell you what it is. It is a vibration which makes the passenger sleepy, and certainly makes the pilot sleepy; but there are some sleeps which give rest, and others which do not, and I can assure the hon.
  320
  and gallant Gentleman that after this particular type of sleep the passenger will wake up, as some people might wake up from another type of sleep, not at all rested, but feeling tired at the moment of waking.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Perhaps I did not notice it so much because I had been inured by 11 years' experience of this House.
  Captain BALFOUR: The noises set up are very monotonous. I have one or two questions to ask about the direction of technical development under the Air Ministry. We are voting a very large sum of money in these Estimates for technical development and new machines, but is any money allocated for the development of soaring flight gliding? As the hon. Member probably knows, aviation started about 1850 with gliding experiments by Lilienthal and Pilcher. We have got away from the practice of gliding by putting more and more horsepower into our machines, but at last we have completed the circle and have come back to the original experiments of the pioneers of the middle of the 19th century. In Germany there are something like 400 gliding clubs, schools and technical colleges. The Air Ministry undertook certain gliding experiments in 1923, but dropped them pretty quickly. Germany, on the other hand, persevered, and has undoubtedly secured an enormous amount of meteorological data as to air currents and the aero-dynamics of soaring flight, all of which is of tremendous value to civil aviation, in which we want flight with the least possible power, in which we want to get our aeroplanes into the air with the least possible cost, as represented by petrol, oil and horsepower. I would like to know whether the Air Ministry are turning their eyes in this direction, and if they propose to help the newly-formed British Gliding Association in any practical form, such as giving data regarding meteorological conditions in various parts of the country, and, possibly by purchasing for a comparatively small sum a number of gliders from Germany, carrying out their own experiments and disseminating the information thus gained over the widest possible field.
  Next I want to ask about the development of night flying. Are we getting away from the sort of "Guy Fawkes' day

  321
  flares" which are lit at the bottom of the wing tips, and advancing towards the American system of proper searchlights, electrically operated, with highly-scientifically developed lenses to cast their rays in a particular direction? I expect every hon. Mmeber who has seen the evening papers to-day has read of the most regrettable accident which took place, apparently last night, at Worthy Down, in which a Royal Air Force machine was involved, and which resulted in the loss of the lives of two members of the Royal Air Force. If we could be assured that constant research is being carried out along these lines I feel that possibly those who have been killed might feel that their sacrifice had not been entirely in vain, feel that they were pioneers in a line of progress which is to be constant, and will, I trust, be pursued to the logical conclusion of making night flying as safe as day flying. Another thing I wish to know is whether a sum is included in the Estimates for the construction of another experimental long-distance machine to endeavour to secure the world's record for a long-distance non-stop flight. Tributes have been paid in this House to those gallant officers who have lost their lives. I would wish to add my personal tributes to them, as both were very dear friends of mine of long standing; but knowing them well I know that the one thing those officers, wherever they may be now, would desire would be to see some of their comrades seize the record for this country, an achievement which would have a great effect in heightening the national prestige in the matter of civil aviation and would bring credit to the Service which set out to secure the record. There has been no declaration as to whether a second long-distance flight is to be undertaken. It may be said that these long-distance flights serve no useful purpose, but I would assure hon. Members that every such flight is of great scientific value in the development of aviation, not only as regards the flight itself, but also in bringing home to the minds of the rising generation, who will be the air-minded people of the future, the fact that the sooner they become air minded the more modern they will be, and the more credit they will be to their country if they help it forward in aviation.
  322
  The last point on which I am seeking information, refers to the Vote for the aeroplane and armament experimental establishment at Martlesham Heath. The salaries of all the officials there are accounted for under Vote 3, and not under the heading of Civil Aviation, but a great many of those officers are, I suggest, carrying out work which ought to come under the Vote for Civil Aviation. By allowing this Vote to go through without raising this protest the Committee would be countenancing a principle which does not exist in any other walk of life. I must detain the House for a few moments while I endeavour to explain the point I am making, because it is a somewhat technical matter. When a new type of civil aircraft is being built it is inspected all the time by the designers of the firm, under Government supervision. All the materials used are under inspection, and all the workmanship is inspected. The design itself is stressed by experts, who very often take many weeks to do it, although the firm themselves have stressed it. When that machine is built it is sent to Martlesham Heath to be tested; and here is where I take issue with the policy of the Air Ministry. That machine, built by a civilian firm, designed by a civilian firm, and on which, possibly, the whole future of that firm depends, is subjected to tests by Royal Air Force pilots. They are scientific officers in the employ of the Air Ministry primarily to deal with Royal Air Force aircraft, but doing civil aircraft work as a sort of extra duty. I say it is all wrong that any civilian firm should have its future dependent on the report of test pilots—let me say that they are the finest test pilots in the world—who have not got commercial minds. Those pilots ought not to have commercial minds. Their job is to test aircraft for the Royal Air Force. They have gained wonderful experience in undertaking Service tests in Royal Air Force machines, but it is not their job to test civilian aircraft.
  Let us take this parallel. Would any shipbuilding firm, building a liner such as the Cunard Company are to lay down with the object of regaining the blue ribbon of the Atlantic, consent to send that ship to Portsmouth or Chatham for tests by the Admiralty, the ship being manned for the purpose by naval officers? If I may use the expression of the hon.

  323
  and gallant Member for Central Hull, we are allowing civil aviation to come under the influence of this "bureaucratic plot" which always exists in Government offices directly any new scientific development arises. Their attitude is "Let us keep it under our wing; we will give it enough rope to allow it to progress, but we must not let it get independent, or it may get out of our control." That is the usual point of view towards the development of any new science which has to run parallel with or in contact with Government Departments.
  I wish to know from the Under-Secretary how much of the salaries and how much of the time of these officers employed at Martlesham Heath is represented by their work in testing civilian aircraft, and whether we are to countenance this principle for all time in the future. Ought not the testing of civilian aircraft to be brought entirely under the Department of Civil Aviation? Certificates of air worthiness are, of course, very necessary; we have a high standard and we must keep it; but could not that standard be maintained, and even developed quicker, possibly, by letting the Department of Civil Aviation do the work with a civilian test pilot? He should be a pilot who has flown many hundreds of hours in civilian aircraft of various types, and who has the civil aviation mind and not the mind—for which I have the utmost admiration, having aimed at it myself for many years—developed along the lines of testing high-speed aircraft for manœuvring, looping, rolling, spinning and all the hundred and one movements which cause a very unpleasant sensation to the old man of the air who has grown out of these habits of the young pilot. At present all these aircraft are tested by these splendid test pilots instead of by pilots who have flown hundreds of thousands of miles on civilian air lines. It is wrong in principle for a commercial firm's future to be dependent on a report from Martlesham Heath, which is confidential to the Air Ministry and confidential to the firm, which says how much useful load the machine can carry and to what uses it can be put. Such a report really has the effect of determining the future of the particular type of machine, in which
  324
  the firm may have sunk thousands of pounds of capital in the hope that the building of such machines will give employment to hundreds of hands in the locality where the firm's works are situated. I admit that the system cannot be changed in a moment, but if we can know that civil aviation is not to be subject to bureaucratic control, that this new industry will not be stifled by regulations designed for service pilots, we could agree to this Vote with a much lighter heart as to the future of aviation.
  5.0 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: I have a few questions to ask the Under-Secretary on the subject of airship research. The airship R.100 has a petrol engine, and I would like to know if anything is being done in the matter of research into the capabilities of heavy oil engines, in case we build airships equipped with heavy oil engines. Further, have any experiments been carried out at the National Physical Laboratory or in any of the Departments to get a better aluminium alloy than duraluminium? The structure of this airship is largely composed of duraluminium, but I have heard that the National Physical Laboratory have been undertaking research work to see whether a better aluminium alloy could be found, and I am wondering whether after all these years, they have produced anything better. Then, again, is the experimental department carrying out any research work to find a good substitute for gold beaters' skin for lining the gas bags of airships. Everybody knows that it takes thousands and thousands of skins for these gas bags, and, if we could find a better substitute, it would be an advantage in connection with gas bag work. I also want to ask if any gas bag material or outer cover material has been sent out to India or Egypt in order to test it out against the actinic rays of the hot climates of those countries. If we are to send airships to India or Egypt, we should know the effect of these rays on the outer covers; otherwise, we may find them deteriorating and trouble ensue.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Quite a number of important questions have been asked me on this Vote and I think it would be better if I deal with them seriatim as they were put. The first question asked

  325
  was in regard to the position and possible progress of the gyroplane. Three gyro-planes are at present under trial in addition to an autogyro flying boat, which is still under development at Messrs. Short. A new autogyro will be ordered this year to embody all the experience that has been obtained up-to-date. Progress has been fairly satisfactory in the development of this particular type of aircraft and a mechanical means of speeding up the "rotor" before getting off is also being developed. Most of the essential fundamental work is within sight of completion. At the moment it is too early to predict exactly what particular advantage the autogyro may have. There is no doubt about the possibility of its service for ordinary civil flying, and there is every indication that we are well on the way towards successful completion of the experiments. But it is obvious that for many service purposes an aircraft of this character would hardly be suitable. That is a matter which will have to be gone into when we get nearer the completion of the experiments.
  I was asked about the pterodactyl. The original machine has been modified as the result of trials and will shortly undergo further tests. A new design has been put in hand of a three seater cabin aircraft with a 112-horse power engine.
  The new types of flying boats include a boat that is heavier than the Southampton, which will be introduced this year into the Service. The type will be selected from four types now under consideration. The Calcutta is being tried out this year as a military type and three boats are being purchased. I do not think it is desirable to give details of design of other boats which are in prospect at the present time for reasons which the right hon. Member will understand. There were two general purpose civil aircraft in the 1929 programme and also a large twin-float seaplane which is being manufactured by Messrs. Short. Details of other and later types I cannot give to the House at the present time.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) raised the question of noise in aircraft. I stated in my speech last Tuesday that this subject is being thoroughly examined at the National Physical Laboratory and there are
  326
  possibilities in the near future of being able to overcome a great deal of the disadvantage. So far as differing points of view as to the effect of that noise are concerned I think perhaps I cannot do better than give to the House my own experience. While flying over the uninteresting country of Northern Germany—uninteresting from an air point of view I mean—I found it was easy to obtain sleep or to read. To a, certain extent, of course, the question of noise depends on the type of aircraft used. Some machines are better than others from that point of view. The effect on me was that the monotony of the noise enabled me to sleep when I required it, and I was able to awake refreshed. With regard to gliding, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull knows there is greater opportunity for the development of gliding in Germany and on the Continent than there is here where there is not much country suitable for this development. However there are signs of the development of the glider in this country and I am not sure how far people who are interested in that subject may associate themselves with the light aeroplane clubs.
  With regard to the question of international pooling of ideas of research, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull that this principle has been recognised and has been carried out in the past. The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautical Research of the United States of America have been in close touch with the Aeronautical Research Committee in this country and the development of the R101 airship was carried through in close touch with airship development and experience in. that country, and also with Germany. The airship staff visited Friedrichshafen during the building of the ship, and there was a useful exchange of ideas. The hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) asked about Martlesham Heath and the question of civil aircraft being inspected by test pilots.
  Captain BALFOUR: Not inspected, but tested and reported upon.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I meant to say tested. I am not quite able to follow the hon. and gallant Member's objection to test pilots undertaking these tests. I should have imagined that from a testing point of view it would have

  327
  been satisfactory, though I can understand that there may be commercial complications. Although for the moment I cannot give a statement as to how much time is spent on civil work and how much on other work I can tell the House that the whole question of airworthiness is now being considered by the Civil Aviation Consultative Committee. I do not think I can say more now on that point, but when the Committee reports we shall know exactly what the commercial objections may be suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Captain BALFOUR: Could the hon. Gentleman say when this Consultative Committee will be likely to complete its deliberations on this point, and, secondly, would it be possible for some sort of time limit to be placed on this Committee, as these committees are liable to go on and on and nothing to happen, and we wish to develop civil aviation aircraft without delay.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: On this subject, the Consultative Committee is about to report to my Noble Friend.
  Captain BALFOUR: I also asked the hon. Gentleman if he would get information about the possibility of another long-distance flight and whether any money was allocated for another experimental flight for this country to get the record.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Yes, I believe that may be so; at any rate, the question will be considered.
  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."
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to raise one or two points on this very important Vote. This Vote is one regarding which I have great hopes from the present Government. I once told the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) that I should like to impeach his Government in regard to this matter of civil aviation. He took what I said to heart and made improvements. My hon. Friend has a great opportunity here, and I am certain that he will do his best to take advantage of it. I will begin on a slight note of
  328
  regret. I am sorry it has been announced that no help can be given for the next Schneider Cup Contest. That is a decision which indicates lack of imagination, for no event rivets public attention more on air matters than does this contest, and I am very sorry that this small amount of money has not been made available. When £325,000 has been voted on the doubtful proposition of airships, I regret very much that a smaller sum could not have been made available, so that this trophy could have been retained. An attempt will be made to keep the trophy, but it will be a strain on public-spirited men to put the necessary team into the air next time.
  I am afraid that the Air Ministry has not yet recovered from the general blight of the last Government. The Government were very sticky in regard to aviation. I refer to finding the necessary means for providing an air service from the North of England over to the Continent of Europe and to Germany. It would be better if that route could be joined up with the West of Ireland. At the present time, you have the Atlantic passage from America to Galway Bay, and from there you could land your mails straight across, leaving letters in. Dublin and in England, and then passing across the North Sea to the Continent, and in that way you would quicken the delivery of the mails. We have been told that this is e matter for the Imperial Airways, that it is not a paying proposition, and that it cannot be undertaken for those reasons. I think it is a great pity that an attitude of that kind is being adopted, and I have my doubts whether this matter has been considered seriously by the Air Ministry. I do not mind a German Company running the service as a German Company, but I should like to see British aviation playing its due part, and I would like some assurances as to how far the negotiations have gone in regard to this matter.
  The hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Oldfield) will not be surprised to hear that this matter has received a lot of attention in the part of the world which I represent in this House. In Hull we have laid down a large aerodrome which is one of the finest in the country, and it was constructed on an old racecourse in the estuary of the

  329
  Humber. It is the only deep-water estuary that is landlocked between the Forth and the Thames. You get very little swell there, and this spot was examined from the point of view of its suitability for holding the Schneider trophy contest, and it was found that meteorologically and climatically it was very good. You do not get much swell there, the short waves do not trouble the sea planes, and it is altogether a, very suitable spot for these purposes. The local people at Hull have been pushing on with this matter, but we do not seem to get very much forward. Of course I do not expect the Air Minister to do everything at once, or to perform miracles, but I would like some hope held out that his eyes are not only on the jungles of Africa and the deserts of Arabia with regard to aviation, and I hope he will recognise the fact that it is necessary that the important industrial centres of Northern Europe should be joined with this country. If Imperial Airways say it would not pay, some other means should be taken of establishing this important link to join up with Ireland and the Trans-Atlantic mails.
  This Vote provides only £500,000 for the whole of civil aviation, which has been established as an approved means of transport. We are spending £325,000 on airships of doubtful utility which seem useful only for the newspapers, and for people to be able to see, on a fine day, these huge airships in the air with or without Members of Parliament. All this may be very interesting for the crowds who witness airship flights, but you have in the aeroplane and the seaplane an approved means of transport which is coming more and more into use in all parts of the world. I know that there is a slight increase in this Vote, but I would like to see far more money spent upon civil aviation, and more efforts devoted to encourage its development.
  I said that I regretted that Imperial Airways have taken up the attitude that they cannot run a service unless it pays. I do not want to be supposed to be criticising aviation, because I think that Imperial Airways run their services very efficiently indeed. A distance of 6,000 miles has been covered by their machines, and they have got in their personnel the same skill and feeling of sacrifice that you get in the' naval and military
  330
  services. I know there is not the same commercial spirit of making the service pay. In distant parts of the world the airmen have a very monotonous job, but that shows what they are prepared to do in order to develop the Air Service. I do not criticise the Air Service, but I do say that it needs a great deal more encouragement, and I will proceed to show how I think it can be encouraged. I see that we have been told that it is hoped to extend the African services. May I ask the Under-Secretary what is being done in regard to the most important flight in the Empire, a flight which, I suppose, will one day be a regular feature in our communications, that is from Croydon to Sydney, Australia. I am told that it can be done now,, and that there are no technical difficulties in the way. I believe that flight can be made in 10 or 11 days.
  To-day a business letter, a contract, an interesting document, a cheque or an engineer's specification takes six weeks to send to Australia, and you can send the same thing by air in 10 or 11 days. That would give a tremendous boom to business between Australia and this country and the countries in between. There is the service to Alexandria and then on to Karachi, and there the service could join up with the India service, which, I understand, is to be a Government service. I want to know what steps are being taken to extend this service to Northern Australia, to join up with the rapidly developing Australian Continental Air Service. The Government should be more energetic in developing these air services, and I ask the Under-Secretary to pay attention to these matters.
  Let us consider the difficulties. The principal difficulty up to the present has been the out-of-date parochialism of the countries we have to traverse in order to establish air services. The entire service to India, was held up for two years, when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea was Air Minister, by the Persian Government, who refused to allow our machines to fly over Persian territory. Why did the Persian Government hold up our Air Service? Simply because we refused permission to the Persian Government to fly aeroplanes to Bagdad.
  Sir S. HOARE: That was not the reason at all. The Persian Government never asked for that permission.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think what I have stated is quite correct.
  Sir S. HOARE: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put a question to the Minister for Air on that point.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That was the reason which was given to me for that refusal. It was given to me on the highest authority.
  Sir S. HOARE: The Persian Government never made an application for permission to fly to Bagdad.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Apparently the right hon. Baronet is not fully informed upon his own job. What happened was that a German-Persian private company was established which is now flying to Jask, and they were not given permission to fly to Bagdad. It is superfluous to say that the Persian Government did not ask for that permission, and if it was a German company that is far worse still. At the present moment we all know that German aeroplanes come to Croydon almost every day of the week. We were told that public opinion in this country would not tolerate German aeroplanes or Persian-German aeroplanes flying to Bagdad, but now you see German aeroplanes landing in Croydon, and we do not care whether German or Persian or even Russian aeroplanes fly to Bagdad.
  These are only examples. Is it true, or is it not, that we have had to abandon the Italian part of the Britain to India flight because of the restrictions of the Italian Government? I know that they demanded a very large share of the profits of that part of the flight, and that difficulties were made in that way, but the difficulties were there, and we had to abandon the Italian part of the flight. After great trouble and delay we established the Greek part, arid but for the fact that the Greek Government have been most generous and helpful, that part of the flight would not have been possible at all.
  Then we come to Egypt. No particular obstructions have been put in the way of Imperial Airways by the Egyptian Government. It is true that the Govern-
  332
  ment in Cairo have to have long notice before a new pilot or a new machine can fly over Egyptian territory, and that is rather awkward and irritating, but, if we turn to the Treaty—the exchange of Notes for a proposed Anglo-Egyptian settlement—in which this mater is mentioned, and which was drawn up by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the late Egyptian Prime Minister, Mohammed Mahmoud Pasha. we see it stated, in the part dealing with aviation, that:
  "Unless the two Governments agree to the contrary, the Egyptian Government will prohibit the passage of aircraft over the territories situated on either side of the Suez Canal and within 20 kilometres of it. This prohibition will not, however, apply to the forces of the two Governments or to services maintained by genuinely British or Egyptian organisations operating under the authority of the Egyptian Government."
  This is not the sort of Clause that I should have liked to see in a Treaty drawn up by the Labour Government. It is restricting the rights of flight over a very important part of the world for communication between East and West. How can we, then, blame the Italian Government for all kinds of restrictions on aeroplanes crossing their territory? Again, it says:
  "The Egyptian Government will give all necessary facilities to British military aircraft"—
  and so on, and that we will give appropriate facilities to Egyptian military aircraft In the same way. That is particularising and creating special favours for British and Egyptian aeroplanes over the Suez Canal area. I am talking now of civil machines. I think it is a most unfortunate spirit to display, and it is to be seen in aviation all over Europe. Our own service to Prague was held up by the Germans; we made difficulties by stopping flying across Persia, and we have made difficulties in other parts of Europe. I cannot hold the present Government blameless. I do not, of course, mean my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who, I am sure, deplores these matters, but I cannot hold the present regime blameless.
  Take the case of India and the Dutch aeroplanes flying to the Dutch East Indies. They asked for 12 experimental flights to the Dutch East Indies, and they undertook the 12. Then they asked for another 12 experimental flights. Of

  333
  course, it may be said that they are making use of our aerodromes and skimming the cream off the aeroplane flights. I have heard expressions of that sort used, but is it quite wise to hinder or delay, without very good reason, the Dutch aeroplanes flying over Indian soil? It may be said that the aerodromes are not ready, but that is their look-out. It may be said that they may damage the aerodromes because they are not properly covered with gravel, or are soft, but what if they do? It would not cost a very great deal to put it right. But when the flight to Australia is ready to be inaugurated, we shall then have to go to the Dutch for the use of their aerodromes and seaplane stations. In fact, nearly all the nations concerned in aviation to-day are being extremely shortsighted. What is needed is the freedom of the air. We hear a good deal about the freedom of the seas, but the seas are absolutely free in time of peace. Any vessels can navigate the seas outside territorial waters. An international sleeping car to-day can go all over the frontiers of Europe into Asia Minor and as far as Vladivostok, down to Turkey, or throe the North of Europe, without let or hindrance beyond the ordinary formalities of the Customs. There is the International Transport Committee sitting at Geneva under the League of Nations, which is trying to make the same arrangements, and is making great progress, with regard to goods wagons. You can send a wagon of goods now from Havre right across Europe into the Balkans, and it goes under seal and is not interfered with over the railways as a matter of course. There are no particular restrictions about motor cars taken by tourists to Europe. Why should these ridiculous restrictions and obstacles be put in the way of aeroplanes on their lawful occasions, and legally registered, flying across one country to another and across frontiers?
  Unless these artificial restrictions can be swept away, they are bound to hamper this wonderful means of transport, that may mean so much to humanity in the future. I do not blame the Air Ministry exclusively in this matter. It is because this is a new means of traffic, and we are not air-minded enough that the matter has been allowed to remain in this state. I believe that we did press for the freedom of the air at the last Air Conference. but we did not press hard enough. If
  334
  it had been a question of holding up a British ship, if our trade bad been held up from using some international waterway, the whole force of the Foreign Office would have been thrown into the argument; diplomatic pressure would have been brought to bear, and public opinion would have been aroused, if our merchant ships and liners were treated as civilian mail and passenger aeroplanes are treated to-day. We are not exclusively to blame; all nations are to blame; but there is a lack of international spirit here, a lack of the give-and-take that is required if we are not to hamper civil aviation in the future.
  I have spoken with some little vehemence on this matter because I feel very strongly about it. Like the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last. I have been flying, off and on, for about 15 years. I have flown a good deal in Europe, and have covered a good deal of ground quite recently, and this matter was brought very noticeably to my attention. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) chooses to joke a little about this, but it is not a matter for joking. Imperial air communications are tremendously important to our trade. If we can carry our mails quickly enough to our Dependencies and Dominions, it will help orders for this country. Because I am not talking about workhouses, or hospitals, or whatever the hon Member for Leith specialises in, he must not think that this is an unimportant matter. It is very important, and I am glad to know that the Under-Secretary views it in the same light. I do not criticise him, or the Air Ministry, or the Government, but I hope that this matter will receive attention, and I shall be grateful for assurances on that point.
  Mr. EVERARD: I do not intend to follow the arguments which have been put before the House so very clearly and lucidly by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), but I want to ask the Under-Secretary one or two practical questions about the Vote which we are at present discussing. Some time ago he made a statement, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), as to the renewal of subsidies to light aeroplane clubs. It is, certainly quite clear, from the Memo-

  335
  randum which was sent out by the Air Ministry, that as regards the old clubs, whose agreement with the Government comes to an end during this financial year, they are to receive subsidies on the terms given to National flying services; but it was not at all clear what was the position of those clubs which have been formed at a later date, and which therefore, were outside the terms of that subsidy. I am not quite clear on these points myself from the reply of the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, or from the reply that he gave to me to a question on the 17th March, which reads as follows:
  "Any light aeroplane club which conforms to the conditions of membership and otherwise of the existing subsidised clubs is now at liberty to apply for official recognition as an approved club. If so approved, it will be eligible for payments in respect of such of its members as qualify, at the rates applicable under the new arrangements, as from 1st April next."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1930; col. 1734, Vol. 236.]
  There are several points on which I am not quite clear. In the first place, I am not clear as to what is an approved club. What exactly does the Air Ministry require from a club in order to know whether it is going to pass the test and may be considered to be approved under the terms of this answer? Turning to the agreement, published in Command Paper 3264, which was made with National Flying Services in 1929 I see that it speaks of:
  "Grants to each club member who qualifies for the issue or renewal of a pilot's licence, except those who have served in the Royal Air Force since the 31st August, 1921."
  Does that mean that, for every member of one of these light aeroplane clubs who holds an A or B certificate, the club will receive £10 every year, or only once on the granting of the licence? Further, I should like to ask whether the Government have any idea of laying down any term of years for this agreement. I see that, in the case of National Flying Services, for the first three years it is £10 per pilot, and for the next seven years £5 per pilot. Is there any suggestion of any arrangement being come to on lines of this sort, so that these clubs may have some idea in the future of the exact position in which they stand? I should also
  336
  like to ask whether there is any maximum which any particular club will be able to get under this new scheme. I understand that under the old scheme the maximum that any club could obtain was £2,000 a year, but it is quite clear that no club will receive anything near that amount under the new scheme, because the whole amount allotted is only £15,000, and I understand that there are 25 or 30 clubs that will be able to qualify for subsidy in future, so that it leaves a very small amount for each club.
  I should like also to ask the Under-Secretary whether he is aware of the difficulty of running these clubs at the present time. I personally have been associated since its commencement with one of the new clubs that has been formed in Leicestershire, and I should like to take this opportunity of tanking the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for Air for their great kindness and for the assistance they have given us in personally coming down to get the club started and assist in every way that they could in its formation. In spite of that, the hon. Gentleman will realise that with these smaller subsidies it is difficult to see how these clubs are going to carry on in the future. The expenses of running them to-day are just as heavy as they were in 1925, when the original subsidies were put into operation. The price of aircraft has not diminished to any extent, and the cost; of running has increased, because the engines used to-day in these lighter aircraft are of larger size than they were five years ago, and are, therefore, more expensive to run, while the insurance is also very much heavier than it was in those days. Therefore, I cannot see that there is any case at all for any reduction of the subsidies which have been granted to these clubs in the past.
  From the point of view of the air in this country, these clubs have probably done more to arouse interest among the ordinary people in the country than even the Royal Air Force itself, or any other section, including the great Transatlantic flights and everything else. People can go and see the planes actually flying, and realise that what they real in the papers about an aeroplane disaster is something that is most unusual, and is reported at far greater length than it should be in comparison with what ordinarily happens

  337
  in aviation. When you go day after day to these clubs and see novices being instructed, and the extraordinarily small number of accidents of anything like a fatal nature that occur, the average person begins to realise that civil aviation is something that is coming very fast to the front and is of vital importance to all sections of the community.
  I should like to put one other side of the problem before the Under-Secretary. Owing to the low amount of Government subsidies which are still further to be reduced, no club can afford to give an hour's instruction under 30s., and some of them charge up to four and five guineas an hour. We ought to aim at making it possible for everyone in every class who has any aptitude or any desire to fly to be able to learn just as well as well-to-do people. If you have to pay 30s. for an hour's instruction, and it may probably take 10 hours to get the A certificate, and possibly more, it is a very expensive pastime and one that cannot be utilised by the vast section of the people. If it were possible, by an increase of the Government subsidies, or even keeping them at the old scale, to enable clubs to make a reduction, it would be of real advantage to the poorer section of the community, who cannot at present afford to learn to fly but who are as keen to do so as any other section of the community.
  I should like to say a word on a slightly different subject. There is a sum of £5,000 to be voted to National Flying Services. I should like to ask how many new aerodromes National Flying Services have started since the subsidy scheme came into operation and how many new landing grounds have been made. I see from the agreement the Government have entered into that National Flying Services is to provide and maintain 20 new aerodromes and 80 new landing grounds within three years. More than a year of that time has already gone, and I shall be anxious to know how this plan is progressing. I should again like to thank the Under-Secretary for the sympathy he has shown to the light aeroplane clubs, and to ask him to bear in mind these few small points and endeavour to meet us in every way he can.
  Captain BALFOUR: There is one small but rather important point that I should
  338
  like to raise. We are voting £7,500 for the reconstruction of the Croydon aerodrome. I should like to know if any of that expenditure is going to be on account of improved public facilities. There is a sort of pen where anyone who is interested enough in flying can watch aircraft arriving and departing. In the summer it is hot and dusty, the grass is very scanty—it is more like the Arabian desert—and in the winter it becomes a sort of quagmire. There are no sanitary facilities, no shelters, and no facilities for refreshments. All sides of the House have expressed a desire that aviation should be popularised and that civil aviation should be made a thing of national pride. Surely, if we are to educate people to appreciate the worth of civil aviation, we should make it attractive for them to see a fine terminal air port of which you can be proud if you see it from an aeroplane, but of which you will certainly not be proud if you are put into a hot and dusty or a wet and damp enclosure without any possible shelter. The matter has been raised many times in the technical Press. While the Air Ministry goes on putting up beautiful buildings and luxurious offices, and things that are very desirable of which everyone will be proud, they neglect the person who has to pay for those offices, the taxpayer, who should have some definite degree of comfort and facility offered him when he goes to visit that for which he finds the money.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: I quite agree with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) about giving up all interest in the Schnieder Trophy. I hope that on consideration the Minister will agree to help the race all he can. It is very good for the firms who produce new machines and design the engines, and those who take a great interest in the work, and it is not fair to private enterprise that it should be asked to take part in that very expensive race. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether there are any regulations for going into the question of Imperial Airways replacing their machines—whether they have any inspectors to look at the machines from the Government side? I do not think Imperial Airways replace their machines quite often enough. That is a point that

  339
  ought to be considered from the point of view of the safety of the passengers. I should like to ask what happened to the recommendations of the 1926 Conference with regard to the West Indies, whether they have been gone into at all and whether any foreign enterprise is carrying out air work in the West Indies, Honduras, British Guiana and so on, because I think we ought to carry out air work instead of saving money on the Supplementary Estimates. We ought to put it into the development of the West Indies air service. I should like the Under-Secretary to give us any information he can about foreign countries working in that part of the world.
  Sir S. HOARE: I was very glad to hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I was greatly disappointed that he took no part in the first day's Debate. I could not remember any Debate in previous years in which he had not taken part, and I wondered really what had happened. I suppose the reason was that, having wished to impeach me year after year for my sins of omission and commission, he did not quite know what to say to his own Government when it had gone on with virtually the same policy. Let me congratulate the Under-Secretary upon a very wise continuity of policy. We have heard some of the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull made before.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That is what I mean by continuity of policy.
  Sir S. HOARE: We all know, for instance, his great interest in the city and port of Hull. I well remember representations being made to me by various people in Hull in favour of making it a terminus for one of the air lines, and I remember some of the representations in which they said that if only the hon. and gallant Gentleman would ask fewer questions in the House about it, they would get on much faster. But, be that as it may, I was interested to hear from him once again that all the Governments of the world are short-sighted, and that even his own Government is shortsighted, and that we must comfort ourselves with feeling that there is at least
  340
  one just man in this wicked world, one potential Mussolini of the air who really understands this question. and that that one just man sits on that further bench. I imagine the Under-Secretary will answer his questions in very much the same way that I have answered them in the past. That shows once again the wisdom of continuity in this great programme of national development.
  But I have risen for another reason, to add a word to what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour), who was anxious to see civil aviation popularised and brought more closely and attractively into the mind of the man-in-the-street. Let me make a further suggestion in that connection. I cannot argue it on this Vote, because it world not be in order, but let me suggest to him that a very effective way in which he could further popularise civil aviation and get it into the mind of the country would be to convince his colleague at the Post Office of the necessity of starting air stamps. We are the only important country, as far as I know, which does not have air stamps. I would ask him—and I wish him better success than I had in the endeavour—to continue pressure upon the Post Office, for I believe, if we could start a system of air stamps, that would be a way of bringing the existence of these air lines into the minds of many thousands of people who at present know nothing about them. I should he very glad to hear that the Order-Secretary looked sympathetically upon the idea.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I assure the right hon. Baronet that I look sympathetically upon the proposal for air stamps, but it is a matter for the Postmaster-General to deal with, and there are certain obvious difficulties. One is the fact that a very large proportion of post offices are very small, subsidiary offices in shops, and their work would be increased. Those are points which will have to be settled before we get air stamps, and before we get the advertising value out of a proposition of that kind.
  The speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) certainly imported an element of liveliness into the discussion. I was expecting him to raise the question of air services across the centre of England, and particularly a ser-

  341
  vice from Germany to Hull, across the country and over to Galway, or some other port in Ireland. There is no doubt that such a service would be highly desirable, but it is the kind of service which, obviously, rests entirely upon its commercial value and how far its prospective commercial value might appeal to those who have the fortunes of commercial aviation as such in charge. It is all very well to suggest that the Government should subsidise a scheme of this kind. There might be something to be said for such a subsidy, but there is a great deal to be said for subsidies of other kinds, and the Government are spending all the money that is available for such a purpose more upon the Imperial side of development than upon internal aviation. The reason for that is, that this country is not so suitable for profitable development of 6.0 p.m. commercial aviation lines as the Continent, and it is really necessary and desirable to concentrate more upon the development of Imperial lines than upon internal aviation in this country. I admit that the suggestion for a service between Germany and Ireland is rather different from a smaller internal service, but all these things are matters for the future, and, I hope, for the near future. The hon. and gallant Member can rest assured that every sympathy exists with such a proposal, and that if there is a possibility of encouraging and developing such a service, or such services the opportunity will not be last.
  A great amount of misunderstanding seems constantly to exist with regard to the monopoly of Imperial Airways. It has a monopoly over certain routes, but it has not a monopoly of services as a whole. It would be quite possible for a private company to start a service such as the one which has been suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, but there must be a limit to the subsidies which the Government are able to put into commercial aviation for the time being, in the hope that it will soon be possible to run aviation upon commercial lines. What is being done is being done with the idea of furthering the most prospectively successful development, especially as I have said, upon Imperial lines.
  342
  I have also been asked a question about the position of the Australian service. The Indian Service, apart from the difficulty which is being overcome as to the route to Alexandria, has now been extended, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, to Delhi by the Indian Government, Imperial Airways aeroplanes being used. As far as the section from Calcutta to Rangoon and on to Singapore is concerned, there is the difficulty of organisation along the Burma coast, and especially the question of the monsoons in that particular area. But there is every prospect of a quick development and a quick solution of these difficulties as far as the last section of the route from Singapore to Australia itself is concerned. That. is a matter more for the Australian Government than for ourselves but we are in contact with them and we have no doubt that soon, quite as soon as the other sections are in order, that is to Rangoon along the Burma coast and so on, we shall have every prospect of satisfactory arrangements being arrived at with the Government of Australia. I cannot give the date, or even suggest the date, for the completion of this service, but we are doing everything possible because we realise that such a service to Australia will be of wonderful commercial advantage to this country and to Australia and the Empire generally.
  I did not follow what, the hon. and gallant Member said in regard to the point raised as to the difficulties with the Persian Government over Bagdad, in view of the fact that, in the first place, this is a matter primarily for the Government of Iraq. Secondly, it is a fact, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) has pointed out, that neither any German firm nor the Persian Government made any application at all for the use of the aerodrome at Bagdad. I can give the hon. and gallant Member that assurance. I do not know what may be in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member with regard to his own investigations, but these are the actual facts. Application was not made for the use of the Bagdad Aerodrome, which is a military aerodrome converted to civilian purposes. German aeroplanes, or any other aero-

  343
  planes, are as free as Imperial Airways aeroplanes, to use that aerodrome at the present time.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWO RTHY: I instanced this matter as an example, but was not an effort made to get permission to run a regular line, to extend the line to Bagdad from, I think, Teheran, or at any rate to extend the Persian system of air lines?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I cannot answer that question completely. In all matters of this kind there is a great amount of negotiation. The hon. and gallant Member raised the question of the freedom of the air. The record of this country is perfectly plain upon that question. This country stands for complete freedom of the air, but if other countries do not agree to that, the only thing we can do is to try to obtain reciprocity. Some negotiations of that kind may have happened in regard to Persia. I do not know, but upon the point originally raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman there is no general objection whatever to foreign aeroplanes using the aerodrome at Bagdad.
  In regard to the Dutch East Indies, this is again a case where much misunderstanding, if not misrepresentation, has occurred. The original request of the Royal Dutch Company—the K.L.M.—was for a series of trial flights. The request was made originally in the winter of 1928, and the India Office was informed that it was proposed to start a regular service in 1931. The experimental flights were to begin in the spring of 1929, but they were postponed by the company until the autumn. Originally, 12 flights were contemplated, but the company reduced them to nine. Permission for those 12 flights was given, and the company then asked to be allowed to establish a regular service as soon as the trial flights were completed, but they were told they must finish in 1929, the reason given being that India was not ready for a regular service. They asked for further trial flights to continue until April. It would not have been practical to grant permission at once, but the request for these extra trial flights is still under consideration. I would like to point out to the House that in so
  344
  far as there is any restriction upon the Dutch there is an equal restriction upon the British.
  The objections to the premature use of aerodromes in India is one which is recognised by us, but is really a matter for the Indian Government. They have laid down a programme of air development the carrying out of which depends upon the sums allocated for the purpose from time to time. It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that if the Dutch company take the risk, why should they not be allowed to use the aerodromes whether the latter are ready or whether they are not? It is not a question of that company or of the Dutch Government taking the risk. The risk is a risk which falls upon us, apart altogether from the consideration of damage done to aerodromes which are not quite ready. It is all very well for the K.L.M. to say that they are prepared to take the risk, but the British Government would be held responsible for anything which happened. A parallel case would be a highway authority permitting the use of a road by those who were prepared to risk disaster before, in the opinion of the authority, the road was in a safe condition for traffic. Again I insist upon the fact that there is no preference exercised against Holland. The relations which we have had with the Dutch on this matter ale perfectly good and the difficulties are such as time will very quickly solve. There will be no trouble in the very near future and the objection to the premature use of that route is an objection of the Indian Government as well as of ourselves and it applies as much to British use as it does to use by the Dutch Company.
  The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) asked a number of questions with reference to light aeroplane clubs and National Flying Services. I think that the question of a grant to light aeroplane clubs was really satisfactorily answered both in the answer to a non-oral question given, I believe, to the hon. Member and also in what I said to the House on Tuesday last. What is meant by "an approved club"? Certain qualifications are necessary before anyone can say that a club is a practical and efficient flying club. Within the limits, at any rate, of the money available—as I said on Tuesday, if a miracle happened and every village started its light aero-

  345
  plane club we should have to reconsider the question—all clubs will be eligible. There is a considerable amount allocated to the light aeroplane clubs. Not only those in existence, subsidised or unsubsidised, but those which may be formed will be able, up to a reasonable limit, to obtain the grant, and the maximum will be the same, one of £2,000. With regard to the question as to whether the grant is to be of the came standard as the grant to National Flying Services, and whether it means that they will have the £5 at the end of the £10 period, that is a matter which I cannot answer at the present moment. The aeroplane clubs are being treated exactly the same as National Flying Services are being treated. The hon. Member must leave for the moment the question as to what would happen at the end of the £10 grant period.
  Mr. EVERARD: With regard to the £10 for each licensed pilot of a club, does it mean £10 a year to everybody on the club books who holds a certificate, or does it mean £10 at once for the man when he gets his certificate?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: The £10 at once. It. is precisely on the same lines as the present grant.
  Sir S. HOARE: It is for every year?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: It is for every year. It is precisely the same as at present; there is to be no difference in that respect.
  The present position concerning municipal aerodromes is as follows. There are municipal aerodromes at Blackpool, Hull, Manchester and London. There is a permanent ground at Chat Moss, and a temporary one at Wythenshawe, near Manchester. These are the municipal aerodromes in existence, but there are between 70 and 80 municipal authorities who are in some degree or other approaching the subject. Quite a number of them are negotiating for the purchase of grounds. Others have reserved sites in town planning schemes.
  Mr. EVERARD: Have the National Flying Services formed any new aerodromes that come under the agreement?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: The contract with National Flying Services is that they shall provide 20 new aerodromes, either themselves or in conjunction with municipalities. The answer to the hon. Member's question is that the aerodromes
  346
  provided are municipal aerodromes, and I cannot at the moment give further information. With regard to Croydon, the greater part of the money allocated to improvements and reconstruction is to be applied to the surface. The surface is in an unsatisfactory state, and it will be brought up to date as a first-class aerodrome surface. In regard to the question of amenities for the general public, a great deal is going to be done. I do not know that everything will be done that is asked for, or that would be desirable, but a great deal will be done. Schemes are proposed for making the public enclosure much better for the use of the public than at the present time. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) asked a question in regard to the West Indies. He asked whether the conclusions of the Report of the 1926 Committee have been considered, and what has been done. I went rather closely into the subject of the West Indies last week. It is true that foreign enterprise has gained a considerable advantage in the West Indies.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: What nation?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: America, which has been operating in Honduras as well. The difficulty that has been found is the difficulty of capital and finance. Capital would, no doubt, be available if it were possible to guarantee a subsidy sufficient to cover the reasonable interest upon the capital, but 'that is not the way in which the Air Ministry can possibly approach a subject of that kind. If a definite plan and scheme, properly financed, were put forward, it would undoubtedly be possible for the Government to subsidise to a limited extent.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: Would they be prepared to give, say, £20,000 or £25,000 a year as a subsidy?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I cannot at the moment reply definitely as to the question of amount, but I do not think it would be possible to get as much as that for the subsidy. What was asked for was a subsidy of £30,000 a year for five years, one-half of which it was proposed should come from the Colonies and one-half from this country. The Colonies are exceedingly poor, and that is one of the financial difficulties and one of the reasons why it has been found so difficult to go

  347
  along practical lines in regard to West Indian development. We are hoping for die future that something will be done either by those who originally made the proposals for the subsidy or that it will be possible to develop the West Indies from a bigger Imperial point of view rather than an inter-Colonial point of view. Negotiations are taking place or, rather, the matter is being considered from both points of view. I sincerely hope, and I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member and the House hope, that it will be possible to overcome the financial difficulty and to have a British service in the West Indies, particularly in view of the fact that the West Indies are a natural link between South America, with her rich commercial possibilities, and our own Dominion of Canada.
  I have neglected to answer the question which strictly speaking does not apply to this Vote, and that is in regard to the petrol engines in R 100. Petrol engines are used in R 100 because of the fact that it was found impossible to complete in time experiments that were going on for a certain type of engine, which ran partly by kerosene and partly by hydrogen, and it was decided by the company concerned to put in petrol engines. In regard to the Schneider Trophy, I am not quite sure what was the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Whether the matter had been reconsidered.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: It is always possible to reconsider a matter, but the consideration of this situation has been very definite. I made it very definite last Tuesday that the Air Ministry cannot see its way to advocate or to ask for public money being spent upon this particular contest in the future, for the reasons which I gave, first, that the preparation for the contest does interfere seriously with the work of the Air Force, and, secondly, because it is considered that the race for the Schneider Trophy is in the nature of a sporting event, and over any long period of time it is not desirable that it should be financed by public money. I hope that we may get the Vote now.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  REPORT [17th March].
  Resolutions reported.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1930.
  1. "That 97,000 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 500 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,990,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on the Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1031."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,073,950, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites. Grants, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,679,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931."
  First Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir BERTRAM FALLE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a few questions, to draw attention to Vote A and to make some remarks on it. It is a very innocent looking Vote. To the ordinary person it is merely a reduction of 6,000 men, but it is a great deal more important than that. It is so important that it appears to me that it may be the beginning of the end of the Royal Navy, which would mean the beginning of the end of this country. That is a big statement to make, but I will justify it. In effect, this Vote means that the efficiency and the contentment of the Navy are
  jeopardised. Without efficiency there can be no contentment, and without contentment there can be no efficiency. A reduction of 6,000 men in one year will lead to discontent and, I believe, to inefficiency. The reductions includes a reduction of 1,000 boys. Does that include the boys at Greenwich? There are

  349
  no-finer sailors in the world and no finer ratings in the Navy than the Greenwich boys. They come from old Navy stock. Their fathers were men who died for their country or men who have done long service for their country, and the boys are permeated with the same feelings of regard for their country and for the great Service in which they hope to have the honour to serve. When the Navy used to be 100,000 strong, or 99,800 strong, there was some hope of promotion in the ranks, but when there is a sudden reduction by 6,000 in one year, promotions must suffer. If promotions suffer, discontent must arise.
  I have not found a naval authority yet who does not admit that five years is the least period that you can give a rating before he is fit to take his place in battle in the defence of his country, that is to say, from 18 until he is 23. It took him 7½ years, approximately, when we had 100,000 men in the Navy, to become a gun-layer of the 2nd class and it took him, approximately, nine years to become a gun-layer of the 1st class, and captain of the gun, a very responsible position, with increments of pay accordingly. The same thing applies to the leading torpedo man and to the torpedo gunner and torpedo gunner mate. In the old days, when we had 99,800 men, it took a man from eight to 12 years to become a petty officer, which is, of course, the ambition of every man with ability, pluck and education in the Service. It took the chief petty officer 10 years to reach that rank. Service in the Navy is for a period of 12 years, and after that he is allowed by custom, if his conduct has been good, to re-engage for pension. He re-engages for 10 years more, and at the end of the 22 years he comes out on a reasonably fair pension, at the age of 40. A man must be 12 years as a chief petty officer before he can benefit so far as his pension is concerned and if he does not get his chief petty officership until his tenth year, although he may be a very able petty officer, he gets no benefit from all the work that he has done, the responsibility he has undertaken and the hard life he has had to lead as a chief petty officer in the Navy.
  That must make for discontent or bring inferior men into the Navy. It is our boast that we have the finest men in
  350
  the world in the British Navy, but this Vote, in a measure, is going to stop the flow of recruits and will give us an inferior type of man. Not an inferior type of rating, but the type of man who will not take the trouble to become a petty officer, a range finder, a torpedo gunner's mate, or a gun layer, because he will say that he will have to serve for 12 years without getting any advantage whatever. The petty officer, again, is in much the same position. The navy which is now at the bottom of the sea was on a short service basis, but their petty officers, range finders, gun layers and torpedo gunners' mates were all long service men. You cannot teach these men their work under the periods I have mentioned. No man is going to take all that trouble if he is not going to benefit in some degree for his labour. I saw a little service during the War and again and again when I asked a man to become a lance-corporal or a corporal they said that they preferred to be free men, that when they arrived at the end of a march they did not want the responsibility of going round the company or regiment or battery to see that the men were properly looked after. That is my argument in regard to the Navy. Unless you can get these things you cannot get the men.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not quite follow the hon. Member's argument. The only point before the House now is whether there should be more or fewer men in the Navy.
  Sir B. FALLE: My point is that if there are fewer men the Service will go to pieces. Already the reduction of 6,000 will affect the class of man who goes into the Navy, and my point is that a reduction of 6,000 is going to hit the finest force we have and upon which the liberties of this country entirely depend, not to mention the existence of the Empire. The First Lord promised the "rot should not come from the bottom"; it cannot if foundations are cut away if the number of ratings is lessened. It is a strange thing that in this Vote it is the lower ratings which are cut down. The higher ranks are not cut in anything like the same proportion. I see no reason why the upper ranks should not give the same quota in pro portion as the lower ratings. We can always get officers. Everybody is de-

  351
  lighted and proud to be an officer of the Navy, just as he is proud to be a man in the Royal Navy. But in these Estimates the officer is practically untouched, and the lower ratings are going to lose this year 6,000 men and 1,000 boys. I look upon this as an insidious step to lower the standard of the Navy. It is a gamble with the securities of the country and the Empire. The people of this country rest entirely. and absolutely on the power, efficiency and contentment of our great Navy.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: There are one or two questions I want to ask the First Lord on the subject of the personnel under Vote A. I want to ask whether the type of young man and boy he is getting for Dartmouth is up to the standard of past years—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how that question arises on this Vote. We are dealing now with the numbers, not with recruitment.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Should I be in order in asking how these numbers are arrived at?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The only question on this Vote is whether the numbers are sufficient, or too many.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: The numbers are unquestionably insufficient, and I should like to enter my emphatic protest at the tremendous reductions that are being made. Unquestionably the effect of these persistent reductions is to reduce the standard of people who are likely to follow the Navy as a career, whether as officers or as men. I want to ask a question as to the policy of the Admiralty in regard to the efforts they make for officers and men when they leave the service; whether they do their utmost to provide them with opportunities for employment. I hope I shall be in order in doing so?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No. The hon. and gallant Member would not be in order. That is a question which might have been raised on the question "That I do leave the Chair," during the Committee stage on Vote A of the Estimates; but not on Report. The hon. and gallant Member must confine himself to the Vote. In this case it is the numbers, and nothing more.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I want to ask the First Lord a question in regard to
  352
  the actual numbers for the Fleet Air Arm, and again to enter my protest on the reduction in numbers. I want to know the policy of the Admiralty in regard to observers and pilots. I do not want to be out of order. Shall I be in order in asking about the entries from public schools Would that be in order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No. That would not be in order.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I desire to ask the First Lord whether these reductions take account of any possible success arising out of the Naval Conference, or whether they are based on the strength of the Fleet as it now stands?
  Sir GODFREY COLLINS: Several hon. Members have addressed a question to the First Lord as to whether these numbers are sufficient. Apart from official quarters the only information we have had as to the numbers required for His Majesty's Navy was the Report of the Geddes Committee, and they recommended that the numbers should be less even than the present First Lord has asked the House to provide under this Vote. I have risen to congratulate the First Lord of the Admiralty on his courage and tact in being able to present these reduced Estimates to the House of Commons. Ever since 1916 the First Lord has appeared to me to be more powerful in the Cabinet. than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Every year since then he has been able to secure from the House of Commons a larger sum than the Navy actually required during the year. It is pretty clear that the First Lord has been a very powerful member of the Cabinet in days gone by. But the First Lord this year has taken note that the country, while desiring the Navy to be of sufficient strength, desires at the same time to see it reduced from the large numbers which have obtained during the last 12 years. I have been a strong critic of the Naval Estimates for some years past, and I have only risen on this occasion to congratulate the First Lord on his courage and his tact in avoiding any crisis at the Admiralty in presenting these reduced Estimates to the House of Commons.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: May I ask for your Ruling in this matter? You ruled me out of order on the subject of the recruitment of naval cadets, and I

  353
  see that under Vote A there are 1,205 subordinate officers, which includes 530 naval cadets at Dartmouth College. I do not want to combat your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to know whether that would in any way change your view on the matter?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No. There, again, I think it is only a question of numbers. It is not a question as to how the numbers should be recruited.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I desire, briefly, to reply to the points which have been made by several hon. Members. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sir B. Falle) continually referred to the fact that we were proposing to make a cut in the personnel of 6,000 in one year. He has misread the statement I made to the House last week. If he will read that statement again—
  Sir B. FALLE: I was here.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: He will see that the figures were for two years; the naval year 1929 and the naval year 1930. That is very different to reducing the personnel by 6,000 in one year.
  Sir B. FALLE: I said 6,000 by 1930.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the hon. Member will find, when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT, that he said we were cutting the numbers down by.6,000 in one year. That is not quite accurate, and I hope he will make it perfectly plain in any other utterances that he may make either here and elsewhere. He says that the reductions we are making are likely to interfere with two important necessities in the naval service: contentment and efficiency. Let me assure him that the Government have no desire to upset one or the other. He may rely upon it that the Government are as anxious as anybody to secure contentment in the Navy. They are certainly most anxious to secure efficiency, but efficiency is not secured by carrying more men than are necessary to man your ships. I am bound to say that the Vote of personnel, for which we are now asking, although it shows a substantial reduction, is considered to be enough to man the ships that we have in commission and to provide the necessary reserves. On what ground could we come to Parliament and ask for a larger number of men than that
  354
  which is required for the purposes of the Navy? I think there is some virtue in dealing with a Service of this kind from the business man's point of view. I want to see everything possible done for the personnel in the Fleet, but, when we are at a period of inevitable reduction—if I apprehend aright, the feelings of the peoples of the world with regard to disarmament—when we are passing through such a period of reduction, must we not face it like business people? What happens to the conditions of promotion and the like in the civil establishments of this country, in similar circumstances. We hear no such protest from the other side of the House, for example, when the conditions of promotion in civil employment are affected by rationalisation.
  Sir B. FALLE: Promoted "conchies."
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not quite follow the application of that remark to what I am saying. I do not think it affects the point at all. Surely in this matter we must act in the best interest of the country as a whole, and that is what we are doing in only asking Parliament for the number of men and boys which is required to perform service in the ships and training establishments which are being carried on at the present time. The hon. Member asked me if the proposal would affect Greenwich. It does not affect Greenwich at all and he need not worry about that point. He further went on to suggest that it was going to affect recruiting. It is certainly doing nothing of the kind at present. We have no lack of applications for recruitment and the recruits are of a very good standard. In fact I doubt whether there is any Service, in any way comparable with the Navy, which attracts young persons of the physique, the general educational standard and the intelligence of those who are being attracted to the naval service. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) uttered a similar protest about the numbers, and I think I have already answered that point. He also asked me how many pilots we were working to, and I am not sure that I did not give the answer last week. If I did, I repeat it now. Of observers we have 81 officers already trained and six more under training. Of pilots we have 120 officers trained and 29 more under train-

  355
  ing. In addition, a six-months course of flying for officers of commander rank has been instituted and eight officers are at present undergoing that course.
  As to the distribution of these officers, 100 per cent. of the observers are naval officers and 70 per cent. of the pilots in the Air Arm are naval. An aviation course for all midshipmen and volunteers from the junior commissioned ranks serving in the Navy commenced in 1929. We have no fear at all, and, having observed the keenness of the officers, both pilots and observers, whom I have met, I am sure that we shall have no difficulty at all in keeping up the number of trained pilots and observers in the Fleet Air Arm. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) asked whether the reductions in this Vote were due to any anticipation of Conference results. I think the hon. Member will see that that point is also answered by the statement that, for the number of ships in commission and other naval services now to be provided, the number asked for in this Vote is considered to be sufficient. May I say to all Members who have raised this question that on this point we have the complete support of the Board of Admiralty.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There may be further reductions?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: As long as we are here, we shall always ask Parliament for that number of officers and men and boys which is requisite to carry out the service in the ships and training establishments at that particular time.
  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."
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is a provision in this Vote for marriage allowances for naval ratings, and I think it is customary on this Vote to ask why similar provision is not made for the officers. The First Lord will recollect that in 1924, when his Government were in office, owing to the persistent agitation from all quarters in this House, they set up a committee to inquire whether or not naval officers should be granted marriage
  356
  allowances in respect of their wives. That committee reported favourably, after fully examining the whole of the evidence, and in 1925 a sum of £350,000 was included in this Vote in order to give effect to the decision of the committee. When the First Lord of that day, now Lord Bridgeman, introduced this particular Estimate—which received the unanimous approval of all parties—the hon. Gentleman who is now Financial Secretary to the Admiralty was quick to rise in his place and claim the real credit for the generosity, temporary though it was, of the then First Lord. He said, in effect, that the then First Lord was introducing that sum of money, but that it was really attributable to the action of the Socialist Government in setting up the committee, and he added that the policy with which the then First Lord was identifying himself was the policy of the Socialist Government. In a Debate on this matter the other day, I quoted the exact words of the present Financial Secretary to the Admiralty on that occasion, and lest there should be any misunderstanding I quote them again. According to the OFFICIAL REPORT, this is what he said on 19th March, 1925:
  "We can also feel some satisfaction that the present Government are pursuing a policy with regard to marriage allowances for naval officers which the last Government took. They appointed the Goodenough Committee, which, I understand, has reported favourably to the Admiralty, and from the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman to-night, the Admiralty have decided to press it upon the Treasury, and, in so far as this is concerned, he has the support of this party, which initiated it, and will be glad to see it carried throngh."—[OFFICTAL REPORT, 19th March, 1925; col. 2626, Vol. 181.]
  As I say, I quoted that. statement in a recent Debate, but owing to a misfortune, the House was counted out and the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty was not called upon to reply. That was very unfortunate for the House, but perhaps very fortunate for the Financial Secretary. The First Lord will have noticed in the Press during the last few days that those who have been describing the Spring exercises of the Mediterranean Fleet have reported that the one subject upon which naval officers eel very keenly is the question of marriage allowances. They cannot understand why they alone among the three Services should be de-

  357
  prived of an advantage which they need far more than either of the other Services owing to the conditions of their lives. I do not propose to go over the arguments, because those associated with the Admiralty know them very well, and the Goodenough Committee, which the Labour Government appointed, unanimously and strongly urged upon the Government that they should remedy an injustice which has too long endured. It is therefore with some confidence that I ask the First Lord to tell us that the policy which was so much welcomed by the Financial Secretary, when the First Lord happened to be a Conservative, equally commends itself to him to-day, although he happens to be in a position to carry it out. It will not cost very much. The right hon. Gentleman has made many economies, and I am sure he can spare the very small sum which is involved. At any rate, I am sure that he would like the naval officers to feel that during his regime naval officers will not be worse off than the officers who are serving under other Departments.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): It is quite true as the hon. Member has said, that I intervened in a Debate during the lifetime of the previous Government with regard to the Vote then brought forward for marriage allowances for officers. That Vote was put in before the report had been delivered in anticipation of a probable favourable recommendation. The Government of the day turned it down and declined to go further with it. The matter has been raised in Parliament on several occasions. It was raised quite recently on a Motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle), and arising out of that discussion the matter is now being reconsidered by the Board of Admiralty and there I must leave it.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am very glad to hear it.
  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."
  7.0 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I wish to expand one or two points referred to in a previous Debate in connection with this
  358
  Vote. My charge against the Government is that the sum in this Vote is not sufficient to ensure the safety of our trade communications, nor of the bases which are so essential for the men-of-war and also for the merchant ships. I refer in particular to Ceylon and Singapore. In regard to Ceylon I think I am correct in saying that there is a reduction in the provision for the storage of oil fuel of a sum approaching £250,000. If oil is wanted in a great hurry in the event of a war or rumours of a war, we should of necessity have to buy a great deal of oil fuel. It is not easy to get an unlimited quantity of oil fuel because the British Empire provides only a small proportion of the world supply of oil, and if the fuel were bought, it would come to Ceylon and Singapore in great tankers. It would then be discovered that there is no stowage of 7.0 p.m. any kind to be found. Oil is totally different from coal which you can put either in lighters or store in the open. You must have some special kind of storage for oil and the great advantage is that it does not deteriorate and is a form of insurance and security. I want to enter my protest against the fact that the process of providing storage accommodation for oil fuel at Ceylon has been so tremendously reduced. The same protest applies to the base at Singapore. Although it is not on anything like such a big scale, it is on a very considerable scale. I would ask the First Lord if he would give some better reason than he has hitherto adduced for such a great reduction in this connection.
  There is one further point, which I raised previously, concerning the money devoted under Item 82 to the naval base at Singapore to provide for Fleet requirements. I refer to the question of the stowage and safe storage of ammunition. We have a great floating dock there, and there are also commercial docks. It is perfectly well known that it, is a very unsafe and altogether wrong thing for any ship carrying a cargo and outfit of explosives, cordite, and so on, to enter dry dock or floating dock for repairs of any kind. It is the ordinary and normal procedure for that ammunition to be discharged and put into a perfectly safe place, which is usually a building on shore, though it sometimes

  359
  takes the form of floating craft, lighters, and so on. The ammunition is put in a position of perfect safety where it will not deteriorate from heat of the sun or from damp and other effects. In the previous Debate, the right hon. Gentleman referred to what he described as the adequate arrangements which had already been made, and I think the House is entitled to ask what those arrangements are. Speaking from the professional standpoint, I can quite clearly say that it is extremely unsafe and unwise to have what I would call a scratch arrangement for the storage of cordite outfits on ships while they are in dock. I hope the First Lord will be able to give us rather better assurance than he has already done that adequate arrangements are at lest in prospect. If he is unable to say that, I hope he will inform the House what are the, arrangements actually in use at the present time.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: I want to ask the First Lord one question, namely, whether at Hong Kong he keeps any flying boats. I notice that, according to to-day's Press, the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty received a deputation yesterday, of the Officers Merchant Navy Federation, which represents 11,500 officers, among them being representatives of British companies trading in China. They asked that the merchant ships out in the East should have adequate protection from pirates. I should like to ask the First Lord what arrangements are being made to protect our merchant vessels in the Far East from Chinese pirates.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can raise that on a later Vote.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: I may not be here then.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Under this Vote, there is a large number of works to be undertaken, some of them incidentally in my own constituency. I want to know whether the regular dockyard employés are to be engaged on these works or whether casual labour is to be engaged specifically for the purpose. I mentioned this matter when the Navy Estimates were under discussion, and I want to
  360
  press on the right hon. Gentleman that we should avoid this system of casual labour being taken on to do particular jobs and then discharged. We want to make the industrial service into a civil service and give its employés absolute security of tenure. The opportunity therefore arises to ask this question of the Civil Lord, who I assume will reply to this Debate, and make one of his speeches, to which we so much look forward because he has really done admirable work. I would ask him whether he has devoted his attention to giving absolute security of employment to Government servants? As he knows, less than one-half of them in Dovonport are established, and it is not right, that these men should be under the constant, threat of discharge. When you give the personnel of the Navy security of tenure and a, pension at the end of it, you ought to give exactly the same thing to the industrial employés. They ought to know that they are going to enter upon a, career which is in every respect as advantageous as the naval service, itself. I want to hear from the Civil Lord that he intends to put the whole industrial service upon a more secure and dignified basis.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: I should like to ask a question about the Appropriations-in-Aid under Vote 10. These Appropriations-in-Aid show a contribution by the Federated Malay States Government towards the Singapore Naval Base of £288,000 and a contribution by the New Zealand Government towards the cost. of the base of £90,000, making a. gross Appropriation-in-Aid towards the base of £378,000. The fact that this appears in the Vote enables me to ask the representative of the Admiralty to take this occasion to he a little more informative to the House and tell us what, if any, announcements were made to the Federated Malay States Government and the New Zealand Government before His Majesty's Government took the decision to slow down work on the base. The fact that these large contributions are made by those two Governments, not in the past, but in this very year, makes it really of importance that we should know how far they have been consulted in regard to the slowing down of work, how far they agreed to the policy of the Government, and whether

  361
  they are satisfied that the work which is to be done this year and which the Government found inevitable under the contract, is sufficient to meet the needs both of the Federated Malay States Government and of the New Zealand Government. I ask that particularly, because it seems to me that a vital question of imperial defence of that sort is just the kind of problem which may come up for discussion at the Imperial Conference this year. The First Lord, apparently, agrees with that, and, if he does, I should like to have some intimation as to the views of the Government in regard to the position of the Federated Malay States Government, because the Federated Malay States obviously are not a Power which can be present at the ordinary Imperial Conference which is attended by representatives of the Dominions. Therefore, it would be of interest to know what steps were taken to get in touch with the Malay opinion in view of the fact that the Malay States have been so amazingly generous in their attitude towards constructing the base. I hope that the Civil Lord or the First Lord will be good enough to tell us exactly what passed between this Government and the Governments of the Federal Malay States and New Zealand with regard to the slowing down of work on the base, and whether either or both of those Governments are satisfied with what is being done at present.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I hope the First Lord will answer the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), because it is quite clear that there is a good deal of expenditure in respect of Hong Kong. Among the items I see the Naval Armaments' Depot. A certain sum is provided for the transfer of the Royal Naval Armaments' Depot to Stonecutters' Island. We ought to have some details as to this transfer, especially having in view the activity of pirates in that country. Is the First Lord increasing the facilities provided for opposing these pirates, or is he decreasing them?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: On a point of Order. I think there is some misunderstanding as to what should be discussed on this Vote. I am not at all unwilling to engage in giving information to hon.
  362
  Members about anti-piracy measures, but I cannot see what connection there is between that and Vote 10.
  Mr. SPEAKER: As far as I can see this Vote has certainly nothing to do with the protection of ships from pirates.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: With great respect, if I was in any way transgressing, I should like to draw attention to the fact that there is a sum for Naval Armaments' Depot on page 202 of the Navy Vote. Are we not entitled to know what the reason is for this sum? I think it is very natural that at the same time we should draw attention to something which is very pertinent to the policy which the Admiralty should be pursuing in these waters at present, and that is the question of piracy.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know to what the hon. and gallant Member is referring, but I do not see anything about that on page 202.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Would it be in Order, as the First Lord is anxious to explain about pirates, to have it on this Vote, in view of the fact that on page 197 the sum of 25,983 appears for salaries and allowances of superintending officers and others, who possibly may include among their many duties something to do with piracy.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I should not like to set such a precedent on the question of this Vote.
  Mr. MOSES: I am not concerned with the pirates mentioned by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am a little concerned with Plymouth. I do not observe in the Estimates that there is any provision made for the Torpedo Training Depot at Plymouth. Will the First Lord tell us whether in the event of the Torpedo School boats being removed this year, there is any possibility of a Torpedo School being built on shore, because we have lost very many of the training establishments at Plymouth, and we do not want to lose the Torpedo School. I should like to know what provision has been made in the Estimates, and whether there is likely to be a Supplementary Estimate for the provision of such a Torpedo School at Plymouth.
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Hall): The first question put

  363
  by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) was whether the Board of Admiralty are satisfied that the amount of oil fuel storage is sufficient to meet requirements. I can assure him that we are quite satisfied that the sum of £2,073,000 is quite sufficient to meet the present requirements. He referred especially to Ceylon and Singapore, and suggested that there had been a reduction of a certain sum in the provision of oil storage in those places. In the Vote, we are already providing next year a sum of £10,000, and we are leaving £7,500 to remain over till 1931 for the completion of this scheme. It is true to say that it was intended that another scheme should be provided, but taking into consideration the amount of available storage which we had, it was thought unnecessary to proceed with that scheme during the course of the next year. I might satisfy the hon. and gallant Member by informing him that we have sufficient accommodation for providing quite a large amount of oil.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I tried to make the point that this was a reversal of policy and that the present Navy Estimates show that there is a much less storage of oil fuel.
  Mr. HALL: This is really done in supplementing the decision of the Treasury in the late Government, and we are quite satisfied that if we store as much oil during next year as was stored during the current year, we have ample accommodation. That is the position both in regard to Ceylon and Singapore. With regard to the other matter raised, about the provision of an armament depot at Singapore, the hon. and gallant Member must know that the work at Singapore has only just commenced, and there has only been one cruiser in the dock, for the purpose of having her bottom scraped, and while that is being done, there is no need to take the ammunition out of the cruiser. The Board, until such time as a permanent armament depot is provided, will provide for some lighters to receive the ammunition from vessels that have to use the docks.
  The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) asked whether we were
  364
  doing all that we possibly could to regularise employment in the dockyard,
  and whether under Vote 10 we would employ regular dockyard labour and not depend on casual labour. He might satisfy himself that everything possible is being done to stabilise tine labour in the dockyards, and we shall, under Vote 10 and under any of the other Votes, do all we possibly can to employ dockyard labour on dockyard work, but it is impossible to employ dockyard labour upon all the work, and it will be necessary to bring in casual labour from time to time.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I want the hon. Member to engage in the dockyard, on a permanent basis, enough men to do the work, instead of constantly taking men on and throwing them out. As lie knows. out of the 10,000 odd men employed at Devonport Dockyard, only 3,000 are established, whereas there is no reason why you should not establish every man. with a period of probation, to make the work absolutely secure.
  Mr. HALL: That is raising quite a different point. Although it is true to say that there are only about 3,000 men on the establishment, the 7,000 hired men are subject to fluctuations. There must be some elasticity in regard to the question of casual labour. It is intended by the Admiralty to give as many men as possible permanent employment, but at the same time there must be fluctuations. The hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) asked about Singapore, but I am afraid I have nothing to add to the very long statement made upon that matter by my right hon. Friend the First Lord in the Debate which took place last week. This matter was then gone into very fully, and I can add nothing to what was said on that occasion. Another question was raised by the bon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) in regard to Stonecutter's Island, and I am afraid he got that mixed up with Singapore.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAE: Hong Kong.
  Mr. HALL: The question of providing this armament depot at Stonecutters Island is a matter which has for some time received the attention of the Board

  365
  of Admiralty. It is a new service. The work comprises the erection of new buildings at Stonecutter's Island to replace the present depot at the Arsenal yard. The site of the existing depot is in a thickly populated area, and both the Admiralty and the Colonial Government have been concerned as to the safety of the depot and the surrounding population. The cost of the work entailed in its transfer to Stonecutter's Island, although chargeable to Navy Votes in the first instance, will be recovered from the Colonial Government.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by the word "safety"? Safety from what?
  Mr. HALL: The safety of the community. The Arsenal is situated, as I have endeavoured to point out, in a very thickly populated part of the district, and it has been considered desirable from every point of view to transfer this depot from its present site to a site some distance away. The Colonial Government are as concerned about this matter as we are, and the fact that they propose to provide something like 2,000,000 dollars to pay for this new depot is an indication as to how concerned they are about it.
  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."
  Captain CROOKSHANK: I want to know on this Resolution how far the Admiralty are dealing with the surplus stocks. There is a tremendous decrease, under Subhead M, of £113,990, and it says that this is due to larger surplus stocks available for current requirements. It is difficult to see why there should be this enormous reduction here, and if the First Lord will look on page 49 of the Estimates, he will see what is, to my mind, even stranger, and that is the extraordinary decreases in the Appropriations-in-Aid on recoveries for clothing and so on. He will see that there is a reduction of £20,000, in respect of clothing, etc., that there is a reduction of £65,000 on account of provisions sold to officers and men of the Fleet, and one
  366
  of £22,000 for repayments by other Government Departments. It seems to me that this requires explanation. Does it mean that there are great accumulated war stocks, and how does it come about that there is this great decrease in the amounts required for clothing and so on? On tobacco and soap, the reduction is enormous, because it is the difference between £74,000 and £53,000. That cannot be accounted for by the comparatively small decrease in the personnel borne. Experience in studying these Estimates tells me that we have to keep a very close eye on any great changes that take place in Appropriations-in-Aid, because it is there that we find that differences of policy occur.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: This question was raised on the Committee stage, and I have given a little attention to it. I think the hon. and gallant Member was rather over-stating the case, and I should like to tell the House that what is taken from stocks this year is by no means abnormal. I will give the House some figures from the two Votes on which this question arises, Votes 2 and 8. In 1923–24 the amount was £540,000 on Vote 2 and £1,334,000 on Vote 8; in 1924–25 it was £418,000 on Vote 2 and £1,254,000 on Vote 8; in 1925–26 it was £250,000 on Vote 2 and £799,000 on Vote 8. Then it was reduced till 1928, when it went down to £89,000 on Vote 2 and £575,00() on Vote 8, while the total figures in the present Estimate are £153,000 on Vote 2 and £364,000 on Vote 8.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Where are those figures to be found?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: They are on the two Votes. I should like to add that this drawing upon stock is no new feature. It is always happening. The reduction in stores is due to adjustments and in the overhead working stocks, which vary automatically with the numbers to be provided for. I want to assure the House that this does not mean at all that stocks are being reduced to a dangerously low level, which is what I think the hon. and gallant Member had at the back of his mind. That is the main thing we have to guard against.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  REPORT [24th March].
  Resolutions reported.

  AMBY ESTIMATES, 1930.
  1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 148,900, 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. 1931."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,500,000, 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, 1931."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,668,000, 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, 1931."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £910,000, ho granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931."
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,794,000, 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, 1931."
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,353,000, he 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, 1931."
  7. "That a sum, not exceeding £236,000 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, 1931."
  First Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. TINKER: I want to deal with the question of Vote A on page 8 with reference to the Cavalry. I am not satisfied that this number has been reduced enough. The figures given for 1929 are 372 officers and 7,868 other ranks. In 1930 the officers have not been reduced,
  368
  and the other ranks have been reduced by 94. There has been a fall in the Army of about the same percentage. The point which I wish to stress is that what we call mechanisation is not making the progress that it ought to do. The Secretary of State for War made the remark yesterday that what the previous Secretary of State has said covered the ground, and that they were not prepared to go any faster than they had done. We all know that the state of warfare has changed, and that the time of the horse soldier with the use of the sword and lance which goes with the horse. has passed, and some other form of warfare has come. I recognise that we have to have an armed force, and I want it to be as efficient as possible. I do not want to have redundancy, but we have redundancy in the Cavalry.
  We ought to have greater progress in mechanisation. Eighteen months ago we were asked by the former Secretary of State for War to view some mechanical contrivances. We understood from that that some progress was being made, but no progress is being made in fact. The cost of the horse soldier is tremendous. We have 17,000 horses, which equals one horse for every eight soldiers. The Secretary of State suggested that it was stated a hundred years age that those who joined the Army would be furnished with a splendid horse, the best clothing possible, and all the attractions that could induce men to join. There are only two reasons why the horse should be retained. One is to use it as an attraction for recruiting. The changing of the Guard in Whitehall each morning, the riding of the horse soldiers from some barracks lying further back, and the display along the streets are of no use, and can only be for one purpose, and that is to attract men into the Army.
  The second use for the horse is to give the officers a mount, but there is no need for that either. With the coming of mechanisation, there is no need for officers to ride about on horses. Horses are merely spectacular, and cause unnecessary expenditure of public money. If we have to have an Army, let it be ad efficient as possible: let us not have it merely for show. In the question of mechanisation, I do not want the Secretary of State to carry on what the former Minister of War said. It is not good enough "or Members on these benches to shelter behind what

  369
  a former Minister did. I want our War Minister to make better use of the mechanised means of war, and to make it as efficient as possible. He would get a great deal of economy by the disbandment of the cavalry forces.
  Commodore DOUGLAS KING: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is spending £292,400 less on mechanical transport than his predecessor?
  Mr. TINKER: I did not notice that, but what is the point?
  Commodore KING: It shows that he is not doing as much as his predecessor.
  Mr. TINKER: I was pointing out that I want mechanical means, and if the Secretary of State is falling off, there is more reason for my remarks.
  Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Before dealing with the subject on which I rise to address the House, I want to ask hon. Members not to be carried away too much by the kind of theory to which we have just listened. There is always a danger after every war to imagine that the conditions of that war are always going to hold. This country has suffered from that after almost every war in the past. We are always inclined to imagine that the conditions of the day must be suited to the last war, and to eliminate the possibility of war of an entirely different character. I only mention that because the reduction in the cavalry of this country has been so enormous, and far greater than any other military power in the world. I would beg the hon. Gentleman to read a little military history, and when he says that the cavalry arm has completely passed, I would remind him of the Palestine campaign. He has only to look at that to see that only recently the cavalry played a very decisive part in winning the brilliant victories of Lord Allenby.
  I rise in order to call attention to the extraordinary decision of policy taken by the Secretary of State with regard to the cadet corps. I have the honour to be a member of the Council of the Territorial Army Association of this country, and I do not think that Members of the House generally realise that the administration of the Territorial Army
  370
  is carried out by numerous members of Territorial Associations in every county of this country, who give their services freely, without any kind of advertisement, and with considerable expense to themselves, and who carry out this administration on behalf of the Government for the assistance of the Secretary of State for War. The Council of the Territorial Army Association is responsible for the administration of the cadet units. It has always been the policy of the Secretary of State for War to consult the Council of the Territorial Army Association before any big changes are made in policy, but the right hon. Gentleman took an extraordinary course in that he has allowed members of the Territorial Associations to learn of his change of policy by reading it for the first time in the newspapers.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot quite connect the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman with the Vote. What we have to consider is the number of men for the Army, whether they are sufficient or insufficient. That is the only point before the House.
  Sir H. CROFT: I appreciate the point you have raised, but I submit that the cadet corps are very largely instructed by the instructors on the regular establishment, who are the instructors for the various Territorial Units. They come under this Vote—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member can argue that there ought to be more men in the Army or fewer because of the existence or extinction of the cadet corps, but he cannot argue the question of cadet corps in any other way.
  Sir H. CROFT: I particularly wish not to go outside the scope of this question, and I intend to be very brief. I was under the impression that the question of recruiting for the personnel in the Army might have been considered on this Vote, and the effect that the cadet corps has in fact—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The whole thing is set out in the Vote. The question is as to the number of men.
  Sir H. CROFT: Unless I am permitted to deal with this subject in respect of the grant made to the Territorial Army

  371
  Association for the personnel, including the regular soldiers who are instructors of the cadet corps, I must bow to your Ruling and resume my seat—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to do that, because other Members will want to do the same.
  Commodore KING: May I ask your guidance on this point? With regard to Vote A, there are a certain number of instructors lent to the Territorial Army, who carry out training or inspect the training of the boy cadets, and I suggest that they are therefore actually included in doe numbers on Vote A. I therefore ask your guidance as to whether it would not be in order to ask whether, in view of the statement sprung upon the House yesterday that the cadet grant is to be done away with, the numbers of instructors and superintendents of instruction of the cadet corps under Vote A is to be reduced? I would also point out that the cadet corps are at the present time, and have hitherto been given, the use of War Office land for carrying out their training. At times, the cadet corps are even given the loan of Government buildings. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary asks me whether we are moving a reduction. That is the whole of the complaint. We never knew until yesterday the actual amount which is necessary to give the gratuities to the cadets—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is asking me a question on a point of Order, and is going on with an argument. No reduction can be moved, as I have already put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it in order from this point of view: There is in these Estimates a certain amount for administrative expenses in respect of cadets. The administrative expenditure of the Territorial Army is affected through officers lent to the Territorial Army from the Regular Forces who come under Vote A, so I suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can link up the question of cadets with Vote A.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The only way to do it would be to say that more officers or
  372
  fewer officers are required it the cadets corps are done away with. There is no other way of doing it.
  Sir H. CROFT: It involves the duties of officers, because as commanding officer of a Territorial unit, it has been my duty to inspect cadet corps—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This has nothing to do with the duties of officers, only the numbers.
  Sir H. CROFT: It is my point that fewer officers will be necessary. This decision was sprung on the House yesterday, and there is no other opportunity for the House to raise this vital question, of which no notice was given to the Territorial Associations in this country.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question could be raised on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State for War.
  Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Would it not come under Vote I?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Vote 1 deals with pay. If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to deal with questions of pay, it would be in order on that Vote.
  Sir H. CROFT: I submit that all instructors are on the pay sheets of the Regular Army and I thought that under those circumstances the point might be raised.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The only way to deal with that would be to say that more instructors or fewer are required.
  Sir H. CROFT: May I submit that in view of the fact that the Army instructors, who are on the permanent staff, have been carrying out these duties, they have been paid somewhat too little in the past?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must really confine himself to the question of the number, in the Army.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I rise for the purpose of putting some questions as to the progress being made with the mechanisation of the Army, but before I come to that, I must point out that we have had no explanation from the Secretary of State as to the purposes for which we are keeping the 149,000 troops which we are asked to Vote. We ought to be told why we want them and how we are going to use them. I take

  373
  it that the role of the Army has entirely changed since the Great War; that the danger of a European war does not now menace us and that we want troops for garrison work and police work in our very big Empire. We want troops ready to deal with troubles in India, riots in Egypt and disturbances on the frontier of India. For this purpose we require light mobile forces of all arms. As my hon. and gallant Friend below me said, we must not draw all our lessons from the experiences of the Great War, but recall our experiences in the Boer War and in the Indian frontier wars. We want numbers and equipment sufficient to deal with situations such as we have had before.
  The question of mechanisation had not really been mentioned during the Debate until the hon. Member opposite raised it, and I agree with him that we ought to have more information about it. I make out from the Estimates that the cavalry have been increased by two regiments in the mechanised arm in the last two years, and that the second regiment has just been completed. I have asked several times how these mechanised units compare with cavalry regiments in the way of cost, whether the experimental stage of mechanisation is over, and when we are to know how many mechanised units there are to be in the force, and what are to be the numbers in those units. It is quite time we were told some definite facts. We want to know the cost and how we are going to supply these forces with petrol when they are in the field.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That, again, would be out of order. We are not dealing with mechanisation, but with the number of men.
  Brigadier-General BROWN: My hon. and gallant Friend said something about it, and I thought I might refer to what he has said, and if I am out of order now I hope that before the Army Estimates are disposed of we shall really get some information on the point. We want to know how many more mechanised units there are to be, and of what use they will he for the operations in which they will have to take part. But if I am not allowed to pursue that subject, I think the question of recruiting will be found to come under Vote A. The Secretary of State spoke yesterday of the debacle in recruiting, and said the position was
  374
  very far from satisfactory, and that if we could give him any suggestions for dealing with it he would be very glad to consider them. But surely it is the job of the Army Council to tell us what to do and to put suggestions before us. It is a serious matter. There is the question of the numbers in India. I am not referring to the internal situation of India; British troops are not wanted for that, but for the situation on the frontiers of India.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is going into the question of recruiting, but that does not come under this Vote.
  Brigadier - General BROWN: The number of troops on the frontier is—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are not concerned with the numbers of recruits, but with the number of men in the Army.
  Brigadier-General BROWN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am done.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: According to the information given on page 33 of the Estimates, the Royal Horse Artillery is the only unit—
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): May I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to speak a little louder? It is very difficult to hear him.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I want to know what progress has been made with the mechanisation of the Royal Horse Artillery. Up to the present they have had horses, but I understand there is a prospect of their being used as mechanised units. Can we also have information as to the men in the anti-aircraft units? Are the men kept in those units the whole time, or are they transferred?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about that in this Vote.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: With great respect, I would point out that on page 33 there is a reference to a mechanised antiaircraft unit. The Vote concerns men, and I am asking whether there is a transfer of men between the anti-aircraft units and the other branches of the Royal Artillery, because that raises the question of training.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no question of training before us. The question concerns solely the number of men. I am afraid I shall have to repeat that statement very often.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can we be informed how many men there are in the Horse Artillery units, and whether the same number of men are employed in the units when they are horsed as when they are mechanised? We want to know whether a saving will be effected by mechanising the Horse Artillery. I understand that the whole of Vote A is not under discussion, and that we are dealing only with the question of men, but actually the question of horses comes under Vote A, and as an agricultural Member I should like to know whether I can raise the question of the King's premiums which are allotted for horses—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member is deliberately trying to get out of order, but he must not raise that question now.
  8.0 p.m.
  Commodore KING: I want to say only a few words, and I think I can keep entirely to the question of numbers. A reduction of 1,600 men is shown in Vote A. That may not appear to be a great reduction, but we know that it has followed on a steady diminution in the previous years. The Secretary of State told us yesterday that since 1914 there had been a total reduction of 37,000 men. I am only too glad when we can reduce the numbers and reduce the expenditure of the fighting forces. They are really nothing more than defence forces at the present time, and I am only too glad when we can, with safety to the country, reduce their numbers. The Secretary of State said he had attended all the meetings of the Estimates Committee at the War Office during the passage of the Estimates through theWar Office. Nevertheless, the Financial Secretary would probably tell him that a great deal of work had been done on those Estimates before they come to the stage where they receive final consideration by the Secretary of State. I was very glad to hear the tribute he paid to the military members of the Army Council and the civilian staff at the War Office, because I have assisted in the preparation of Army Esti-
  376
  mates in past years, and I have always appreciated the way in which the members of the Army Council have sought to cut down numbers and to reduce expenses as far as possible, but always keeping in mind the necessity for the greatest efficiency. They are willing to cut down as much as possible as long as the country is safe.
  Yesterday the Secretary of State was twitted by various Members on his own side of the House about the small reductions he had made in men and expenditure. He was told that his reductions amounted only to 1 per cent., and he was derided for so small an effort. As I have just pointed out, the reduction in numbers has been 37,000 since 1914; even in the last five years, since 1925, there has been a reduction of some 12,000 in the fighting strength. There bas been no corresponding reduction on the part of any other first-class country. While we have been making these reductions year by year, every other first-class country has been increasing and not reducing its numbers, and that is why I say emphasis on such a small reduction as 1,600. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), when he introduced the. Army Estimates last year, give the actual figures, and it would be as well if hon. Members who think we are going too slowly would look up those figures and see what has been happening among the other first-class powers. He pointed out that in the four years from 1925 to 1929 the expenditure of the United States of America on their Army had gone up from £51,000,000 to £59,000,000. I am not going into the figures, because we are on the subject of men, but I have thought it right to draw attention to the steady reduction going on here as opposed to the steady increase on the part of every other first-class country. I say to this Government, I hope they will maintain the 8.0 p.m. view the Secretary of State for War took up yesterday, that we will not make further reductions without corresponding reductions by other first-class countries.
  Mr. EDE: I desire to offer a few observations regarding the number of men in the Army, and more particularly with regard to the remarks which have just fallen from the right hon and gallant

  377
  Gentleman opposite. Surely it is the historic role of the British Army that it is not built up on any competition with any foreign Army at all, from the point of view of numbers. We have, in spite of the great conscript armies built up on the Continent in the last 100 years, always maintained the doctrine that a small, highly-qualified professional Army, devoted to the policing of our Empire overseas, is all that we require, and, as far as the land forces are concerned, we have never engaged in any race of armaments or of any comparative tests with foreign countries. After the experience of the past few years, and the capacity of this country and its number of population, I hope we shall return to that.
  I also desire to say a few words with regard to two or three of the establishments on page 11 of the Estimates, Vote A, the Royal Military College, the Staff College, and the School of Military Engineering. Frankly, I do not view with favour the continuance of these establishments in the British Army as I would like to see it constituted. I speak as one who joined the old volunteers when I was 17, and who, at the outbreak of war, was a member of the National Reserve, and was called up with that body and served throughout the War in this country and overseas. We are making a great mistake with regard to the British Army. We have now got a population which is very different from the population of 100 years ago, when the educated section of the community was the small one at the top of the social scale. We have now a population that has opportunities for education extended throughout the whole social range, and in every walk of life men have risen to very high positions from the most humble beginnings. I want to see the time when these institutions for educating officer classes, drawn almost exclusively from one social class, will not be regarded as necessary in the British Army—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it will be in order on this Vote to develop that matter. All we have to consider on this Vote is the actual number of men in the Army.
  Mr. EDE: I was trying to suggest that one of the ways in which economy in men could be effected was by the abolition of the establishments that are shown
  378
  on page 11, Vote A. There is the Royal Military College, which accounts for 135 all ranks, the Staff College with 103, and certain other similar establishments. I have every desire to keep within the ruling you have given, and I was going to argue, though if you rule me out of order I will desist, that the proper place for training the soldier is within the ranks of the Army itself, and not in these special institutions which I would desire to see abolished, and thus effect some reduction in personnel.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member confines his argument to reasons for reducing the number of men, he will be in order, but he must keep strictly to that point.
  Mr. EDE: I desire to proceed on those lines. We had in the last War probably the finest Army the world has ever seen, and it proved the absolute fallacy of the suggestion that we are a decadent race, or anything approaching a decadent race. The next two finest armies seen in the world, the one raised by this House and the one raised by a foreign country, were both staffed and officered on the principle I have enunciated. The new model army raised by this House during the Civil War was based on the principle that the proper place to learn the art of soldiering was in the army in the field. After all, the most distinguished soldier in it who ever drew a sword in battle had, so far as we know, never studied military tactics until over 40. Oliver Cromwell, and others who occupy a high place in British history, are standing proof that the proper place for a soldier to learn to understand his business is in the practice of it. The second army, that was based on the same principle, was the great army that defeated the united monarchs of Europe over—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): Now the hon. Gentleman is out of order.
  Mr. EDE: I am sorry. I merely quoted this as an illustration. I hope that one of the effects of the present Government being in office will he that this principle will be carried into effect with all speed. I recognise the care and zeal with which my right hon. Friend has framed these Estimates. He has watched the national interest, and, at the same

  379
  time, has remained loyal to the principles of this great party in the matter of armaments, and I sincerely hope he will be able, during his term of office, to do something to make this training for the Army, with its consequent reduction of expensive establishments, one of the things that will mark his tenure at the War Office as memorable.
  Mr. SHAW: The Ruling of Mr. Speaker and yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, make my task rather difficult. I have the keenest desire to reply to the points raised, but I am very timid about replying, because I know I shall be declared out of order, as were the speakers who preceded me. I will try to deal, as far as I can, with those points raised that were not ruled out, of order.
  The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) called attention to the types of men, and objected to the large number of certain arms of the Service, on the ground that these arms of the Service ought to be redundant, because the growth of science in mechanics had been such as to render cavalry absolutely redundant. He called attention to the fact that the number of men in the cavalry was a case in point, because of the extreme number of horses required. I, like himself, am somewhat of a layman, and I have to rely in these things on expert professional advice. I can give him my assurance that it is my desire to see the Army, so long as we have one, as efficient as it can be made, and the policy will be to see that every man in the Service, not only is properly treated, but that he gets every facility for making himself efficient. I will look into the question, but it would be against all the professional advice I have received if I accept his view as to the redundancy of cavalry and the superfluity of horses.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) raised in a sense the same question, and I can only say to him that the policy enunciated last night is the policy that mechanism is really in its infancy, that there are no final types, and that we prefer to experiment until we have found real satisfaction before we build. In addition, I want to say that there is a danger of building too many machines, from the point of view of efficiency, for
  380
  you may be tempted to use them simply because you have them, apart from the question of whether or not they are efficient.
  I should like now to refer to the question raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for Paddington South (Commodore King) who was so long at the War Office. The shortage of 1,600 men is not because of any malign influence of the Ministry. It is simply because recruits do not present themselves. It would be idle to deny that there is the curious phenomenon that while men are not willing to join the infantry they are willing to join the Air Force and the Navy. It is for us to fad out what is the reason for this, and hen we have found that out, perhaps we may be able to deal with the matter. Another question asked was with regard to the men in the Royal Artillery. Let me say that the Royal Artillery is a combined corps, and men can be transferred freely to all branches of the corps, including the antiaircraft Service. May I, in parenthesis, say to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that he will find an answer to his question as to reorganisation on page 9, and the following pages in the Estimates, which will give him a clear description of the transfer of forces.
  The final question was from the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), as to whether the men required for the Royal Military College and Staff College are redundant, and whether, by a different method, we could obviate the necessity for these colleges. He pointed out that we could do without these colleges if men were trained in the Army itself for the position of officers. I am not satisfied that at the present moment we could dispense with these colleges. I made a perfectly plain declaration last night that in my opinion—and it will be the policy of the Ministry so long as I am there—we ought to devote ourselves to finding a method whereby there will be a regular flow of men from the ranks into the commissioned ranks. I think I have dealt with all the points that I can deal with under the Ruling of Mr. Speaker and yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I hope the House will accept my assurance that if there is anything I have not said it is because I did not want to be ruled out of order by Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force; and that Secretary T. Shaw, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Montague, Mr. Ammon, and Mr. Shin-well do prepare and bring it in.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL,
  "to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, arid to be printed. [Bill 145.]
  Second Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.'
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: The Secretary of State for War said that the provision which was being made for the Singapore Base was only sufficient to meet outstanding liabilities. For Singapore there are three Appropriations-in-Aid. The War Office share of the fourth instalment of the contribution from the Federated Malay States towards the cost of the Singapore Naval Base is £92,000. The War Office share of the contribution from New Zealand is £29,000. I want to get at what is being done with that money, and I want to know whether it is being returned to the Malay States and New Zealand, and, if not, what is actually being done with it. I want, it I may, to touch on the larger aspect of the defence of this base, and to remind the Government that the Air Ministry have already stated this afternoon that they are proceeding with the work at Singapore.
  Mr. D EPUTY-SPEAKER: The question which the hon. and gallant Member is referring to cannot be discussed on this Vote.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I want to know what is being done with that money, and whether it is actually being spent on the Singapore Base.
  Brigadier-General BROWN: I see that on page 42 of the Estimates there is an item of £580,000 for marriage allowance for regimental establishments. I would like to know if there has been any
  382
  change in the regulations, and what the meaning of the increase in this Vote.
  Mr. SHAW: I think the short answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) about Singapore is that our policy has been quite clearly stated. It is that pending the result of the Naval Conference all the work at Singapore that can be held up is being held up, and only the work that is necessary is being proceeded with. With regard to the contributions from the Malay States and New Zealand towards the Singapore Base, they will be taken into consideration, because there is no intention on the part of the Government of receiving money and not carrying out their obligations in regard to it. With regard to marriage allowances, there is a larger number of married men on the rolls, and the conditions are quite plainly stated in the Estimates.
  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."
  Commodore KING: I want to submit that on this Vote it will be competent for us to raise the question as to whether this sum of money includes money for use by the Cadet Corps. A Ruling has been given that we cannot discuss anything to-day about cadets on Vote A, because we cannot show that a reduction would be necessary owing to the deletion of the Cadet Corps. I contend that on this Vote we have a real ground for discussing the new policy of the Government with regard to Cadet Corps, because the main amount provided for Cadet Corps comes under Vote 2. I do not think that the Secretary of State for War will deny that, apart from the main amount for Cadet Corps, in the block grant to the Territorial Associations there are sums for which the War Office is liable. I think under this Vote I am entitled to ask the Government for a further explanation with regard to their policy dealing with buildings and land which will be affected by the change of policy announced by the Government in regard to the Cadet Corps. It is not treating the House with proper respect. I do not think it will be denied that the Cadet Corps do have the use of Government lands for their camps and for their train-

  383
  ing, and that they also, on occasion, have the use of War Office buildings for living in. That must involve a certain amount of money. It may not be under a separate heading, because, obviously, the amount would only be small, since the total is not more than £15,000, including Vote 2; but, whatever the amount is, it must be included in this Works and Buildings Vote, and this will be the only opportunity of raising the question whether the sum should be included in this Vote or not.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to ask whether there is any expenditure for the Cadet Corps in this Vote, and, if there is, he is entitled to ask questions about it; but, if there is no expenditure for it, it cannot arise on this Vote.
  Commodore KING: Then I presume that I can proceed, because I have asked the hon. Gentleman to contradict me if I am wrong in saying that there is bound to be something within this Vote. I ask him that question again. There is no doubt that the Cadet Corps are allowed the use of Government land for their camps and for their training, and, apart from the equipment and so on provided by the War Office, which I admit we cannot discuss on this Vote, they are allowed on occasions the use of War Office buildings for living in.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that, before we proceed further, it is necessary for me to know whether there is any Cadet Corps expenditure included in these items.
  Mr. SHAW: Quite frankly, I have to say that I know of no definite expenditure for the Cadet Corps that is incurred under this Estimate.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If that be so, the question does not arise.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I want to follow up what I said on the previous Vote. I see that it is stated in the Estimate, under Item 95, that it is proposed to suspend the work on the Singapore Base as far as possible, pending the results of the London Naval Conference of 1930. I merely want to ask whether, in the event of certain decisions being arrived at, the right hon. Gentleman pro-
  384
  poses to bring in a Supplementary Estimate for the military defences of the Singapore Base.
  Mr. SHAW: I think that the explanation that I gave before was quite clear. There is no intention of bringing in a Supplementary Estimate.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.

  REPORT [24th March].
  Resolutions reported,
  1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1929, the sum of £401,855 13s. 9d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, the sum of £3,044,912 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  3. "That. towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, the sum of £194,330,950 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of
  Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL,
  "to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twentynine, one thousand nine hundred and thirty. and one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one," presented accordingly, and read the First time to he read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill No. 146.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  CADET CORPS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
  Sir H. CROFT: I do not propose to keep the House for more than two or three minutes at the most, but in view of the fact that I was ruled out of order in dealing with the question of the Cadet Corps, I hope I shall be permitted to take this, the only opportunity, as a member of a Territorial Association, to explain the position in which we have been placed. The Territorial Associations of this country are responsible for the administration of the Cadet Corps, and already the Council has been inundated with protests from all over the country pointing out the difficulties to which we are subjected by this very violent decision of the Secretary of State.
  Apart from the general question, it is understood—and here perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that the grants to the Council for administration of the Cadet Corps will cease on the 31st instant. It is laid down in War Office Regulations that the Cadet year commences on the 1st November in each year, and the consequence is that commanding officers throughout the country have already, for the past six months, been carrying out training and expending money in order to qualify for the grants that they were expecting to receive. I feel no doubt, after what the right hon. Gentleman said in the previous Debate, that it is not his intention to see anyone suffer unfairly through any training expenses which may have been incurred, but I would point out the very difficult position in which the Council of Territorial Associations has been put. As I mentioned earlier, on every previous occasion when there has been a change of policy of this description the Council of Territorial Associations—those Associations which carry on this work throughout the country for the love of it-have always been consulted; but I imagine that even Lord Derby was not informed of this decision, and was not able to take counsel upon it, as the first time that the Council heard of it was when they read of it in to-day's newspapers. The Council actually have offices and a staff for carrying out this branch of their
  386
  work and, as far as I can understand it, he has only given seven days' notice to wind this up. That is hardly treating the Council of Territorial Associations fairly.
  There is another point. It will take at least six months to clear up the business of the Cadet Corps. How is that going to be done? It will involve a considerable amount of work and expense. It may be imagined that these Cadet Corps are perhaps well-to-do boys. Over 10,000 of them are from secondary schools. For this paltry sum of £10,000 or £16,000, 20,000 boys go to camp every year and get that wonderful breath of fresh air which they cannot have if they are deprived of this small grant. The sum is extraordinarily small. I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to change his policy, although I think it is a niggardly and a mean policy to deprive these lads of the happiness they have previously received. I know the right hon. Gentleman is a very determined statesman and I do not ask him to change his policy, but I ask him to treat the question more fairly. The House appreciates his decision when he says, "No more cadets," but would it not be fair to allow the cadet year to be completed, which means that it will run on till 1st November? I urge him, on behalf of the Territorial Associations and of all these thousands of lads whom I have seen in such great happiness on this annual holiday, to reconsider the question and allow the cadet year to be completed instead of bringing it to a sudden halt.
  Commodore KING: I am more optimistic than my hon. and gallant Friend in asking the Secretary of State to reverse his decision because, as far as we can gather, changes of opinion come somewhat suddenly. No one connected with these Cadet Corps heard before the announcement in Committee that they were to be done away with. The Committee yesterday and the House to-day actually passed money in the Estimates to enable a grant to Cadet Corps to be given. In the general discussion we were able to point out that it is actually on the printed pages in the block grant. On page 61 we get the grant for the County Associations and on page 60, in those excellent pink pages which explain what it is all about, it says:

  387
  "Provision (£10,700) is made in this subhead for grants to recognise cadet units at the rate of 4s. for each qualified cadet."
  That is in the Estimates that were before the House 10 days or a fortnight ago and, therefore, we must take it for granted that the right hon Gentleman's policy then was to continue the grant in the coming year. Then, of course, we saw on the Order Paper dealing with the Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates a Motion by certain back benchers opposite, wishing as quickly a, possible to do away with the Army, and the final few words of their Motion were:
  "and the immediate withdrawal of all State grants for the maintenance of the Officers Training Corps and Cadet Corps."
  We are very grateful for small mercies to find that the right hon. Gentleman is not going the whole hog in taking away the grant from the Officers Training Corps. We can only presume that, wishing to do something to propitiate his own back benchers, he came to the conclusion that he could at least cut off the grant to the Cadet Corps. That is the only reason that can be apparent for such a sudden change of policy taking place between the issue of the Estimates and the right hon. Gentleman's statement yesterday. As the right hon. Gentleman has been able to change his mind once in a fortnight, I hope he will be able to tell us he will reconsider it and perhaps in the course of another fortnight change his mind again and reinstate the grants for which the Committee has already provided a certain amount. Unless he amends the Votes in the meantime, we shall in due course, as the Army Estimates go through, be providing the money which he is going to refuse to give to the Cadet Corps. I ask him, therefore, to reconsider his decision.
  Mr. SHAW: I like the hon. and gallant Gentleman's cheery optimism. It brings a ray of sunlight into a dull and dreary world. If I could please him I would, but I am afraid I cannot. The decision is taken on grounds of policy, and it is that these children ought not to be connected with a military establishment. That decision is quite clear cut. It is a matter of policy and we shall have to take the verdict of the House upon it. There can be no question about that.
  388
  Let me now come on to the other questions that have been raised. I did not know it was necessary or customary to consult the Territorial Associations with regard to matters like this. I knew the grants had been suspended from 1923 to 1926 and then re-introduced, not on military grounds I think, but on social grounds. If there is one thing that the War Minister is not responsible for, it is social matters. He has to maintain the armed forces and he must keep strictly to his own work. I cannot offer the slightest hope of a change in policy, but I am extremely sorry if by any mistake of mine I have not consulted the Territorial Associations, if they have been consulted in the past. I am sure, if that is the case, they will accept my assurance that no discourtesy was intended, and no discourtesy would have taken place if I had the slightest idea that a consultation of this kind was customary. The hon. and gallant Gentleman put the point to me that expenditure has already been incurred by Territorial Associations in the belief that this grant would be forthcoming.
  I stated very clearly that, when existing contracts had run out, there would be no more grants and that the cut was absolutely clean, but I give the hon. and gallant Gentleman this assurance, that as Minister for War I shall act just as I should act as an ordinary individual. If a bona fide case is shown where this expenditure has taken place. there will be no hesitation in meeting it on the statement which I made, that an existing contract must be honored, and if the expense has been incurred that expense will be borne. I think I cannot say more than that to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We cannot act in a way which might lead people to spend money and go to trouble, and then simply say, "Thank you for your trouble; we cannot pay you." Any expenditure which has been incurred I shall meet under the terms of the declaration which I made to the House, and I ask the House to accept that statement. Existing contracts will certainly be honoured.
  Sir H. CROFT: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that assurance, but may I once more press upon him that he should

  389
  consider whether the cadet force should not be continued until 1st November, in which case there will be no question whatever of any of these difficulties to which numerous individuals are being put?
  Mr. SHAW: I am afraid that with the best will in the world I could not do that. The decision was taken on the ground of policy, and that decision I must maintain. I regret that I have to do any-
  390
  thing which is disagreeable to anybody, but the decision is there. It is based, as I said, on the principles which we hold, and it must be maintained, if the House will support us. The other matters, I do not need to repeat, will be met in the ordinary way.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes before Nine o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  TOTTENHAM.
  TOTTENHAM.
  LEA VALLEY DRAINAGE.
  LEA VALLEY DRAINAGE.
  ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRY.
  ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRY.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  MOTOR-CYCLE INDUSTRY (WAGES).
  MOTOR-CYCLE INDUSTRY (WAGES).
ROYAL NAVY.
  ROSTERS.
  ROSTERS.
  WARRANT OFFICERS
  WARRANT OFFICERS
  WAGES, CHATHAM DOCKYARD.
  WAGES, CHATHAM DOCKYARD.
AGRICULTURE.
  OATS.
  OATS.
  CREDITS.
  CREDITS.
  POTATOES (IMPORT).
  POTATOES (IMPORT).
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  POTATO DISEASES.
  POTATO DISEASES.
POST OFFICE.
  WIRELESS TELEPHONY.
  WIRELESS TELEPHONY.
  TELEPHONE EXCHANGES (VISIT, MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  TELEPHONE EXCHANGES (VISIT, MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
AVIATION.
  WEST INDIES AND BRITISH GUIANA.
  WEST INDIES AND BRITISH GUIANA.
  CIVIL AIRCRAFT (STATISTICS).
  CIVIL AIRCRAFT (STATISTICS).
INDIA.
  RETURNED EMIGRANTS, SOUTH AFRICA.
  RETURNED EMIGRANTS, SOUTH AFRICA.
  CENTRAL MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE.
  CENTRAL MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE.
  BROADCASTING.
  BROADCASTING.
  TRADES UNION ACT.
  TRADES UNION ACT.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT.
  SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT.
  MEDICAL TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
  MEDICAL TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IMPORT AND EXPORT PROHIBITIONS.
  IMPORT AND EXPORT PROHIBITIONS.
  ELECTRIC LAMPS (PRICE).
  ELECTRIC LAMPS (PRICE).
  MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS.
  MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS.
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE).
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE).
  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESH-MENT DEPARTMENT).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESH-MENT DEPARTMENT).
SCOTLAND.
  HOUSING (SLATES)
  HOUSING (SLATES)
  MARRIAGE LAWS
  MARRIAGE LAWS
  LAND DRAINAGE.
  LAND DRAINAGE.
  BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  ANTHRACITE COAL (CANADA).
  ANTHRACITE COAL (CANADA).
  VETERINARY SURGEONS.
  VETERINARY SURGEONS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  COLONIAL ALLOWANCE, SUDAN.
  COLONIAL ALLOWANCE, SUDAN.
  ROYAL ARSENAL (EXPLOSIVES WORK, YOUTHS).
  ROYAL ARSENAL (EXPLOSIVES WORK, YOUTHS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (COLONIAL ALLOWANCE, SUDAN).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (COLONIAL ALLOWANCE, SUDAN).
  NATURALISATION (SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE).
  NATURALISATION (SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (STAFF, OVERTIME).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (STAFF, OVERTIME).
  BUILDING SOCIETIES (ADVANCES).
  BUILDING SOCIETIES (ADVANCES).
  ARMAMENTS.
  ARMAMENTS.
  CONVERSION LOAN.
  CONVERSION LOAN.
  BREWING CONCERNS (ESTIMATED PROFITS).
  BREWING CONCERNS (ESTIMATED PROFITS).
  TAXATION (UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY AND UNITED STATES).
  TAXATION (UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY AND UNITED STATES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
COQUET FISHERIES (PROVISIONAL ORDER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons read 1a; and to be printed.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
DERBY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
NEWPORT CORPORATION (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a.
WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name on the Paper. It is the usual Resolution passed by your Lordships at this time of the Session, with the object of facilitating private and Provisional Order business.
Moved, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 24th of June next:
That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 24th of June next:
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments these Orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to
968
the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
That this House will not receive any Petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday the 6th of May next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the High Court of Justice: nor any Petition for a Private Bill approved by the High Court of Justice after Thursday the 8th of May next:
That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon Petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Thursday the 8th of May next.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Ordered, That the said Orders be printed and published and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to extend Section 47 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, to industries involving exposure to asbestos dust, and to amend the provisions of that section relating to medical arrangements and examinations, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Earl Russell.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend and consolidate the enactments relating to the drainage of land, and for purposes in connection with such amendment, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (HOTEL WATER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Pro-

969
visional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (hotel water) and to move that it be real a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (CONWAY AND PENMAENMAWR JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RESERVOIRS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL Of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Precautions to be observed in the construction of large reservoirs.
(8) Where at the commencement of this Act a large reservoir is in the course of construction, the provisions of this section other than those requiring the appointment of a qualified engineer shall so far as applicable apply to the reservoir, but the certificates required thereunder may be given by the engineer responsible for supervising the construction of the reservoir notwithstanding that he is not a qualified engineer within the meaning of this Act.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON) moved to leave out subsection (8) and insert:
"(8) Where at the commencement of this Act a large reservoir is in the course of construction—

(a) in a case where the reservoir has not at the commencement of this Act been filled wholly or partially with water, the provisions of this section, other than subsection (1) thereof, shall apply in relation to the reservoir;

(b) in a case where the reservoir has at the commencement of this Act been filled wholly or partially with water, the engineer employed to design and supervise the construction thereof shall, as soon
970
as practicable after the commencement of this Act, give a certificate specifying the level up to which the reservoir may be filled and the conditions (if any) subject to which it may be so filled, and that certificate shall have effect for the purposes of this section as a preliminary certificate, and the provisions of this section, other than subsection (1) and paragraph (a) of subsection (4) thereof, shall apply in relation to the reservoir accordingly;

(c) in either case, the certificates required under this section may be given by the engineer responsible for supervising the construction of the reservoir notwithstanding that he is not a qualified civil engineer within the meaning of this Act."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in effect a drafting Amendment. It is felt that the words, so far as applicable, in the clause as it now stands were somewhat ambiguous. A new subsection has been drafted to make it clear how, and to what extent, Clause 1 will apply in the case of a large reservoir in course of construction at the commencement of the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, leave out subsection (8), and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Periodical inspection of large reservoirs.
(2) The first inspection shall be made—

(a) in the case of a reservoir constructed before the commencement of this Act, or of a reservoir in course of construction at the commencement of this Act, within three years from the commencement of this Act;

(b) in the case of a reservoir constructed after the commencement of this Act, at the expiration of a period not exceeding ten years from the date of the preliminary certificate given in relation to the reservoir under the last foregoing section:

Provided that if in the case of a reservoir in course of construction at the commencement of this Act the engineer responsible for supervising the construction of the reservoir becomes a qualified engineer within the meaning of this Act, this subsection shall apply as if the reservoir had been constructed after the commencement of this Act.
(7) If the undertakers feel aggrieved by any requirement contained in a report of the inspecting engineeer as to the time

971
within which the next inspection is to be made or as to the measures to be taken in the interests of safety, they may, within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State, request the Secretary of State to refer their complaint to a referee appointed by him for the purpose, and thereupon the Secretary of State shall refer the complaint to such person as he thinks fit, and the referee, after investigating the complaint, shall have power to make such modifications in the report as he thinks fit, and the report, shall, for the purposes of this Act, have effect accordingly.
(8) The Secretary of State may make rules as to the time within which, and the manlier in which, any application to the referee upon a reference under the last foregoing subsection may be made, as to the procedure before the referee and as to the costs of the proceedings before and investigation by the referee (including tile remuneration of the referee), so, however, that the said costs (including the said remuneration) shall be paid by the undertakers.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), before the second "engineer," to insert "civil." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment, simply to insert the word "civil."
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, after ("qualified") insert ("civil").—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (7) and insert as a new subsection:
"( ) If the undertakers feel aggrieved by any requirements of the inspecting engineer as to the time within which the next inspection is to be made or as to the measures to be taken in the interests of safety they may within one month from the date of the publication as required by this Act of notice that the report has been made, apply to the Railway and Canal Commission and on such application the Commission shall have power to make an order modifying such requirements to such extent and subject to such conditions as they may think proper: Provided that the Commission shall have power to enlarge such period of one month to such period not exceeding three months as the circumstances of the case may require."
The noble Lord said: This is a subsection which I have taken from the Bill which was brought in by the Conservative Government in 1928. It is identical with the subsection which was in that Bill. Its object is to enable a person who is aggrieved to have his grievance heard by a judicial body accustomed to hearing
972
complaints, a body such as the Railway and Canal Commission. Under the Bill where a person is aggrieved by the action of an inspector appointed under the Bill, his only appeal is to a referee appointed by the Minister. The Minister under the Bill appoints the inspector. The Minister's servant, the inspector, goes to one of the large corporations of the country and says: "You have not built your reservoir in a proper way and I require you to spend a large sum of money in altering it." If the corporation or the Metropolitan Water Board reply: "We do not think that is so and we are going to appeal against your order," the only appeal provided by the Bill is to somebody appointed by the Minister, who has appointed the inspector against whose decision the appeal is made. That seems to me to be absolutely contrary to all principles of law and I trust that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept my Amendment. On the Second Reading the noble Lord made a considerable point of the Bill being identical, except on small matters, with that introduced in 1928 by the Conservative Government. All I am doing is to make it certain that he was right in that claim and that this Bill shall be identical with the Bill introduced by the Conservative Government. I trust he will accept the Amendment which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, leave out subsection (7) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD THOMSON: If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, is under a slight misapprehension as to who appoints the inspector. He seems to think that the Home Office appoints that inspector. In point of fact that is not the case. The inspector is appointed by the undertakers. All that the Home Office does in this particular connection is, jointly with the Ministry of Health, to set up a panel of highly qualified engineers—highly qualified not only in the general sense as men of high standing in their profession, but also with special knowledge of this particular form of construction. From that panel the undertakers are at liberty to select their own inspector. That, I think, removes one of the difficulties of the noble Lord in this connection. It is not the Gov-

973
ernment that interferes at every point. It is not a case of "The House that Jack built," of cumulative action on the part of the Government. On the contrary, all that the Governmert do in this matter is to appoint a panel. Needless to say—
LORD CARSON: Does not "the panel" mean the names of the men who are to be the inspectors?
LORD THOMSON: Certainly it does, and a very large panel it may be of highly qualified engineers.
LORD CARSON: They may or may not be.
LORD THOMSON: There is a great deal of distrust on the part of the noble and learned Lord as regards the action of the Home Office in this matter. I should have thought obviously, in the interests of all concerned and more especially for the purpose of this Bill, that the authorities in question would select men of the highest possible standing. The panel having been selected, the undertakers take their choice of all those qualified civil engineers for the purposes of this inspection.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord to point out to him that in subsection (7) of Clause 2 of the Bill these words occur:—
"If the undertakers feel aggrieved by any requirement contained in a report of the inspecting engineer … they may, within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State, request the Secretary of State to refer their complaint to a referee appointed by him …"
LORD THOMSON: That is another point, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so. I was dealing for the moment with the inspecting engineer, and he is the employee of the undertakers. We now reach the noble Lord's second point—namely, a difference of opinion, we will suppose, between the permanent engineer of the undertakers and the inspecting engineer. Should such a difference of opinion arise the subsection which the noble Lord quotes makes provision for the reference of that matter to another authority. His Amendment suggests that this other authority should be the Railway and Canal Commission as being a judicial body. The Bill lays it down that it should be a referee appointed, as
974
the noble Lord rightly remarked, by the Secretary of State, the Minister. In point of fact that is a difference between the Bill as brought forward by the late Government and the Bill which is before your Lordships. I did not shirk that question at all on Second Reading. As a matter of fact the change was made because it was thought on advice—various authorities were consulted—to be preferable that a matter of such a technical character should be referred to a technical expert rather than to a body like the Railway and Canal Commission.
It is perfectly true that the Railway and Canal Commission is a very authoritative and judicial body. But the noble Lord himself reveals, in the later part of his Amendment, what the process would be if matters of this kind were so referred. The machinery, to say the least, would be somewhat cumbrous. The noble Lord points out the necessity for technical assessors and indeed possibly for legal advice on what, after all, is a technical matter which can only be judged by technical men. The referee would quite obviously be a man of suitable qualifications to deal with such a matter. He would be, if it were purely an engineering matter, a highly qualified engineer, but it is quite possible that an opinion might be desired in regard to some financial aspect of the matter, in which case a referee suitable for the judging of such matters would be selected. If I may say so, the noble Lord has such a deep-rooted suspicion of Government Departments that he perceives trouble in anything that they may do, but in common fariness and upon the common sense of the situation, surely the new arrangement is likely to save trouble, time and money. One of these big undertakings has a permanent engineer of high qualifications, and an inspecting engineer under the Bill goes round and looks at his work, and very often that inspection will be a great relief to the permanent engineer. So far as possible the two will act in consultation with each other.
I imagine that a very high-class undertaking would have a permanent engineer who would himself be a great authority and who would also have good records. The inspecting engineer—also a highly-qualified engineer—comes round and they have some difference of opinion. It could only be on a purely technical point, or it might be on a financial point. Why refer

975
a matter of that kind to a body like the Railway and Canal Commission when a publicly-appointed referee suited to give an opinion on the particular question in dispute will be appointed by the Minister responsible? I repeat what I said at the beginning, that undoubtedly, though this was in the original Bill, the change that has been made—namely, the appointment of a referee instead of reference to the Railway and Canal Commission—was made advisedly. I think the door has been left open wide for possible discussion in order to meet the matter in a more practical and logical fashion; in other words, to save everybody concerned trouble, time and money. I sincerely hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment after this explanation. It is a most important point, and it is one that has been very well considered before the change was made in the Bill now before the House.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I point out in answer to what the noble Lord has said that in subsection (7) it says that the Secretary of State may be asked
"to refer their complaint to a referee appointed by him for the purpose, and thereupon the Secretary of State shall refer the complaint to such person as he thinks fit."
As I understood the noble Lord, he has more or less admitted that this is correct, and he says the Secretary of State does not appoint the engineer. If he will look at Clause 8 he will see that
"the Secretary of State, if satisfied after such consultation as aforesaid, that the applicant is qualified to be placed on that panel, shall appoint him to be a member thereof."
Therefore, no member can be on the panel unless the Secretary of State appoints him to be a member thereof, and having appointed this engineer to be a member of the panel, then, if there is no grievance against the engineer, the Secretary of State appoints such person as he thinks fit. There is no obligation on him to appoint a qualified engineer or a financial authority. He might appoint a clerk in the office or anybody he thinks fit. In these circumstances I am sorry that the noble Lord does not accept the Amendment, and I shall be compelled to press it to a Division.
I may Add that I have a letter from the Corporation of Greenock—it is too long to read—which is strongly against the
976
Bill. I have also a letter from the Association of Municipal Corporations that I received this morning dealing with the question of an engineer. It says that an engineer is not obliged to be appointed under the Bill and they object to the Bill. They end with these words:—
"Your new clause is no doubt excellent"—
that is not this clause; it is another which comes later on—
"and if it can be secured it will, undoubtedly, go a long way to remove all our objections."
I think I am justified in asking your Lordships to support me seeing that I have the support not only of the Metropolitan Water Board but also of the Association of Municipal Corporations.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I do not think I had anything to do with the drafting of what my noble friend Lord Banbury calls the Conservative Bill, but I think I was at the Home Office at the time when the accident occurred in Wales, and I remember being very much impressed by the great dangers that were revealed by the position at that time, and by the possibility of similar accidents arising at any moment. After what the noble Lord opposite has said I cannot feel that there is not some truth in his argument that the procedure through the panel of inspectors is less cumbrous than it would be through the Railway and Canal Commission. A flaw in the general procedure under this clause is that the actual engineer employed by the undertakers does not, I think, play a sufficiently important part in the consultation. It seems to me it would be far better, in order to secure the satisfaction of the undertakers, if the Government would agree to put in a clause or a subsection to the effect that in any inquiries the engineer employed by the company itself should always be associated with the outside engineer. I think probably the company's engineer would be very glad sometimes to have the opinion of an outside engineer, and if they were associated together the company would at any rate have a chance of saying all they wished to put forward. I think that very seldom would there be any disagreement between the two. I do not know whether that would meet the views of my noble friends, or whether the Government would do it, but I venture to

977
make that suggestion as one which I think would ease the working of the Bill a good deal.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: The noble Lord in charge of the Bill laid stress on the saving of money by his scheme, but I assume that these high functionaries are to be paid in some form or other, either by way of salary or fees. Could not the whole expense be saved and the requisite thing done in some simpler way by allowing the eminent engineers in these big undertakings to issue certificates periodically themselves as to the state of the works with which they are connected, just as I understand the railway companies do? I believe the railway companies' own engineers issue periodically certificates as to the safety of the tunnels, viaducts, bridges, and so on. Could not that be done here? After all, the engineers belonging to these great corporations and municipalities are very highly qualified men. I imagine they are quite as qualified as anybody is likely to be who is appointed for this purpose, if not more qualified, and I would ask the noble Lord if he would not consider that.
LORD THOMSON: If I might reply first to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, I would say that I think he is a little confusing the panel of referees. The panel is to be a large one composed of highly qualified persons, and the undertakers can select any one they like. It is a standing panel and is always there. If an undertaker cannot find a suitable man from that sort of panel I doubt if he would find one anywhere. The referee is a, person who shall be fit, in the opinion of the Home Secretary, to perform the functions of a referee. The noble Lord laid great stress on the provision that the Secretary of State shall appoint "such person as he thinks fit." He does not suggest, I trust, that the Home Secretary would appoint a person whom he regarded as unfit. He would select the best man he could for the particular purpose.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That is open to argument.
LORD THOMSON: As regards the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, I welcome that. It has always been in the mind of the Government
978
that there should be the fullest cooperation between the permanent engineers and the inspecting engineers. It is quite obvious that that is the common sense of the position. The permanent engineer is not a person who is at enmity with the inspecting engineer. Very often he will welcome him. There have been cases of these big undertakings not valuing sufficiently the technical authority of their permanent engineer and sometimes overlooking his advice. If he, under Statute, can call in the assistance of an inspecting engineer of equal or, if possible, greater eminence, it will be a very great comfort to him, and it will tend to what is the purpose of the Bill—greater security for the public from the escape of water from reservoirs and, in the worst case, from disaster. If the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgernan, will be satisfied with my assurance that the Government are prepared to bring forward an Amendment to provide specifically for the co-operation of the permanent engineer in statutory inspections and reports, I can give him an assurance that that will be forthcoming on the Report stage of this Bill.
I think in a sense that meets the point of the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan, but not altogether. He was talking about expense and who was going to pay. I am not prepared to go into the details of that at this moment. The only remark I made was that the course suggested by Lord Banbury would cost more money. I did not say who would pay. It undoubtedly would cost more money. It may cost the undertakers more money, it may cost the local authority more money, I do not know whom it might not cost more money. But undoubtedly the expense would be greater, because in his own Amendment he suggests a number of people who would have to be consulted. They are all professional people who would naturally require payment and would have a right to it. If the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, will accept my assurance on the point about bringing forward an Amendment on the Report stage specifically to provide for cooperation in inspections and reports on undertakings, I can give him that assurance.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That may be all right, but that does not touch my point. My point is not that there

979
should be co-operation between engineers, not that the engineer would do wrong. My point is that you are creating a precedent by which, instead of going to a court of law with your grievance, or to any qualified and well known body accustomed to deal with matters of this sort, you are setting up a referee who is appointed by the Minister to decide cases which are brought against that particular Minister, because it is the Minister who appoints the engineer whose proceedings—
LORD THOMSON: No.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The noble Lord says "No," but I have read the clause to him. He puts them on the panel. It is a distinction without a difference. He puts them on the panel. Suppose a man is put on the panel, and presume that he gives a decision which is appealed against: the court to whom his decision is referred is a referee appointed by the Minister who has put the man upon the panel. I really cannot see that that is going to save any money. The expense, as far as I can see—and the noble Lord has brought forward no argument to show that I am wrong—will be just as great before a man of that sort as before the Railway and Canal Commissioners. It creates a precedent which I am sorry to see. I do not know that it has actually been done at the moment, but attempts of that sort have been made, and in my opinion it is so important that I shall certainly go to a Division upon it.
LORD DARLING: I am not so sure that the matter is either as plain or as wicked as my noble friend Lord Banbury represents. It seems to be perfectly true, taking the words as they stand, that the Home Secretary puts a certain number of people on the panel. It is not only one person. There are several people from whom selection may be made. Then, says my noble friend, the very person who has put the man on the panel, if there is an appeal chooses somebody to decide that question. But it does not seem to me to be necessarily the case that the same man who has put them on the panel will appoint the person to decide. The Secretary of State for Home Affairs is far from being eternal. He comes and goes. I am not the least
980
satisfied that the same individual who puts the man on the panel will appoint somebody to decide whether the man on the panel has done his duty or whether he has not. But beyond that, as I understand it, if one votes for or against the Amendment one will vote on the question whether the matter shall be dealt with as proposed by the Government in the Bill or whether the question to be decided shall be referred to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. I understand that is the alternative. In that case I shall feel bound to vote against the Amendment.
I have a high regard for the Railway and Canal 'Commissioners, but who are they and what are their qualifications? They are three lawyers. The senior one is a Judge of the High Court appointed, I think, by the Lord Chief Justice, or by the Judges of the High Court, to be president of the Tribunal which is called the Railway and Canal Commission. Who are the others? They have always been lawyers—one of them a barrister, and at one time the other was a solicitor. But there are only two at present. One of them is the Judge who has been appointed, the other is a well-known and highly respected King's Counsel, and the third one, if he is appointed, will take the place of a Commissioner who lately died, who was a lawyer, a Kings' Counsel. I have been a King's Counsel, but I do not think that King's Counsel are better qualified as such, or as well qualified as such, to decide a point of this kind as people having the technical knowledge of engineers. As I understand it that is the alternative. There is no other proposal.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: No, no. I must draw the attention of my noble and learned friend to the clause which says that the Secretary of State shall refer the complaint to such person as he thinks fit. There is nothing about an engineer. He can refer the matter to anybody he likes, even to my noble and learned friend.
LORD DARLING: I have not found in the course of my life that lawyers are so universally popular that I can suppose for a moment that, having any kind of choice, the Home Secretary would refer the matter to another lawyer. Practically the only alternative put before your Lordships is between the words as

981
proposed and the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and of the two I prefer and shall vote for, if my noble friend goes to a Division, the proposal in the Bill.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Applications to Quarter Sessions]:
LORD THOMSON: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 22, after ("keep") insert ("in relation to any large reservoir").—(Lord Thomson.)
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 11 agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 11:
Saving for Metropolitan Water Board and councils of certain districts.
"Nothing in this Act shall apply to any reservoir constructed whether before or after the commencement of this Act and owned by the Metropolitan Water Board or the council of any borough or urban district council having a population, for the time being, according to the published returns of the last census, of fifty thousand or upwards."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to omit from the provisions of the Bill those large undertakings against which, so far as I have
On Question, Whether subsection (7) shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 9.

CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Doverdale, L.

Ernle, L.

Beauehamp, E.

Mersey, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Denbigh, E.

Novar, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Lauderdale, E.

Hemphill, L.

Lucan, E.

Gloucester, L. Bp.

Marks, L. [Teller.]

Peel, E.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Plymouth, E.

Alvingham, L.

Olivier, L.

Russell, E.

Arnold, L.

Passfield L.

Askwith, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Barnard, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Chaplin, V.

Clinton, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Devonport, V.

Darling, L.

Stanmore, L.

Eshor, V.

Dickinson, L.

Thomson, L.

Hailsham, V.

Dynevor, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Elibank, V.

Auckland, L.

Danesfort, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V. [Teller.]

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Daresbury, L.

Greenway, L.

Carson, L.

Leigh, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

been able to ascertain, no accident has ever been recorded. The intention is to prevent their being put to the unnecessary expense which the ratepayers—because, in the case of all these bodies that I wish to omit from the Bill, it is the ratepayers who will have to pay—will have to bear in having their reservoirs inspected by another engineer. The noble Lord, in introducing the Bill, gave two instances why this Bill was necessary. One was a case in Wales some five years ago and the other was a case in Scotland. It may be that in the cases to which he alluded it is necessary to have some safeguard and, therefore, I leave those cases to be dealt with by the Bill. All I do is to exempt the large reservoirs of the large undertakings, against which, so far as I have been able to ascertain, there has never been any complaint, from an unnecessary expense. This ought to recommend itself to the noble Lord who was most anxious not to spend money a few moments ago. It will relieve the already overburdened ratepayers from finding unnecessary expenditure for engineers no better qualified than their engineers themselves. I have a letter here, which I received this morning, from the Association of Municipal Associations which I shall be glad to show him if he would care to see it. It concludes in the following terms:—

983
"Your new clause is no doubt excellent and, if it can be secured, it will undoubtedly go a long way to remove all our objections."
I shall be very glad to give this letter to him if he cares to see it. I hope that in those circumstances he will accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD THOMSON: The undertakers who wrote to the noble Lord would no doubt be pleased if this Amendment were passed because it would wreck the Bill. This is a Public Bill not a Private Bill. Its purpose and its object is to provide precautions in respect of all reservoirs throughout this country, to amend the law with respect to compensation due to damage done by the escape of water, and also to reassure public opinion. It is a Public Bill applying to every reservoir throughout the land and to make exemptions in favour of certain undertakings because they are large would be illogical, very arbitrary and somewhat sweeping. The noble Lord seems to think that, because a reservoir is a big one and is put up and maintained by a large undertaking like the Metropolitan Water Board, it is necessarily safe, or safer than a small one. I do not think experience shows that this is the case. No one wishes to impugn the efficiency or the public spirit of these large undertakings, but, as a matter of fact, the more important and the larger they are the more necessary it is that the reservoirs, or whatever the construction may be, should be absolutely safe. As regards the expense to individuals in the areas affected, if all the costs arising out of this Bill were spread over the whole area of the Metropolitan Water Board the effects would be inappreciable.
Repeated efforts have been made by the authorities at the Home Office to get some formula which would meet the objections raised by the Metropolitan Water Board, for example, who waited on the Home Office and put their case and were asked if they had a suggestion to make. Nothing was forthcoming, nothing that meets the case. The formula which is required is one which will be applicable to every reservoir throughout the country. To exempt in this fashion something because it is large is almost as illogical as the case of the lady who
984
had erred and excused herself in mitigation because the offspring was very small. We cannot make these exemptions in a Public Bill; it is quite impossible. To show that the danger of slackness in these matters is pressing in this problem may I cite a case that has been given to me? The local authority of a large town lately proposed to employ their permanent engineer to construct a new reservoir although it was doubtful whether he was sufficiently qualified for this difficult task. The sanction of a Government Department for a loan for the amount of the works was not required. A grant in aid of the work was sought from the Unemployment Grants Committee, who, on the advice of the Ministry of Health, were able to bring effective pressure to bear on the local authority to call in another engineer to express his opinion. Otherwise they threatened to withhold a grant.
There is no accusation against public bodies as a whole, but there is evidence of the fact that it is desirable to insist on these precautions being taken. I cannot possibly accept the Amendment. It defeats the whole purpose of the Bill. It treats it as though it were a Private Bill applicable only to special purposes, whereas this is a provision designed to apply to every reservoir and every similar construction throughout the land. There must be general legislation in regard to such a matter without exemptions. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment because it will be impossible to accept it.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should have thought there was much more to be said for exempting very small reservoirs than very large ones, and I was going to ask the noble Lord opposite whether he could not provide some clause which would have prevented what seemed to be a good deal of unnecessary work being put upon a man who wanted to put up a small reservoir merely to provide electric power or light for his farm or house. You must put a limit below which these precautions are unnecessary. I believe that, however small a reservoir is, it would be liable for damages if it burst and therefore its builder has to consider that risk and to try to make it safe. I do not quite know what five million gallons looks like when you see it. I know a gallon but I have not the least idea what five million or five hundred thousand gallons

985
would look like in a pool of water. I do not know if the noble Lord could tell us in dimensions of this House how full this House would be if five million gallons or five hundred thousand gallons were in it.
There is something to be said for the small man. My noble friend Lord Banbury says, quite rightly, that the risk with these very large and important undertakings is very small. At the same time, if anything goes wrong with a large reservoir, whether it belongs to a large municipal undertaking or not, though they are almost always a long way from the town they do just as much harm as, or more than, the bursting of a small one. I do not want this Bill to be lost and I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he has considered the possibility of putting a limit below which these precautions are not necessary—one hundred thousand gallons or something comparatively small?
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERIVENT: With reference to the two cases which have been mentioned, I understand that the whole of this Bill is founded upon the two deplorable accidents which occurred at these reservoirs. Were those reservoirs constructed under statutory authority or not? It might make a difference if you limited this Bill to reservoirs constructed without statutory authority.
LORD THOMSON: I am not able to tell the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, exactly what 5,000,000 gallons look like. I have never thought about the matter. And I am afraid I have not considered, either, the question of the small reservoir being exempted. After all, what this Amendment amounts to is that these large undertakings, like Metropolitan Water Board and county borough council undertakings, should be exempted from all the provisions of the Bill. These provisions are not very exacting, whether for large or small reservoirs. They provide merely for ten-yearly inspections. I really cannot see that it is much of a grievance on a man, even if he has only 100,000 gallons in his reservoir, that he should submit to an inspection every ten years.
VISCOUNT BRIDGMAN: No, but if he has to construct one, he has to have an inspector in.
LORD THOMSON: I quite agree, but I do not think it is a very great exaction that he should have an inspector in. It reassures the public in the neighbourhood as to what may happen to themselves and their property. With regard to undertakings which have got statutory authority, there was a good deal of discussion about that on Second Reading. It was held that in some cases the undertaking acting under statutory authority would, in the case of disaster, not be liable to pay compensation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Can the noble Lord inform us, in reference to small reservoirs, whether the limit goes down so far as to include a little store of water on a farm? I quite agree that with any considerable reservoir a ten-yearly inspection is a very small matter, but in regard to a small private store of water it might be a heavy fine. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider that point?
LORD THOMSON: I certainly will consider it, though I confess frankly I do not know down to what level this Bill applies. I should imagine from reading it that it applied to everything in the nature of a reservoir. As regards the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan, the disaster in Wales, as I understand it, was not caused by a reservoir into which water had been pumped, but was in a valley across which a dam had been built, and which was filled by the flow of water from the hills—a much more dangerous kind of construction, I should imagine. But between the two recommendations, that there should be exemption on the ground of smallness and exemption on the ground of largeness, I confess my sympathies are with the very small ones, as described by the noble Marquess. But the larger exemption asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, is, I am afraid, quite impossible, because it really defeats the whole purpose of the Bill.
LORD DANESFORT: Did I understand the noble Lord to say that there were only two or three cases in which accidents had occurred from reservoirs being improperly or carelessly constructed? And were these cases, as the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan, asked, reservoirs which have been constructed under statutory authority? If those were the

987
only cases, and those were reservoirs not constructed under statutory authority, surely it is rather a strong measure to bring in a Bill laying down that in the case of reservoirs constructed by local authorities which have never had an injury in the whole course of their existence they should be subject to restrictions which are necessary in the case of others. One would have thought that if you wished to apply the provisions of this Bill to reservoirs constructed by local authorities and others you would have had to make some case for it, and to show that there was some danger arising from reservoirs so constructed. But if you find that for generations past these local authorities have built and maintained reservoirs, and that there has never been an accident, surely it is rather an excessive action on the part of Parliament to put them under all these restrictions, although they have never done anything wrong. And I thought it was invariably the case, when you wished to restrict an individual or a company in the legitimate action which they are able to take by law, that you made out a case for it. In the instance referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, no case has been made out, and therefore I would suggest that they should be left out.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: As regards size, unless I read the Bill wrongly, it only applies to large reservoirs. In the margin of Clause 1 it is written "Precautions to be observed in the construction of large reservoirs," and again in reference to Clause 2 "Periodical inspection of large reservoirs," and afterwards the Bill gives a definition of what a large reservoir is.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am sorry the noble Lord persists in his attitude, because no case has been made out for including these large reservoirs. They have been constructed under statutory authority by competent people, and there is no reason why the ratepayers of London and other large towns should be put to the expense of having their reservoirs periodically inspected by somebody who is no better qualified than their own engineer. We all know what happens when a person is appointed to inspect something. He has got to say something, otherwise people will ask:
988
"What is the good of you if you cannot find anything wrong?" He is there to find out something. Moreover, all experts disagree. Even lawyers disagree among themselves. It is a rare thing for a gentleman learned in the law to make a statement in the House of Commons without another gentleman learned in the law getting up and contradicting his learned brother. That has been my experience. Experts always disagree with each other, and the result will be unnecessary expense to the ratepayer.
The noble Lord has admitted that in the case in Wales it was not a reservoir at all but a dam constructed across a valley. There was a sudden fall of rain, and that caused a large quantity of water to flow between the hills and burst the dam. The other case was in Scotland, but the noble Lord did not give us any particulars. As to the case he mentioned just now, he admitted that the corporation, when spoken to, changed their tactics, and everything was all right. Therefore, on his own showing there is no necessity for putting the ratepayers of London, Manchester, Liverpool and other large towns to this expense.
LORD DANESFORT: Would the noble Lord be kind enough to answer the question I put to him? Are there any cases on record of accidents arising from reservoirs except those two, or at most three, which have been mentioned?
LORD THOMSON: There have been many cases, but I cannot give a detailed list of them.
LORD DANESFORT: Are there any?
LORD THOMSON: There was one some years back at a place called Holmfirth.
LORD DANESFORT: It was a good many years ago.
LORD THOMSON: It was a good many years ago.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: It was in one of Mayne Reid's novels, was it not?
LORD THOMSON: The argument that because these accidents have been rare, fortunately, we should not take reasonable precautions now to make them impossible as far as we can in the future, seems to me rather a weak one. There

989
have been two startling disasters, and there have been many minor cases brought to the notice of the Home Office in the past few years. I am afraid I have not a list of them, but that is undoubted and undisputed. In the more distant past there have been serious disasters of a similar kind. All that this aims at doing is to make these accidents impossible as far as is practicable, to reassure public opinion and to provide for compensation. It does not raise any new principle at all.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: In the cases where accidents have occurred, were the reservoirs constructed under statutory authority or not? That is my question.
LORD THOMSON: I could not tell the noble Lord that. It is very difficult to say. The whole matter has been considered. Statutory authority may be up to a point a certain safeguard, but undertakings which are set up under statutory authority surely can afford to pay these very small expenses of a ten-yearly inspection. That is all that is asked of them.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): I might say this in answer to the noble Viscount. Perhaps he recollects the case of the Sheffield reservoir where there was terrible destruction. Of course, it was some years ago, but I think it is a notorious case in the history of those years.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: It was deplorable, but it was many years ago.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, but it was statutory.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: It was the famous case described in Mayne Reid's novel.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Remaining clause agreed to.

PERFORMING ANIMALS (REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment re ported (according to Order).

SUGAR INDUSTRY IN WEST INDIES AND MAURITIUS.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to ask the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Colonies whether he will furnish an explanation of the terms of loans to be afforded to sugar planters in the West Indies and Mauritius as announced in his cablegram to the Governors of those Colonies dated 14th March, and generally to give an explanation of the situation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to make the Motion standing in my name and to ask certain questions connected with it. This is the third occasion on which I have raised this matter in your Lordships' House. On the first occasion, on February 5, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, when he was going to issue the Report of the West Indian Sugar Commission. On the second occasion, about three weeks ago, I asked the noble Lord once more when that Report would be published and what were the reasons why there had been delay in publishing it. On both occasions the noble Lord informed your Lordships' House that he intended to publish the Report with the least possible delay. He discussed at the same time the questions contained in the Report, and informed your Lordships that he was giving the whole subject very close attention but that, owing to the difficulty of the problem with which he had to deal and to the difference in the cost of the production of sugar in the West Indies today and the sale price of sugar, the Government had not been able to come to any conclusion.
We pressed the noble Lord from this side of the House for the publication of the Report, and the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, the Chairman of the Commission, did likewise. To-day I am glad to be able to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, for having published the Report, but I hope he will not consider me ungracious if I suggest that he might have published it very much earlier. The Report, which is in our hands to-day, contains 124 pages. We have had it for only two or three hours and it has not been possible, therefore, to go through it in any way which would enable one to discuss it at any length. But from what I have seen of it in the short time I have had it, I should like

991
to take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, upon it and upon the very close and careful investigation he has made into the whole subject.
But it was to the considerable astonishment, I think, of everyone connected with the sugar industry in the West Indies and interested in that industry in this country that, before the publication of the Report, there appeared in the Press about eight days ago a public announcement from the Colonial Office containing a copy of a cable to the Governors of the West Indian Colonies and Mauritius, in which there were proposals for meeting the situation and for helping the sugar industry. If those proposals had contained a plan which would have saved the sugar industry, I would have been the first to congratulate the noble Lord upon those proposals. I could even have forgiven him for not making an earlier publication of the Report. But, whatever those proposals contained, since they were published there have been numerous telegrams from the West Indian Colonies. If the noble Lord will permit me I would prefer to deal with the West Indies and not with Mauritius because that is a Colony with which I have not got a personal acquaintance.
Telegrams have come in considerable numbers, some of which have been published in The Times, and I should like to read short extracts from those telegrams, because, possibly, some of your Lordships have not had an opportunity of seeing them. One telegram is from the Barbados Chamber of Commerce and it says:—
"it considers assistance offered by Lord Passfield totally inadequate even if the tariff preference is maintained, for unemployment must follow as the planting of the 1932 crop will not take place except in rare instances."
There is a long telegram from Antigua which says:—
"Firstly, that the unavoidable reduction in expenditure due to continuing losses is permanently injuring the sugar industry and causing further great distress amongst all classes."
Another telegram was received by the West India Committee yesterday from the Sugar Planters' Association, British Guiana, and this telegram states:—
"Legislative Council yesterday passed Resolution that following telegram be immediately despatched to Secretary State:—
992
'The proposals of His Majesty's Government as indicated in the telegram from the Secretary of State for the Colonies can do nothing ameliorate let alone remedy time desperate position of the sugar industry in this Colony even if the Colony were in a financial position to assume guarantee of liability or to help the industry on which it chiefly depends for its income. Sugar industry requires a secured market with a guarantee price for sugar f.o.b. for a period of years as without such security planters cannot lay out money for a year ahead which means consequential deterioration of estates and unemployment of labour. The position is extremely critical and further delay of security to sugar producers will inevitably mean abandonment of estates and starvation of thousands of the labouring classes.'"
Those telegrams speak for themselves.
The Report of the West Indian Sugar Commission also has made statements which have a bearing on the same subject, but I do not wish at this moment to deal with the Report. I will come to that a, little later on. I was surprised, about the time of the publication of these proposals, to see in the Daily Herald a large heading in these words "The Sugar Industry Saved." That journal is, I believe, a supporter of the policy of the Party to which the noble Lord (Lord Passfield) belongs, but I am quite sure that the noble Lord himself, with all the knowledge he has of the circumstances, would not agree that that was an accurate description of the situation. In fact if that heading had read "Sugar Industry still to be Saved" it would have been more in accordance with the facts of the ease. I think if the noble Lord read a leading article in The Times which appeared a day or two afterwards he would have found there a much more accurate description of what these proposals meant. That newspaper has evidently made a very careful investigation of the whole subject. It summed up its conclusion by saying that these proposals were of an impractical nature, and bluntly ended with the suggestion that the noble Lord should reconsider his offer.
If your Lordships will bear with me I would like to put certain questions to the noble Lord with regard to these proposals. I might say that I have sent those questions to him so that he should not be taken unaware, as they are intricate to a certain extent and rather lengthy. To begin with the general effect of the scheme as I understand it is—I am now reading from the Government

993
proposals—that the Local Government shall guarantee a bank or other approved lender in respect of one half the losses of capital and interest on crop advances not recovered within twelve months from the end of the crop season, provided that the liability of the Government in any one ease shall not exceed 15 per cent. of the total advance made in that case. That means that collectively the losses of these advances in the West Indies shall not exceed £300,000, and in Mauritius £200,000. Of these losses the Imperial Government will bear half—that is, £150,000 in the case of the West Indies and £100,000 in the case of Mauritius, whilst the Local Governments are to bear the other half.
Certain points in connection with the proposed advances are of great importance and require elucidation. To begin with the published notice speaks of "possible difficulties in obtaining advances for the cultivation of the next crop of sugar," and then a little later it speaks of "the assistance which His Majesty's Government is prepared to give to Colonial Governments in order to give financial assistance in connection with crop advances." Sugar in the West Indies is produced under four systems. The first one is that some planters both cultivate sugar cane and manufacture it into sugar in their own works. Then many planters and cane farmers do not manufacture sugar, but grow sugar cane and sell it to factories. Thirdly, some central factories grow no cane, but buy it from planters and cane farmers at a price dependent upon market price of sugar. There is still a fourth case in which central factories both cultivate part of their own cane supply and buy the rest from planters and farmers. I would like to ask the noble Lord what is the meaning of the term "cultivation of the next crop of sugar" in relation to each of these four systems? When the noble Lord replies I hope he will give an elucidation of that.
I come now to the second question. The public announcement states that the
"advances must be made a first charge on the cane and/or sugar produced and any further legislation necessary for the purpose must be introduced and should provide for an obligation to cultivate after the receipt of the money."
This raises certain important issues and I should like to ask the noble Lord
994
whether, in the first place, we are to understand that the remedy of the bank or approved lender against the borrower will be solely against the crop and that the general practice in regard to such advances will be abandoned—namely, that the remedy is against the whole of the borrower's assets? Secondly, is the whole of this security to be exhausted or not before the Government comes in aid of the borrower to the extent proposed to be offered—that is, 15 per cent. of the total advance made? Again, has His Majesty's Government any understanding with the banks here or in the West Indies, or with other approved lenders, that they are prepared in this connection to relax their ordinary principle of banking prudence in granting advances to sugar producers which are usually restricted to two-thirds of the value of the crop? Those are rather important points, and I would not have ventured to put them in this form unless I had already sent them to the noble Lord.
Another very important question is this: Does the proposal refer to advances for the next crop—that is those in the West Indies where reaping begins in December, 1930, or January, 1931, in British Guiana in December, 1930, and in Mauritius in August, 1930? There is also another question of great importance. His Majesty's Government offer to make good any deficiencies up to an amount not exceeding £150,000 or, with the Colonial Governments, up to £300,000 in all in the West Indies. The average annual export of sugar from the West Indies for the past three years has been 3010,000 tons. The average value of West Indian sugar f.o.b. does not exceed to-day ten guineas per ton including the preference, or a total value of £3,150,000. I assume that in any event no lender, bank or otherwise, unless the lender abandoned caution and prudence, would be prepared to make an advance of more than two-thirds of the estimated value of any planter's crop. That is to say if the whole of the £300,000 were called up this would imply that the banks and other lenders must have made advances up to the amount of £2,000,000 on the whole of the sugar crop. I should like to know from the noble Lord whether he has any reason to assume that the total crop will be subject to advances of the nature which he proposes? Personally, I should be inclined to doubt that, because, as a

995
rule, there have been, and no doubt there will continue to be, a certain number of factories and others who finance their own crops.
What I want to emphasise very strongly indeed is that unless there are some special advantages attached to these proposals which do not appear on the face of the proposals, or unless there is going to be abandonment of the ordinary principles of prudence and caution in connection with the making of advances on these crops, these proposals are of no value whatsoever to the sugar industry. I want to give one reason for this. I am assuming—and I believe that I can rightly assume—that no bank or lender will advance more than two-thirds of the estimated value of the crop. The estimated value of the crop to-day is ten guineas per ton and assuming advances are made up to two-thirds of that ten guineas the amount will be £7 per ton. Unless the price of West Indian sugar including the preference, which, as we have been told by the Daily Herald, will be retained—and the Daily Herald perhaps knows the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer better than anybody else—falls below £7 per ton, then there can be no recourse whatsoever to the apparently generous offer of His Majesty's Government, because that £7 per ton will include the amount of £3 8s. of preference which is to-day granted to the West Indian sugar industry. Therefore the price of sugar will actually have to fall to the difference between £3 8.s. and £7—that is £3 12.s. per ton—before there can be any recourse to this offer, and obviously—I think the noble Lord will agree with me here—that would be ridiculous.
I cannot understand why His Majesty's Government will not face the position and do something which is definitely helpful to the sugar industry. The scheme which the noble Lord has put forward is only playing with the position. It leads nowhere. It will not help the sugar industry at present, and it will not help the sugar industry during the trying period through which it has to go. I think I may here refer to the statement of policy which has been issued by the Government, together with the Report of Lord Olivier and the Mauritius Report. In the statement of policy it is said with regard to these particular proposals:—
996
"His Majesty's Government have already shown their sympathy with the sugar producers in the Colonies by the offer which they have made to associate themselves with the Colonial Governments in bearing a portion of any loss."
My Lords, what we want is not sympathy. We want practical help. I think it was Mr. Joseph Chamberlain who, on one occasion a number of years ago, said that sympathy without relief was like mustard without beef. I am going to suggest by altering one word that sugar without relief in the West Indies is like mustard without beef. I am going to ask the noble Lord whether he will not reconsider that offer and see whether something else can be done to meet the situation as it exists?
I turn now to the Report of the Commission itself, and I find actually that out of four recommendations made by the Commission the Government have turned down three stone-cold and have accepted one which may not be effective for a number of years to come. The one which has been accepted is this:—
"His Majesty's Government should make a resolute endeavour to eliminate, in con cert with other Powers, the disturbing factors of high tariffs and subsidies."
What does the Report say about that? I am quoting now from Lord Olivier's Report. It says:—
"Any negotiations for this purpose must necessarily involve protracted consideration and conference; and it cannot be expected, in view of the existing situation, that they could produce any effectual result before the West Indian sugar industry, as at present carried on, had been practically destroyed. We suggest that, in the interim, an endeavour should be made by His Majesty's Government at once to set on foot the rationalisation of the sugar trade of our own Empire on the basis of a guarantee of reasonable local costs of production to those who can carry on the industry in the Colonies especially suited for it and at present dependent upon it."
I am beginning to wonder why the Commission went to the West Indies because the only proposals which would carry out the last part of the paragraph which I have read, are contained in the proposals made by the Royal Commission and referring especially to the raising of the Imperial preference from 3s. 8d. to 4s. 8d. per cwt. and buying sugar at £15 per ton. I suppose that it is of no avail to ask this Government to increase the preference upon West Indian sugar. In fact, in this same

997
statement of policy, they say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House of Commons that the Government would not deal with the difficulties of the sugar industry by way of preference but that, so long as there was a duty on sugar, the preference would be maintained. Here is a definite recommendation from the Sugar Commission that the preference should be increased by 1s. per cwt. If the preference were so increased, not only would it assist the industry in its present struggling condition to tide over its difficult time and enable it to carry on whilst the major proposal of treaties in connection with a tariff and bounties was being investigated, but it would also bring the preference on to the same basis as that which is to-day granted to the West Indian Colonies under a Treaty with the Canadian Government, and it would help the West Indian Colonies to the extent that they would obtain the whole benefit from the Canadian preference, which they do not obtain to-day owing to the fact that the British preference is 1s. lower.
As I have said, suppose it is of little use to ask the noble Lord to tell us today that this can be done, and I have very grave doubts whether, when the Budget speech is made on April 14, we shall hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he proposes to take any such step. Accordingly I think it is necessary to make a suggestion to the noble Lord as to how he may be able to meet the situation and really to help the sugar industry other than by the method that is proposed in the cable that he recently sent to the Governors of those Colonies. If the noble Lord were to make a direct subsidy to those Colonies for every ton of sugar raised during the next crop, this would be of definite assistance to the industry and it would certainly eliminate all the ambiguities and uncertainties with which the scheme that he has recently proposed is befraught and with which it bristles. I would urge the noble Lord to take into consideration this suggestion, because I believe that it would meet with approval in the West Indies and would definitely assist the industry, as the proposals that he has put forward are not going to do.
I venture to say to the noble Lord that this is the gravest crisis through
998
which the West Indian sugar industry has ever passed. In a speech about eight weeks ago the noble Lord said that during his experience the West Indies had passed through many crises and that probably crises would come again, but I venture to impress upon the noble Lord that those crises were not as this crisis. In those crises individual estates went out of cultivation and were gradually brought back into cultivation. In this crisis, unless something is done, miles of estates are going out of cultivation and the whole of the Colonies are going to be cast into conditions which it is hardly possible to realise. I appeal to the noble Lord not to stand by the proposals that he has made, for they will be absolutely of no use. I appeal to him to reconsider the proposals that he has made and to make proposals of a different nature along the lines that I have suggested. I beg to move.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS AND THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, if no other noble Lord wishes to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, it is my duty to endeavour as far as I can to reply to his speech. Both Reports have now been published, and I can only say that they were published as soon as this could conveniently be done. As a matter of fact, we did want to publish the West Indian Report in its entirety, and we received Part IV of that Report —I cannot remember how few days ago, but it was instantly sent to the printers and, as soon as it was ready, the Report was published in its entirety. It is true that the Government received the earlier parts of the Report something like two months ago and we even received a telegraphic statement of the gist of the proposals earlier still, but as a matter of fact those proposals were not such as the Government could find itself able to act upon. If there has been any undue delay in the publication of the first part of the Report, which alone could have been published earlier, it is because the Government—I say it quite frankly—could not see in it any remedy for the very difficult situation into which the sugar Colonies have come that they could propose to either of the Houses of Parliament.
I want to emphasise that point a little. This crisis is not exactly a new one. It

999
did not arise when the present Government took office. It had arisen before that time, and the matter had been brought to the notice of the preceding Government. The preceding Government and the preceding Chancellor of the Exchequer did not find themselves able to take any action to relieve the West Indian sugar industry of the very serious losses which it had already by that time been making. I am not in the least blaming or criticising the late Government for not having done so, but I would ask the noble Viscount, who seemed to think that this Government could have made a proposition that would have prevented the terrible calamity which he sees coming upon the sugar industry, to remember, among other things, that exactly the same problem faced the last Government, and that the last Government did no more than the present Government towards averting that evil. The losses of the sugar industry last year were very considerable in all these sugar Colonies, and nothing was done and, as I venture to think, nothing properly could have been done to prevent those losses.
It is perfectly true that the Government have issued telegraphic instructions to the Governors of the sugar Colonies after consulting the banks with regard to facilities for advances. The Government had information—I do not know how far it was of general application—which led it to believe that there might be a restriction of advances to those cultivators of cane sugar, small and large, who were dependent upon bank overdrafts or bank advances in one form or another for the means of actually cultivating the crop. That was a question of some urgency and it was represented that it was necessary or at any rate desirable—whatever happened to the larger issue—to try to prevent any sudden restriction of the usual facilities which enable the cultivators actually to put the crop into the ground and proceed to cultivate. I might remind your Lordships that the proposal which has been made by the Government was not made after the publication of the Reports. It was made before the Reports were published because it was regarded as not having any relation whatever to the major question with which the Reports deal—namely, the protection of the sugar industry against an almost
1000
certain loss. No one has suggested that what the Government has proposed will remedy the financial position of the sugar industry. The fact that that executive action was taken before the Report even reached your Lordships' hands may be taken to show that it was not done in pursuance of the Report but in view of the representations made to the Government that these ordinary advances would be refused to the cultivators.
In order to enable all those persons who wished to cultivate cane not to be prevented from cultivating it, the Government have in consultation with the banks, made this proposal to which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has referred. As he said it does nothing to protect the sugar industry from loss owing to the fall in the price, but it will benefit those who wish to cultivate this season. He has asked whether this proposal applies to the crop of which the reaping begins in December, 1930, in the West Indies. Yes, the proposal refers to the crop which is now about to be cultivated and not to any future crop. It is a purely temporary measure to prevent that restriction of bank credit which might otherwise have occurred.
LORD OLIVIER: Will the noble Lord explain that? In certain Colonies the plants which are planted in June and July next will not be reaped until the spring of 1932. Does it apply to those? That is the Barbados method.
LORD PASSFIELD: It certainly applies to anything now about to be planted.
LORD OLIVIER: Anything planted this year?
LORD PASSFIELD: Yes. The noble Lord, in the last of his questions, seemed to indicate that the proposal of the Government was far too large, that it contemplated a perfectly unexpected range of advances. If the proposal of the Government is unnecessarily generous and large to meet its immediate purpose, of course, the Government will be pleased. What was necessary—and needless to say the Treasury insisted upon it, as they always would—was that a definite limit should be made to the possible Government loss. That limit has been put. If the limit is such as to indicate a larger

1001
measure of advances than will be necessary, certainly the Government will only be very pleased to have been unnecessarily generous in its forecast. Facilities for crop advances were not in the least proposed as a remedy.
Let me take care I have answered the questions of the noble Lord. Does this advance apply only to the cultivation of cane and not to the operation of the central factories which cultivate no cane? It applies only to the cultivation of the cane. As regards the factories which both cultivate and manufacture, the guarantee applies only in proportion to the extent to which advances are made for cultivation. The remedy of the bank against the borrower in respect of these advances will be made the first charge on the cane and/or the sugar produced, as is clearly stated in the telegram to the Colonial Governments. The liability of the Government, in the event of the bank being unable to recover an advance made, will not exceed 15 per cent. of the total advance made in any one case. The Government has made no arrangement with the banks in regard to their conduct in judging of applications for advances. We do not ask the banks to do anything which they think imprudent as bankers. We are merely anxious that they should not be restrained from making those advances which they otherwise would make in the ordinary course of their business by fear of a possibility of loss. We do not attempt to influence the banks at all as to the advances they will or will not make.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Lord whether in that case he expects that any bank would make any advance beyond the ordinary prudent advance, because, after all, under the proposals the bank will have to bear half the loss? It is not likely that any bank in those circumstances will make any risky advances at all.
LORD PASSFIELD: I can only say that the Government have acted in consultation with the banks in this matter and we are advised that this proposal will be of use for the purpose I have mentioned, to see that no person willing to cultivate will be prevented from cultivating by a restriction of credit by the banks which would not otherwise have taken place. It has nothing whatever to
1002
do with the position of the sugar industry. The noble Lord asked why the Government will not face up to the position. Will the noble Lords consider what that means? At the present time we are facing up to the position under the existing preference to the extent of a subsidy from the taxpayers of this country which is costing over £2,500,000 a year. That we are giving by diminution of the revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would otherwise get. We are giving that £2,500,000 for the benefit of the Empire sugar industry. The various things which have been proposed, a secure market with a guaranteed price covering the cost for a period of years, which is what the sugar planters desire, would cost, in addition to the £2,500,000 of the existing preference, another £2,000,000 or thereabouts for a period of years. Altogether what is in question to put the industry on its feet, as I gather from the noble Viscount and other speakers and those who telegraphed, is something in the nature of several millions a year for five years at least. I have not heard any noble Lord who has occupied a responsible position in the Government ask for that. What I have heard noble Lords on other occasions say is that the Government ought to have reduced its expenditure and that there ought to be economy.
Is it seriously suggested that it is the duty of this Government to provide several millions in one way or other, in addition to what it is already providing, as a subsidy to this particular industry? The noble Viscount who has spoken gave us his remedy. He suggested that we should consider a direct subsidy for each ton of sugar produced. As he said, it would meet with approval in the West Indies. Would it meet with approval in this country? Is it suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should add two or three millions a year in order to give a direct subsidy to this particular industry? There are other industries which ask for a direct subsidy. I should be surprised, in view of the constant appeals to the Government not to increase expenditure, if there is any substantial support for a proposal to give in any form a direct subsidy to this particular industry, hard as its lot is, and much as we may sympathise with those who are concerned

1003
in it. It has been exceedingly profitable in not very distant years, and now it meets with losses. Well, I should be exceedingly surprised if there were any deliberate, serious desire that this Government should expend these millions a year for the benefit of this particular industry. There are other industries which want subsidies, and I do not think it is possible to contemplate that those subsidies can be given.
Let me add one other word. The present situation is not due to any calamity in the West Indies or to any wrong conduct, perhaps, of the sugar planters; the present calamity is due to a remarkable and extraordinary fall in the world price, and that fall in the world price is fundamentally caused by a world over-production of sugar, which has actually piled up a visible stock of 5,000,000 tons of sugar—it has been increasing during the past five years—owing to the general over-production in the world. Now, I am not bringing it as any crime against the sugar planters in the West Indies, but I must point out that they have been contributing in their degree to the over-production. If you take the figures of the last four or five years you will find that the production of sugar in the West Indies has increased by something over 60 per cent., and the production of sugar in Mauritius has increased during those years by something like 60 per cent. If you take particular Colonies you will find that their increase in production was in one case as much as 90 per cent. Finding, I suppose, that business was good, they increased their production enormously, with the result that the product has failed to realise the price which they expected.
I do not say that the amount contributed by the West Indies to the overproduction is a very large proportion of the total; they have all been doing it. All I mean is that the West Indies and Mauritius have been doing their very large share of that over-production. I am afraid I cannot give noble Lords any sort of hope that this Government can possibly find from this community, either from the taxpayers or the consumers—because the millions a year which the noble Viscount asks us to contribute towards the West Indies—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Lord says that I have asked the Government
1004
to contribute millions a year. I have done nothing of the sort. I have asked the noble Lord to consider giving a subsidy for every ton of sugar produced in the West Indies. There are 300,000 tons produced per annum. Supposing the subsidy were £2 per ton, that is £600,000; it is not millions. And may I just add in regard to the amount now proposed to be given, £300,000, it seems to me that the noble Lord in making that proposal hopes that that £300,000 will be cut down to £100,000 or £50,000. If it is an offer from the Government why not let the offer stand at the fixed sum of £300,000 or £500,000?
LORD PASSFIELD: The noble Viscount has perhaps rather stretched the privilege of an interruption. He says that he did not ask for millions for the West Indies alone. He would not expect the West Indies to be treated differently from any of the other sugar-producing parts of the Empire.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Well, we were dealing with the West Indies and Mauritius, and Mauritius produced 200,000 tons and the West Indies 300,000 tons, or 500,000 tons altogether. Therefore at most, if it were £2 a ton, that would make £1,000,000. But actually in the Mauritius Report I think it is suggested that £1 per ton should be given, which would make it £800,000.
LORD PASSFIELD: I am sorry, but I must emphasise the fact that we could not deal in different degrees with different parts of the Empire producing sugar. This question, if it is a question of help to the industry, must be deal with uniformly through all the sugar-producing countries concerned. I do not think I need emphasise that. And if you are going to pay something substantial per ton on all the tons of sugar imported from the British Empire into this country, it does run into a very considerable figure.
As I say, I have not heard anyone who has held a position of responsibility in the Government say it was possible to give such a subsidy to this single industry. The last Government did not contemplate it, and did not do it, and I can hold out no hope that the present Government will be able to deal with

1005
the matter in that way, casting either upon the consumers or the taxpayers of this country the burden of coming to the aid of this particular industry in this particular way. I hope that is at any rate frank. I am very sorry we have to come to that conclusion, but I think it is a conclusion with which many noble Lords will find themselves in sympathy. It is the conclusion apparently which the late Government had to come to, and I do not see how we could have done anything else. I cannot promise the noble Lord any more Papers, because there are no more Papers which can be given. The Reports contain all the information, and until the Budget comes I am afraid nothing else can be shown. As I have told the House already, the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than once declared that as long as the Sugar Duty remained the preference would not be abolished. But he has very naturally refused to discuss whether or when the Sugar Duty may be dealt with, and consequently I am not able to add anything more to-day.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the Report which is the immediate occasion of the debate this evening only reached my hands, in common, I think, with the rest of your Lordships, this afternoon, and you will appreciate therefore that I have not been able to devote to it a very careful or detailed study. Still less have I been able to discuss that Report or its implications with any of my political friends. What I say to-night I say on my own behalf alone without previous discussion and without very long opportunity for consideration. But I have this qualification for addressing your Lordships on the subject of this Motion, that I, perhaps alone among your Lordships, was for some years intimately connected with the sugar industry in the West Indies. I began my commercial life by acting as overseer to a sugar planter in Demerara, and I was for some years after that a West Indian merchant; and although my direct connection with the West Indies, indeed my whole connection with the West Indies, ended more than thirty years ago, still a loyalty to old associations and some little practical knowledge of the facts which underlie this Report, and which this Report brings
1006
prominently to the notice of the public, compelled me to make some few observations this evening.
What are the facts which this Report discloses? The facts are that in some of the oldest Colonies of the British Empire the staple industry of those Colonies is threatened, in the words of the Report, with entire extinction. The result, according to the Report, will be that the working classes in those Colonies will be thrown out of employment and threatened with starvation, the capital embarked upon the development of those Colonies will be completely lost, the revenues of those Colonies for the carrying on of the public works and administration there will cease to exist, and, in the words of the summary itself, effects will be produced disastrous to labour and to local government and a "destructive shock with permanent damage to the good relations with the United Kingdom" will be inflicted upon these ancient British Colonies.
Those results, as the Report is careful to point out, flow not from any mismanagement or lack of enterprise in those who are carrying on this industry in the West Indies or Mauritius. The Report from the Mauritius states that:—
"It must be conceded that the cultivation and the manufacture of sugar have received careful attention for many years past and that a relatively high degree of skill and efficiency have been attained."
The Report of the West Indian Commission points out that it is evident that
"the present depression of the British West Indian sugar industry is not due to any general lack of efficiency and cannot be remedied effectually by improvements in methods of production alone."
The Reports are not merely negative. They not only exonerate the West Indies and Mauritius from responsibility for the disaster which is overtaking them, but point out in the plainest possible terms that the cause of the disaster is a competition of protective tariffs, bounties, and subsidies which production at a reasonable economic cost can be enabled to withstand only by action in the proper province; that is to say, that the disaster is due to tariff action and can only be met by tariff means.
The noble Lord told us that, although parts of this Report have been in possession of His Majesty's Government for some weeks, I think for more than

1007
two months, the reason why it was not published before was that they wanted to present it as a whole and that they had not got Part IV until within the last few days. It is unfortunate, if that was so, that the Report as published today does not contain Part IV. There is a footnote to say that Part IV will be published later. What becomes of that singularly disingenuous explanation which is offered as a reason for the non-publication of the Report?
LORD PASSFIELD: May I say, my Lords, that I said at the same time that it was kept back because we were trying to find a decision. It was, as a matter of fact, intended that it should be published with Part IV. As we could not get Part IV it happened to be delayed.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: We see how much Part IV has had to do with it when we see that the Report is published without Part IV. I think I can give your Lordships a more accurate explanation of why this suppression has gone on for so long. It is because, in paragraph 17 on page 13 of the Report, we find the Commission reporting—
"How far the risk may materialise in the abandonment of sugar production after the coming crop, or the efficient handling of that crop be impaired through financial difficulties, would, in our opinion, depend upon whether any assistance or guarantee of support to the industry can be given within the next two months."
Therefore, His Majesty's Government, being wholly unable to do anything to meet this clamant demand at the hands of their own Commission, keep the Report back until two months are up for fear public opinion may be brought to bear upon them to compel them to do what they are so unwilling to face up to.
The noble Lord has told us that he frankly admits that this Government is wholly unable to find any remedy. If a Government cannot find any remedy for what is admittedly a very grave evil, creating, in the words of the telegram, "permanent damage to the good relations between the British Colonies and the United Kingdom," then I beg to suggest that the right course for a Government which has arrived at that conclusion is that it should make way for someone else who is more able to face those problems with success. It is difficult for anyone who has had personal
1008
experience of the Colonies who are suffering this disaster to speak with patience of the complacent attitude with which the Government contemplate the extinction of their staple industry.
What is the offer, which the noble Lord frankly admits is no remedy but which the Government make as an expression of their sympathy with those whom they propose to see pass to destruction without any helping hand? They propose, forsooth, that instead of their suffering immediate extinction they shall be lent, with a Government guarantee—a Government guarantee to the lender not to the borrower, as I understand—some more money which, according to the Report, they are bound to lose within the next twelve months. In other words, instead of being put to an immediate death, their dying struggles are to be prolonged for twelve months so that, I suppose, at the end of that time their destruction may be made more absolutely certain. Your Lordships appreciate that the Report itself is careful to point out that:
"There appears, accordingly, to be no reasonable ground for expecting any early restoration, under existing conditions, of the market prices of sugar to figures which will enable the present rate of production to be maintained without loss to unprotected or unsubsidised producers."
As the noble Lord points out, there is a great weight of over-production hanging over the market at the present moment. In other words, the one remedy—not remedy but palliative—which the Government can offer to the sugar producers in the West Indies, is that they are to be encouraged or assisted to go on losing money for another twelve months so that they may be quite certainly utterly destroyed and bankrupt at the end of that time. More callous brutality has, I suppose, seldom disgraced any Government proposal. When that is coupled with the cynical hypocrisy which professes to view with sympathy the dying struggles of the West Indies, one realises that it is not only this country which has to mourn the coming into office of a Socialist Government
It is not for me to endorse, still less to propose, any particular remedy. I have said that I have seen this Report for something less than four hours in all; but I will say this, that one of the

1009
factors which, as the Report points out, has brought such immediate disaster upon the West Indian Colonies is the uncertainty which has been created by the action of the present Government regarding the continuance of the existing preference. The Report says:—
"The market for West Indian sugar for future delivery has already been for the present destroyed by uncertainty as to the policy which may be contemplated by His Majesty's Government. ‖
"If the entire extinction of the industry through the abolition of the preference is to be averted, it is, in our opinion, necessary that His Majesty's Government should make an early pronouncement which will restore confidence."
The answer to that is to suppress the Report for seven weeks, and then to say that you have no remedy, and you cannot make a statement because that would be to anticipate the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech.
So long as a Conservative Government was in power they were under no uncertainty as to the continuance of the preference, or as to the practical sympathy and practical assistance which would be given, if necessary, to prevent the extinction of several of our ancient and most loyal Colonies. When I see that the Report itself points out that so far from preference or assistance being inconsistent with those principles of Free Trade in which the Government profess themselves to be such ardent believers, if only conditions of Free Trade were established the West Indian sugar industry would be in a satisfactory and even prosperous economic position; when I see it pointed out that the Free Trade position, representing the view that all world commodities should be produced where they can be produced most cheaply and interchanged between the respective populations of national areas, if it were once established, is all that the West Indies ask for—then one gets a little impatient at being told "We cannot do it because it is inconsistent with our Free Trade principles."
I find a little later in the Report that it is pointed out by the Commissioners that—
"it has become increasingly difficult for us to imagine how any one can suppose—if anyone does—that it would be of advantage for the people of Great Britain, for the British Empire, or for the world, that British consumers of sugar should be enabled to buy
1010
their sugar at an advantage of perhaps a farthing a pound through the acceptance of tribute from the taxpayers of other nations or the unpaid labour of Cuban colons, Haytian primitives, or congested Javan peasants, at the cost of destroying old-established and valuable organic British communities successfully developing the solution of the problems of racially mixed populations."
Then I find that they also point out that "if it is admitted"—
I do not know whether His Majesty's Government admit it—
"that there would be an obligation upon the Imperial Government to provide at least the expenditure necessary for the relief of distress, and for carrying on the institutions of local government in those Colonies which would chiefly suffer, it cannot but be recognised that the pecuniary balance of profit to the British community, as taxpayers, consumers and producers, which would accrue through the reduction of the price of all the sugar they buy to the lowest competitive open market rates at which it could be obtained would be either on the wrong side or at best very small."
Yet it is "the economics of the pecuniary balance of profit" which so concerned His Majesty's Government that they professed themselves unable to find any remedy.
The Report apparently is unable to credit the present Socialist Government's attitude. The Report says they would consider it impossible for any British Government to be a party to bringing about the destructive shock with permanent damage to good relations with the United Kingdom which would result from allowing the present disaster to go unchecked. They did not know His Majesty's present advisers when they reported in those terms. "It ought to be impossible for any Government" and yet that which they thought was impossible for any British Government the Secretary of State for the Colonies has just pronounced to be his Government's settled and unalterable policy.
I have spoken perhaps strongly. I feel strongly. It is a matter upon which I speak with personal knowledge of the conditions under which these men have worked and are working, and when I see Colonies whose only fault, whose only crime is that they belong to the British Empire, threatened with the death penalty (because that is what it means) for the commission of that crime, then I am a little impatient with the Secretary of State for the Colonies who comes down

1011
and glibly says that His Majesty's Government is unable to suggest any remedy except to encourage them to lose more money for another twelve months. Had the British Colonies, had the British in the West Indies been in the position of Cuba, been in the position of a French Colony, been in the position of anything but a British Colony, they would not be in their present dire stress to-day, and it is a cruel punishment to inflict upon them for their loyalty that a Socialist Government at home should condemn them to utter extinction rather than sacrifice Free Trade principles which it has not yet begun to understand.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I want just as a preliminary to try to get into my noble friend's head the facts about Parts I, II, III and IV of our Report. I have already told them once in this House, and I have stated them to him in writing. My letter said that we regarded Parts I, II and III of our Report as our complete reply to the reference made to us. We had also expected to publish a fourth part, which we had to delay, because it was one that was to include a very valuable report on general agriculture in the West Indies, the contents of which we had already gutted, and put into our Parts I, II and III. The rest of Part TV dealt with very general questions of conditions in the West Indies, and most of the observations on those aspects could only possibly develop if the action recommended by us in Parts I, II and III were taken, because they applied to conditions of a surviving sugar industry, and if the sugar industry were not saved they did not apply at all but were mere impertinences. I assure His Majesty's Government that if they have to take up the whole question of an entirely new policy and administrative system for the British West Indies it will keep them and any other Government fairly occupied for a good many years to come. However, I do not think that the noble Lord really makes that an excuse for not publishing Parts I, II and III.
LORD PASSFIELD: I agree entirely.
LORD OLIVIER: I just wanted to clear that out of the way, because there is nothing whatever in it. I come to the subject of my noble friend Lord Elibank's questions. I do not know what epithet to apply to this claim put forward by the
1012
Government to show their sympathy. They say they have shown their sympathy. Well, they may show their sympathy, but they have not shown any intelligence whatever, and they have not shown any desire to ascertain the facts of the case. If my noble friend had taken the trouble to go to anybody—I do not say myself; I have not been consulted—if he had gone to anybody and asked about the facts in the West Indies they would have told him that this thing is of no use whatever, and is not likely to be of use. It can only be of use to a man after he has lost one-third of what he has invested in his crop, after he is dead broke, after his assets have been sold up. What sugar planter, with the present prospects of the market and with the possibility that even the preference may be taken off the 1931 crop—what sugar planter is to plant under those conditions?
My noble friend is full of kindness and benevolence. He says that there was a question whether some planters would get advances or not, and in the kindness and simplicity of his heart he said: "I will go to Barclay's Bank." We are all acquainted with Barclay's Bank. The manager is an old colleague of mine in the India Council. When I was at the Board of Agriculture Lord Ernle and myself had a good deal to do with Barclay's and other banks, and we had the greatest respect for their soundness and character. We, ourselves, the members of the Commission, were greatly indebted to Barclay's Bank for the convenience they gave us in financing ourselves on our journey. But the point is that he said: "We will go to Barclay's Bank" and they went, and the bank met them in the same way that banks always meet the Government when they go and ask them for help with agricultural credits. They said: "Banking is a healthy business, but we are not in business for our health. We will give advances on sound security." Nobody can complain of them for that. They will give advances on sound security and the Government seem to think that by an offer to bear half the loss up to £150,000 they will induce them to be a little more willing. I do not think they will. Some private inquiries have been made at Barclay's with regard to this and there was no indication whatever that they would be

1013
the least willing to relax the ordinary precautions of a bank. When they see a sinking security such as the West Indian sugar industry they are not going to touch it more than they can help.
In this Report there are about ten paragraphs with regard to West Indian credits. We went very carefully into the question of what was the position of credit and, generally speaking, I may tell your Lordships—as you may see for yourselves in the Report—that excepting in the case of one or two weak Islands, such as Antigua, given reasonable commercial security, ordinary reasonable expectation that a man would come out on his crop, there was and would be no difficulty with regard to advances. We dealt specially with the Island of Antigua because that was the worst case, and I want to refer to that for a reason which your Lordships will understand in a moment. We said that:—
"Conditions in the sugar industry in Antigua are already considerably worse than those in either Barbados or St. Kitts as, in addition to the low prices obtained for canes, the cost per ton of cane has been greatly increased through the low yield per acre consequent on the severe drought … and as money obtained from the usual commercial channels costs from 8 to 10 per cent. … it is recommended that a loan of £55,000 be immediately made at the lowest rate of interest possible from Imperial funds …"
That was really the only case in which we knew and reported that planters were going to be prevented from getting advances.
When the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, was speaking on the subject, he said he hoped that the Report would be published at any rate before the West Indies were ruined. Well, in our Report, as quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, we said that if something was not done within the period of two months ruin would begin. It has begun. I have received to-day a letter from the Governor of the Leeward Islands in which he says—
"The position is really critical in the Leewards, especially Antigua, and the Bank of Canada will, I understand, no longer 'carry' its clients."
That is what we said would happen if the Government did not take means to stop it.
I am bound to say that I entirely sympathise with the somewhat severe
1014
language which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, used. When the Government say they cannot do a thing that means simply that they do not want to do it. They can do it. When you have a terrible calamity threatening you and you say you do not know what to do. I say—quoting from Mr. Belloc's book "The Bed Child's Book of Beasts"—"This learned fish has not sufficient brains to get into the water when it rains"—Put up an umbrella. As regard all other estates if you ask anybody who knows anything about the West Indian sugar industry and about banking business you may be quite sure that this is going to be a dead letter. It is not worth troubling about. Although the Government have said they will make a grant of £150,000 to the West Indies it is a most ridiculous over-estimate, as my noble friend Viscount Elibank has pointed out, at the best. It would be very safe to insure the Government liability at a premium not exceeding 1 per cent. As a matter of fact the thing will not march a single step. Nothing will be done unless the Government take other steps to maintain the sugar industry. The question was raised in the other House whether it would not have been better to have had this matter discussed on a Supplementary Estimate and the Under-Secretary of State replied "I am not at present bringing in a Supplementary Estimate." No, I should think not. He will never bring in a Supplementary Estimate in this matter.
There are one or two small other matters which I want to clear up. You may clear the air entirely of this sympathetic offer. It is not well for the credit of the Government that they should advertise this scheme at all. Clear it away. It is not going to work, although I am sure the noble Lord, in the benevolence of his heart, did intend it to work. We are left with the other proposals of the Government, but before I come to them I want to make one further remark. The noble Lord in his first speech, which was rather in the nature of a smoke screen to dissemble the benevolent intentions of the Government, or perhaps even a sort of general barrage against any sort of demands whatever, actually said that the West Indian planters ought to have built up reserve funds from ten years ago in order to meet their losses now. This has been

1015
quoted in the Daily Herald, an excellent paper which I hope your Lordships all take now instead of the Morning Post, being now the best penny morning paper. After saying "West Indies to be saved," it goes on:—
"It should not be forgotten that, as Lord Passfield suggested, a well-organised industry would have conserved the immense profits made a few years ago to tide itself over the present crisis."
That is a most unjust criticism.
It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord said, that there were speculative dealings in the capital of sugar estates. They did change hands at high prices. But there were speculative dealings in other things, in dozens and dozens of British industries after the War, when the boom was on—Dunlops and Austins. No doubt it injured business, but does anybody suggest that the West Indian sugar industry should have saved up such profits as they made ten years ago to carry on for five or six years under present conditions? If they did make big profits they were not so big as they might have been because they made contracts to sell their sugar in England. whereas if they had sold in the United States they might have made twice as much. If they did make big profits they had to pay Excess Profits Duty of 80 per cent. Whatever profits they made they only got 20 per cent. of them and then there was Super-Tax on their incomes. I can assure your Lordships that some concerns have saved reserves which have been carrying their losses this year and last year and will be carrying their losses for part of the coming year; but that cannot go on for ever. In one or two cases I have examined the accounts of the factories which had a reserve fund and, although the factories made no profit, they paid the shareholders a dividend out of that reserve fund. You cannot expect them to go on doing so, and that kind of arrangement is not going to maintain the sugar industry.
At present, you have a loss, even with the preference, of £2 per ton on every ton that you make. You cannot expect them to carry on in the certain knowledge that those conditions must last for four or five years. Noble Lords should not, by accepting wild statements, lend currency to the idea that the people of West Indies are different from all other commercial people. Such profits as they
1016
have made they have mostly put back into the industry. After these large profits were made, the leading feature of the last eight or nine years has been the great improvement made in the factories in the West Indies. It is a most pathetic thing to see factories in which the owners have put back profits into improving the machinery and the slump came upon them before they had been able to complete the improvements. In British Guiana and elsewhere they have magnificent grinding and crushing installations, but they have not been able to use part of them because they have not been able to bring their boiling houses up to the power of their mills, and the boiling houses cannot take off the juice as fast as they can grind it. Factories have been crippled in that way because the slump came when they were in the actual process of improvement. That is a fact which, I think, should be remembered to the credit of the West Indies.
I turn to the general aspect of the matter. The Government have turned down our proposal and that of Sir Francis Watts, which was, of course, in one form or another to guarantee a certain price for sugar. Our proposal that the guaranteed price should be maintained by having a single buyer is entirely in line with the proposals now being advocated for the wheat industry—proposals which my noble friend Lord De La Warr, before he beat his ploughshare into a sword, advocated in this House. I am convinced that that proposal was the soundest way, but it was turned down. The Government tell us that—
"All possibilities of scientific research are being actively investigated and will continue to receive earnest attention. Other detailed suggestions for improvements in the industry will be sympathetically considered, and, in particular, the Government will be prepared to examine, in consultation with the Governments of the Colonies concerned, how far any, or all, of the measures indicated can be assisted under the Colonial Development Act."
That is another instance of—really there is only one word, an American word, to express it—"poppycock." There is nothing in it.
If noble Lords will read our Report, they will see that all these things were referred to us months ago. We considered what could be done with regard to research and improvement. We went

1017
very carefully into that matter, and we had the advantage of the help of a very capable technical man and a very capable agriculturist and sugar producer. We considered very carefully what could be done in the way of research, and I can assure your Lordships that the provisions for research in the West Indies, and not only in the Colonies but in the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, with the assistance of Committees of the noble Lord's Department, are in a very high state of efficiency, and it is very difficult to suggest anything that could be done to make them more efficient. Research is going on very well, but the results of research cannot in any circumstances come into operation for a considerable number of years, and then only gradually.
The noble Lord in his first speech spoke about the West Indies having been outstripped by Java because the Dutch had shown such magnificent ability in developing the scientific treatment of sugar. The Dutch, for one thing, have had £160,000 a year to spend on it. The fact is that the Dutch learnt how to deal scientifically with sugar from West Indian planters and factory people. The noble Lord referred to their having produced a marvellous cane with a great yield. I have seen that cane. It is a wonderful cane, but it is not very many years ago that nearly 60 per cent. of the whole area of Java was planted with a Barbados cane, reared in Barbados. They have been thriving and improving their industry for a number of years on Barbados and Demerara seedlings. It was the West Indies that developed scientific methods of treating the canes, and other nations have followed. It just happens that in the last two or three years the Dutch had a great stroke of luck and produced a very remarkable seedling. We have it growing in Trinidad. It is growing very well there, and in a few years time, if the industry goes on, we shall have that cane in other parts of the West Indies. But if nothing more is done upon this Report than His Majesty's Government have adumbrated, we shall not see that cane growing except in the Botanical Gardens. In every respect we have given the noble Lord in our Report particulars of the possibilities of development that can be effected and, in comparison with the gravity of the present position, they do not amount to a row
1018
of pins. I do deplore that, in this statement of His Majesty's Government, they merely say that they are going to do what they can by research and credits. They had much better cut the cackle and say: "We know that the sugar industry must go out unless they have relief, and we cannot give them that relief."
I now come definitely to the real point of the matter. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has said, that you cannot maintain the sugar industry of Mauritius and the West Indies unless you are going to consent to pay a higher price for your sugar than you would, if you took advantage of your market at the present time, be paying. Unless very much worse things are to happen to the Empire and the world, I say you will have to pay a higher price for your sugar. The present price of white granulated sugar in this country is 2¼d. per lb. It is retailed at 2¾d., but that is what it costs to produce. More than half the price is due to the Sugar Duty. The price of white granulated cane sugar is about £1 1s. 0d., and of home-grown white granulated beet sugar £1 0s. 6d., and the duty is 11 s. 10 d., so that more than half the price of sugar is now owing to the duty. If you take that off, you get a price for sugar that amounts to slightly more than 1d. per lb.
Before I go on, I want to mention incidentally that I was not invited to report upon the British beet sugar industry, but before I went out I asked my right hon. friend Mr. Buxton if he could tell me anything about it. He said: "We have a Report in preparation." When I came back I asked for it, and was told: "We are not able to release it at present." I am not surprised, because that Report regarding the prospects of the beet sugar industry under present conditions would be just as disagreeable reading for those interested in beet sugar as the Report on the West Indies has been to my noble friends. As a matter of fact, the West Indian Colonies can produce sugar more cheaply than the beet growers in England can produce it. They produce two to four tons of sugar to the acre, whereas the beet sugar people—I have the latest report—average only 25 cwts. to the acre, and they have to pay as much for their beets at the factory as would cover the whole cost of planting and manu-

1019
facture in the West Indies. That is a fact. It costs as much to buy the beet for the British factory as it does to grow, make and put on the market West Indian sugar. All the rest they get out of the Imperial Preference and the subsidy they receive of £5 10 s. a ton on production. As soon as that subsidy goes, the British beet industry will be in a worse position than the West Indian industry to-day.
How cheaply do you want to have sugar? The West Indies can sell it at about 1½d. per lb. It can be brought here and refined so as to sell under 2d. per lb. The noble Lord says that all of us are desirous of cheapening sugar for the working classes—the poor charwoman and so on. How much does the charwoman want to pay? Does she buy ½lb. a week or 1 lb. a week or, if she has a large family, does she buy 1 lb. a day? The point is this. If you take the West Indian sugar and give them a proper price and not charge your duty of £11 10 s. a ton—if you want to have Free Trade in sugar, have it, but you can still give the West Indies and Mauritius a fair price for their sugar and yet be able to sell sugar in this country at 1¾d. per lb. Surely that is cheap enough? If the noble Lord does not think it cheap enough, he has only to pay his charwoman 1¾d. a week more in her wages and that will indemnify her. It is much better that prices should be kept up and wages kept up than prices should be cut down, because wages always follow them. There is a limit beyond which it is ridiculous to expect that sugar prices should be cut down. Sugar prices at the present time are bankrupt prices. How long are we to submit to having our Colonies broken up by flooding the country with bankrupt sugar?
Not only are we having sugar dumped from Australia and Natal, because they have a protective tariff and can dump their sugar at a loss, but we have also great quantities of sugar unloaded below the cost of production from Cuba and San Domingo and elsewhere. There are 5,500,000 tons, which, at the present rate of consumption, will take five years to work off if production stays at its present level. I was all through Cuba recently and we found Cuba in a state of great agricultural depression. They did not know what to do about the situation.
1020
They had then taken the desperate expedient of putting all their sugar crop into the hands of one seller. Every sugar factory had to send their sugar to one seller in order that he might make the best bargain for it. "If we cannot sell our sugar and get the money to carry on and pay our labourers, how are we to carry on?" they were asking. When we were in Cuba that problem was not solved. It has been solved by unloading 100,000 tons of Cuban sugar at the lowest price at which sugar has ever been sold. The price has gone down in the British market to 7s. 6d. because they found it necessary to get the cash. It is a bankrupt price.
Are we going to acquiesce in the industry of our Colonies and our Colonies themselves being ruined simply because other people are in a position to ruin them by selling bankrupt stock? There is a limit below which it is ridiculous to sell sugar. You can stop it, as we have pointed out, and it is worth while to stop it. What is the alternative? It has been very properly described by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, who knows many of these Colonies. We have described it in temperate words but in words which are authentic and indisputable. We have chosen our words very carefully and we will stick to anything in that Report and make it good to you. Under the present conditions of the sugar market and unless something is done to improve the price which the sugar manufacturers are getting at the present time, the sugar industry is going to be put out of commission. If the preference went, the industry would be wound up immediately. A certain minority of the sugar people can carry on for a short time at present prices in the hope of revival. My friend Sir Francis Watts, who knows the West Indies and the sugar industry thoroughly, says that, if the sugar industry went, it would mean for Mauritius and other British Colonies consequences which can only be described as appalling. My colleague and I have told you what is going to happen. If that happened, His Majesty's Government would be occupied for years together in reconstructing the whole sociology of the West Indies and it would take them much time and would cost them a great deal more than the proposals which Sir Francis Watts or I have put forward. It would cost them much more in trade and in outlay.

1021
What will it mean in the Colonies themselves? There are certain old English Colonies like Antigua, St. Kitts, and Barbados, which anybody who knows them knows are really in the English sense very valuable Possessions. If the English population or the English character of those Colonies were taken away they would fall back to the position of the little Island of Nevis, an island of scrub and small peasant proprietors, which cannot pay for its churches and schools, and can only hope to live by selling vegetables to Canada, which it is doing increasingly. If that happened to these old English Colonies you would then have a certain number of poor whites as farmers on their own estates and an enormous number of labourers without any livelihood except growing sweet potatoes and yams, and there would be no possible means of raising the revenue for the churches and schools of which anybody who has been out there knows they are so proud. These three Colonies will be destroyed and will go to pieces. That line of lights which has a shining effect upon us as we think of English history will be extinguished and go out. My noble friend and anybody who knows the Colonies knows that will be the case.
The Colony of British Guiana is only maintained from physical destruction by the sugar industry, because British Guiana, so far as it is cultivated at all, has an elaborate system of trenches and drainage which is maintained at the cost of the sugar industry. When the sugar industry goes out it will be impossible to maintain that system. The rice industry cannot be developed; already it cannot be developed unless you improve the irrigation. In a physical sense the Colony of British Guiana will sink into the mud. There is all the unemployment and the loss of revenue which will follow. Anybody who has surveyed the Colony knows that that is the case. In British Guiana there is a great mass of Indian immigrants always wanting to go back to India. They have a right to go back and, if the sugar industry is unable to give them employment, they will claim to go back to India en masse and the immediate liability for return passages is carefully calculated at £800,000. They will claim it and my noble friend Earl Russell and Mr. Wedgwood Benn will see that they get it.
1022
Then I come to Trinidad. In Trinidad the sugar industry is a very valuable institution because there the system of cane farming has been developed more than anywhere else. The factories are very well managed and equipped. Probably the best factory in the British Empire is now in Trinidad. The Trinidad factories have 20,000 cane farmers. They have these men organised in co-operative societies, and all the organisation of peasant cane farming, of co-operation among admirable and intelligent men, will go to pieces—a really terrible set-back in the social organisation of Trinidad—if you break up the sugar industry. And, again, as in British Guiana, you have the liability for the repatriation of Indians. The Indians in Trinidad will certainly claim their return passages. They are with difficulty restrained from doing it now. If the sugar industry goes you will have from £700,000 to £800,000 liability on the Colonial Government to pay passages. Trinidad may be able to pay it, because they have an oil industry, which they can tax—it is not heavily taxed now. British Guiana has no such revenue. You will have all your front line of Colonies—the Lesser Antilles and British Guiana practically extinguished, Trinidad very grievously crippled, and a great deal of Jamaica very grievously crippled, although it has other resources which I hope can pull it through.
That is your bill, which you have to face. On the other hand, you can obviate this by paying a living price for sugar. I am not very much frightened by the noble Lord's figures. We at present pay a great deal in sugar taxation, and we should not have to pay very much more to put the British Colonial sugar industry on a sound footing. The noble Lord said: "You will have to do this for the whole Empire." Well, I do not agree that we are bound to do it for self-governing Colonies which have such a high protective tariff that their internal price for sugar is 34 s. or 28 s. a cwt., and which are enabled by that to dump their sugar in our own market. I think that a self-governing Colony which looks after its own industry in that way might very well be regarded as not being entitled to take advantage of any bounty which the British Government might give to its Colonies. It has been responsible for the Government of all these Colonies;

1023
Barbados is the only Colony which has had any sort of autonomy. All these other Colonies in their present position have grown up under the responsibility of the Imperial Government. That is your alternative. You must either make such arrangements that a proper price shall be given to the West Indies, Mauritius, and Fiji sugar, or you must have all those Colonies, with the exception of Jamaica and the partial exception of Trinidad, wiped off the map and destroyed. I put these things perfectly plainly.
The noble Lord also referred to measures of research which Mr. Snowden mentioned last July, and which I said were under the circumstances derisory. I challenge His Majesty's Government to say whether there is any reason why they ought not to be ashamed to put on paper such a triviality as that. If there is anything in it, let them convene their Economic Advisory Committee, or any of the expert committees that they have, and examine my colleague, Mr. Semple, and myself, and let them advise the Government how much there is in that, and as to the extent—the trivial extent—to which that is going to help the industry. If the industry is saved that may and will be of benefit, but if the industry is not going to be saved, by fixing such a price of sugar that the West Indies, Mauritius and Fiji can survive—and Fiji will have a bill of £500,000 or £600,000 for repatriation of labourers—then this disaster will happen to the West Indies. Noble Lords on the Government Bench may say: "Well, we cannot help it." Well, my colleague and myself have done the best to make this irrefragable situation perfectly clear, and we put it before you. I have found
1024
myself regarded rather with reproach by some members of my Party for having set down these facts. They are facts. They cannot be other than facts. I have stated them, and I state them again, because, first of all, I do not believe that the rank and file of my Party will desire to destroy the West Indian Colonies and Mauritius for a gain of a farthing a pound on sugar, and I do not want them to have the infamy of taking that responsibility as a Party to which I have myself belonged all my life. It would be an infamy if that happens; and would remain an infamy.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate, and I am very glad that it has fallen to me to move the Motion which has provided this debate. I cannot help saying that I go away with rather a sad heart after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Pass-field, because I sometimes feel that he has not appreciated the conditions under which the sugar industry and the Colonies and the West Indies are suffering to-day. I would urge him to read the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hailsham and Lord Olivier, once more, in the hope that he may be so impressed with the disastrous and calamitous conditions that exist that he will impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity of assisting these Colonies, lest worse befall, and at some future time he will have to find even a greater sum than has been suggested to-day. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.

THE LATE EARL OF BALFOUR.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that he had received messages of sympathy from the Greek Senate, the Roumanian Senate and the Roumanian Chamber of Deputies on the death of the Earl of Balfour.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Great Western Railway,

Milford Haven Urban District Council (Water),

London and North Eastern Railway (No. 1),

Liverpool Corporation (No. 1),

Chester Water.

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 Additional Provision in the
Middlesex County Council Bill [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional provision:
And that the standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for the
Torquay and Paignton Traction Bill
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Rill:
Read, and agreed to.

TORQUAY AND PAIGNTON TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
FALMOUTH CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bills was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 19th of February last and the 11th instant discharged, and Bills committed.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  PORTSMOUTH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Auckland be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Viscount Mersey: Read, and agreed to.

GUILDFORD RURAL 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 Order made on the 19th of February last discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
DERBY CORPORATION BILL.
NEWPORT CORPORATION (No. 1) BILL.
Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WALSALL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WEDNESBURY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
SUTTON COLDFTELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
BARNSLEY AND DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select

1027
Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:

M. Bristol (Chairman),

L. Gage (V. Gage),

L. Addington,

L. Wavertree,

L. Marks:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 1st of April next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

DERBY CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Boston Corporation Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Derby Corporation Bill: 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.

KING'S LYNN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1930.
Special Order in respect of the rural district of King's Lynn and part of the rural district of Freebridge Lynn in the County of Norfolk, and for the Amendment of the King's Lynn Electric Lighting Order, 1896:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
HAVERFORDWEST ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
IPSWICH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
WHITBY ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
HOUGHTON-LE-SPRING DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1930.
WELLINGTON (SALOP) GAS ORDER, 1930.
EXMOUTH ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
HYTHE (HANTS) ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
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.

HASLEMERE AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1930.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order; that they have received and considered a report from the Board of Trade upon the Order; and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
STONE GAS ORDER, 1930.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, that they have received and considered a report from the Board of Trade upon the Order, that in connection with such Report they have considered the question of "vires" and are of opinion that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

COQUET FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Referred to the Examiners.
BRISTOL CORPORATION (No. 1) BILL.
EAST SURREY WATER BILL.
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
READING CORPORATION BILL.

ROCHDALE CORPORATION (No. 1) BILL.
  TEES VALLEY WATER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  Message from the Commons for leave for the Lord Archbishop of York, the Viscount Bridgeman, the Viscount Brentford, the Lord Buckmaster and the Lord Darling to attend to be examined as witnesses before the Select Committee of that House. Leave given to their Lordships to attend if they think fit, and their Lordships consenting thereto, a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.