Sitting of 8 December 1932

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

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR (EMPLOYMENT CLERKS).
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Labour if he will state what is the reason for his intention to introduce boy and girl recruitment into the employment clerk grade; whether such open recruitment will deprive ex-service men in the S class of promotion to that grade; and whether he will give further consideration to the matter, so as to ensure that such ex-service men as are at present performing the work of that grade, and have proved themselves efficient, may receive priority in promotion?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies already given to the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Smedley Crooke) on the 29th November, and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) on the 1st December.

    PROMOTION.
    Miss PICKFORDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to undertake that during the present abnormal period, when opportunities for salary improvements in the Civil Service are restricted, such vacancies as do arise in the clerical and executive grades shall be filled by promotion from qualified officers in the lower ranks?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 30th November to the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Bait). It would not be in the public interest to dispense entirely with open competitive examination for the execu
    1762
    tive and clerical classes but this source is used only for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of Departments after the claims to promotion of all suitable officers already serving have been fully considered.
    Miss PICKFORD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal Commission on the Civil Service recommended that the aim should be to provide an adequate avenue of promotion for the clerical writing assistants showing a capacity for better work and up to the standard of those classes; and that recently 15 writing assistants qualified for such promotion in the Ministry of Health for whom no vacancies could be found, while a large number were being taken on from outside—
    HON. MEMBERS: Speech !
    Mr. SPEAKER: Captain Peter Macdonald.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    UMPIRE'S DECISIONS.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases at present awaiting decision by the umpire.
    Mr. HUDSON: On the 2nd December, the latest date for which figures are available, the number was 1,560.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour the total estimated annual cost of administration of transitional payments in the county of Durham under the present arrangements?
    Mr. HUDSON: A reliable estimate cannot be given until more experience has been gained. I hope that in about a month's time it may be possible to give the hon. Member the information for which he asks.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman expect that the saving as a result of administration by commissioners will be in excess of what it is now?
    Mr. HUDSON: That is our hope and expectation.
    Mr. LAWSON: That means that the saving will come out of the people.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that paragraph 10 of the Circular L.A. 16, issued to county councils and county borough councils in England and Wales and councils of large burghs in Scotland, contravenes the Transitional Payments (Determination of Need) Act, 1932, in so far as it invites local authorities to take into account the savings of other members of the family in addition to those of the applicant; and whether he will modify or withdraw the circular?
    Mr. HUDSON: As regards the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend is advised that this paragraph does not contravene the provisions of the recent Act. The second part, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: May I ask why this information is withheld from the House, and given only to these people in the form of a circular? Why was not that fact brought out in the Debate in the House?
    Mr. HUDSON: It is not withheld from Members of this House. If I remember aright, I made the position very clear in the statement that I made on the Second Reading.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Minister of Labour the nature of the official instructions recently issued to members of public assistance committees by his Department as to transitional payments under the means test?
    Mr. HUDSON: No instructions have been issued. A circular calling attention to the provisions of the Transitional Payments (Determination of Need) Act has been issued to local authorities, and a copy will be found in the Library of the House.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour whether any transitional payments committees of the various public assistance committees take into consideration the value of free meals supplied to applicants for transitional payment?
    Mr. HUDSON: No cases of the kind referred to have been brought to the notice of the Department.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour whether any alterations have been made in the amounts of transitional
    1764
    payments paid by the Commissioners of the Rotherham and District Public Assistance areas since their appointment; and whether a new scale is now in force?
    Mr. HUDSON: These authorities have been superseded on the ground that they were not efficiently carrying out their statutory duties, and, accordingly, it has been or will be necessary for the Commissioners to revise a substantial number of the determinations previously given. As regards scales, there has been no change in the position at Rotherham set out in the reply given to the hon. Member on 25th October last. The Commissioners for Durham have, I understand, adopted a basis of assessment for guidance, to which they have given local publicity.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the basis of assessment in Durham much lower than it was previously?
    Mr. HUDSON: The basis of assessment is not an official one issued by my Department. If the hon. Member likes, I will send him a copy of the Paper containing the particulars.
    Mr. THORNE: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the basis of assessment., so far as the Durham County Council is concerned, is very much lower than that in many other parts of the country?
    Mr. HUDSON: Speaking off-hand, no, Sir.

    STATISTICS.
    Major MILNERasked the Minister of Labour (1) if he will give, as on the latest convenient date, the numbers registered as unemployed for a year or more, with the comparable figures as on the latest convenient date prior to the 24th August, 1931:
    (2) if he will give the total numbers registered as permanently unemployed as on the latest convenient date with the comparable figures at the end of August, 1931?
    Mr. HUDSON: As the reply is long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Major MILNER: Surely the hon. Gentleman can give us some figures? In Question No. 7 I only ask for two figures; may I have those figures?
    Mr. HUDSON: The reply is very long in order to explain the figures. I will read it if the hon. and gallant Member so desires.
    Major MILNER: Will the hon. Gentleman give the effect?
    Mr. HUDSON: I will read the answer.
    At 21st November, 1932, out of a total of 2,489,000 claimants on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, the last spell of registered unemployment had lasted for 12 months or more in 458;890 cases. The only date in 1931 for which an analysis on this basis is available is 2nd February, when an investigation by sample was made. At that date, out of approximately 2,382,000 claimants, it is estimated that about 120,000 had been unemployed for 12 months or more. Corresponding figures are not available in respect of persons on the register who had no claim for benefit or transitional payment. I am unable to say how many persons are permanently unemployed. If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to know the number described as "wholly unemployed," the figure was 2,189,258 on 21st November, 1932, and 1,958,395 on 24th August, 1931. This description, however, merely means that the persons concerned were, on the day of the return, definitely out of a situation, however long or however short their subsequent unemployment may prove to be.
    Major MILNER: Arising out of the first part of the answer, may I ask if the House is to understand that there is an actual increase of 320,000, between February, 1931, and the present date, in the number of those who have been unemployed for a, year or more?
    Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir. I have pointed out that last year there were no corresponding figures available. This year, the larger figure that I have given includes information in respect of persons on the register who had no claim to benefit or transitional payment.
    Major MILNER: What are the Government going to do about this situation Are they going to plan forward? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us?
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the House to take it that the personnel of this standing army is growing at an alarming rate?
    Major MILNERasked the Minister of Labour file numbers registered as unemployed in the City of Leeds as on the latest convenient date, with the comparable figures for the end of August, 1931?
    Mr. HUDSON: The numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment. Exchanges in Leeds were 42,153 at 24th August, 1931, and 41,128 at 21st November, 1932.
    Major MILNER: How does it come about that there is that increase?
    Mr. HUDSON: The hon. and gallant Member apparently does not realise that there was not an increase.
    Major MILNER: I meant "decrease."
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women registering as unemployed at the Employment Exchanges in Durham County, including the boroughs, for the last available Saturday in November, 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932, or the nearest comparable available day?
    Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Numbers of unemployed men and women on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the County of Durham.

    Date.

    Men.

    Women.

    25th November, 1929

    …

    58,168

    4,323

    24th November, 1930

    …

    112,567

    7,814

    30th November, 1931

    …

    136,800

    8,379

    21st November, 1932

    …

    161,223

    8,836

  BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY (ALIEN EMPLOYES).
  Dr. CLAYTONasked the Minister of Labour whether the British beet-sugar companies have yet given any undertaking to replace the 18 permanently resident aliens with British subjects?
  Mr. HUDSON: As these persons are permanently resident in this country, the question of obtaining such an undertaking from their employers does not arise.
  Dr. CLAYTON: Is it not the intention that British subjects should be trained to take the place of these aliens?
  Mr. HUDSON: I gather that some British subjects were trained, and that the persons who were brought in in anticipation of the training have left the country; but there were others whom it has been found impossible to replace by British subjects, and they have now become permanently resident here.
  Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Why is it that the Government do not mind foreign workmen, although they do not like foreign goods?

  WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' PENSIONS (POLICE).
  Mr. HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether all entrants to the police force arc insured for widows' and orphans' pensions under Section 15 of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925; and will he give full particulars of the benefits under the Police Pension Act, especially for the first five years of service?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): No, Sir: all police forces have been excepted by the Minister of Health from compulsory insurance under the Act, on the ground that the provisions of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, are on the whole not less favourable than those under the Act of 1925. I cannot give the whole of the provisions of the Act of 1921 within the compass of this answer, but a constable during his first five years of service receives a pension if he is incapacitated by injury on duty without his own default, and if he dies from such an injury his widow receives a pension and his children receive allowances until they are 16. If he is incapacitated otherwise than by injury on duty, he receives a gratuity, and if he dies while in the force, although not as a result of such an injury, his widow receives a gratuity and his children receive allowances until they are 16.
  Mr. HICKS: Am I to understand that the widow is covered by the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act in the first two years, or that, subsequently to the five years, she is covered by the Police Pensions Act, so far as pension is concerned? Is the widow covered either by the one Act or the other?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: If, when the hon. Gentleman sees the answer I have given, he finds that it does not cover all the points on which he requires information, perhaps he will put down another question.

  MAINTENANCE AND AFFILIATION ORDERS (IMPRISONMENT).
  Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Home Secretary if he can state the number of persons imprisoned at the present time in consequence of non-payment of maintenance and affiliation orders; whether he can state the number of such debtors who are in prison because they cannot pay rather than because they will not pay; and whether he will introduce legislation to provide for differential treatment between these two classes of debtors
  Sir J. GILMOUR: On the 6th instant the number of persons in prison in England and Wales in default of payments due under maintenance and affiliation orders was 595: during 1931 the daily average was 660. The difficulty of distinguishing cases in which failure to pay is due to wilful refusal or neglect from cases in which the failure is due to circumstances beyond a man's own control is often great, and I fear no legislation could remove this practical difficulty; but the question whether by any amendments of the law or of administration it is possible to decrease the number of imprisonments without decreasing the number of cases in which payments are properly enforced to the extent of the man's ability is one which deserves careful investigation, and I am considering the appointment of a committee of inquiry into methods of enforcing payment both in these cases and in certain other classes of cases dealt with by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction.
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of providing for a review of the committal order before execution in order that the court may be satisfied that the defendant is in a financial position to meet the order?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: If, as I have indicated, the committee is set up, no doubt all such matters will be considered.

  FOREIGN MATCH BOXES (EFFIGY).
  Mr. WALLHEADasked the Home Secretary whether he has any further information relative to the source of the match boxes carrying a picture of a blasphemous character; and what is the nature of his information?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Further information I have received, which is of an unofficial character, suggests that match boxes of the kind described may have reached this country from India. But the police, who made exhaustive inquiries immediately the matter was brought to my notice, have obtained no evidence of these match boxes being on sale here.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it correct to say that these matches are not of Russian bat of Swedish origin?
  Mr. DENVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a law case in reference to this question, and that anything said at the moment might be rather awkward? My evidence will be the same as I gave on a previous occasion.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, I am not aware of that fact. I have answered the question put to me and can add nothing to what I have said.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT.
  Sir BASIL PETOasked the Home Secretary whether he will amend the Sunday Entertainments Act so as to secure a procedure whereby a licence for opening cinemas on Sunday which has been granted following the result of a poll can be discontinued or withdrawn?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: There is nothing in the Act to deprive a licensing authority of the power to refuse, in the exercise of their judicial discretion, to renew the permission previously granted to an individual cinema to open on Sundays. If, however, my hon. Friend suggests that amending legislation should be introduced with a view to providing a procedure which would enable licensing authorities to decide, of their own volition, to discontinue the use of powers which have been granted by Parliament, I regret that I would not be prepared to propose such legislation.
  Sir B. PETO: Where reasonable conditions are attached to the granting of licences to open on Sunday, and those
  1770
  conditions are not adhered to, will that be good ground for the licensing authority not renewing the licence for another year?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have said, think that in individual cases licensing authorities have power to deal with these matters.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the home Secretary whether he is aware, in connection with the proposed Sunday opening of cinemas in the Birmingham area, that cinema exhibitors have now decided not to open on 11th December, 1932, as originally arranged; that the deadlock has been brought about because the exhibitors object to the condition laid down by the city justices that no member of the staff should work more than one Sunday in four, and that the exhibitors are now pressing the justices to relax this condition; and whether he-will see to it that the condition referred to shall be upheld by his Department?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Member. The condition referred to has been imposed by the licensing authority in the exercise of its discretion, and the matter is not one in which I have any jurisdiction under the Act to intervene.
  Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the licensing justices were very anxious to carry out the spirit of this Act by not calling upon the employés to be engaged on more than one Sunday in four, and is it not a fact that ho has power to see that the order is in conformity with the desire of the employés as well as of the trade?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: It is not a question of law. They have this discretion under the Act, and in their discretion they have made the additional condition. As I have said in my answer, the matter is not one in which I have jurisdiction under the Act.
  Mr. ALAN TODD: Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything he can to relieve the appalling gloom which exists in Birmingham on Sundays?
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reasons given in this question arc not only inaccurate but misleading?

  EDUCATION.

    DAY CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
    Miss RATH BONEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to what extent the estimate of 8¾ million pounds put forward by Mr. Fisher in 1918 as the cost of compulsory day continuation schools for young people from 14 to 18 years of age would be reduced if brought into line with the present level of prices?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): No estimate has been prepared of the probable cost under present conditions of a system of compulsory day continuation schools for young people from 14 to 18 years of age, but, generally speaking, in view of the change in the level of teachers' salaries since the War, I should expect such an estimate to show an increase rather than a decrease as compared with an estimate prepared in 1918.
    Miss RATHBONE: Will the Minister undertake to supply figures showing definitely the increase in salaries?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: It is very difficult to give an approximate figure of cost. Teachers' salaries had in 1918 been raised only very slightly over the pre-War level, and have since then been increased by more than 50 per cent.

    PROVISION OF MEALS.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the medical officer of health for Hammersmith, drawing attention to the malnutrition of children in this area owing to poverty and high rents, and giving particulars of certain cases; and whether he will investigate the condition of the children in the schools of this area, with the view of ascertaining whether an extension of school feeding is necessary?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I have seen the report in question. Children attending schools in the borough of Hammersmith come within the scope of the arrangements made by the London County Council for the provision of meals. The council have made most careful arrangements to detect and prevent malnutrition amongst school-children
    1772
    and I have no reason to think that their arrangements are inadequate.
    Mr. HICKS: Is it not the duty of the Department to be perfectly well satisfied that these children are not undernourished and, if they are, to take necessary steps?
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Minister of Health to the high rents?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: There is no reason to suppose that the arrangements are not being carried out. If the hon. Member studies the report carefully, he will see that most of the children in question are not of school age and the report does not state whether the children attending school are under-nourished or not.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Have officers of the Ministry been to the area to make inquiries direct?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The Board have received reports on the area. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case to bring to my attention, I will look into it.
    Mr. JONES: Are the reports that the hon. Gentleman refers to reports of officers of the Department?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The feeding of school children is a matter within the discretion of the local authorities. They have power to do it or not, and the Board have no statutory power in the matter.
    Mr. JONES: Has there been any inquiry on the part of the Board's officers as to whether there is malnutrition among the children or not?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The Board keep an eye generally on the whole matter. They have no reason to think the arrangements are inadequate.
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he can give figures showing at the latest convenient date the number and percentage of school meals provided free and for payment, respectively; and the number of children fed by county councils, county borough councils, borough councils and urban district councils, giving each category separately?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate

    Number of Meals provided by Local Education Authorities.

    Month of October, 1932.

    England and Wales.

    Free.

    For Payment.

    Total.

    Percentage Free.

    Percentage for Payment.

    Counties (excluding London)

    …

    1,187,506

    544,204

    1,731,710

    68·6

    31·4

    London

    …

    310,989

    290,965

    601,954

    51·7

    48·3

    County Boroughs

    …

    1,806,154

    358,750

    2,164,904

    83·4

    16·6

    Boroughs

    …

    274,573

    18,171

    292,744

    93·8

    6·2

    Urban Districts

    …

    484,373

    22,753

    507,126

    95·5

    4·5

    Totals

    …

    4,063,595

    1,234,843

    5,298,438

    76·7

    23·3

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Miss RATHBONEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what would be the cost of raising the school-leaving age to 15 and 16 years, respectively, with a separate estimate for maintenance grants on the same scale as those put forward by Sir Charles Trevelyan in 1929?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The hon. Member is no doubt aware of the estimates put forward by Sir Charles Trevelyan in 1929 and 1930 in respect of the proposals which were then being made for raising the leaving age to 15. In the absence of any definite proposals at the present time I do not think that any new estimates could usefully be prepared.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (POOR LAW RECIPIENTS).
  Mr. LECKIEasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the hardship to many Walsall men owing to the ruling of his Department that able-bodied men in receipt of
  the information for which he asks, in respect of the month of October, 1932, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  outdoor relief, for whom the Walsall Town Council have found work for a specified period each week, are not insurable under the National Health Insurance Acts; and whether he will reconsider this ruling or take steps to enable the contributions paid both by the men and their employers to be refunded?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I am bound in this matter by the terms of the Acts, and, as the men are not employed under a contract of service, I have no power to treat them as insurable. If they are unemployed for the rest of the week, their Health Insurance cards may be franked at the Employment Exchange. Any claim for a refund of contributions would need to he supported by certain details, particulars of which I will send to the hon. Member.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ENTERTAINMENT EXPENDITURE).
  Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the Folkestone decision in which

  1775
  amateur cricketers cannot be regarded as distinguished persons within the meaning of the Act permitting the entertainment of distinguished personages, and seeing that all seaside places entertain distinguished visitors in the course of the year, he will issue a circular to local authorities laying down rules for their guidance in the entertainment of distinguished visitors?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I should like to make it clear that the communication in question to the Folkestone Town Council as to whether amateur cricketers are distinguished persons was confined to the legal and not the popular acceptance of that term. As to the second part of the question, I have no authority to lay down general rules for the guidance of local authorities in such a matter.
  Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that cricketers from this country have recently had a gallant victory? Are not they distinguished people?

  HOUSING

    SUBSIDISED HOUSES (COUNCIL EMPLOYÉS).
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the number of corporation employés who in different towns occupy subsidised council houses; and what steps he proposes to take to modify or put an end to this practice?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Minister of Health whether a house will automatically become decontrolled under the terms of the new Bill in the event of a local authority increasing its rateable assessment above the level at which the house would be controlled?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir.
    Mr. GRENFELL: In view of the importance of the question to property owners and tenants, will the right hon. Gentleman not make a public declaration on the point and convey an intimation to local authorities?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have no doubt that the answer I have given will secure the purpose that the hon. Gentleman desires.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Health whether under the provisions of the new Bill the council of a county borough or county district will be empowered to fix fair rent in houses which have been decontrolled?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir.

    BUILDING SCHEME, BENTLEY (LOAN).
    Mr. DENMANasked the Minister of Health whether the Ministry authorised a loan to enable the local authority to build houses on land near Bentley marked on ordnance maps as liable to floods, and, if so, why; and whether any building conditions were suggested to preserve the inhabitants from damage by flood?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am unable to identify the land to which my hon. Friend refers, but, if he will supply me with the date of the sanction and the name of the local authority concerned. I shall be happy to look into the matter and communicate with him.

  UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).
  Mr. LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sums borrowed by this country from the United States of America for war purposes were applied to the purchase of goods in America or whether they were to any considerable extent used to transfer gold or currency to this country?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No part of the sums borrowed by this country from the United States of America for war purposes was used to transfer gold or currency to this country. A purchase from the United States of America of silver to the extent of 8122 millions for use in India was made out of loan moneys, but that indebtedness was paid off in full as a separate transaction in the years 1921 to 1923.
  Mr. LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take the opportunity afforded by the discussion on war debts due to the United States of America to raise again the question of the unsettled claims of British bondholders against various individual American states?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: His Majesty's Government do not propose to adopt this course.
  Mr. LEWIS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of Congress, who have both expressed the view that this country should pay its war debts in full, are representatives of the State of Mississippi, which does not honour its obligations?
  Mr. LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the total war debt, which we now owe to the United States of America, compares with the amount which would be owing if no interest had beep charged on account of any of the sums lent?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The aggregate amount of the 52 annuities outstanding in respect of the British War Debt to the United States Government under the existing agreement is about 9,790 million dollars. Of this, 4,398 million dollars represent repayment of capital, and the rest interest. The amount which would be owing if no interest had been charged on any of the sums lent is 2,385 million dollars.
  Mr. LEWIS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of suggesting to the United States that they should be satisfied with repayment in full of all moneys borrowed and should forgo their claim to interest as a part of their contribution towards the common effort of the Allies?

  DEATH DUTIES.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the rapid urbanisation of the country, he will consider the desirability of granting the same privileges to specified picturesque open spaces as are now granted to pictures, antiques, and other valuable heirlooms in the question of Death Duties?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1931, which provides for the exemption from Death Duties of land given or devised to the National Trust or under certain conditions to the Commissioners of Works or local authorities.
  1778
  My right hon. Friend is not, however, prepared to recommend the extension of the exemption to land which remains in private ownership.

  IRISH FREE STATE.
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in view of the Government's intention to set off against the land annuities payable by the Irish Free State under the Land Purchase Acts the tariffs imposed and collected on the cattle and other imports from the Irish Free State into England and Scotland during the past year, he will say how much is now due in respect of the land annuities payable by the Irish Free State to the British Government under the Irish Land Purchase Acts to date; and what is the amount of tariffs collected on imports from the Irish Free State into England and Scotland to date?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The amount now due but unpaid by the Irish Free State is £2,558,000 of which the Land Annuities represent £1,483,000. Up to the 30th November, the revenue from the duties imposed on imports into the United Kingdom from the Irish Free State (including the 10 per cent. general ad valorem duty from the 15th November) was £1,182,000.
  Mr. THORNE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the tariff war which is going on between this country and Ireland is about the wickedest thing that has ever happened?

  AGRICULTURE

    MILK REORGANISATION COMMISSION.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Minister of Agriculture when the Report of the Milk Reorganisation Commission may be expected?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I regret I am unable to give any closer indication than that contained in the reply I gave on 24th October to questions on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown).
    Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when he

    1779
    expects to be able to make a, statement? Will it be before the House rises for the Christmas recess?
    Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot give any close indication. I saw the Chairman yesterday, and I shall be seeing him again next week. The Report has already gone to the printers, but I cannot say when I shall be able to make a definite statement.
    Mr. REMER: Is it not the fact that we were promised that we should have the report before Christmas?
    Major ELLIOT: I still hope that that will be possible.

    IRISH CATTLE.
    Sir PERCY HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the 40 per cent. duty on Irish cattle is stopping or seriously checking the trade; and what is the general run of prices for such Irish cattle as do come in?
    Major ELLIOT: There was some falling off in the imports of cattle from the Irish Free State immediately following the imposition of the duty in question, but for the week ending 26th November —the latest period for which the information is available—imports were about on the same scale as in the corresponding period of the two preceding years. The general run of prices of Irish cattle on this side does not differ materially from the general run of prices for similar classes of home stock.
    Sir P. HURD: Are not the figures which my right hon. and gallant Friend has just given affected by the fact that the Irish Free State Government gives a bonus on the export of these cattle?
    Major ELLIOT: No doubt the fact that there is a bounty on export has some bearing on the numbers which actually come in here.
    Mr. THORNE: Did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman hear the supplementary question which I put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
    Major ELLIOT indicated assent.
    Mr. THORNE: What do you think about it?

    CANNING FACTORIES.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of factories for canning fruit or vegetables existent in this country and the number erected or commenced within the last 12 months?
    Major ELLIOT: I understand that there are 72 fruit and vegetable canning factories in England and Wales, including 18 new factories erected in 1932.

    GLASS-HOUSES (HEATING).
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps to arrange for power companies whose central stations are in districts like the Lea Valley to make available, by a suitable pipe system, exhaust steam for heating glass-houses at a low cost, to enable still more advantage to be taken, by rapid increase of production, of the Horticulture Importations Act?
    Major ELLIOT: I am not altogether clear as to the practicability of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I shall be very glad to discuss it with him.
    Mr. CHORLTON: As a lot of this kind of development depends upon heat, will the Minister institute an investigation or an inquiry into the possibility of a much wider scheme than that which I have mentioned?
    Major ELLIOT: I have already said that I shall be very glad to discuss this matter with my hon. Friend.

  ALLOTMENTS (LOAN INTEREST).
  Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the aggregate amount of loans for allotment purposes raised by parish councils with the Public Works Loans Board and still outstanding; and whether he will take action to ameliorate the position for parish councils, in view of the lower rates of interest which now obtain?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The amount outstanding of loans made to parish councils for allotment purposes from the Local Loans Fund is £151,869. The rates of interest charged on advances from that fund have recently been reduced, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, but

  1781
  there is no possibility of a reduction in the rates chargeable on advances made prior to that reduction.

  DONCASTER DRAINAGE ACT.
  Mr. DENMANasked the Minister of Agriculture the total amount of the mine owners' subsidence fund in the area of the Doncaster district drainage board; and what proportion of it has been deducted from royalties?
  Major ELLIOT: The fund to which my hon. Friend refers has to be established by the mine owners for the purpose of maintaining drainage works which they may be liable to carry out from time to time as the result of subsidence, under the provisions of Part II of the Doncaster Drainage Act, 1929. I understand that no such fund has yet been established, but I am informed by the Doncaster Drainage Board that definite proposals for the establishment of such a fund are to be laid before the Board by 15th January, 1933.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORTED TYPEWRITERS.
    Mr. LYONSasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of type-, writers entering this country from Canada for the months of November, 1932, and 1931, respectively, and the country or countries of origin?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Imports into the United Kingdom are recorded according to the countries from which they are consigned and not according to countries of origin. Particulars of the imports of complete typewriters registered during the month of November, 1932, as consigned from Canada are not yet available, but I will send this information to my hon. Friend, together with the corresponding particulars for November, 1931, as soon as possible.
    Mr. LYONS: Has my hon. Friend reason to believe that typewriters which come here from Canada are in any way made in Canada?
    Dr. BURGIN: I cannot deal with that matter in an answer to a supplementary question.
    Mr. HANNON: As the question of Empire content enters largely into questions of this nature, will my hon. Friend tell the House when progress in this matter can be reported?
    Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir; very shortly the information will be available.

    CANADIAN IMPORTS (FOREIGN ORIGIN).
    Mr. LYONSasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the value of the foreign-manufactured goods that entered this country via Canada for the period January to October, 1931;
    (2) the value of the manufactured goods of foreign origin entering this country from Canada, duty free, for the period January to October, inclusive, 1932, and the country or countries of origin?
    Dr. BURGIN: I regret that it is not possible to state the value of manufactured goods of foreign origin which may be included in the imports registered as consigned from Canada, as such particulars are not recorded. In the Canadian trade returns detailed particulars of re-exports are published only in respect of complete years ending 31st March, and these particulars do not include information as to the country of origin of the goods re-exported.
    Mr. LYONS: May I ask whether the goods that come via Canada irrespective of the country of origin enjoy a preferential rate? Does not the Department think that some check ought to be imposed in regard to these goods?
    Dr. BURGIN: The question on the Order Paper asks me the value of the goods and for statistics. The matter raised in the supplementary question is well known in the Department and a good deal of information is available. If the hon. Member will put down a question raising the point specifically, I can promise him some answer.
    Mr. LYONS: Has the hon. Member in mind the fact that the President of the Board of Trade told me a fortnight ago that at a very early date he hoped that an additional statement would be made?
    Dr. BURGIN: That was a singularly accurate statement.

    AUSTRALIA (IMPORT DUTIES).
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any alteration has recently taken place in the list of 440 items of foreign goods on which duties were raised by the Australian Government as a result of the Ottawa Agreement and also in the case of the 20 items of British goods on which duties were reduced?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): So far as I am aware there has been no subsequent change in the duties which the Commonwealth Government put into operation in order to give effect to their immediate undertakings in the trade agreement.
    Mr. MANDER: Does the hon. Member think that this arrangement is a useful preliminary to the World Economic Conference?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think that it is a very useful concession to United Kingdom goods.
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that this arrangement has enabled more of our goods to get into Australia?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That is so.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether there is any prospect, as a result of the Ottawa Agreements, of negotiations with the Australian Government with a view to the reduction of the present prohibitive duties on Wednesfield rabbit traps imported into Australia?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply made to him by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on the 29th November.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Before the right hon. Gentleman takes any active steps in this case, will he assure the House that he will see that these rabbit traps are of a humane character?

  AIR FORCES (AIR MARSHAL'S SPEECH).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if his attention has been called to the speech of Air Marshal Sir Geoffrey Salmond, Com
  1784
  mander-in-Chief of the Air Defence of Great Britain, on 26th November, advocating that military air forces should not be abolished; and, seeing that this view is contrary to the declared policy of the Government, what action he proposes to take to restrain such speeches by serving officers?
  Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the declarations on the use of air forces made by Air Marshal Sir Geoffrey Salmond; and whether, in view of the publicity given to these statements, he will consider taking steps to prevent officers from expressing their opinions on questions which fall within the sphere of Government policy?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I do not think it necessary to correct in detail the somewhat misleading account of the circumstances and their implications contained in these questions, but may say briefly that the officer named, in the course of a speech at a private Service dinner, where he had no reason to think that his remarks would be reported, made certain observations which were not, of course, intended for publication in any shape or form. Accordingly, I think it is a matter for regret that these expressions of opinion should have been detached from their context and given a publicity which was very far from their author's intentions. In the circumstances, my noble Friend does not consider any special action is called for.
  Mr. MANDER: Does the hon. Member think that even at a private gathering an attack on the policy of His Majesty's Government. should be made by a distinguished serving officer?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that you can consider that these few remarks made at the end of the speech can be described as an attack on His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. GRENFELL: In view of what the right hon. Member has said this afternoon, has he read the Press reports in which the statement attributed to the Air Marshal were set out and, if so, does he believe that he is justified in attacking the hon. Member who put the question on the Order Paper, in the way that he has done?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I did not in any way attack the question. I said that to describe a few sentences at the end of a long speech as an attack on His Majesty's Government was not justified.
  Mr. GRENFELL: The few sentences referred to were all that appeared in the newspaper, and they were very objectionable.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: Can the right hon. Member answer a question of principle, whether the Government permit their salaried officers to express opinions on the policy of the Government, whether in public or in private? On a point of Order. May we not have an answer? Surely we are entitled to ask whether an officer is authorised to express opinions upon Government policy, whether in public or in private. Is that in order, or is it not?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It appears to me that the question on the Order Paper has already been answered. To put another question altogether would not be in order.
  Mr. JONES: May I submit that this is not another question, but is precisely the same question. I submit that my question was quite relevant, namely, whether a civil servant or any salaried officer of the Crown has a right to express an opinion upon Government policy in a private gathering or a public gathering?
  Mr. MANDER: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the. Adjournment.

  TRANSPORT.

    THAMES TUNNEL SCHEMES.
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Minister of Transport whether, in addition to the Dartford road tunnel, the Government will explore the question of a rail tunnel in the lower Thames to give not only employment to men locally but also in the steel and electric industries
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): My hon. Friend regrets that he would not feel justified in expending public time or money in such an exploration.
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Minister of Transport whether, in reviewing all proposals connected with the unemployment problem, the Government will consider restarting the work in connection with the Dartford and Purfleet tunnel scheme that was approved by Parliament and materialised in the Dartford Tunnel Act, 1930?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: In present circumstances it is unlikely that the local authorities concerned will desire to proceed with this scheme or that the Road Fund will be able to provide financial assistance. Measures are, however, being taken to safeguard the line of the tunnel and its approaches.

    LONDON WORKERS (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Transport if he can obtain figures showing the average amount spent weekly by workpeople in the London district in travelling to and from their places of employment?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I regret that the information desired by the hen. Member is not available.

    ROADS AND BRIDGES, DURHAM.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Transport if the suggested schemes for roads and bridges in Durham county by the Durham County Council has been considered by his Department; and, if so, can he state when it will be possible for work to be commenced, in view of the increase in unemployment in Durham?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The schemes of the Durham County Council are being considered with those of other authorities, with due regard to their relative importance and urgency and to the financial position.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we likely to have an answer quickly on account of urgency, and the need for some work being found this winter?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am well aware, no one more so, of the urgency of the need in the county of Durham, and I can assure the hon. Member that we shall be as quick as we possibly can.

  SCOTLAND

    SMALLHOLDINGS.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the deer forest of Borve, in Harris, is in the market for sale, and that the proprietor has offered it for sale to the Government for smallholdings; and whether, in view of the demand for smallholdings in Harris, he will take immediate steps to acquire this property and unite the settlements at Luskintyre with a new settlement at Borve?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The question of the acquisition of Borve has been the subject of discussion between officers of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the proprietor, but the matter has not reached a stage at which I can make any statement as to the possibility of the property being acquired for land settlement purposes.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister in a position to tell us when he will be in a position to make a reply?
    Mr. SKELTON: No, Sir. I am not even in that position.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. Member aware that deer forests are totally useless for smallholdings?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the original reply, may I ask the Minister if he is aware that the only section of the community in the Highlands of Scotland that has increased in population since this Government came in are the gamekeepers? That question is out of their own report.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Sectary of State for Scotland how many deer forests or sporting estates have been acquired for the settlement of smallholders in Scotland; where they are situated; and what is the acreage concerned?
    Mr. SKELTON: As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The Department of Agriculture for Scotland have acquired one deer forest,
    1788
    Luskentyre in Harris, extending to 5,400 acres, and nine properties comprising pastoral subjects which have a considerable sporting value in addition to their agricultural value. The latter are:

    County.

    Estate.

    Area. Acres.

    Argyll

    …

    Sunart

    …

    33,700

    Inverness

    …

    Bracadale

    …

    56,734

    Kilbride

    …

    9,731

    Raasay

    …

    18,000

    Balranald

    …

    2,737

    Newton

    …

    13,912

    Sutherland

    …

    Armadale

    …

    39,950

    Borgie

    …

    4,427

    Keoldale

    …

    30,030

    Note.—The above particulars do not include properties acquired by the Congested Districts Board or private properties of similar character on which holdings have also been made available

    TRAWLING, MORAY FIRTH.
    Sir MURDOCK MacKENZIE WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the policy of the Government with regard to the question of trawling in the Moray Firth; and whether it is proposed to permit foreign trawlers to continue fishing in that area while British trawlers are excluded?
    Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not in a position to make any statement on this subject at the present time.
    Sir M. WOOD: Is the Minister aware that the fishermen are making preparations for the ensuing fishing, and will he not be able to make a statement as to what protection they may be able to expect and to what extent they will be able to carry on their work?
    Mr. SKELTON: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the statement I have made.
    Sir M. WOOD: Can the Minister give us no idea when he will be able to make a statement as to the policy of the Government on this matter?
    Mr. SKELTON: No, Sir, I am unable to make any such statement. The hon. Member knows very well the complexities and difficulties of this subject.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has not this question been before the House for two or three years, before different Govern-

    1789
    meats, and is it not a fact that we never get anything but this reply, because of foreign competition?

    DISTRESSED AREAS.
    Sir M. WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the situation facing local authorities in the North-east of Scotland as a result of the failure of herring fishing combined with the agricultural depression; and whether the Government will consider special measures to enable these authorities to meet the immediate distress, in view of the fact that, since farm servants and share fishermen are outside the scope of the unemployment insurance scheme, relatively less assistance from central funds is available to this area than to other parts of the country?
    Mr. SKELTON: No representations have been made to my right hon. Friend that the local authorities in question are unable, within the financial, resources at their disposal, to give any relief that may be necessary in their areas.
    Sir M. WOOD: Does the Under-Secretary understand that the distress in this area is to a large extent the direct result of the Government's present policy?
    Mr. SKELTON: No, Sir. I cannot accept any such proposition.

  COALOWNERS AND MINERS (CONVERSATIONS).
  Mr. MARTINasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give the House any information concerning the proposed meeting between the coalowners' representatives and the Miners' Federation?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on the 29th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mrs. Ward) of which I am sending him a copy. I have seen in the public Press that a meeting has been arranged, and this will, I think, be a source of satisfaction to us all.
  Mr. MARTIN: Can the hon. Member tell us the subjects of discussion?
  Mr. BROWN: Not at the moment.
  Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. Member aware that the coalowners have deliber-
  1790
  ately barred the question of wages, and can he say whether the Government have any policy in regard to wages?
  Mr. BROWN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I mentioned, which contains the whole of the details.
  Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. Member aware that the previous answer said nothing about wages? Will he tell us whether the Government have come to any decision upon the wages question?
  Mr. BROWN: That does not arise out of this particular question.

  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (CONCESSION).
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there have been any further developments with regard to the Anglo-Persian oil concession in Persia; and whether he has had any intimation that the Persian Government is prepared to reconsider its attitude?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I informed the House, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham on the 5th December that His Majesty's Minister at Teheran had on the 2nd December made the strongest representations to the Persian Government on this subject. I am now in a position to read to the House the text of the Note which Mr. Hoare then handed to the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Note was as follows:
  "(1) His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have taken cognisance of the terms of the letter addressed by the Minister of Finance to the Resident Director of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company on the 27th November. His Majesty's Government consider the action of the Persian Government in cancelling the Company's concession to be an inadmissable breach of its terms; they take a most serious view of the conduct of the Persian Government, and have instructed me to demand the immediate withdrawal of the notification issued to the Company.
  (2) Furthermore. I am directed to state that, while His Majesty's Government still hope that the Persian Government will be at pains to reach an amicable settlement in direct negotiation with the Company, His Majesty's Government will not hesitate, if the necessity arises, to take all legitimate measures to protect their just and indisputable interests.

  1791
  (3) Finally I have the honour to state that any damage to the Company's interests or interference with their premises or business activities in Persia."
  The Persian Government replied to these representations in a Note dated the 3rd December, received by His Majesty's Minister on the afternoon of the 5th December, which ran as follows:
  "In reply to your respected Note of the 2nd December, I have the honour to state:

  (1) The Persian Government regards itself as within its rights in cancelling the D'Arcy concession and does not agree to withdraw the Note of the Minister of Finance to Mr. Jacks, the Director of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, announcing the cancellation of the concession. The Imperial Persian Government is of opinion that for some time past it has been entitled to take steps to cancel the D'Arcy concession and for a long time past the Persian Government has repeatedly pointed out the fact that the stipulations of the above mentioned concession are not in accord with the legitimate interests of Persia, and that it has not been satisfied with the situation arising from the above mentioned concession and with the conduct of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company; but, in the hope that the above mentioned Company would he prepared to amend their ways so as to satisfy the mind of the Government in the desired manner, it has waited in patience.

  (2) As the Minister of Finance has pointed out in the Note announcing the cancellation of the D'Arcy concession to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, the Persian Government has not refused to enter into direct, discussions with the above mentioned Company with a view to the negotiation of a new concession which would safeguard in an equitable manner the rights and interests of Persia; hence the attainment of the desired result in this matter depends upon the good faith which the Company shows in this respect.

  (3) In reply to paragraph 3 of your respected Note, I have the honour to state that the Persian Government does not regard itself as responsible for any damage accruing to the Company, and responsibility for any damage which the Company may possibly suffer will rest on the Company itself."

  His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom regarded this reply as wholly unsatisfactory and His Majesty's Minister at Teheran, under their instructions, has accordingly delivered to the Persian Government to-day a further Note in the following terms:
  "(1) His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have had under consideration Your Excellency's Note of the 3rd of December replying to my Note of the 2nd of December in regard to the Persian
  1792
  Government's cancellation of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's concession. I have the honour to inform Your Excellency that His Majesty's Government are unable to admit the validity of a unilateral cancellation of this concession. Such a cancellation is a confiscatory measure and a clear breach of international law committed against a British company and His Majesty's Government feel obliged to take the matter up in the exercise of their rights to protect the interests of their nationals. His Majesty's Government have from the outset, as pointed out in my Note of the 2nd of December, and as repeated in the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons on the 5th of December, been anxious that an amicable settlement may be reached between the Persian Government and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. His Majesty's Government cannot, however, regard the Persian Government's Note of the 3rd of December, as offering any satisfactory basis for such a settlement. As I explained on the 2nd of December, His Majesty's Government consider the action of the Persian Government in cancelling the concession to be an inadmissible breach of the terms of that instrument, and have therefore requested the withdrawal of the notification to the Company of the 27th of November. Since the Persian Government in their reply adduce no argument which can be regarded as in any way justifying their action, His Majesty's Government must reiterate their request.
  (2) Should the Persian Government he unwilling to withdraw their notification of the cancellation of the concession within one week from the date of the present Note, i.e., Thursday, the 15th of December, His Majesty's Government will have no alternative to referring the dispute which has arisen between them and the Persian Government in regard to the legality of the Persian Government's action, to the Permanent Court of International Justice at the Hague, as a matter of urgency, under the Optional Clause. In so doing His Majesty's Government would request the Court to indicate, under Article 41 of the Statute, the provisional measures which ought to be taken to preserve their rights.
  (3) Further, I am instructed to state that my Government do not accept the attitude outlined in paragraph 3 of your Note to the effect that the Persian Government cannot regard themselves as responsible for any damage accruing to the Company. On the contrary, I have the honour to inform Your Excellency categorically that His Majesty's Government will hold the Persian Government directly responsible for any damage to the Company's interests, any interference with their premises or business activities in Persia, or any failure to afford the Company adequate protection, and, in the event of any such damage occurring, His Majesty's Government will regard themselves as entitled to take all such measures as the situation may demand for that Company's protection."
  Mr. LANSBURY: In reference to the last part of the statement, may I ask whether it means that if certain contingencies arise the Government propose to take measures, armed measures, against Persia? [Interruption.] I am asking what the Under-Secretary of State means by his statement.
  Mr. EDEN: I should have thought that the position is quite clear. We hold the Persian Government responsible for protecting the rights of this British company.
  Mr. LANSBURY: But the hon. Member went on, after making that statement, to say that His Majesty's Government would hold themselves free to take such measures as they thought fit. I want to know whether that means that in certain circumstances, while the matter is being arbitrated upon, His Majesty's Government might consider themselves obliged to take certain measures. I am bound to put a hypothetical question simply because of the hypothetical statement made by the hon. Member.
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is quite in order in putting his question.
  Mr. EDEN: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, if he puts a hypothetical question, all I can say is that His Majesty's Government can only he guided by circumstances as they arise.
  HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to put a question to the Lord President of the Council, whether before any measures are taken, although the matter is referred to arbitration, the House will have an opportunity of discussing them.
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.
  Captain MACDONALD: May I ask—
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The right hon. Gentleman must know that it is perfectly impossible to answer hypothetical questions.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I must protest against the statement being made in this House in this fashion without anyone having had any notice that it was to be made.
  Mr. D. GRENFELL: Arising out of the reply—
  Captain MACDONALDrose—
  Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether I am entitled to move the Adjournment of the House on this matter?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman will submit his proposal in writing at the end of Questions, I will deal with it.
  Captain MACDONALD: May I be allowed now to put a supplementary question? I would ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is not a fact that the Persian Government are under a direct treaty obligation to protect the interests of this company in that territory; and whether it is not also a fact that it was on that condition that the company withdrew their own police force before the Persian Government undertook to protect this property?
  Mr. EDEN: The terms of the company's concession are quite clear in the statement.
  Mr. THORNE: Are the Government prepared to issue. a White Paper giving the franchise, the number of years, the royalties to be paid, and the interests which the Government and other Members have in this company
  Mr. EDEN: If the hon. Member puts a question on the Paper we will give him all that information, or try to do so, without the issue of a White Paper.

  RUSSIA (PROPAGANDA).
  Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the confirmation on the 19th October last of the material connection between the Russian Government and the instigators of the unemployment demonstrations in Hyde Park and elsewhere, and seeing that this amounts to a breach of the undertaking of the Soviet Government to abstain from making propaganda in this country, any protests have been, or will be, made by His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. EDEN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply returned yesterday to

  1795
  the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles (Captain A. Ramsay). In view of the action announced in that reply it will be clear that no further representations are at present necessary or desirable.

  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (CONCESSION).
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
  "the declaration of His Majesty's Government of its intention to take whatever steps it may think fit to protect the interests of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
  "the declaration of the Government of its intention to take whatever steps it may think fit to protect the interests of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company."
  The right hon. Gentleman will realise that, in considering this Motion, I am entirely governed by Standing Order No. 10, which lays down that the matters to be discussed on the Adjournment of the House, on a Motion of this kind, must be definite. It seems to me that this Motion does not come within that Standing Order, in that its terms are not definite, and therefore I cannot allow it.
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I submit, Sir, that it is definite owing to the statement that if, in the judgment of His Majesty's Government, or of our representatives in Persia, to-night, some damage may be threatened, or may take place, His Majesty's Government would in such circumstances take action which might lead to war. I respectfully submit that it is definite to that extent.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I can quite understand the point which the right hon. Gentleman is putting to me, but he will realise that I must be governed entirely by the Standing Order on this question. The Motion, as he has submitted it, is based on a hypothetical consideration and some action, which is not defined, but which, if certain circumstances arise, the Government may take. Neither of these
  1796
  could be described as definite matters. In those circumstances, it is impossible for me, if I keep to the Standing Orders, to give my consent to this Motion.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to accept your decision on that matter, but I think it extremely unfortunate that such a statement should have been made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Lord President of the Council kindly state what is the business for next week, and also whether the Meat Order, which is down for discussion to-night, may wait over till next week to he taken at a similar time, as it is a little inconvenient for us to discuss it to-night?
Mr. BALDWIN: The business for next week will be:—
Monday and Tuesday: Until 7.30, Debate on Second Reading of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Bill. In accordance with the understanding reached last Tuesday, the half-day available on Tuesday next will be devoted to the conclusion of the Committee stage of the London Passenger Transport Bill.
Thursday: Second Reading of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, and the Committee stage of the necessary Financial Resolution.
Private Members' Motions are to be taken on Wednesday, and Private Members' Bills on Friday. On any day, should time permit, other Government business will be taken.
In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's observation on the Meat Order, that is exempted business, and in any case, owing to the condition of business at this time of the Session, it must be taken after Eleven o'Clock. It is not the intention of the Government, if hon. Members wish to debate it at any length, to attempt to pass it through this evening. We are perfectly willing to continue the discussion. If for any other reason there is any inconvenience of which I am not aware, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consult through the usual channels, and, if we can, we will meet him with regard to time.
Mr. LANSBURY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. We will communicate with the Patronage Secretary. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question in reference to the American Debt payments. The House has had no opportunity of discussing questions connected with that, and we have not asked for any time simply because we wanted the Government to have sufficient opportunity to carry out their negotiations; but now that the decision must be taken I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would re-arrange business next week so that either on Monday or Tuesday the House can discuss these payments. We think that the House of Commons ought at least to hear the Government proposals, what the Government intend actually to do on the 15th, and that we ought to be able to put forward our views on the subject. In that connection, I would like also to say that we consider that the Bill to be introduced on Thursday is a very important one indeed, and that it ought to have at least two days' discussion. We suggest that the business fixed for either Monday or Tuesday should be shifted to Thursday in order that later on we may have two days in which to discuss the Second Reading of that very important and indeed revolutionary Bill,
Mr. BALDWIN: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had time to look at the Bill yet or not, but it is a very short Bill. We are going to take the Committee stages of that Bill, and also of the Rents Bill on the Floor of the House, and we are very anxious to get it on the Floor of the House as soon as possible after we come back from the holidays. In regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the debts, there, of course, I cannot give him an answer at this moment, because both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are out of the country. The Prime Minister, it will be recollected, gave an answer in the House stating that in his view it was undesirable in the public interest at that moment to discuss this matter. I must consult with him, and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer before I can possibly give an answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. I hope they may both come back soon and as soon as I have consulted with them, I hope to be in a position to give the right hon. Gentleman an answer.
Mr. LANSBURY: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out again that this is a very important matter of public policy and involves very considerable financial considerations. We are asking that before the payments are made or before they are withheld—in either event—the House of Commons should have an opportunity el discussing the subject. This is not now a question of something which is under negotiation. You must, within the next day of two, settle whether you will pay or will not pay, and we think that the House of Commons ought to discuss the question before a decision is taken.
Mr. BALDWIN: I am not aware yet, if the discussions which have been taking place have all been completed, but, in any case, I regret that I cannot possibly give the right hon. Gentleman an answer until I have consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I repeat—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I should have thought that the whole House would have wanted a discussion on this matter. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the 15th December is this day week, and I wish to know when will be the proper time to ask him to give a decision on this matter and allow time for a discussion. Otherwise, we must take some other means of trying to raise this question.
Mr. BALDWIN: If the right hon. Gentleman will repeat his question on Monday, I hope then to be in a position to give him an answer.
Colonel GRETTON: May I ask a question about the business of to-day. I see on the Order Paper a Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule. May I ask whether it is intended to take the Doncaster Drainage Bill at a late hour or to continue the discussion on that Bill until a late hour? This is a matter of great importance and interest to a number of hon. Members. Speaking for those hon. Members and myself, I wish to point out that we have, of course, no control over the amount of time which may be occupied by the consideration of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The proceedings on that Bill may last for some time, and we are

1799
anxious to know whether the Doncaster Drainage Bill is to be discussed up to a late hour.
Mr. BALDWIN: If there is no interference with the course of business proposed on the Order Paper, the view of the Government is that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill will probably not occupy a very long time. We hope to get the Second Reading of the Doncaster Drainage Bill, because it is going to be referred to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and we think that the sooner it gets to that Committee the better.
Colonel GRETTON: May I press for an answer to the last part of my question Is it intended to carry the discussion upon the Doncaster Bill up to a late hour?
Mr. BALDWIN: It is difficult to answer definitely a question like that at
four o'clock in the afternoon. We certainly hope to get the Second Reading of the Bill to-night, but I hope we shall get it without having to sit up until a very late hour.
Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Arising out of the previous answer upon business, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he considers it necessary to have the discussion on the Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Bill in Committee, on the Floor of the House? The Measure is a mass of detail which will take up a great deal of time, and it would be a great deal better if it were taken in Committee upstairs.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 34.

Division No. 21.]

AYES.

[4.0 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Gower, Sir Robert

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Conant, R. J. E.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Albery, Irving James

Cooke, Douglas

Gretton. Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

Cooper, A. Duff

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.)

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Grimston, R. V.

Aske, Sir Robert William

Cranborne, Viscount

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Crooke, J. Smedley

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Balniel, Lord

Cross, R. H.

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Curry, A. C.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Harbord, Arthur

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)

Davison, Sir William Henry

Harris, Sir Percy

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hartington, Marquess of

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Denville, Alfred

Hartland, George A.

Bernays, Robert

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Blindell, James

Dickie, John P.

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

Borodale, Viscount

Donner, P. W.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Bossom, A. C.

Doran, Edward

Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

Boulton, W. W.

Duggan, Hubert John

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Eady, George H.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Briant, Frank

Eden, Robert Anthony

Holdsworth, Herbert

Broadbent, Colonel John

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Browne, Captain A. C.

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Hornby, Frank

Buchan, John

Elmley, Viscount

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

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

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Burnett, John George

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Hurd, Sir Percy

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Calne, G. R. Hall-

Everard, W. Lindsay

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Fermoy, Lord

James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.

Caporn, Arthur Cecll

Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

Jamieson, Douglas

Carver, Major William H.

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Ker, J. Campbell

Castlereagh, Viscount

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Kimball, Lawrence

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Fox, Sir Gifford

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R,

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Knebworth, Viscount

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Fuller, Captain A. G

Knight, Holford

Christie, James Archibald

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

Knox, Sir Alfred

Clarke, Frank

Gledhill, Gilbert

Lambert, Rt. Hon, George

Clarry, Reginald George

Glossop, C. W. H.

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Law, Sir Alfred

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Leckie, J. A.

Lees-Jones, John

Nunn, William

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Leigh, Sir John

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Levy, Thomas

Palmer, Francis Noel

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

Lewis, Oswald

Patrick, Colin M.

Somerset, Thomas

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Peake, Captain Osbert

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Pearson, William G.

Soper, Richard

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Pickering, Ernest H.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Storey, Samuel

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Potter, John

Strauss, Edward A.

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Mabane, William

Pybus, Percy John

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Ramsden, E.

Sutcliffe, Harold

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

Rankin, Robert

Tate, Mavis Constance

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

McKeag, William

Rea, Walter Russell

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

McKie, John Hamilton

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Remer, John R.

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Magnay, Thomas

Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

Ward. Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Maitland, Adam

Robinson, John Roland

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Rosbotham, S. T.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Runge, Norah Cecil

White, Henry Graham

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Martin, Thomas B.

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Salmon, Major Isidore

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Salt, Edward W.

Wise, Alfred R.

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Womersley, Walter James

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Moss, Captain H. J.

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Savery, Samuel Servington

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

Munro, Patrick

Scone, Lord

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

North, Captain Edward T.

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

George Penny.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Banfield, John William

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Milner, Major James

Batey, Joseph

Grundy, Thomas W.

Parkinson, John Allen

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Price, Gabriel

Cape, Thomas

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Thorne, William James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Hicks, Ernest George

Tinker, John Joseph

Daggar, George

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Wellhead, Richard C.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Kirkwood, David

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Edwards, Charles

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

Lawson, John James

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Logan, David Gilbert

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Lunn, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL,
  "to amend Section three of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911," presented by Sir Robert Gower; supported by Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Hutchison, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Captain Erskine-Bolst, Sir Cooper Rawson, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Cocks, Mr. Turton, Sir George Jones, and Mr. Harbord; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 17th February, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

  COAL MINES (PROTECTION OF ANIMALS) BILL,
  "to amend certain provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, relating to the care and
  1802
  protection of horses and other animals used in mines," presented by Sir Robert Gower; supported by Sir George Jones, Sir Cooper Rawson, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Cocks, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Thomas Williams, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Sir Wilfrid Sugden, Commander Astbury, and Colonel Crookshank; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Public Works Facilities Scheme (Huddersfield Corporation) Bill, without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 (Continuance of Acts in Schedule) and 2 (Short title and application, to Northern Ireland) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

    SCHEDULE.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 8 to 13.
    4.10 p.m.
    In 1920, a Bill passed through this House which, in effect, embodied in an act some of the ideas which prevailed in this country during the War, and this afternoon I am moving that that Act, the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act, 1920, which is a relic of the War, be removed from the Schedule of this Bill. An Amendment of this kind has been moved in this House almost every year for the last three or four years, at any rate. I have no doubt that I shall be asked in the usual fashion by the representative of the Government who will reply to this Debate, "Why did not the Labour Government repeal the Act when they were in office?" I want to deal with that question right away. Hon. and right hon. Members who represent the Government to-day will not be able to get away with it by asking that question at this moment, and I will tell them why. They know as well as I do that neither of the two Labour Governments ever had the power to do anything in this House unless they had the support of the Liberal party, and I am not so sure that on this issue whether hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Liberal party would have been unanimous in support of this Amendment.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Were we ever asked?
    Mr. DAVIES: I do not know, because I was not in the last Labour Government, but I am sure we would have asked if I had been there. But even if they had been asked, it would not have followed that they would have acceded to the request, and even if they did accede officially to such a request
    1812
    their decision might not be unanimous. Even this moment we are not certain to which section of the Liberal party we can turn for support. I hope we have now settled that thorny problem and made it perfectly plain to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that he cannot succeed with that argument anyhow. He belongs to a Government which can do just what they like; they can remove this act from the Schedule of the Bill if they so desire without even asking the Liberals who are in the Government to support them. They can carry anything they please through this Parliament without any Liberal support of any kind.
    This is, indeed, rather a serious problem to the people who are affected by the Measure. I do not propose to take too much of the time of the Committee in dealing with it, but I will put it in this way. It has got to be made clear that when this House passed the Act of Parliament of 1920 to which I have referred this country slipped back at one stroke to a secondary position in relation to factory legislation. Up to the passing of this Measure in 1920 it was true to say, I should imagine, that this country was probably the best in the world as far as factory and workshop legislation was concerned. I am not so sure however that as long as this Act of Parliament remains on the Statute Book we can lay claim to that distinction.
    Let me see exactly what has happened here. It is understood, of course, that a provision of the Act referred to makes it possible for women, young persons and children to be employed at night; and the argument is put forward by those who have studied and who know this problem best that the natural thing for all human beings is to be employed during the day. It ought to require a great emergency to warrant calling upon people to he employed at night at all, especially women, young persons and children. The strange thing to me is, that the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1931 tells us many things about these Orders, but does not inform us how many persons are affected by them. I would therefore like to ask the Home Secretary to inform the Committee how many Orders are actually in operation at the moment and how many persons are employed within the ambit of the Orders that are still in operation.

    1813
    Some of us are very apprehensive as to the increase in the number of these Orders. Let me quote one sentence used by the Chief Inspector of Factories in his 1931 Report, in relation to the two-shift system. The Committee will see how easy it is for some employers of labour to secure an Order for the employment of these people during the night. It is stated on page 54 of the Report:
    "Orders are also required for temporary use in seasonal trades such as making of ice cream wafers."
    Just imagine an employer of labour in this great country, with probably the best factory laws in the world, seeking from the Home Secretary, in the year 1932, an Order to allow him to employ women, young persons, and children at night on the manufacture of such trivial things as ice cream wafers. It is indeed preposterous that that can be done. I am not arguing that that is the only Order that has been issued, because there are very many of them indeed. We are told also in the same Report that:
    "Manufacturers, worsted spinners and hosiery manufacturers in particular, found it necessary rapidly to increase production in order to deliver orders already in hand and to secure new contracts for goods previously imported, for which early delivery was essential."
    Then the report refers to going off the Gold Standard, and dwells at length, in a political way, with the introduction of the two-shift system to certain industries where it did not apply before. Orders were granted by the Home Office because we went off the Gold Standard and because, apparently, demands came along for the production of goods for export purposes. In other words, employers wanted to keep their machines going day and might to meet those demands for export purposes. Is it not a fact that the exports in some of these trades covering the commodities manufactured under the two-shift system have actually declined since these Orders were granted? If the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention for a moment, I will repeat the question. If these Orders were used, especially in the textile industry, in order to cope with orders from abroad, is it not a contradiction to continue the Orders that were given in those emergencies when exports from those industries have declined since? I think it can be proved from the report of the Board of Trade that exports of
    1814
    these commodities where the two-shift system is in operation in some industries have actually declined since the Orders were put into operation.
    I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman quite frankly that I do not think the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories indicates quite as clearly as he appears to believe, that the workpeople involved are in agreement with the two-shift system. The report states, at the foot of page 55:
    "In one case the management, having explained the position to the workers, left thorn to discuss the matter amongst themselves, and the workers' secretary to the Workers' Committee subsequently informed the inspector that they were in favour of the proposal."
    The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that with the volume of unemployment that prevails to-day it would be almost fatal for any set of workpeople in any factory to raise their voice against the introduction of the two-shift system. Do the inspectors of the Home Office take into account the silent pressure that can be brought to bear upon the workpeople to give a decision in favour of the employers' request?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Read the statement on the next page.
    Mr. DAVIES: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the paragraph in the report which states:
    "In another case there was a certain amount of opposition to the system, and the workers appeared to be reluctant to refuse to sign the application. The inspector suggested that a ballot should be taken, and, the necessary majority being obtained, an Order was granted."
    Mr. STANLEY: I suggested that another statement covered the point.
    Mr. DAVIES: I will avoid that argument for a moment. At any rate, I think it is true to say that it is a contradiction in the life of our people that, whilst unemployment is increasing, the number of Orders permitting work at night increases, too. I should imagine that it is not correct to assume that you are adding to the number of workpeople in employment merely because you introduce the two-shift system in a factory. I know the argument is put forward by the inspector that the number of people is

    1815
    increased in a particular factory by the introduction of the system, but I venture to say that if they were not employed at nights in that particular factory, and if there was a demand for goods similar to those manufactured there, they would have been employed in another factory during the day instead.
    I do not wish to dwell unduly on the subject, because it has been debated here so many times, but I want to put before the Committee a better argument than I can command, because it comes from employers themselves. This is what some of them say:
    "Several employers, more particularly some of those who have only used the two-shift system as a means to meet some special emergency, are not in favour of the system. The reasons usually given for this are (1) the difficulty in providing adequate supervision for both shifts without practically duplicating the managerial posts; (2) bad timekeeping by the workers on the morning shifts; (3) reductions in workers' wages corresponding to the reduction in hours as compared with those of a normal day causes discontent amongst the workers."
    Those are very cogent arguments against either the adoption of the two-shift system, or indeed its continuance by any employer. But there is another and more powerful case against the system than anything I have already stated, to be found on page 58 of the report:
    "All the reasons given"—
    That is, against this system by the work-people, I think—
    "have been of a domestic or social nature."
    Let me say, very definitely, that I am not opposing this two-shift system merely because I am a trade unionist, and I am not opposing it on purely industrial grounds either. I think the opposition to this system must rest finally on domestic and social grounds. That is to say, that whilst some members of a family work nights and some during the day, the arrangements for running the household must be affected very adversely indeed. I think hon. Members can be appealed to on that score, at any rate, whether or not they agree with the opposition being put up from a trade union aspect.
    Finally, I have the best argument of all against the two-shift system, and if I have failed to induce any hon. Member to agree with me up to now, I may be able to carry them with me on this argu-
    1816
    ment, which is given by the Chief Inspector:
    "In one district in the North the sequel to the revival in trade and the two-shift system was the interruption of the attendance of young workers at technical institutions and evening continuation classes. Indeed, in one technical college four classes had to be closed down, the minimum number of students not being available."
    That was presumably because of the two-shift system. The Inspector goes on to say:
    "Fortunately in this college the principal arranged that in weeks when the students were working the afternoon shifts they could attend the morning session classes."
    That may be all very well in one or two cases, but I doubt very much whether other educational institutions in this country would rearrange their classes in respect of a few young people who might be employed at nights under the two-shift system. I think the system is bad in itself. We ought really to be ashamed to keep this Act on the Statute book at all. To say in these days, when exports are declining and when nearly 3,000,000 are unemployed, that it is necessary to carry on this system to allow women, young persons, and children to be employed for profit during the night, in order to meet the requirements of trade and industry, is not convincing. I have, therefore, much pleasure in moving for probably the sixth or maybe the seventh time, I think, in this House, the deletion of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act, 1920, from the Schedule to this Bill.
    4.27 p.m.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I do not propose to enter into a discussion as to what did or did not influence the late Labour Government in their negotiations and arrangements with the Members of another party. All I would say is that it appears that, for good and sufficient reasons at that time, the Labour Government continued this power in force, and I would say to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and to the Committee that I believe that at this time and under existing circumstances it is right that we should still continue this power. What in fact is the case? We know that in the past these powers and the Orders made have materially helped a large number of

    1817
    people to obtain employment at a time when it was extremely difficult for work to be obtained. We had some special reports in 1929 as to the position at that time. There were 852 Orders, and of these, 148 were being continuously and 185 temporarily used. It was estimated at that time that 10,000 workers were employed under the 148 Orders, and whatever figures were estimated in 1929, it is likely from the circumstances, although we have no definite figures, that more than the 40,000 estimated as directly or indirectly affected in 1929 are affected now.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me about the number of Orders. In 1932 the quarterly figures up to the end of November have been 60, 74, 81, and 60, making 275 in 11 months. As to the effect upon the people themselves, it is perfectly clear from such evidence as I have read in the reports or received in discussion with those in the Department, that these matters are fairly and honestly put before the workpeople who are concerned, and that no undue pressure can be said to be exercised upon them. Naturally, of course, one understands that these people, facing the difficulties which they have to face, realise that it is of advantage to them and to their friends that these arrangements should be made. Let me give one or two cases where they are of material advantage. I have a case of a hosiery company which has been using an Order regularly, they started with something like six workers and are now employing 244. A firm manufacturing electrical apparatus has been employing anything from 140 to 400 workers in shifts according to the state of trade. In many of these industries the trade varies from time to time, and it is of material advantage to the people concerned that they should have these powers continued. I hope that the Committee will agree, in view of the present conditions of trade and industry and in view of the whole position, to continue this Act.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 14 to 17.
    4.33 p.m.
    The effect of the Amendment will be that the Dyestuffs (Import Regulations) Act, 1920, will lapse at the end of the year. It is essential that we should look care-
    1818
    fully into the history of this Act. I want to make it clear that, in moving the Amendment, I am not doing it with any political purpose, nor do I want to treat this question from purely an industrial point of view. At the outbreak of the War, the textile people found themselves in a difficult position with regard to the supply of dyestuffs. The sources of dyestuffs were cut off at once when war broke out. In 1913 Germany and Switzerland produced practically 90 per cent. of the total world production of dyestuffs, and 80 per cent. of the dyewares used in the textile trades were imported from Germany. They represented one of the raw materials necessary for the production of textile goods, which in 1913 amounted to about £200,000,000. This trade represented from 30 to 35 per cent. of the total of wholly or partly manufactured goods which were exported from this country. That was a disadvantage, On the other hand, there were advantages in these cheap dyewares. The advantage was that we bought these dye-wares at the lowest world prices, and all the makers of dyewares were very keen to send to this country because it was their chief market. There was another serious handicap at the outbreak of the War in the manufacture of explosives and in the lack of provisions for chemical research. Arising out of these difficulties, a Government committee was appointed in January, 1919, consisting of makers and users, and I want to bring to the notice of the Committee a pledge that was given during the ensuing negotiations. It was this:
    "It is the settled opinion of the Government that for national security it is essential that synthetic colour-making factories should be in existence and he maintained in operation with their staffs of chemists and other experts in this country, and that the equipment should be equal in extent to that of any other possible hostile nation. It is the settled opinion of the Government that this should be brought about without placing the textile and other colour-using industries in an unduly disadvantageous competitive position."
    That pledge was accepted in good faith by colour users generally. The result was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) introduced this Act in December, 1920, and it came into force on 15th January, 1921. It was specifically stated in the Measure that it was to last for a period of 10 years. I believe that the House then

    1819
    thought that 10 years would be a sufficient time for an efficient dye industry to be built up. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to two statements that were made in the Debate on the Measure. The then President of the Board of Trade used these words:
    "Under prohibition and licences there must be some competition. If hon. Members will remember what I said in the earlier part of my speech, under any licensing system dyes will certainly be imported from Germany, and the dyes produced here will consequently be subject to German competition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1920; col. 1964, Vol. 135]
    The second statement to which I wish to draw attention was made by Mr. Asquith in that Debate. He said:
    "It is of the highest importance that every possible security shall be taken against what I may call unlimited private profits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1920; col. 1993, Vol. 135.]
    Arising out of the Bill, a committee was set up called the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee. Broadly speaking, two sets of circumstances constitute good grounds for the granting of licences. The first is the lack of a British equivalent. The second, to which I want to draw particular attention, is where there is a British equivalent but the price is higher than the foreign colour. Great difficulty was experienced in applying the second condition, and the solution of the difficulty was found by the introduction of a factor ratio over pre-War prices. The point I want to put before the Committee is that the users of dyestuffs were responsible for the suggestion of a factor ratio. This ratio ranged from three times pre-War prices in 1922 to one-and-three-quarter times pre-War prices in 1929. It is perfectly true that since these dates and during that period British prices have in certain instances been lower than that particular price, but even if a foreign maker could supply at the pre-War price, the licence was only granted if the British maker's price exceeded one-and-three-quarter times the pre-War price.
    A great deal was said in the Debate of 1930 with regard to dumping, but there has never been an opportunity for the foreign manufacturer of dyes to dump dyes into this country, because as soon as his price became lower than one-and-three-quarter times pre-War prices no licence was granted. For 10 years this Act has run its course. There have been
    1820
    complaints from time to time as to price, quality, delivery, etc., but on the whole I think that I am merely stating the truth when I say that the relations between producers and users have been of an amicable nature. Both the users and the makers have been determined from the very beginning to build up an efficient dyestuffs industry, but the cost of the building up of this industry to the users cannot be assessed. It certainly runs into millions of pounds. I want to make it clear again that I am not opposing this Measure on political grounds, but purely in the interests of the users of dyewares. I admit at once that an efficient industry has been built up. Anyone reading the third report of the Development Committee must admit that a remarkable effort has been made by producers in conjunction with the users, and that that great effort has to a large extent succeeded. It has succeeded to the point that 90 per cent. of dyewares used in this country are produced here. A very substantial export trade has also been built up in the dyeware industry. In 1920, within a few months of the time when the Act had been in force for 10 years, a report of the Development Committee was received. That committee did not seem to me to give any definite decision whether the Act should be continued or not. The report was submitted to the Board of Trade, and Mr. Graham, who at that time was President, in answering a question on 19th November, 1930, used these words:
    "There is in present circumstances no justification for the continuance of the Act beyond the period originally contemplated."
    He also said:
    "The opinion of the framers of the Act was that a period of 10 years should be sufficient to enable the industry to become firmly established and thereafter to meet international competition unaided."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November. 1930; col. 434, Vol. 245]
    The report uses these words:
    "That the main object has been achieved, that the achievement of that, object has admittedly laid a serious burden upon colour-using industries and that any form of restriction is a hindrance to the consuming trades."
    Mr. Graham in that Debate also used the argument that the industry did not need the protection of an Act because it was able to give a promise to the dye users that they could get licences quite freely

    1821
    if they would supply them at a world price and of a quality equal to world quality. On 4th December, 1930, a very full Debate took place in this House on whether the Act should be continued or not, and the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) took a very prominent part in it. I think everyone will admit that he paid a very great compliment to the dye-makers. He felt that sufficient time had elapsed to enable them to build up an efficient industry, but although he paid a compliment to their great initiative in doing so he thought it, was time the Act should lapse. I have read almost every word of that Debate, and I was interested to note the words used then by the present Foreign Secretary. In supporting the continuation of the Act he said:
    "My right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen, if I understood him aright, says that if this Act were to he continued somewhat longer we might have to face world combinations and cartels and I do not know what else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1930; col. 2463, Vol. 245.]
    I hope to prove that the fears and suspicions of the right hon. Member for Darwen were quite justified. The present Secretary of State for the Colonies, who I am sorry to see is not present, was probably more active in that Debate than any other individual, and I have one or two words to quote from what he said.
    "No user can possibly complain if all that he is asked to do is to buy British dye of equal quality at the same price at which that dye is available to the user in Germany or Switzerland.… The offer which the dye-makers are making to the dye-users is that if they cannot produce a dye which is just as good and just as cheap, then the foreign dyes may come in."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 4th December, 1930; cols. 2421 and 2127, Vol. 245.]
    He spoke in that Debate of the German monopoly, and of the exorbitant prices demanded when they enjoyed that monopoly, and how prices came down when they were subjected to competition. I hope to convince him and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who I think is to reply, that there is now a British monopoly, and I ask them to support me in subjecting that monopoly to competition in order that prices may be reduced. The Secretary of State for the Colonies also said on that occasion that the most representative and most experienced user of dyes was Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith, who is not only a director
    1822
    of Bradford Dyers, but has been for 10 or 11 years president of the Colour Users' Association, the official body most concerned with this matter. He quoted words used by Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith. I am bound to admit that at that time there was some difference of opinion in the Colour Users' Association as to the continuation of the Act. I believe it is true to say that the majority thought the Act should be discontinued, but I want to be fair and must say that the president thought at that time that it should be continued. Referring to the president, the Secretary of State for the Colonies said he had used these words:
    "It would be little short of a disaster to bring this Act to an end at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1930; col. 2427, Vol. 245.]
    I want to ask whether the same attention is to be paid now, in 1932, to the words of the president of the Colour Users' Association as was paid to them in 1930. Are the Committee fully aware of what is said in the minority report of the Development Committee issued a few days ago, and have they taken notice of what Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith says at this moment? I do not think any person in this country speaks with greater knowledge and greater authority than this particular gentleman. I have in my possession several letters from him objecting to the further continuation of the Act, and because his opinion is now different from what it was in 1930 I appeal to the Government that there should not be a change of attitude on their part towards his opinion. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to pay attention to the opinion of the man whom the Government acknowledge to be the greatest authority in this country.
    There is in that report a memorandum prepared after consultation with the Council of the Colour Users Association. That memorandum expresses the view of the official body which has been recognised under the Act as speaking for the users of dye-stuffs. The Colour Users Association represents all sections of the consuming trades and is the responsible negotiating authority between the Government and the dye users. It represents some of the greatest trades in this country—calico printing, wool dyeing, cotton dyeing, silk dyeing, garment dyeing, hosiery dyeing, wall-paper and lithographic printing, straw plait and felt dye-

    1823
    ing, paper makers, woollen piece dyeing, and other industries. Every member, probably, has received a circular from the Joint Committee of the Cotton Trade Organisation—there is a tremendously long list of bodies, covering practically the whole of the cotton textile associations. I must draw attention to the second sheet enclosed with that protest, because we have there the words of a body which represents not only employers but the trade unions in those particular trades:
    "This meeting, representing organisations in every section of the cotton industry, strongly urges His Majesty's Government to allow the Dye-stuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920, to lapse at the end of the present year. If it is urged that national interests demand special provision for the maintenance of research in this field, the textile industries see no reason why the cost should be borne by dye-users alone and not spread among all taxpayers. They equally fail to see why an Act intended to promote the growth of an independent dye-stuffs industry should be continued after that industry has entered into an agreement with its foreign competitors which, whatever its objects may have been, has undoubtedly resulted in an increase in prices to the consumer, and the withdrawal of all competition."
    At a meeting of the Council of the Colour Users Association held in October of this year the following Resolution was passed:
    "The Council of the Colour Users Association are of the unanimous opinion that under the existing conditions the Act should not be extended after the end of the year."
    I want to analyse the conditions of which they speak. The first condition is that they are subjected to a prohibition of the importation of any dye-stuff of a kind which is made in this country. That prohibition applies to 90 per cent. of the dyes used in this country. The second condition is that there is a tariff of 10 per cent. on imported dyes, that is to say, dyes not made here. That tariff on imported dyes simply increases prices without giving any employment whatever to our own people. It is simply an extra charge on the cost of production. The third condition is the increased price of dyes due to the depreciated exchange. Those dyes which are not made here and have to be imported from abroad cost at least one-third more because of the depreciated exchange. The fourth condition—and this the most serious thing of all, on which I would lay special
    1824
    emphasis—is that they are suffering because of the formation of a cartel which eliminates competition and enables a particular combine to take advantage of all the sacrifices which the dye-users have made during the last 12 years. I will deal more fully with that point a little later.
    The fifth condition is the heavily increased price of home-produced dyes. As is I think fairly well known, in February last it was announced that an agreement had been concluded between the German, Swiss, French and British dyestuff manufacturers. It is one of the evils of monopolies and cartels that it is impossible for the public to know the terms under which they are working. I do not suppose the intimate terms of the agreement drawn up in February last are known either to any member of this Committee or to any user of dyes, but it is understood that the arrangement is on similar lines to that arrived at in 1929 between the German, Swiss and French industries in order to develop co-operation in sales and eliminate destructive commercial competition—in other words, it is a price cartel. In the majority report issued by the Development Committee we are told that during recent months —and I want this Committee to take note of this point, that being the committee which suggests the continuation—it is stated that during recent months the price of dyestuffs has risen appreciably and the average price, during the first six months of this year, again reached the level of price in 1928. It is estimated that the prices of individual dyestuffs, disregarding the quantity sold, have been raised on the average by about 22— per cent. Those are the exact words of the majority report. I want to be fair, and I know that the report goes on to say that the dye-makers contend that in consequence of unrestricted competition prices had reached an uneconomically low level during the latter part of 1930, and that they found it necessary to increase prices to the level ruling prior to the reductions made in that year; but I am puzzled to know how that statement can be substantiated, because if we turn to paragraph 16 of the majority report we read this:
    "During recent years imports of dyestuffs consisted almost entirely of dyestuffs which are not made in this country."

    1825
    So in the case of 90 per cent. of the dyes used there has been no competition. In the appendices on pages 15 and 16 of the report it will be found that if the prices which are given there are totalled, and an average is struck, in the case of British dyestuffs prices have risen, talking 100 as being the pre-War price, to 168 in 1931 and 222 in 1932. The Appendix on page 16, giving examples of the increases in the prices in foreign dyestuffs, shows that those prices have increased from 181 in 1931 to 245 in 1932 The difference there is practically the same as before, which suggests to us that there is a certain definite price fixed by this cartel. While the Board of Trade wholesale commodity index figure in September, 1932, is 102, the index figure for dyestuffs is 200, an increase of about 100 per cent. over pre-war prices. I know that we are told in that report that there is TAO price arrangement, but the dye users have no method of checking that statement.
    If a dye user to-day asks a foreigner to quote for certain dyestuffs, he cannot possibly get a quotation. It is impossible for us to know whether we are actually buying at the lowest world price for equal goods. We suggest that the statement, made in 1930, that we were to be placed under no disadvantage, cannot be substantiated at the present time. The only thing that the dye users know is that their experience is that, subsequently to the formation of the cartel, prices have risen considerably. The only quotations that users can get from foreign suppliers are for new colour. It was never anticipated, when the extension of the Act was agreed to, that British makers would enter into a cartel controlling the prices with foreign makers, whereby the users lose the benefit of access to the world productions and the world's lowest prices. I do not think that anyone will dispute the fact as to the mutual interests of makers and users The makers would probably be willing to acknowledge the wonderful patience and financial sacrifices made by the users of dyes during the last 12 months.
    There is a further point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, because I think it is a question that ought to have particular attention, and that is the increase in the importation of intermediates. That is dealt with
    1826
    particularly in the committee's Report, but there are legitimate fears in the trades represented by the users of dyes that the new cartel will limit the development of the British dye-making industry. If you read that Report carefully, you will find that from July to December, 1931, covering a period of six months, 87 tons of intermediates were imported into this country, but that from January to May, 1932, five months, under the cartel, 2411 tons were imported. If we are to hand over to foreign makers the making of intermediates, the dye industry is going to be in exactly the same position as it was when war broke out. The Report states—I want to be quite fair—that the importation of intermediates was due to an increased demand for dyestuffs. I admit that. I do not think that there is the slightest difference of opinion among hon. Members that there should be an efficient dye-making industry. Because of some arrangement entered into between the four big producing countries, there should be no danger of taking away a fundamental part of the industry.
    I ask the Committee to say that the dye industry is no longer an infant industry and that it should stand on its own feet. I do not, wises to introduce anything polemical into this discussion, but I remember on the question of the Ottawa Agreements that we were concerned about certain guarantees as to our rights to appear in front of a tariff board, and our suspicion at that time was that it would be very difficult indeed to say when an industry was grown up. Our difficulty with this industry is that we think that it has at least reached the age of adolescence. Twelve years cannot be said to be an unreasonably short time for its development.
    I want to say a word with regard to the export trade. I read the Debate which took place when the then President of the Board of Trade introduced this Act, and I remember that he said that one of the great features since the War had been the recovery of the textile trade. We all regret that that great recovery in 1920 has not lasted up to the present time. The textile trade is a great exporting industry, and we who are interested in it feel that nothing shuld be put in the way of an absolute recovery of its export trade. That trade must have its raw materials at the lowest

    1827
    possible price. I am not making any specific charge, but I am simply asking for information on the point, when I say that it would be interesting to know if foreign users—or, to put it in another way—whether foreign competitors in the textile trade are being supplied with dyes at a lower cost than our own people are being supplied? I do not wish to mention any particular country, although I have one in mind. Some of the eastern nations, as hon. Members know, have become great campetitors of ours in the textile trade. Some of those nations have not a dye-making industry. The danger always to be found in a cartel is that they will sell dyes to those people cheaper, in order that the buyers shall not build up a dye-making industry. I wish to ask the Government if they are prepared to endanger our own textile trade by action taken on those lines.
    I suggest to the Committee that the purpose of this Act has been achieved, and that it is no longer necessary. The trade have mapped out their market. Why they should want an Act prohibiting the importation of dyes when they have already parcelled out the great markets of the world is beyond my reason. The users throughout that 10 years' acquiescence in and support of the Dyestuffs Act, visualised the establishment of a virile British industry able to face world competition and, eventually, to supply British users with their full requirement of dyestuffs at the lowest possible cost. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary. Is there to be no reward for the tremendous loyalty and sacrifices which the users of dyestuffs have made during the past 12 years? I believe the House of Commons voted a sum of money —I am not quite certain whether the House, as such, voted it, but there were invested in the British Dyestuffs Corporation £1,750,000. Part of that was done by agreement with the Government, and it is true to say that the dye-making industry has received financial help from the Government. They have received tremendous help in every way from the users. After that help, given by the Government and by the users, is the industry to be handed over to a monopoly to charge what price it likes for its production?
    1828
    Both in the majority and the minority reports, mention is made of the high prices of benzol. If the Committee will forgive me, I will read two paragraphs relating to the selling prices of the post-War years. The first says:
    "In this connection the effect of the high prices of benzol and toluol in this country on the costs of dyestuffs is a matter which the dyemakers consider requires serious consideration. Although benzol and toluol of indigenous origin are not subject to the hydrocarbon oil duty of 8d. per gallon, their value is largely governed by the ruling prices of petroleum spirit."
    Paragraph 25 says:
    "The dyemakers therefore suggest that steps should be taken to remove this disability either by an alteration in the system of taxation of motor vehicles or by some other means whereby they may be able to purchase benzol and toluol at prices not higher than their foreign competitors."
    The majority report contains this recommendation:
    "Arrangements should be made"—
    the recommendation is also in the minority report—
    "for example by an alteration in the method of taxation of motor spirit whereby British dyemakers should be able to obtain their supplies of benzol, toluol and xylol at prices corresponding to those paid by their foreign competitors."
    In other words, the dyemakers should procure raw materials at the lowest world price. Both the majority and the minority reports recommend that the dyemakers should have their raw materials at the lowest possible world prices. I am asking that the same principle should be extended to the dye users, who should have their raw materials at the lowest possible price. I want to conclude by making an appeal to those Members of the Government who were Members of the House when this matter was debated in 1920, and who opposed the continuance of this Act. The hon, Gentleman who is to reply will, I know, be perfectly consistent in his voting on this question. Among those Members of the Government who opposed the continuance of the Act, I find the Prime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions. the Secretary for Wines, his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the Minister of Health, the Lord Advocate, the Assistant Postmaster-General, the Secretary of State for the Dominions, and many others of the Parliamentary Private Secretaries and supporters. There was a

    1829
    meeting yesterday of representatives of the users of dyes with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and have received a long telegram from one gentleman who was present, expressing their dissatisfaction at the result.
    I understand that we are to be told—I hope I am not transgressing any rules of courtesy in saying this before the Parliamentary Secretary speaks—that a committee is to be set up to inquire into this question, that the Government are asking that this Act shall not go on for longer than another year without further consideration, and that the majority report is not to be accepted in its full terms. But no committee that can be set up can be satisfactory to the users of dyes if they are only to have two representatives out of about 12, as they have at present. It is an unfair representation. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say that there is no further need for this Measure, and I would also ask that there should be a free vote on the matter. It is a matter on which we shall probably find differences of opinion in all parties, but. it is not merely a political question, and it is not a fiscal question; it is a question that vitally affects one of the greatest industries in this country, and I appeal to all hon. Members to support the Amendment, which I intend to carry to a Division, because I want to express to the Government the absolute dissatisfaction of those Members who are particularly interested in this question.
    5.18 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: My rising to support an Amendment proposing that the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act should now come to an end may seem to be somewhat novel on my part to those hon. Members who have been in the House since 1920, when I was one of the protagonists of the Measure, and fought for it continuously year by year; and I am sure that I shall have to give some very cogent reasons, some cold, hard facts, in order to make hon. Members realise why I have now changed my opinion. The Committee will remember that in 1920, when the Act was brought into operation, it was brought into operation for two reasons. In the first place, when war broke out, we had practically speaking, no colours produced in this country except those produced by the British Alizarine Company. Secondly,
    1830
    we had none of those dye works which Germany used so largely for making poison gases during the War, and it was resolved that never again should that happen, but that we should be able to produce our own dyestuffs in this country.
    It was considered by all of us that, if prohibition was granted for 10 years, this country, at the end of 10 years, would be in the position of producing practically every dyestuff that it required. I think it was the late Lord Moulton who said that, if an industry in this country was given five years' prohibition and could not then produce what another country was producing, the claim for prohibition should go. I want it to be clearly understood that, in desiring that the Act should come to an end, I am still in favour of the substitution of a tariff. A tariff is more elastic; it can be raised or lowered from day to day; but with total prohibition it is not possible to do anything of that sort.
    The Dyestuffs Corporation were given 10 years in which to manufacture the essential colours required in our trade, but, as a dye-user of 35 years' standing, I make bold to say that practically speaking there has not been manufactured in this country any of what I would describe as the real essential dyestuffs that are needed for our home market and for the market abroad. It is true that the statistics show that the production of dyes in this country has increased enormously, but I would like hon. Members to realise that that production has not been augmented by these essential dyes which are needed, but has been production of the basic and direct colours, as they are called, which we were manufacturing before the War. As far as that goes, the Act has allowed the Dyestuffs Corporation, as it was then, to manufacture more of these colours, but now the position has changed. What I am about to say may be rather technical, but it is just as well that hon. Members should have a grasp of the position.
    We have to use three essential colours, namely, chrome colours, vat colours, and naphthol colours. None of these colours were manufactured in this country before the War. I will deal later on with the chrome colours, but I should like now to mention that chrome colours, vat colours and naphthol colours are fast to light and washing, while all other

    1831
    colours are fugitive colours. What is our position to-day? We have been putting on the market goods dyed with chrome colours—which are demanded, not only in the home market, but all over the world, and which Japan especially is using to-day—of a quality that is the fastest of any; but the price of these colours has, as I shall show, gone up so enormously as to put us out of the market, and today we have to use a basic colour with a tannic acid mordant, which will give us the required brightness of tint, but, when it is hung up in a window for a month or two, or washed, the colour goes, and the result is that, if we supply goods dyed with these colours, we get the goods thrown back on our hands. If they are sent to foreign countries, the same thing happens, and, what is worse, our customers in those countries will never come back to us, but will go to our competitors in Japan and other countries where these colours are obtainable at a lower and more reasonable price than we have to pay at the present time.
    Again, when the Act was passed, I think I am right in saying—no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that it was understood that there would be on the Development Committee an equal representation of dye makers and dye users, with two independent members appointed by the Government. I should like to state the present composition of the committee, in order to show the degree of weight or advantage that the users have on it. The names of the members are set out in the Third Report of the Dyestuffs Industry Development Committee.
    Mr. Woolcock, the chairman, is a member of Imperial Chemical Industries. Mr. Blundell is a dye maker. Mr. Cronshaw is a member of Imperial Chemical Industries. Mr. Forrest Hewit is a dye user, and a director of the Calico Printers' Association. Major Holliday is a dye maker. Then we have Professor G. T. Morgan, and, next, Mr. James Morton, who is a dye maker. Mr. Palmer represents the Board of Trade. Then we have Mr. Davidson Pratt; and Mr. J. Rogers is a member of Imperial Chemical Industries. Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith represents the Bradford Dyers—another dye user. Mr. Thomas Taylor is a member of Imperial Chemical Industries; and
    1832
    then we have Professor J. F. Thorpe. Mr. G. S. Whitham represents the War Office, and Mr. T. M. Willcox is a member of Imperial Chemical Industries. Thus there are only two members of one of the largest trades in this country who sit on the Development Committee, as against a whole host of members of the dye-making industry. Is it fair that the dye-makers should have all the say, and that the colour-users—those of us who are finishing the Lancashire goods to send abroad and into our home market—should be in that painful minority, and should never be able to have any voice in regard to colour making in this country?
    We know that the Dyestuffs Corporation was a ghastly failure from beginning to end. I happen to know, and other Members of the House may know, its whole history—how it took over a, practically derelict works, where no colour had ever been manufactured at all; how it was financed partly by the Government and partly by shareholders; how gentlemen were appointed directors who had never made dyes and knew nothing about them. The whole thing was a hopeless mess from start to finish. Now we have to face Imperial Chemical Industries. I have no quarrel with them; they are a brilliant firm, and are doing excellent work; but we, as users, have to face the fact that Imperial Chemical Industries to-day have not only a practical monopoly of the whole dye industry in this country, but have arrangements with the Interessen Gemeinschaft and other Continental dye-making firms, and they have such a. cartel that, even if they cannot now, they will in time be able to say to us that we must pay such-and-such prices for our colours, and there will not be the slightest competition at all.
    I should like to put the following point: We happen to have a range of 18 chrome colours. Imperial Chemical Industries have manufactured only two of those chrome colours, but, in the case of those two chrome colours which they have manufactured in this country, presumably for British use, they have, under an agreement with the Dyestuffs Corporation, to send those colours over to Switzerland, and to say that we must buy those colours, which have been manufactured in this country, from Switzer-

    1833
    land, at a price which, owing to the fall in the £, is 40 to 50 per cent. above the price of the colours that we can get here. When a state of things like that has come about, it is time that this Act went out of existence altogether. If we can get some competition to bring prices down, it is about time that we had it. There has been a good deal of talk about increase of prices, but whatever may be said about statistics, my figures cannot be denied, because I am buying these colours practically every day of my life. I spend about £50,000 a year in colours, so I know what the price is to my cost. Imperial Chemical Industries put up the price of one colour from 4s. 4d. to 6s. 1½d., of another from 5s. to 7s. 6d., another from 3s. 7d. to 6s. 1½d., another from 3s. 8d. to 5s. 3d., from 4s. to 5s. 9½d., from 3s. 8d. to 5s. 2½d., from 6s. to 8s. 4d., from 4s. 4d. to 5s. 11½. and from 2s. 5d. to 3s. 1½d. I just give those as examples of vital colours that we have to put into our work.
    When world prices for our goods are falling, we should not be asked to pay these increased prices. There is no reason, as far as I can see, why they should be put up. We in Lancashire should not be asked to be penalised by paying them when world prices are falling. The Calico Printers' Association are paying an increase this year of 290,000 increase for colour alone to be put on the whole of their production. In my works, which is a works of 12 machines, I am paying an extra £8,000 a year for my colour alone. With severe competition from Japan, such as we have never known before, I would ask the Committee what chance we have. It is obvious that the cartel wish for the prolongation of the Act in order that they can control the price of every colour sold in this country and abroad. An hon. Member below me mentioned that dyes were being sold to foreign countries at a lower price than they are being sold in this country. When we make allowance for cheaper labour and longer hours in Japan, there is still a discount—they produce at 30 per cent. below our cost of production—and I am forced to believe that colours are being supplied by this cartel to foreign nations at lower prices than they are supplied to us. We know that Japan must be buying at the very lowest point of the market, if not below it. The goods that Russia was sending
    1834
    to this country were produced at 70 per cent. below our cost of production. How is the Lancashire cotton trade to compete with countries like that? If our surmise is correct, they are able to buy their raw material at a lower price they we can.
    There is some talk of setting up another committee. What good can another committee do? We know what time it takes them to come to a decision. If the committee sits for six, nine or 12 months, what is to become of the cotton trade? I implore the Board of Trade to bring the Act to a termination. I know my past speeches may be quoted against me, but at that time we had an enormous trade with India, Java, the Straits Settlements and South America. The trade with India, Java and the Straits Settlements is finished, and until recently we have done nothing for years with South America. I have been speaking about cotton. If you come to woollens, the percentage of dyes comes to about 30 or 35. Taking it over the whole range, a matter of £90,000 means not only the difference between a profit and a loss, it may mean bankruptcy, and for a smaller concern a figure of £8,000 may mean absolute bankruptcy. When we are doing everything we can in Lancashire to bring down our overhead costs and to try to compete with the foreigner and get back the markets that we have lost, I would in all seriousness ask my hon. Friend if the Government will not bring the Act to an end. I have spoken simply and solely from a business and trade point of view. If it was political matter, there would be some reason for putting on the Government Whips, but as it has simply to do with the trade of Lancashire—and if the trade of Lancashire revives every other trade will revive—I would ask if the question cannot be left to the free vote of the House.
    5.40 p.m.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: I hope that the Government wll resist the Amendment and that the Dyestuffs Act will be extended for another year. Whether the Whips are put on or not will not make the slightest difference to me, and I shall vote for the continuation of the Act. I speak as one interested in the use of dyestuffs and not in their manufacture. I also have experience not only of the manufacture but of the sale of woollens

    1835
    and cottons in this country and in the different markets of the world. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks of the competition from Japan, which undoubtedly has had the effect of cutting our goods out of a number of markets, I think he is attaching more importance than he should do to the part that dyestuffs play. Whether in fancy cottons or in plain goods, the Japanese rates of labour are so very low that, even if you eliminated completely the cost of the dyestuffs, we should still not be able to bring our goods to the same price as that at which they sell them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to a certain type of dyestuff as being made here, then going out of the country and coming back and being sold to the British users. As a matter of fact, that is not the correct story. I understand that the dyes are produced in this country and are sold by a certain Swiss firm in this country, but they do not go out of the country. The advantage to us is that they are actually being made by a British maker.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I have to buy them in this country at the Swiss price.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: The fact remains that they do not leave the country. With regard to price, if you convert pounds into Swiss francs and convert back again, the exchange can balance itself in the process. I am desirous of supporting the continuation of the Act because I consider that it has been so very useful in building up this splendid dye-making industry and that it would be very dangerous to take any steps that might endanger it. May I remind the Committee of the very substantial increase in production that has taken place in the manufacture of dyestuffs. In 1913 we manufactured 9,114,134 lbs., representing something like 22 per cent. of the total dyestuffs used in the country. Last year the production increased to 47,980,700 lbs. or 90 per cent. Probably an even better test is the fact that since the Act has been in operation we have been able to build up a very substantial export trade in dyestuffs. Before the war that trade was negligible. In 1931 we exported 13,134,400 lbs., or a value of 81,016,218. There is a substantial export trade in dyestuffs. I feel that we are dealing with an industry which has been built up to
    1836
    a very efficient standard through the aid given to it by the Act which we are discussing. Reference was made by the two previous speakers to the Report of the Dyestuffs Development Committee, and I will read a paragraph from the Report which shows the standard which has now been attained.
    "Many new dyestuffs have been put on the market, and as regards quality there is now little room for criticism of the standard maintained by the British output."
    They also give a very great deal of praise for the technical co-operation given to the industry. There is at the present moment a good deal of opposition in certain quarters to the continuation of this Act, and it is led by one for whom I have a great respect—Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith. I am only too glad to have an opportunity of paying a tribute to the excellent work which he has done on behalf of the dye users, and also the dye industry in this country. However, at the present moment I feel that he is certainly in the wrong, and I am not prepared to follow his advice. To suggest, as they do, that the objective laid down in the original Act has now been attained is to lose sight of the fact that, if we were to do away with the Act, we might endanger the position of the industry very seriously. In fact, there might be the very serious danger that its position would return to the very unfortunate one which existed before the War. Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith and the Colour Users' Association published a report some time ago, which I had the pleasure of reading, and in which they make it very clear that they would like to get rid of this Act. Out of a membership of 36, at the particular meeting at which they discussed the question of the Act, only 18 were present. A number of interests such as cotton, the garment and the wool dyers, as well as the representatives of the paint industry, who use a substantial quantity of dyestuffs, were not present so that really in effect the views which were expressed represented those of the dyers and finishers in this country. That is quite a different thing from speaking for the whole of the users of dyestuffs.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that because they were not present they were in favour of the continuance of the Act? They have not given expression to that effect. Does he

    1837
    suggest that because they were not there they want the Act to go on? The members who were not at the meeting have not expressed views to show other than that they are absolutely in agreement with the report of the Colour Users' Association.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: I said that at the meeting, out of 36 members of this committee, only 18 were present. I think I made it very clear indeed that I did not say what opinion was held by the other people. I believe that if their thoughts could be placed before us at the present moment, we should find a certain number of them in favour of the removal of the Act from the Statute Book, and, on the other hand, we should probably find some of them in favour of continuing the Act. As they were not present at the meeting, I do not think that we can bring them into the picture.
    Reference has been made to the fact that as a cartel is now in existence, it is -impossible to obtain competitive prices from any makers outside the country. I do not think that the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) and the hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) would like the Committee to understand that there are no other substantial manufacturers of dyestuffs left in the world, because, if so, they would not be correct. In. the United States of America there are very substantial manufacturers of dyestuffs. There are some 50 manufacturing companies with a capital of over £20,000,000. Among others are the Allied Chemical Company, the Pont du Nemours Company, and the Celco Company, all of them very important manufacturers of dyestuffs. It must not he forgotten that we have in England also the firm of Holliday and Company, in Italy the Colori Nazionale, in Holland the Chemische Fabrik Schiedam, and in Germany an important organisation, the Verein fur Chemische and Metallurgische Production.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: The hon. Member proves my case. My case is that we should have competition, but under this Act we cannot get their dyes into this country to compete.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: The hon. and gallant Member should give me an opportunity of making my case. I would remind him
    1838
    that I did not interrupt when he was speaking, although he said many things with which I was in complete disagreement, and I should like him to allow me to develop my own argument in my own way. I wish it to be realised that there are a number of very substantial firms in existence in addition to those belonging to the cartel of which we have heard today. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite intervened and said that in the present conditions it is impossible for us to get into this country the dyestuffs which those non-cartel members are producing. With that I entirely disagree.
    I will tell the Committee something about the composition of the Licensing Committee which deals with the permits which are granted to import dyestuffs into this country. The committee consists of five members of the colour users, three representatives of the colour makers, and three independent members, one of whom has to be the chairman.
    It means, in effect, that if the colour users in this country want to import certain dyes because they think that they are necessary, all that they have to do is to convince one of the independent members, and they get their own way. Therefore, I do not think that anybody can possibly say that the Licensing Committee is one which is weighted against the users. They start out by having a perfectly fair tribunal, and, in fact, one which is in their favour rather than otherwise, which will give them justice when justice should be applied to them. If you have a tribunal of that kind willing to listen to the views of the users and to admit dyestuffs, not upon any arbitrary price level, but if it can be shown that the foreigner is able to offer dyestuffs at a cheaper price than those offered by the British manufacturer, dumping excepted, there can be no cause for complaint. Naturally the committee would not allow goods to come into this country where a dumping price was being used. There is nothing in the present Act which can possibly prevent any dye user in this country from importing any dyestuff which may be necessary for his trade if it is offered to him by a foreign manufacturer at a price lower than that at which he can obtain it from the British producer, or if it is a dye which is not made in. this country but which he needs in order to manufacture his goods.

    1839
    In reading through the report, and in particular the minority report signed by Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith and one other member, I notice that they gave a table of prices showing how certain dyestuffs have increased during a comparatively recent period. I suppose all of us, at some time or other, have been accustomed to prepare tables which were likely to support the case we were trying to make, and this appears to me to be a singularly good illustration of a table which has been prepared to support the case of those who are objecting to the continuation of this Act. It would rather appear from this table that the whole range of dyestuffs has been increased. As a matter of fact, this is not the case. If you examine the more detailed tables also given in the same report you will find that a number of prices have actually been decreased during the same period. That is something which the Committee ought to realise and to understand. With regard to the question of prices, we must remember that there has been, as far as the textile industry is concerned, a distinct change with regard to the type of dyestuffs used during the past few years. There has been a steady demand for a better type of dyestuffs, for a faster dye and something which will stand the test of time better than the type in use before the War. So that when you compare prices in 1913 and those of to-day, that is in 1932, you are not comparing like with like. To-day, in practice, the average type of dye used is a very much superior quality to the dye which was used in our dye houses before the War. That is another point which we ought to keep in our minds.
    Although I support this Act to-day, I shall certainly be glad indeed if next year the question can be dealt with in a different way. It is a very unsatisfactory method of handling this problem for the Act to be renewed for only one year. It does not give anybody an opportunity, whether users or manufacturers, of doing their best. I hope that next year there will be an opportunity, after an investigation either by an impartial committee or in some other way, to bring in an Act which will last three or five years, whichever may be considered the more suitable. It would be a much more practical thing to do. It is wrong to allow the Act to
    1840
    be at the mercy of a decision which effects a number of other Measures at the same time. I believe that it would be possible to amend the Measure very considerably. It could be amended in certain ways so that the dye users would probably find a considerable number of their present objections removed. In any case, until we have another Measure to take its place, I hope that the Government will insist upon the present Act remaining on the Statute Book.
    5.59 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: While I hesitate very much to follow hon. Gentlemen who know the technique of this problem very much better than I do, there is a point which must be put on behalf of the Labour party. We view this primarily as to whether more employment will accrue in our country if this Act of Parliament is continued than if it is repealed. We have come to the conclusion, after looking at the problem carefully, that more workpeople would probably be employed in the colour-using industry in this country if the Act were repealed. I wish to make an observation on one point which was made by the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden). It has been made in this House constantly for many years. He referred to the point in speaking of the colour-users in this country. I am, by the way, speaking to-day because I represent a Lancashire constituency, where there is some bleaching and dyeing carried on. That argument used by the hon. Member about Japanese rates of wages being low in the textile industry must be corrected. It is always assumed, as he has done, that the rates of wages paid in a country determine to a much greater extent the price of the commodity produced than it really does. I speak from memory, but I think I am right in saying that the textile trade unions in Lancashire sent a deputation to India to study this particular problem of the price of the commodity in relation to wages and hours of labour. What they reported in effect was that four spinners in Bombay working on exactly the same machinery using exactly the same raw material could not produce more of the same kind of commodity than one spinner working in Bolton, Lancashire.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: May I ask how it is that the Indian Government have im-

    1841
    posed a special surtax on the importation of cotton goods produced in Japan?
    Mr. DAVIES: That is another problem. What I am trying to prove is that the hon. Member is wrong in claiming, because wages are low in Japan that, of necessity, the commodity itself competes unfairly in the markets of the world. Therefore, I want to repeat the statement made by representatives of the Lancashire Textile Union when they came back from India that it takes four spinners in Bombay operating exactly the same machines and using exactly the same raw materials to turn out as much of the same commodity as one spinner employed in Bolton, Lancashire. The Indians have not the skill behind them, they have not the technique and they have not the nimbleness of fingers that have come down for generations among the spinners and weavers of Lancashire. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not pursue that line of argument.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I cannot accept the argument that he has advanced. I happen to have definite practical experience of the cost at which Lancashire cloths are being sold, and the price at which Japanese cloths are being sold. I know also that the result of cheaper labour in Japan reflects itself in the charge they make for similar cloths to those that can be produced in Lancashire; unfortunately, the price is very much lower, and that is due directly, and to nothing else, to the fact that they pay very small wages.
    Mr. DAVIES: As I have said, I do not claim to know as much about the technique of the trade as the hon. Member, but I have heard it argued on the Floor of this House that this particular cheapness of Japanese textile goods is due not only to the fact that the price of labour is lower than ours but that the Japanese Government subsidise the ships carrying those commodities.
    Let me deal with one or two other points made by the hon. Member, because he is the only one as yet who has opposed the Amendment to repeal the Act. He says that the Act has already built up a successful dyestuffs industry in this country. That is exactly what the Mover of the Amendment has already said. The Mover stated, too, that it has had 10 or
    1842
    11 years to operate, that it has built up a successful industry in this country, but he also pointed out that in building up that industry for the production of dyestuffs it has at the same time created a monopoly, to which we on these benches object. That is the pivot on which the whole argument against this Measure, turns. If it be true that the home industry has succeeded to such a point that it is at last safe against foreign competition, how long are we going to bolster it up while it operates against the interests of our own colour users? That is the issue before the Committee to-day.
    The hon. Member made another point. He said that we had built up a successful export trade in dyestuffs. That is all to the good, but the colour users in this country have legitimate complaints on that score too. They are, I think, the most representative body that has ever come before Parliament in opposition to this Act. I agree entirely with the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment that we are dealing in this matter not with a partisan or a political issue, but with a business proposition. So far the case has been put from that angle, and I am not going to run away from that business proposition. I say that it is possible to increase your export trade in a certain commodity by exploiting your home consumer. I do not say that that is done in relation to dyestuffs, but it is known to have been done in other commodities not only in this country but in other countries too. That is to say that you can increase your exports by selling your commodity at a reduced price abroad merely because you charge higher prices for the same commodity in your own country. I do not say that that has been done with dyestuffs, but if you have a monopoly there is always a danger of it being done.
    The hon. Member agrees, and I think Members of all parties agree, that if the Government wish to continue this Act they ought at any rate to review the whole position again. I think the suggestion made to that effect by the hon. Member is a good one. If we pass the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill with this Act in the Schedule, the Government ought to go into the matter once again. I cannot conceive that a large body of colour users in Lancashire who know no partisanship on this score, the vast majority of whom are probably supporters of the Govern-

    1843
    ment on other issues will have come to the House of Commons with a request for the ending of the Dyestuffs Act without really very strong business reasons for so doing, reasons very much stronger than even the hon. Member for North Bradford has put this afternoon. It always takes time to get up a case against any Government but they have got up theirs on this occasion in a very formidable manner. I have seen many deputations from Lancashire but the one on this question was about the most representative I have ever seen.
    Let me deal with another point in the hon. Member's speech, namely, that the cartel does not destroy that form of competition that ought to give to the British colour users their rights. Let me see what the late Lord Melchett said some years ago about his own company He said:
    "I can state emphatically that I do not consider the British chemical industry to be in any way inferior to that of the Germans."
    That is a great achievement. It was said during the War that we had lost control over dyestuffs, that we could not produce them here, yet we had one of the greatest scientists this country has ever known, saying some years ago that we were even then no longer inferior to Germany in this connection. He went on to say:
    "The costs of our production of chemical products are as low as, if not lower than, in any other country."
    Conditions must have changed very much since that statement was made, otherwise the complaints we have heard to-day would not have been made. Let me sum up what is said by these people who know the case best. They have discussed this matter from the business point of view only, and I can recollect a very strong statement made by one who represented a body of colour users in Lancashire that because of the monopoly created under this Act the dyestuff users he represented have had to pay at the rate of £90,000 per annum more than they would have had to pay but for the monopoly. If that be true, and I think it is to be found in a statement produced by these people, it is a very serious situation indeed for the colour users. This is how they put the point:
    "The dye-making industry has enjoyed a period of 12 years' prohibition of the goods they produce."
    1844
    and they have built up a successful industry.
    "The objects of the Act have been achieved and a substantial dye-making industry established. The formation of an international cartel has entirely changed the outlook, and it can be stated that the parties comprising the cartel represent substantially a world monopoly."
    We have to remember that. While we gave protection to our own dye-producing industry at home, it was never thought by any Member of this House that we were giving the right at the same time to the home producer to build up a cartel for the production of dyestuffs in Europe. The hon. Member mentioned American dye producers, but America is 3,000 miles away, and that makes a vast difference. It is only a few hundred miles from here to Germany. The statement of our colour users proceeds:
    "The British makers took immediate advantage of the conditions created by the cartel to exploit the consumer, and domestic dyestuff prices were drastically increased at a time of national crisis and when the Government were insisting that no justification existed for the raising of internal prices."
    So far as we as Labour Members of this House are concerned, we are satisfied on balance, looking at the problems from the broad point of view, that there would be more employment in this country, especially in Lancashire if the colour users were able to buy their dyestuffs at a cheaper rate than they are doing now. It would obviously enlarge employment in Lancashire because the users say that the cost of the dyes enters so largely into the cost of the product, when they put it on the market at home and abroad. For these reasons we shall to-night, as we have done before for several years past, vote for the deletion of this Act from the Schedule, and we trust that whatever happens to-night the Government will go into this matter very seriously, more particularly as it affects colour users in Lancashire.
    6.14 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin):As I have an announcement to make in the course of the observations that I shall address to the Committee, it may be convenient that I should intervene at this stage. The Government are impressed now, as always, with the necessity of maintaining in this country a flourishing

    1845
    dyestuffs industry, and if, as a result of Government policy, it has been decided to ask the Committee to vote for the continuation of the Dyestuffs Act for a Further 12 months, I hope that none of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Members will think that the Government are, not fully alive to the woes and troubles of the textile industry. The matter must be looked at as a whole, and I want to review the subject in a short compass.
    We have had a very temperate speech from the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), which was in the nature practically of an appeal. The hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut. - Commander Astbury), who seconded the Amendment, did not seem to take quite the same view. The hon. Member for South Bradford would have liked the Act to come to an end, and not to be replaced by any alternative method of control. The hon. and gallant Member for West Salford indicated that if the Dyestuffs Act came to an end he hoped that a tariff would take its place, while the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) looked at the matter solely from its effect on employment.
    Mr. REMER: Would it not come, automatically, under the Import Duties Act?
    Dr. BURGIN: It is under the Import Duties Act already, but that does not quite meet the point.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I made it quite clear that I am in favour of a tariff; that it would be far better to deal with it by a tariff than by total prohibition.
    Dr. BU RGIN: I am not contravening that statement. I am pointing out that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment spoke from different angles. The hon. Member for Westhoughton looks at it from its effect on employment, and says, without giving us any evidence, that if colour users were able to obtain colours at lower prices, they would be able to enlarge their works and employ more workers. He did not continue his argument and say whether the dyemakers would suffer from increased competition and would have to discharge workers; but, I think, his argument meant that on balance the colour users would employ more men than the dyemakers. The hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr.
    1846
    Ramsden), speaking with considerable knowledge of the industry, put the other case.
    Let me take the Government's attitude on the matter. I need not remind the Committee how the Dyestuffs Act came into existence. I need not remind them that a Departmental Committee was set up several years prior to the passing of the Act of 1920 to investigate the whole matter of the essential importance to this country, in the interests of national defence among other matters of a flourishing, efficient and modern dyestuffs industry. I mention national defence because some hon. Members have suggested that this is purely an industrial matter, that it can be dealt with merely on business lines, more as a matter of economy than a matter of policy. It is necessary to enter a caveat that important considerations of national defence enter into the question. Obviously, the Government would be faced with a different position if the reports made by the Dyestuffs Industry Development Committee had ever been unanimous. The hon. Member for Westhoughton has paid a glowing tribute to the character and composition of the deputation and has congratulated the colour users on the way in which they have assembled facts, figures and arguments, and laid them before this House. How much greater value the arguments would have possessed, had they been arguments from a united committee instead of arguments put forward in a minority Report of the Committee. When the 1920 Act was reaching its normal termination of 10 years a report was published by the Dyestuffs Industry Development Committee. They were not then agreed; there were differing views. But the Act in the meantime was continued, and a year later in 1931, a further extension of the Act took place, without a Division. We all remember how the Government were constituted at that time, and I repeat that it was without a Division n 1931 that the Dyestuffs Act was continued for a further period of 12 months.
    Now the third report of the Dyestuffs Industry Development Committee is before hon. Members. It is dated 25th October of this year, and is Command Paper 4191, dated November—quite a recent date. What does the committee recommend? The majority report recommends that the Dyestuffs Act be extended

    1847
    for three years, but two members of the majority recommend that it should be five years instead of three. There is a minority report signed by two members of the committee, Sir H. Sutcliffe Smith and Mr. Forrest Hewit, both users—I want to be absolutely fair—and they express the view that there should be a discontinuance of the Act. The difference of opinion which existed in 1930 is now shown by this third report in 1932 to have extended into a perfectly definite cleavage, one party recommending a long-term extension and the other no extension at all.
    I ask hon. Members to reflect as to what any administration would do faced with the competing views of experts within the very body set up under the Act to advise the Government as to the way in which the Act should be administered. The output of synthetic dyes has increased 530 per cent. between 1913 and 1931--the figures were given by the hon. Member for North Bradford—or from 9,000,000 lbs. to 48,000,000 lbs., a very gratifying increase. Imports have fallen from 32,000,000 lbs. in 1913 to 5,000,000 lbs. in 1931. In other words, the output has been multiplied by five and the imports have been divided by more than six, an extremely important observation. In quality a marked improvement, a great service, excellent co-operation, excellent technical advice—matters of great importance in dealing with the development of an industry which the Committee will agree is one of national importance. In research, no slackening of effort. Many important novelties have been introduced, representing a policy of development rigorously followed.
    That brings me to the cartel. A great deal has been said during the Debate about the cartel and the prejudicial effects resulting from it. I wonder whether the Committee has ever thought of what an international cartel would be if this country had been excluded from it? The case I am making is that the effect of the cartel without Great Britain would have been extremely damaging to this country. But the cartel which has come into existence is one in which this country is included, and, so far from being a disadvantage, is an enormous advantage. What is there left? It is said that the prices of all essential dyestuffs have been increased; the hon. and
    1848
    gallant Member for West Salford said that the rate of increase was about 222 per cent.
    Lieut. - Commander ASTBURY: It differs from 10 per cent. to 50 per cent. on different colours.
    Dr. BURGIN: Yes, a good many of these colours are, admittedly, imported One of the effects when you go off the Gold Standard becomes very marked when you import. Whatever advantage there may be on your export trade by something in the nature of a bounty or bonus, becomes marked in the opposite direction when you are compelled to import. I have been impressed by the cartel argument, and have taken the opportunity of making considerable investigations in order to ascertain whether the cartel was operating to the disadvantage of this country. I should like the Committee clearly to understand that the prices of colours that are dealt in by this cartel are gold prices; and these gold prices are not higher in the United Kingdom for the same dyes than prices quoted in other countries. That is an extremely valuable point, and I make it as the result of investigations which I have made personally in order to give that assurance to the Committee. The gold prices of the same colours do not vary disadvantageously to the United Kingdom. Once you have a cartel in which this country is included and under which the dyes sold on a gold basis are available to the users in this country on, terms comparable to those quoted to users in other countries, I think you have removed a large element of any possible grievance.
    A good deal of confusion has arisen in the quotation of these prices through not taking into account the effect of the falling value of the pound and the necessity, when paying in sterling for gold prices, that you -have to pay considerably higher than you previously paid. Arguments have been adduced for the immediate cessation of the Act and also for its continuance. The Government, faced with these competing recommendations, are obliged to seek advice elsewhere. The maintenance of the dyestuffs industry is extremely important, because it is an assurance for the textile trade of a continuance of the supply of their raw material. Dyestuffs themselves are required for the uniforms of troops and for

    1849
    experiments in explosives, and it is a matter of national importance that the dyestuffs industry should not be allowed to disintegrate. When these matters have been before the Committee previously there has been no very easy proposal which the Government could make as an alternative.
    In view of the division of opinion inside the committee advising the dyestuffs industry, a committee in regard to the composition of which complaints have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for West Salford, a committee on which it is suggested there are too many representatives of dyemakers and too few of dye users—and it was suggested that this might account for the difference of opinion—the Government have decided to adopt a different line. It is proposed to ask the Import Duties Advisory Committee to inquire into the whole circumstances of the dye industry, and whether interests would best be served in one way or another; to refer the whole matter to an admittedly impartial and extremely knowledgeable committee with all kinds of expert information available to it.
    I have little doubt that that committee will, in accordance with its own wisdom, inform itself of the views of makers, consumers, distributors and users, as in regard to any other inquiry which that committee undertakes. The members of the committee have intimated their willingness to accept this reference. So, a strong and efficient dye-making industry being of national importance, the Government propose to ask the Import Duties Advisory Committee, under the shelter of this nominal one year's extension of the Act—a mere temporary prolongation to enable this other committee to get to work—to investigate the whole matter, and when they have reported there will remain the Committee of Imperial Defence to intimate how the essential interests of the defence of this country would be affected by any recommendation. That is the proposed method of dealing with this matter. I thought it would be convenient to make that statement at this stage of the discussion.
    There are two other matters upon which I wish to touch. The name of Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith has been mentioned by the hon. Member for South Bradford, who was opposing the continuation of this Dyestuffs Act. Sir Henry
    1850
    Sutcliffe Smith is such a great figure in the dye-using industry that I think the Committee owes it to him to see that no use is made of his name out of keeping with the whole of the context, and we have had such service and assistance from him in the past that I am sure the Committee may take it that, whatever the ultimate decision of the Government may be, Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith's one desire would be, as always, to see that the fullest co-operation of those whom he represents is always at the disposal of the Government. There is one other matter. There was a suggestion that this question should be left to a free vote of the House, that the Whips should be called off, because, it is said, this is only an industrial question. The decision as to whether the Whips shall be called off does not rest with me, but the Committee will realise that this is not merely an industrial question, and that matters of national defence enter into it. Therefore, to accede to the request of hon. Members would not be possible.
    Mr. REMER: Do we understand that this Act will in any case last until the end of next year, even if the Advisory Committee in three months' time recommends a tariff?
    Dr. BURGIN: The answer is that, of course, Parliament is always sovereign. Without legislation this Act will come to an end on 31st December, 1932. It is because of that fact that it is included. in the Schedule of the Bill under discussion. It is suggested that it be continued for a, temporary period to enable this further investigation to take place. Nominally, if the Committee pass this Schedule, the Act, subject to what may happen in another place, will automatically be extended for 12 months. There is nothing in that by itself to prevent the Import Duties Advisory Committee from making a recommendation to come into force earlier than 31st December, 1933, but that would require legislation.
    6.36 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I doubt whether the great industries which consider themselves injuriously affected by the continuance of this Act will be satisfied by the reference of the matter to what is usually known as the May Committee, a body already overworked, having to deal with a vast number of subjects, which will be

    1851
    unable to give the close and detailed consideration which this highly technical matter requires. I agree that the action taken by the Government is better than nothing. It is better than a mere negative. But at the same time I would much have preferred had an opportunity been given to the House of Commons to eliminate this Statute from the Expiring Laws Bill. This is a subject in the discussion of which I ventured to take a somewhat active part in the last Parliament, as a Lancashire Member whose constituents are very seriously affected by the continuance of the Act. I did not speak, and I do not speak now, as an opponent of the Dyestuffs Act in itself. The Act was in fact originated by the action of a Government of which I had the honour to be a Member during the War, and our action was taken largely on grounds of national defence, on the strategic grounds which have been mentioned today. We did not proceed by the crude and unsatisfactory method of a mere tariff, but we adapted our legislation directly to the needs of the case, and the course taken has been justified by the results.
    There has been created a great new national industry which, as has been shown to-day, has developed a large trade at home and abroad, which gives employment to great numbers of people and has carried on most valuable research work. The whole country ought to be grateful to the dye manufacturers for the energy which they have put into the matter, the risks they have been willing to run and the success which they have undoubtedly achieved. But now, after 12 years, we consider that, those results having been attained, the industry ought to be able to take its place with other great national industries and stand on its own feet. We advanced that view two years ago, but then we were met by the contrary opinion of Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith, the Chairman of the Colour Users' Association, who was then of opinion that the Act ought to be continued for a further period. Now he has signed a minority report strongly urging, and giving the most cogent reasons why, in the interest of the colour users and the nation as a whole, the Act should now terminate.
    We have had a most powerful speech from the hon. and gallant Member for
    1852
    West Salford (Lieut. - Commander Astbury), who previously had held the view that, the Act should be continued, and he says, from his intimate knowledge of the industry, that the time has now come when the Act should be brought to an end. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), in a speech fully documented and giving facts and reasons which I believe must carry conviction to impartial Members, has stated a similar case. I do not propose to cover the ground which they have covered, but I would like to emphasise one most important fact mentioned in the majority report:
    "It is estimated that during this year the prices of individual dyestuffs, disregarding the quantity sold, have been raised on the average by about 22½ per cent."
    That is an exceedingly serious matter. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said just now, "Ah well, we have gone off the Gold Standard, and we must expect this kind of thing where imported articles are concerned." But it is not only the imported dyestuffs. All those who are acquainted with the facts know that the home-produced dyestuffs have equally been raised in price. That is the grievance, because they represent the great bulk of the quantity consumed. The minority, who represent the colour users, say:
    "The conclusion of the international agreement was followed almost immediately by a substantial increase in the selling prices of domestically-made dyestuffs, with complete disregard for the precarious condition of many of the consuming industries during a period of national crisis."
    It is at all times, and especially now, of extreme importance to the nation that we should reduce the producing costs of our industries. Unless we succeed in that our international trade cannot recover. For that reason the workers in the textile industries have been pressed, and indeed compelled, to accept lower wages. While on the one hand the workers have had their incomes reduced, on the other hand Measures such as this are passed or maintained, which raise the cost of production of British industry; and the minority say that in their report:
    "It is a strange anomaly that, whilst the Government have been successful in negotiating terms whereby Lancashire operatives have accepted less wages in order that British textile goods may be competitive in world markets, at the same time the dye-makers, by increasing their prices for a

    1853
    major raw material of the textile trade, are offsetting the objects of the recent wage cuts."
    But that is not the only point. We have also a tariff of 10 per cent. on these goods when they come in. It is essential that certain dyestuffs should be purchased abroad, because they are not made in this country, and we have the additional 10 per cent. added to the cost of them without any benefit to British manufacturers, because those are goods which are not made in this country and therefore bring no indirect advantage to British employment, but merely add to the burdens on the British manufacturer. It is surely a profound error to put taxes on raw materials, whatever may be said about manufactured goods.
    Dr. BURGIN: These dyestuffs at present are not on the Free List, so that, quite apart from anything that we are discussing now, whether the Act is continued or not, the 10 per cent. will still remain.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: That is so. It is the accumulation of burdens on the industry of which I am complaining, this 10 per cent. in addition to the effect of the cartel, which is raising the prices of these commodities, whether produced at home or abroad, and further the effect of the depreciation of the pound, which adds another 30 per cent. to the cost of goods imported. It is essential that some of these goods be imported because they are not made here. They are needed to maintain the quality of British goods, and the quality of British goods is fully as important as the question of price. We depend for our markets on quality. Here you have impediments placed in the way of getting the highest quality of goods. Even that is not all, for the colour users complain that the effect of this law and its machinery is that there are frequent delays, that when special dyes are needed for the manufacture of special lines of textiles which have to be completed at once to fulfil an order, they have to go to the committee to get a licence and to prove that the goods are not made in this country, and that frequently that entails a delay of weeks. That is a grave inconvenience to the industry.
    Consequently, the whole of the textile trade is unanimous in asking Parliament no longer to continue this Act. The
    1854
    organisations which have petitioned the Government and have sent a resolution to that effect are these: The Liverpool Cotton Association, the Manchester Cotton Association, the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' Associations, Ltd., the Cotton Spinners' and Manufacturers' Association, the Bleaching Trade Advisory Board, the Federation of Calico Printers, the Piece-Dyers Association; the Employers' Federation of Cotton Yarn Bleachers, Dyers and Sizers; the Employers' Federation of Dyers and Finishers, the Master Packers' Association, the Shipping Merchants' Committee of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce; the United Textile Factory Workers' Association, representing the trade unions in the spinning and weaving sections; the Joint Dyers' Association and the Joint Board of Inside Warehouse Workers, representing the trade unions in the warehouse and packing sections.
    Furthermore, there is the woollen trade for which my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford has been the spokesman this afternoon. I, therefore, suggest that this Committee of the House of Commons ought to express its clear opinion that the time has come when this matter should not merely be referred to a committee, but when this exceptional Measure ought to be terminated, having fulfilled the purpose for which it was originally established. Almost invariably, if a privilege is given to a particular industry for a term of years, when that term comes to an end, reasons are given why the privilege should not be stopped. I do not know of any case in which an industry has voluntarily surrendered privileges granted to it by Parliament. Originally it was proposed by Lord Moulton, who was one of the originators of this Measure, that it should last for five years and in that time he thought that the industry could establish itself. Parliament in its wisdom in 1920 decided that the industry should be given 10 years in order to complete what was undoubtedly a difficult task and that it should have security during that period, so that this most necessary manufacture might be established for the first time, effectively, in this country.
    The 10 years came to an end and it was then said by the industry, "We want a little more time in order to complete our arrangements and make our Indus-

    1855
    try quite stable." Parliament was divided on the matter but on the initiative of the other House, not of this House, it was decided that a further year's extension should be given. It was anticipated that during that year further inquiry would be made and the matter finally settled. No such action was taken and at the end of that year a still further year's extension was given. Now we come to the end of the second year and a committee which consists in an overwhelming measure of dye-makers —containing only two dye users and many dye makers—now recommends a further extension of three years. The Government ask us to give one year and meantime promise an inquiry by a committee which is not especially suited, in my submission, to the accomplishment of the task in view. I think many Members will desire to express disagreement with that course and I trust that my hon. Friend will, go to a Division on the Amendment.
    6.48 p.m.
    Mr. CLARRY: I have no wish to delay the Committee unduly in coming to their decision on this matter but, having listened to this Debate for three hours, I would like to take up one or two of the points which have been raised. The outstanding feature of this discussion is that in the speeches of those who recommend and support the elimination of this Act from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, no charge whatever is made that the dyestuff makers have been exploiting either the users or the country. In fact all have joined in praise of the dyestuff makers for having done so much to bring about a stable industry. The most that even my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) can say is that there has been a serious matter of 22½ per cent. increase in charges over a year which is generally admitted to have been an uneconomic year. But can that be regarded as a very serious matter when we take into consideration the fact that this industry is providing for extensive research work in all directions and also the fact, that it is not to the interests of the users themselves to have an industry of this kind which is not stable and which is uneconomic.
    1856
    The hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) mentioned a figure of £90,000 as the additional sum which he had paid for dyes—or I should say, which was paid for an association and not for himself. It is not possible to contest or to debate those figures with him but as he has already said that the cost of dyes in the finished product amounts to approximately 5 per cent., I can only congratulate him on the vastly increased amount of money which he has had to spend upon dyes and which is indicative of a largely increased business. The Parliamentary Secretary has largely stultified further discussion of this matter by his suggestion of inquiry by a committee but I do not 'agree that a committee is necessary at this stage. I gather that, the terms of reference are to include the matter of Imperial defence.
    Dr. BURGIN: No, do not let us have any misunderstanding about this. The reference to the Import Duties Advisory Committee will be on the question of how to deal with the dyestuffs industry industrially. When the industrial report has been received, then it will be for the Government to introduce the element of the interests of national defence.
    Mr. CLARRY: I thought the hon. Gentleman made a reference to Imperial defence.
    Dr. BURGIN: That would be at a later stage.
    Mr. CLARRY: If we have regard to the circumstances of the time when this Act was originally introduced we find that the necessity for it was very great. In the 12 years which have passed since then we have expanded in our political ideas upon these subjects. In 1920 the word "prohibition" was only mentioned behind closed doors and safeguarding was only introduced in very exceptional circumstances. This Act which constituted total prohibition with the exception of certain licensed importation, went, far beyond even what we have reached to-day, 12 years later, in circumstances of extreme necessity. Yet after all that period of the operation of that Act we find that there is only praise in this Committee to-day for the way in which the dyestuff makers have acted. We must also have regard to the fact that imports

    1857
    have been reduced from 32,000,000 lbs. to 5.000,000 lbs. and production has been increased in the same years from 9,000,000 lbs. to 48,000,000 lbs. We may therefore say that the operation of the Act for general purposes has proceeded along the lines for which it was originally passed. The matter of prices has been mentioned in several quarters but there appears to be no justification for agreeing to the discontinuance of the Act. Rather, since the matter has been left, in the hands of Parliament, there is a good case for continuing the Act for at least another year.
    6.53 p.m.
    Mr. REMER: It is not often that I find my name on the Order Paper as supporting the same Amendment as 6.53 p.m. the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) but in this case I think that our reasons for supporting the Amendment are rather different. It is not the first time that the hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Commander Astbury) and I have debated this question but I think it is the first time that we have agreed upon it. If it comes to a question of consistency I, like him, cannot lay claim to a pure consistency on this subject because in 1930 I spoke and voted in favour of the continuance of this Act. I always held however that the proper way to protect this industry was by means of a tariff and not by means of prohibition and licence. I am willing to admit that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Salford 10 years ago did a great deal to convert me to the view which he held at that time, on the ground that the industry was not fully established and wanted a degree of security which could not be given by a tariff or only by a very large one.
    The position has new altered. To-day the British Dyestuffs Corporation has become part of a huge combine. It has large financial resources and is quite able to stand up to any competition. Furthermore, since 1930 we have had the passage of the Import Duties Act under which these dyestuffs are subject to a 10 per cent. duty. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made a reference to gold prices. I am in business as an importer of foreign timber and I would ask the hon. Gentleman, can he name one other article besides dyestuffs which has gone up as a result of this country going off gold? Practically every commodity is
    1858
    selling at the same price as it was selling at before we went off gold in September or October last year, except this one item of dyestuffs, and, in that case, the price has been forced up because it is under a cartel. Everybody who is engaged in business knows that every time the dollar exchange falls, dawn comes the price of the goods in dollars, and therefore you are able, as I am, to sell your goods at the same price to-day as before, even under the effect of the duty upon them and the depreciation of 30 per cent. in the exchange.
    In this matter there is a great case for the view which we are putting forward. In my constituency there are, probably, some of the largest users of dyestuffs in the United Kingdom. These dyestuffs are used not merely in connection with silk goods but also in connection with the dyeing, printing and bleaching of cotton goods. Those industries have come into that constituency in order to get the benefit of the pure water of the Cheshire rivers. I am receiving no end of complaints upon this subject and one of the chief complaints against the present procedure is this. It is true that the small dyer of cotton goods can go to the licensing committee and get licences to import any dyestuffs he wants. But he has to tell that committee what he is going to use dyestuffs for and some members of the committee may say to him, "That particular dye would not naturally be used for that purpose." He has then to disclose to the committee the chemical analysis and the particular method which he is going to put into operation and members of that committee may be his competitors. He is disclosing to his competitors an analysis which is vital to his own business. I say that the proper method of dealing with this industry is by a tariff. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to the country that an efficient dyestuffs industry should be firmly established, but I have always held that any system of prohibition and licensing is wrong.
    Now what would happen if this Amendment were passed? I do not think anything very terrible would happen. The Import Duties Advisory Committee could do as they have done in other industries. They could issue an Order in Council to-morrow night, or on 1st January, which would be more convenient because

    1859
    that would be the day on which the Act would be discontinued. They have already done that in the case of the steel industry. They could say that there would be a temporary duty of, perhaps, 33⅓ per cent. on imported dyestuffs. As a result of that Order in Council we would find that there would be ample time, in the six months in which the 33⅓ per cent. duty should last, for the committee to review the whole of the circumstances applying to the dyestuff industry, and all the circumstances of the complaints made against Imperial Chemicals. These complaints are not coming from people who in 1930 were not in favour of the continuance of the Act, nor are they coming from Free Trade Liberals. Many of those from whom complaints are coming are among the most violent Conservative Protectionists in the North of England. If this Act is continued, we are going to bring discredit on the whole system of Protection in this country by this ill-advised form of Protection which we have at present; we are going to do great injury to a cause we have deeply at heart. It will be bad for our country and we shall see a very terrible effect upon employment at an early date.
    7.2 p.m.
    Mr. LEES-JONES: I am in the same position as many Lancashire Members, inasmuch as my constituency is affected by the Dyestuffs Act. In my division there is a firm which makes dyes, and I am wondering what will happen to employment in my division if this Act ceases on 31st December. I did not know until to-day that the dye trade could save the textile trade, but it would appear, from the speeches which have been made, that a drop in the price of dyes would employ more people in the various textile trades. I venture to say that I do not believe that. If the Act ceases at the end of December this year there would be an influx of foreign dyes, and there would be an increase of unemployment in this country in dyemaking. Obviously that would be the case, as everyone knows there is intense competition in dyes.
    Mr. SLATER: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has said that there is a cartel, and where there is a cartel there are quotas.
    Mr. LEES-JONES: Nobody would suggest that we would have been asked to
    1860
    join in a cartel if we still had an open market. We have Protection. Nobody ever asked us to join a cartel while we were a free market. Why should we assume we should have been asked to join if we had no Protection?
    Mr. SLATER: I am not against the cartel.
    Mr. LEES-JONES: We should not have been asked to join and the result would be that if this Act did cease, the other members of the cartel would feel perfectly justified in flooding this market with dyes, at cost prices; in other words, dumping would again start. I am sorry that the majority report of the Development Committee has not been adopted and the Act extended for three years. I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for having promised that the whole question will be reviewed during the next 12 months—not by a body which met twice in the same year and gave no decision. This time it will be under the aegis of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The whole question of Free Trade and Protection has arisen again to-day. Those who are Free Traders are dead against the continuance of the Act. Although they say they are not against its continuance, because they are Free Traders, there is a certain amount of Free Trade in it. I do hope that, whether the Whips are taken off, or kept on, the Dyestuffs Act will be carried on for at least 12 months.
    7.7 p.m.
    Sir GERALD HURST: The hon. Member who has just spoken is, like myself, a Member for Manchester, but the views he has expressed, I venture to say, are not found very generally in Manchester. It does happen to be that there is a dyeworks in the constituency which my hon. Friend represents, but in actual fact the great interest of Manchester, and the great interest of Lancashire, is that nothing should be done which could in any way hinder the revival of the great industry in that county which depends for its well-being, primarily, upon the export trade. Any Member for Lancashire must feel a very grave responsibility in deciding how to vote upon this Amendment and, although I have always voted. for the Act on previous occasions, I feel that convincing arguments have been put

    1861
    forward by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment in their very cogent and powerful speeches. They are arguments which must persuade anybody who has at heart the interests of the great staple textile trades of the North of England. The greatest interest of the industrial north is a revival of the export trade. It is not only a question of maintaining the value of the pound, or the balance of trade, but it is also wrapped up with the fortunes of the export trade and the employment of the great mass of workers.
    It is common ground among those interested in this question that the only way in which any Government can help and further our export trade is to reduce to its minimum the cost of production. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has pointed out, the justification for the wage cuts in the Lancashire cotton industry has been the wish to lower the cost of production. The great justification for the de-rating of industry by the last Conservative Government was to lower the cost of production. The great argument we have always advanced against the Socialist view that higher taxation does not matter, is that higher taxation means greater cost of production. If you do anything to increase the cost of the raw material of a staple trade; if you do anything to contribute to a rise of cost of our cotton, woollen or silk textile goods, you are adding to the cost of production, and it is in evidence that in fact, in many cases, the cost of dyes has been advanced. Even in the cotton trade, where the cost is less than in the woollen trade, it runs out at something like 40 per cent. of the cost or the finished article. It follows that any artificial increase in the cost of dyestuffs must have a bad effect upon the cost of production, and the higher the cost of production the more difficult it is for our great stable export industries to hold their own against world competition.
    I do suggest that the existing law needs to be carefully examined before the Committee assents to its renewal. I should like to show how the circumstances of our time have materially changed from those existing when this Act came into existence. In 1920 there was no efficient dye industry in this country and, from the point of view of the efficiency of that
    1862
    industry, and of national defence, it was urgent that a prosperous and satisfactory dye industry should be created. The evidence is that such an industry has now been created. The first object of the legislation has been achieved. Secondly, there was Free Trade at the time when this particular form of legislation was introduced. At the present time there is a duty of 10 per cent., and also the depreciated value of the pound. The result is that the British dye industry is protected, and nothing would be more easy than to increase the protection to a, high figure, if the present duty was found inadequate, either from the point of view of maintaining the industry, or from the point of view of meeting the contingencies of national defence.
    The system of protection is a much more helpful one. Instead of three or four weeks elapsing before you get a licence, every importer would know where he was, and if protection still left it worth while for the dye user to import an article he could do it on the usual terms. The third way in which circumstances have changed is this: The time when this legislation was introduced was a time of competitive prices. As has been pointed out in the reports, the whole assumption was that this dye industry was faced with competitive prices, and that these competitive prices would be maintained. It is pointed out on page 13 that the dye users acquiesced to an extension beyond 10 years when they were given definite assurances by the makers and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade that prices would be competitive. But once you have a monopoly you cannot continue to have competitive prices and, from the report of the majority of the committee, it is clear that, although there may be some foreign dyemakers outside the combine, there is a general, a world cartel. That is pointed out on pages 8 and 9 of the Majority Report. My hon. Friend who has just spoken did not really appreciate what a cartel means. It is not a case of a State or of Parliament introducing a cartel. A cartel emerges from within the industry. Once you have a cartel you have a monopoly with three definite consequences. First, the atmosphere of competitive prices ceases to exist, and one of the justifications for our present system has passed out of being. Secondly, there

    1863
    is the liability to a rise in prices. In the present case it is not only a liability—there has been a rise in prices.
    One hon. Member said: "Why do you complain about a rise in prices in one year which was only 22 per cent?" That seems to me a very defective argument, because a rise of 22 per cent. in one year is a very considerable addition to the price, particularly in view of the fact that, with regard to many commodities, the dyestuffs represent something like 50 per cent. of the value of the finished article. There is no guarantee, where you have a world cartel, that the prices at which the article is sold in England represent the level of prices at which the same article is sold abroad. It may happen that at present there is no difference, but that is no guarante whatever. The cartel can sell at whatever prices they choose to fix, and in some country where there are still outside firms competing they may sell at a lower price than in England. In my submission, the conditions under which this House voted for this Measure some years ago and last year have entirely changed, and we are faced with the problem as to whether it is really justifiable that these great shipping industries in the North of England, which rely for their welfare on low costs of production, which alone enable them to hold their own in the markets of the world, should be handicapped in the interests of a very small section of the industrial community.
    I think we ought to decide this question for ourselves. I do not believe it is a right thing to delegate it once more to a committee. Committees take a long time to decide, and, after all, we have the facts before us. It is for us to draw our own deductions from those facts, and not to delegate the responsibility of this House to some small committee, which, however accomplished and dispassionate, is no more qualified to judge of the facts than we are. These are facts which affect the life and well-being of our constituents, and no Member representing a constituency in the North of England can afford to delegate his judgment to a committee, however distinguished. On these grounds, I say that the decision of the Government in this matter is a decision which loyal supporters, among whom I count myself, will regret, and in my view it is the duty of any Member
    1864
    representing an industrial constituency in the North, such as I represent, to support the Amendment.
    7.18 p.m.
    Mr. ENTWISTLE: I cannot help thinking that most of the speeches which have been made in favour of the Amendment were made from notes which were prepared before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade expressed the attitude of the Government on this question. What is it that we shall be voting on in a few minutes? It is merely as to whether, before this Act is allowed to expire, the Tariff Advisory Committee should be given the opportunity to investigate the question thoroughly and to recommend to the Government what they consider ought to be done. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) and the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) stated that they had no objection to a tariff being put on, if necessary, in order to protect the dye-making industry, and then, finding themselves in difficulties through having made that admission, they say there is plenty of time for them to deal with this matter before the Act expires, if it is necessary to put on a tariff. How absurd to talk of plenty of time. We have been told that this Act will expire at the end of this year. It is now the 8th December, and can anyone imagine that that gives time to the Committee to go into this difficult question and advise whether or not, if this Act is allowed to expire without any protection being given to the industry, all the good results which have been achieved under the Act might be thrown away?
    The Lancashire Members cannot have it both ways, and I was rather surprised to hear their disparaging remarks about the Tariff Advisory Committee. I thought the Conservative Members of this House had complete satisfaction with the way in which that Tariff Advisory Committee has justified all the hopes that we have rested in it in the administration of the Import Duties Act. Nobody can doubt its complete impartiality, its efficiency, and the celerity with which it has performed its duties, and I am sure the bulk of the Lancashire Members would be only too happy to repose their confidence in that body and to allow it sufficient time in which to carry out the necessary investigations before this dye-

    1865
    making industry is exposed to whatever results might happen if this Act were allowed to lapse. The exports of dyes this year have been 9,500,000 lbs. in weight, and the total imparts this year have been 3,750,000 lbs., so that we have exported an amount that has been far more than double the total imports into the country. Therefore, there is a considerable export trade in dyes which might be jeopardised by allowing the Act to lapse before the full consequences of such lapse have been thoroughly investigated.
    Nobody has Tend what this report, which has been so often quoted in other respects, particularly by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, says about the cartel. The report says that evidence was given before the Departmental Committee showing that the cartel does not
    "comprise any selling price arrangements,"
    and
    "that it does not impose any limitation of the ability of the British Colour Users to obtain new products of foreign manufacture."
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I made it quite clear that. in the Majority report the Departmental Committee said there was no price arrangement. I also said that in fact there was a price arrangement, because already there had been an increase in prices.
    Mr. ENTWISTLE: A good deal has been made of the point that the majority represent the makers and the minority the users, but I think it is overlooked that there are some independent members of that committee. There are the makers, and there are the users, but there are also three independent members, and they are signatories of the Majority report. I will read one other thing from the report. In their conclusions, the committee say:
    "British makers are still implementing the undertaking to supply at world prices during the continuance of the Act."
    With what they say about the cartel and with that statement, I think it would be much safer for this Committee to allow the Act to continue until the matter has been thoroughly investigated by the Tariff Advisory Committee.
    7.25 p.m.
    Mr. SLATER: Perhaps the contribution of a cotton manufacturer and dyer will not be out of place at this juncture. I feel, like all my fellow manufacturers and dyers, that an increase in the price of dyestuffs of 22½ per cent. is a very definite detriment to the employment of a vast number of people in Lancashire. I am a loyal supporter of the Government, and I believe in giving adequate protection to any industry in this country that commands respect and that is meeting the particular demand of any industry at a price level that is not a detriment to that industry in what we are above all things interested, namely, the export trade. As chairman of a very large undertaking, I feel very definitely that the cartel, though the report says there are no price arrangements, has meant price increases. I know by the bills that we pay every month in our works that they are definitely and regularly showing an increase of from 20 to 30 per cent.
    It is very significant, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade put his finger on something which he thought was a point that should strongly impress this Committee, that this international cartel was selling dyestuffs over the whole of Europe at prices that were equal. But let us reflect for a moment on this matter. Before we went off t he Gold Standard and since, these prices have shown the greatest increase, and it is obvious that there is something behind what the cartel have told the Board of Trade. The only difference in their prices internationally has been the change in the price to the English users only. The 22½ per cent. increase has been gradually put on, and now even the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) and others who talk of tariffs as an alternative, may rest assured that that is not a system which would guarantee equal prices to all European consumers.
    I commend the Government very much for their reference of this question to the Tariff Advisory Committee, and I do not want to join in the chorus demanding that this Act should not be renewed. The Government have a very serious Committee's report put forward, which they cannot possibly ignore, but I would plead with the Board of Trade to recognise the significance of present dyestuffs prices, which I consider it is entirely unjustifiable to raise by 22½ per cent. in

    1867
    the period of 12 months. What will be the position of the dyestuff makers? At a time when Lancashire is bleeding and wanting business that the prices should go up 22½ per cent. and literally cut the ground from under our feet in many important markets is not justified, is not common sense, and it will not help the dyestuff producers in this country.
    There is another point, which the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) made. We are significantly behind in this country in the production of Indantrene dyes of a peculiar character, and of the highest possible importance, and it is a matter of grave interest to me, and to many other manufacturers in Lancashire, that I find, when I am able to produce up to the point of dyeing heavy cloth—I could give the various grades, but I will not weary the Committee—that the German and Dutch makers can undercut me even to-day in the London trade by only the price of the dyestuffs themselves. I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that I do not believe that this particular cartel is giving equality of price throughout the world. I am not impressed with the figures that arise out of the report which has been quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle).
    I know, with great experience of cartel work throughout the whole of my life, that there are certain things which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in which, when we were dealing with an aggregate output of an English combine or cartel, we might find it politic to rob the home producer for the benefit of foreign markets. I am rather afraid that in this case the dyestuffs' manufacturers are taking advantage of Lancashire in that respect. It is for that reason that I have intervened in the Debate to appeal to the Government to represent very strongly the claims of Lancashire. Lancashire has lost enough. Lancashire has
    shown loyalty to the National "Government, and we must not deny their particular claim for some consideration. Do not let Lancashire down in this matter. Tell the dyestuffs people that they are asking too much, and make it as easy as possible for those dyes that we do not produce to be imported. Look upon them as raw material, and let them come in free, so that we may produce goods with those dyes at a price equivalent to the price of foreign producers. We shall never justify tariffs in this country which take a toll from one industry for the benefit of another.
    7.31 p.m.
    Mr. CAPORN: I venture to think that the dyers of Nottingham must be made of sterner and better organising stuff than the dyers of Lancashire. In my constituency, there are a large number of dyers and finishers. I have visited their works persistently in the last 12 months, and I have never received any complaints of any kind with regard to the working of this Act. I welcome the decision of the Government, because it is obvious that there is great difference of opinion among the users of dyes as to the value of this Act. But for one consideration I should be glad that this matter is now going to be referred to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. That consideration is that the committee is already so heavily overworked that it is impossible to get any decision from it in less than five, six or even seven months. I beseech the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to use all his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order that the committee may be increased to five, so that by some means or other we can get decisions on these important matters in a much quicker way.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 59.

    Division No. 22.]

    AYES.

    [7.33 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Bird. Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)

    Brown, Brig. Gen.H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Blindell, James

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Boulton, W. W.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Burnett, John George

    Balniel, Lord

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Carver, Major William H.

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Cassels, James Dale

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Rankin, Robert

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Jennings, Roland

    Ray, Sir William

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Leckie, J. A.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Levy, Thomas

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Rosa Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Barnard

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Salt. Edward W.

    Denville, Alfred

    MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Dickie, John P.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Doran, Edward

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Scone, Lord

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Eady, George H.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Slater, John

    Elmley, Viscount

    Maitland, Adam

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Emrys- Evans, P. V.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Soper, Richard

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clara

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Sueter, Rear Admiral Murray F.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Tate, Mavis Constance

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

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Nunn, William

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    O' Donovan, Dr. William James

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Ward, Sarah Adelalde (Cannock)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Pearson, William G.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Penny, sir George

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Hartland, George A.

    Petherick, M.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Withers, Sir John James

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Potter, John

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr.

    Hornby, Frank

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Womersley.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Milner, Major James

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Banfield, John William

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Bernays, Robert

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Price, Gabriel

    Briant, Frank

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Remer, John R.

    Cape, Thomas

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Cocks. Frederick Seymour

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Janner, Barnett

    Thorne, William James

    Curry, A. C.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Edwards, Charles

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    White, Henry Graham

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelet

    Mr. Walter Rea and Lieut.-

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Commander Astbury.

    Bill read a Second time.

    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

    DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    7.43 p.m.
    We pass from the consideration of dyestuffs to the consideration of drainage. We fortunately pass from matters which have excited vigorous party controversy to matters which cut right across all party lines in this House. We pass from affairs of yesterday and the clay before yesterday to problems of water levels and reclamation of low-lying land which go back to the very earliest stages of our history. We are now discussing measures the first principles of which were laid down so long ago that it is impossible to put any definite date to their origin. The actual legislation, which was amended by succeeding Statutes of which this Bill is one, goes back to the days of Henry VIII. The area which we are considering was drained by Vermuyden under contract with King Charles I. It is full of delightful and characteristically English nomenclature, such as the River Idle and the Ancient Drain which are water channels of this area. Yet it touches very closely the property, the happiness and even the lives of a number of His Majesty's subjects. It is within the recollection of all of us that the immediate urgency of dealing with this problem arose out of certain floods which occurred, particularly in May, when the Ministry's Estimates had a separate day's Debate devoted to them on account of the floods which had taken place in the Bentley district, which lies within the Doncaster drainage area.
    At that time the Minister of Agriculture was pressed by members of his own party and Members on the other side to deal in some way with what everyone recognised as a blot upon the administrative skill and the friendliness of our countryside. There was an area which, for the second time within six months, had been flooded out, an area which was complaining bitterly that nothing was being done. Many conferences had been held, many commissions had sat and many investigations had taken place, but, all the same, twice within six months the floods had laughed
    1872
    at us all, and come pouring into the cellars and ground floors of the houses of those poor people. In spite of all that Parliament was saying or doing, the people were not getting defence against flood water. All of us agree that that situation had to be met, and on 8th July, in response to a question addressed to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), the then Minister of Agriculture announced that it was the intention of the Government to introduce an amending Bill in the autumn, and this is the Bill which is to carry out that pledge.
    It has fallen to the lot of another Minister of Agriculture to carry out the pledge of the previous one; but the history of this area and these controversies is chequered by the comings and goings of Ministers of Agriculture and, indeed, of Governments. It has seen out dynasties, let alone Governments, and there is no doubt that this is not the last we shall hear either of the catchment areas of England or of the Doncaster area in particular. But we have this Bill to deal with a situation which everybody admits must be dealt with, and that is the first point. The next point is that we deal with it in a Bill which, after laying it down that it is
    "expedient to make provision for the better drainage of the Doncaster drainage area"—
    provides for the dissolution of the Doncaster Drainage Board. To deal with that it is necessary to go back a, little way. The problem of the floods and the low-lying lands of England had engaged the attention of many people and of successive Governments, and consequently a Royal Commission was set up by the Government in 1927—it happened to be a Conservative Government—under the chairmanship of Lord Bledisloe. That Commission reported before the end of that year. During the year 1928 survey work was undertaken to carry into effect the principles which the Commission had decided upon. It was clear, however, that the De-rating Act would mean a recasting of the finances of the scheme, and therefore, to cut a long story short, it fell to the lot of hon. Members opposite to introduce and carry through the Act of 1930, which is the main Act dealing with the whole of the drainage problems of England, constituting the catch-

    1873
    ment boards and the rating provisions on all hereditaments within the catchment areas.
    This Bill is ancillary to the Act of 1930, though not necessarily a consequence of the Act, but I think all will agree that the Act of 1930, the great standard Act, having come into effect, it is desirable that, as far as possible, these subsidiary arid pre-existing bodies should be merged in the great catchment areas set up under that Act. The Act of 1930 found certain bodies in existence, of which the Doncaster Drainage Board was one. This board came into existence because this low-lying area, in which many of the main river channels are artificial and not natural, was specially liable to floods. That board was brought into existence, let me repeat, before the Act of 1930 was passed, and consequently that area presents certain special features. For instance, it straddles across two catchment areas, the area of the Ouse and the area of the Trent. Furthermore, it has certain special rights in relation to the coalmining undertakings of the region, for, in addition to the disadvantage of being flooded out by reason of the fact that a great portion of the area is no more than 25 feet above sea level, it is honeycombed by underground workings which, through letting down the surface, may flood areas or even may reverse the flow of rivers, so narrow is the level of difference by which these rivers find their way to the sea.
    In that area, the coalmining industry accepted certain special responsibilities, which it was difficult to get them to accept then, and which I believe it would be impossible to get them to accept now. They accepted certain principles with regard to responsibility for damage caused, and a very special responsibility that if a mine were closed a fund should be constituted which would enable the expenses of damage done to be met out of the colliery undertakings as a whole. We have, therefore, the Act of 1930 constituting the catchment areas, and the previous Act setting up the Doncaster Drainage Board, cutting across two of those areas, and the Doncaster Drainage Board having special rights, rights not merely of rating the hereditaments within the area of the board but special rights granted to it against the coalmining industry in the area—rights concerning not merely the
    1874
    present, but concerning future damage which may be done by coal undertakings.
    In spite of these Acts of Parliament, this area, is, as I have said, still fated to suffer from floods, in part because through a series of legislative changes it was impossible for the Drainage Board to get down to its work. I shall not attempt to recount the numerous accidents of administration which delayed the coming into full operation of the work of the Doncaster Drainage Board, save to say that they are the sort of administrative delays which make one realise how many a slip there is between the cup and the lip. The Doncaster Drainage Board has not, in fact, become fully operative. Another tragedy came to the Doncaster Drainage Board of which I wish to speak quite frankly. Section 55 of the Act of 1930 laid it down that it was possible for the Treasury to make contributions towards the expenses of these catchment areas and the House accepted the proposals of the Government contained in that Act and gave them legislative sanction with the very distinct understanding that these contributions would, in fact, be made. It is still the Government's desire and intention, when financial circumstances permit, that assistance of that kind shall be given. Unfortunately, the financial crisis which affected so many other things had a crushing and a stunning effect upon the fortunes of the Doncaster Drainage Board, and this relatively small area had to be informed that contributions towards its expenses from the Central Fund, to which it had been looking forward, could not, in fact, be made.
    It is a, small area and an anomalous area, and also an area, in violent financial straits. That is the reason for the Bill now before the House. The method taken by the Bill to deal with the position of the Doncaster floods, to which I must always revert, for it is this recurring emergency which makes this legislation necessary, is that the Doncaster Drainage Board should be dissolved and its responsibilities, the distribution of certain property, rights, functions and liabilites —be divided between the Catchment Board of the Ouse and the Catchment Board of the Trent. The difficulty lies in the word "liabilities." Let me speak quite frankly. We are not discussing this in any party spirit, but we are discussing

    1875
    a problem which is of great importance not merely to the people in Doncaster but to the people in the county boroughs, who feel that there is a danger that a burden may be placed upon their rates which, as hard-up boroughs, they feel is a scandal not to be borne. They feel that this burden may not only be placed upon their rates, but placed upon their rates by precept, and of all ways of burdening rates a burden imposed by precept is the most intolerable to local authorities. A she-bear robbed of her whelps is as nothing compared to the chairman of a finance committee whose surplus has been removed from him by somebody else's precept.
    But I hope to show, first, that this Bill does not impose any liability upon the local authorities to which they are in fact, though not in theory, not subject at the present moment; secondly, that it is a reasonable proposal to put not merely before the House but before the local authorities themselves; and, thirdly, that within the Measure there are safeguards against any unreasonable action either by the Catchment Boards or by the Boards within the Doncaster area, the Central Board of which is now to be broken up and is to that extent relieved from the immediate responsibility for its own affairs. The liability upon county boroughs to contribute towards the expenses in connection with drainage works was not imposed by this Act, it comes from the Act of 1930, which came in turn from the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
    It is true that the liability of a catchment board is limited to the main rivers of that catchment area, and the transfer of the rivers in this area may be said to impose a new liability upon the catchment areas which take them over; but I hope to show that that is not so, in that already the Catchment Boards may make contributions towards the expenses of the Doncaster Drainage Board. It is true that that is a voluntary contribution, but as the Catchment Boards have already signified by vote their willingness to take over that area it may be taken that they are friendly to it and would, in fact, pay contributions to it. Indeed, they have already made contributions towards it, although of a relatively limited
    1876
    amount. But, it is said, how does that bring in the boroughs? It brings them in in this way—that if the catchment area makes a voluntary gift to the Doncaster Board, while that is voluntary as between the catchment area and the Doncaster Board, it thereupon becomes compulsory as between the catchment area and its relative constituent parts, of which the county boroughs are a very great portion. Therefore, it is very possible for the county boroughs to be rated and precepted for a contribution to the Doncaster Drainage Board, the precept being a voluntary gift by the Catchment board towards the Doncaster drainage works.
    The boroughs have complained about this, and have said that they, who contribute the greater portion of the revenue, have an insufficient voting representation upon this Catchment board. That position derives not from this Act but from the Act of 1930. If this House were not to proceed further with the Bill which I am laying before it to-night, the under-representation of the county boroughs on the catchment boards, and their liability accordingly to be out-voted and find themselves forced to contribute to this Doncaster drainage, would remain absolutely unchanged. It is asked: What safeguard have the county boroughs against an extravagant and unreasonable precept being placed upon them by a catchment area in pursuance of some fantastic and extravagant scheme? They have, of course, the general limitation that the expenditure cannot be above a 2d. rate. To many of the county boroughs even a 1d. rate would be a very serious thing, and a 2d. rate would seem altogether out of the question. The Minister has the power, at present, if he thinks that unreasonable proportions are being laid upon the county boroughs, to come in in a judicial capacity.
    That is one of the difficulties of my position to-night. I must commend these proposals, and I do whole-heartedly commend them to the House, as in every way reasonable, but I do not wish to press the argument too strongly, since some vital decision might come before me in a judicial capacity, in which case it would be most desirable that I should not commit myself. I hope to prove to the House that, even if these proposals are not adopted, that safeguard will continue. If the Doncaster drainage area is broken

    1877
    up and placed in the areas of the Ouse and the Trent, it will still be possible for the Ouse Catchment Board or the Trent Catchment Board to propose a scheme and to rate accordingly their constituent parts. While the county boroughs have the power of appeal to the Minister against such a scheme, on the ground that the areas which are to benefit have not been sufficiently precepted upon, there again the Minister is a judge and acts in a judicial capacity, and from him there is no appeal. I do not wish to commit myself on this point, save to say that it is clear that if the catchment area were to put through a scheme extravagantly rating the county boroughs, while demanding no contribution whatever from those who are to benefit from their scheme, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the scheme would be very seriously taken into account by the Minister. Such appeals as are possible are not dead-letters, since I think that three of them have already been heard and determined by the Minister of Agriculture.
    I think I have shown the House, first of all, that the liability of the boroughs is not in fact, although it is in theory, increased by the proposals which this Bill contains; and secondly, that the safeguards which the county boroughs have in another form are still maintained, under the Act of 1930, if the Doncaster Drainage Area is dissolved and merged into the two Catchment Boards. Further, I would point out that the county boroughs themselves actually sit upon the board undertaking the works, and that those following them through, as only members of a, committee can follow through the proposals, by examining them, will be in a much better position from the point of view of strictness of economy in carrying out the proposals than in appealing against being precepted upon by a board which is making a voluntary gift to some other organisation in carrying out the work.
    That the catchment boards of Ouse and Trent are more suitable for water engineering schemes scarcely requires argument. They are in the charge of engineers, and they have knowledge and responsibilities far beyond what is possible to a small board like the Doncaster Drainage Board. The argument, the House may say, is superficial, and rather means that a liability exists which is to
    1878
    be shouldered by someone, and which should not be placed upon two areas in England but should be borne by England as a whole. Let me point out to the House that other catchment areas have their problems also, and that to say that the cost should be borne by England as a whole is to say that on areas far removed from the Ouse and the Trent, like the Thames and the Severn, should be placed the burden, in addition to their own water burdens, of contributing to the support of areas which however far they may be from the Don, the Tome, and the sea, these regions are much nearer than the head of the Thames or the Valley of the Severn. The difficulties of the Ouse and the Trent are very considerable, and a city such as Birmingham is a long way from the region where the Ouse reaches the sea; yet all the water which goes to the main channel of the city has to fall somewhere, and in fact it does not fall into the Don area. Most of that water falls in some other area and has to be conducted to the sea through the channel of that area.
    In some cases the problem is rather accentuated by that great city tapping watersheds outside its own area, and bringing water from those watersheds and discharging it into its river channels, which were small when Vermuyden made them in 1600, and have not grown since. Therefore, the case for dealing with the catchment areas for Ouse and Trent is strong. They are heavily burdened, and cannot bear any further expense, but I ask the House to consider, even in those areas, whether there is not a responsibility of neighbourship towards the people who have suffered severely twice within six months. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are hundreds of miles away !"] A man may be hundreds of miles away from another man and still be a. good neighbour. I consider that being downstream everyone has regarded as one of the elements of neighbourhood. People who live by the water, such as in the Thames Valley, have always regarded each other as neighbours although living a great deal farther than 100 miles away from each other, There is a certain homogeneity in living in a river valley. It is a geographical fact that the water coming down from even a hundred miles away has to come through the area, of each one. I ask the boroughs and the neighbouring counties to consider the re

    1879
    sponsibility of good neighbourhood towards those people downstream. It would be difficult for us to say that we wash our hands of this responsibility entirely or even for the rivers and the head waters. To say that we wash our hands entirely of the responsibility for the water once it flows past our own doors is not a position that can be maintained, if we accept the principle of a certain amount of responsibility for those down the waterway.
    Let us consider whether the procedure proposed by this Bill is not the most appropriate to deal with the problem. Here is a Bill in regard to which we ask the House to act as a grand jury. We have to decide to-night whether this Bill should go to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses and be examined in the most searching way for such a Bill to be examined, not by the casual discussions of Members of Parliament, well or ill-instructed and moved by a certain amount of partisanship and political faith, but by a Committee of both Houses sitting in a judicial capacity on points raised by skilled counsel on either side. It has been said that a postponement of the matter would result in it being settled. I ask the House to consider whether any inquiry could be better than the inquiry which is now offered under the procedure of this House, acting as a grand jury. The boroughs have raised very important points which will now have to be considered by the Committee sitting on this Bill, points of great importance, which can be properly argued by counsel and properly determined by Members of the House sitting in a judicial capacity.
    That is the case for the Bill. The Government recognise their responsibilities, first of all in the desirability that the financial contributions envisaged in Section 55 of the Act should not be regarded as having altogether lapsed. I can assure the House that the Government do not regard those responsibilities as having altogether lapsed, but as postponed, merely because of the financial stringency which makes it impossible for the central authority to envisage the raising of loans for local authorities at a time when local authorities are restricting their expenditure. Secondly, the Minister, speaking for the Government,
    1880
    recognises the responsibility of the Government to see that the powers are not inefficiently or extravagantly used. The power of the Minister to act as a judge, I can assure the House, will not be waived or thrown away. There are no great schemes, amounting to 1,000,000 or £2,000,000, which have been brought forward, and it is not our intention that such vast work should be undertaken in any light-hearted spirit. The liability is not to be increased; the judicial power of the Minister remains unimpaired; and it is the desire of the Government to give assistance. I again reiterate that to the House, and I hope that, with these three points settled, it will be possible to allow the Bill to have a Second Reading and to go to that close and searching examination which such Bills properly have under the procedure of the House.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sits down, may I ask him a question? Would he say definitely that we may rely upon a contribution by the Government under Section 25 of the Act of 1930?
    Major ELLIOT: For my hon. Friend to ask me such a question before I sit down is, I am afraid, rather a super-Scottish proposal. It would be entirely impossible for me to give such a pledge. I have explained the reasons which make it impossible to give such a definite pledge. Obviously it would need the sanction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Government as a whole. I could not give that pledge. I can only ask my hon. Friend to take it as an assurance from the Government that they recognise their responsibilities in this matter.
    Mr. CAPORN: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sits down—
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I cannot allow all these questions. Hon. Members had better wait for an opportunity to speak later.
    8.17 p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: For once in a way it is my privilege to welcome a Bill introduced by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Had I had any doubts as to the action that I should take on this Bill, I should, in view of the fact that he has pointed out that the carrying out of this work has now become a duty, have consented in any case to agree to his suggestion and allow the Bill to go

    1881
    forward. I think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech should dispose of many of the fears and anxieties of Members representing towns in the area, and it seems to me that all that there is left for me to do, in supporting the Measure, is to supplement his observations. I hope that any lingering doubts, even on the part of hop. Gentlemen representing counties 100 miles away may vanish in the light of the truth and realities of the situation.
    There may be two opinions as to whether or not a certain part of the Don Valley ought to be drained at all—as to whether, for instance, the expenditure involved in draining the area is worth while, or whether thousands of acres of potential agricultural land in that area ought to be left flooded permanently and rendered valueless, either for the purpose of producing food or for any other purpose, even the production of coal. That opinion may be held by some hon. Members even in this House, If, however, we agree that we cannot afford to allow such a vast area of land to be permanently flooded, permanently unusable, and uninhabitable by human beings, and that we cannot for all time desert the coal reserves underlying the area, it seems to me that the matter is one of great urgency, and that the work must be carried out as quickly as possible. We have as witnesses three Royal Commissions who have stated very definitely that this work ought to be carried out. The Royal Commission of 1923, dealing with mining subsidence, drew the attention of the country to the urgency of the Doncaster problem; the Royal Commission that sat exclusively to deal with Doncaster was very definite in its determination to get the work put in hand; and the Government of 1929 produced a Bill which brought into being the Doncaster Board.
    The first argument advanced by the county borough councils is this: As we have a Doncaster Drainage Board, and as the Doncaster people were very insistent upon their preserves being cared for and left outside the scope of the Catchment Board, why, it is asked, do they now, three years after the passing of the Doncaster Drainage Act, want to relinquish their duties and obligations and have them transferred to the Catchment Board? I think that the county
    1882
    borough clerks who have produced the case in opposition to the Bill might well have served the catchment areas better if, instead of spending time and money in producing a case consisting of many ambiguities and half-truths, they had helped the Government to secure the passage of the Bill and to secure control of this area which requires draining at the earliest possible moment.
    On behalf of the Doncaster Drainage Board, may I recall to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen the series of events which have tended to retard the putting in hand and carrying through of the work? The Bill was passed in 1929. The first meeting was held in October, 1929, and by 1930 the board bad appointed officers, secured rooms, and commenced to examine the problem which confronted them. Almost before they had got a thorough knowledge of the problem with which they were faced, the Land Drainage Act of 1930 was passed. That altered the situation entirely, but, in the meantime, Section 8 of the Doncaster Drainage Act imposed upon the Doncaster Board the duty of setting up district drainage committees throughout an area of 211,000 acres.
    In a vast proportion of that area there were no committees in existence at all, and, although the county borough clerks declare in their opposition case that the Doncaster Board have been indifferent and apathetic, and have made no pretence of effort to solve the problem, I would point out that they have already, under Section 8 of the Act, set up 13 separate district drainage committees, and I understand that several other committees are almost completed, and Orders are being prepared which will ultimately receive the ratification of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Since, however, in some parts of the area there are these district drainage boards, while in other parts there are no district boards, no rate can be levied until all the area has these district boards, in order that, once a rate is levied, it may be levied equitably over all parts of the area. I would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), and other Members representing county borough councils, that the Trent Catchment Board and the Ouse Catchment Board, appreciating the difficulties of the Doncaster Drainage Board, advised them not to levy a rate

    1883
    until they were in a position to levy it upon every acre in the Doncaster area. Consequently, as the county boroughs form part of the Catchment Boards, they themselves, directly or indirectly, are responsible for the fact that no rate has been levied in any part of that very difficult area. [Horn. MEMBERS: "They are in a minority."] We are in a minority in this House, but we are able to express our opinion, and we must accept decisions once they are taken, just as the county borough councils must when Catchment Boards have reached decisions on one point or another.
    There is another very great difficulty confronting the Doncaster Board. The method of levying a rate, when they are in a position to levy a rate, is totally different from that under the powers given to the Catchment Board. For instance, we have here an area of 211,000 acres, with many thousands of individual hereditaments, and the Doncaster Board, in levying a rate, must levy it on each individual hereditament. When I tell hon. Members representing borough councils what was the problem confronting the Doncaster Committee, perhaps they will appreciate some of their difficulties. They invited tenders at the latter end of 1931 for the production of a valuation list. The least tender obtained was for £7,000 and the person who advanced that tender wanted 15 months in which to prepare the list. To levy a rate in these circumstances was well nigh an impossibility. Therefore, a new situation having arisen as the result of the passing of the 1930 Act bringing further complications because of a different rating scheme altogether, almost made it impossible for the Doncaster Board to continue their work. Then we had on top of this two very severe floods in the Bentley area in the short space of seven months. All parts of the country were moved on learning that over 4,000 people had to desert their homes and live in elementary schools and elsewhere because their houses were flooded, not by water that came from the Heavens and descended upon the Don Valley area but because of water that found its way there from the higher levels over the river banks and ultimately flooded not only fields but houses and shops and all kinds of premises.
    1884
    What is the real problem about this Don Valley water? The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) is presumably submitting the point of view put to him by the town clerk. He says, "Leeds is 30 miles from Doncaster. We do not send a single spoonful of water into the Doncaster area. Why should we be called upon to provide rates for the purpose of draining the Don Valley area?"
    Mr. DENMAN: I hope later on to have an opportunity of speaking and it is not desirable that the hon. Gentleman should quote arguments that I have no intention whatever of advancing.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member has retracted within the last 24 hours, I am very pleased to find that we have one more supporter and that his original arguments are no longer going to be used. Members from the higher reaches have declared that no water is being sent there from their areas. The river Don is 21½ miles long and two-thirds of it is outside the Doncaster area altogether. That is to say, two-thirds of the river is inside the Ouse catchment area. Of every eight gallons of water that passes down the river, seven gallons come from the uplands, an area of approximately 335,000 acres, as compared with 71,000 acres inside the Doncaster area. The hon. Member for Central Leeds and my hon. Friend who represents South Leeds (Mr. Whiteside), except in this case where he is misrepresenting it, say, "Why should Leeds be called upon to pay a single penny towards the draining of land below Doncaster?" Almost every pint of water that is used for sewage or that descends from the heavens on to Sheffield and Doncaster finds its way into the river Don. Not a penny piece per annum would it cost the Ouse Catchment Board for draining purposes for Sheffield or Rotherham. Does the Ouse Catchment Board refuse to receive the requisite rate from Sheffield and Rotherham because it does not cost them anything Not a bit of it. They will collect the rates from Sheffield and Rotherham and elsewhere. Doncaster must pay for the removal of the water that descends upon those towns.
    The truth of the matter is that Leeds and Bradford and other county borough councils go out 20 or 30 miles to other

    1885
    areas, picking up millions of gallons of water per day for domestic and other uses, and dispose of it by sending it down to the lowlands, and then the lowlands are confronted with the problem of dealing with the water used by Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield and the rest. The area, that drains into the river Don within the Doncaster area is 71,000 acres. The area served by the river Don outside the Doncaster area is 335,000 acres. Obviously, therefore, the uplands, Sheffield, Rotherham and the rest, are responsible. If called upon, the Catchment Board are obliged to make a contribution and, if the contribution is not large enough, the Doncaster Board, assuming that the Bill fails to get a Second Reading, could invite the right hon. Gentleman to increase the grant that the Catchment Board had to make to the Doncaster Board. The Catchment Board really is as much responsible to-day as it will be if the Bill passes. Any contribution that the Trent area will be called upon to make to the Don Valley area is so infinitesimal as not to be worth attention. It is true that Burton and Birmingham are 60, 70 or 80 miles away from the seat of the Don Valley trouble but there is an area of 42,700 acres which drains itself into the river Went, and finally into the Don, but two-thirds of that area is in the Trent area, as remote as the Don Valley is from Birmingham. Doncaster is in no way responsible for the geographical situation and for the fact that rivers run one way instead of another.
    If the Trent Catchment Board were called upon to accept responsibility for the very small portion referred to, there would be no colossal sum and no great burden imposed either upon Birmingham, Burton, Chesterfield or any one of the county boroughs in that area. Indeed had it not been for the urgency of the Doncaster problem, and the fact that the Doncaster Bill was passed in 1920, automatically that portion which it is suggested in the Bill should be handed to the Trent would have remained part of the Trent Catchment Board area, and. that portion which the Bill suggests should be transferred to the Ouse Catchment Board would automatically have been part of the Ouse Catchment Board area. It is merely the urgency of the problem that creates the necessity for the Bill at all. I have a telegram here from the clerk to the West Riding
    1886
    County Council which is an indication of what is taking place. In addition to Bradford and Leeds, which do indirectly send large quantities of water to the north side of Doncaster, Sheffield at this moment has the power to collect from the Derwent Valley 6,500,000 gallons of water each day, all of which finds its way ultimately into the river Don and to the Don Valley.
    Mr. EADY: Does it affect the backwash?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member leaves me guessing when he talks about backwash. The only backwash that L have been acquainted with for several years is the backwash that the Don Valley suffers from the uplands, who do not contribute a penny towards the misfortunes which have overtaken the residents in that area. They are responsible, and they are liable under Clauses 21 and 30 to make a contribution. The only point is whether they would prefer to allow the Doncaster Board to carry out the work and then charge the Ouse and Trent Catchment Boards with some financial responsibility which will ultimately be settled by the Minister. I should have thought that the local authorities, and county borough councils especially—and the county councils in both cases support the Bill and both the catchment areas support the transfer suggested in the Bill—if the work has to be undertaken and carried out, they being called upon subsequently to make a financial grant, would have preferred to design the work or have it designed for them by their engineers, to determine the cost, and to have full control over expenditure in the whole area referred to.
    Mr. WILLIAM ALLEN: The county boroughs have only a minority representation.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would point out that many hon. Members wish to speak on the Bill to-night, but, if we have these constant interruptions, it will be impossible for all of them to do so.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not think that the argument that county boroughs are in a minority is relevant at all. If the county borough councils were in a majority on the catchment boards they would either oppose or support this Measure. I am not at all satisfied that

    1887
    the county councils are less able to reach a fair and equitable decision than the county boroughs; and the county councils, who, apparently, with some other members of the catchment boards constitute a majority, have agreed to the possibility of taking over those two areas and tacking them on to the catchment boards. With regard to the question as to whether the uplands flood the lowlands or not, I think that the best evidence one can obtain is from the report of the Royal Commission who examined the problem for a very long time. In paragraph 39 they state:
    "The waters from the Uplands reach the outfall much more rapidly than they did formerly, and a much greater volume of water is poured into the outfall in a much shorter space of time than would pass by natural means. This has driven the Lowlander to expend vast additional sums on protective measures in the shape of barrier banks and on increased outfall facilities."
    In paragraph 41 they say:
    "Again, during the last century the population of these Islands has multiplied exceedingly. Villages have grown into towns, and the population has become so dense that for hygienic purposes artificial systems of sewage have of necessity been resorted to, and foreign water supplies installed, drawn either from other catchment areas at a horizontally distant source or vertically from deep wells fed from pervious rock outcrops, so that from some large towns many millions of gallons of effluent are daily voided into the outfall river, with results in time of flood which may be bettor imagined than described."
    In paragraph 42 they say:
    "To put it shortly, rivers under modern conditions of roofing, paving, roadmaking, water supply, sanitation and agricultural under-drainage are called upon to discharge functions for which they were not designed by nature."
    That was the considered opinion of the Royal Commission who sat to examine the problem. I am prepared to take their word for it, though there seems to be no doubt about it. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, by the way, as hon. Members already understand, is to vary the map of the Ouse and Trent Catchment Boards and that will put an additional length of the River Don within the catchment area. This leaves in existence the benefits of Part II of the Doncaster Act where colliery proprietors are obliged to make some contribution as the result of subsidence occurring from the working of their collieries. It seems,
    1888
    therefore, that the catchment boards in their own interests, particularly if they fear large financial burdens, ought to welcome an opportunity of having transferred to them the powers to levy rates upon mineowners who are very largely responsible for many of the difficulties in such an area as that at Doncaster. However, Doncaster cannot do that by itself. If the people in various parts of the country want coal, colliery proprietors will persist in sinking coal pits. Once they spend £1,000,000 upon the sinking of a pit and the developing of a colliery, they require 3,000 men who with their families make a population of from 8,000 or 9,000 people. Such is the case below Doncaster at the moment. Therefore, in the production of coal the necessity for housing and the social welfare of these people ought to be a consideration to Leeds, Burton-on-Trent, Bradford and elsewhere. We should be able to persuade them of the fairness of calling upon them to pay for ridding the low areas of the water which falls on the uplands and descends in course of time.
    It is said that the Ouse Catchment Board cannot afford bigger burdens. That implies that the vast areas of the Ouse Catchment Board, with a rateable value of £18,000,000, and of the Trent Catchment Board with a rateable value of £21,000,000, canont afford to pay a penny extra in rates for ridding themselves of surplus water, and that the small area of Doncaster ought to be compelled to foot the bill. This vast rateable value cannot afford it, yet the very small area is to be made to afford it! It 'scarcely seems equitable. When I tell hon. Gentlemen that at the moment one of the drainage boards inside the Don Valley is paying a 4s. or 4s. 6d. drainage rate, they will see what it will mean to the farmer if they impose a further burden, upon him, not only of draining his own land but of providing drainage for land many miles away from him.
    To the right hon. and gallant Gentleman I would say that I hope the House will see the wisdom of accepting his Measure. It is certainly the only possible means of obtaining any finality with regard to the terrible problem in the neighbourhood of Doncaster. I wish hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to see the wisdom, fairness, equity and justice of supporting the Measure. I want them also to assist me in persuading the right

    1889
    hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Government, because of their negligence over such a long period, have some responsibility to see that the work is carried out. A definite statement was made by the late Minister of Agriculture that Government grants would be forthcoming to help to carry out such schemes as the one which we have in mind. I do not think that the Government, despite the desire for economy, ought to imagine that it is economy to withhold Government funds for such a desirable purpose. I think that the problem is a joint one and that a Government grant ought to be forthcoming. The local authorities should be called upon to make some payment. Mineowners will ultimately be levied as a result of this work. The internal drainage boards will be called upon to pay increased rates, and the county and county borough councils will be called upon. It is a five-handed reel. If we accept the Bill, and I hope it will receive a unanimous Second Reading, I trust that the representatives of the county borough councils will see the fairness of accepting the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman and appreciate the desirability of undertaking the work as quickly as possible.
    If this work is to be undertaken it will cost a large sum of money, but not the £2,000,000 referred to by some of the county borough clerks. The maximum figure that has ever been mentioned by any of the experts who have examined the problem, notably the two mining engineers who gave reports to the commission in 1923, visualising a gigantic scheme, was about £750,000. Other schemes have been produced estimated to cost £250,000. I think that such a scheme as that might have been undertaken with a big enough Government grant, but not any scheme costing £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 as some Hon Members have been made to believe. The five bodies should be called upon to make a fair contribution towards the cost, because the work is urgent and it is of national as well as local importance. Therefore, I hope we shall get a Second Reading for the Bill, and that it will meet with little or no obstruction in Committee, so that hope and security can be enjoyed by a large number of coal miners, farmers and others in the area, who have enjoyed no security for the last two or three years.
    8.49 p.m.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
    The Bill is symptomatic of a number of movements of the same character. I make no criticism or complaint of the way in which my right hon. Friend has introduced the Bill and the procedure which he proposes to adopt. It is obviously the most convenient and probably the least expensive machinery to arrive at a decision after the Second Reading of the Bill. There are, however, several matters in the Bill which are matters of principle rather than of local detail. I deprecate the remarks which were made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who seemed to disparage the energy and diligence of the town clerks who have been looking into this matter and acting for their town councils, as the officers of those bodies. I do not think that disparagement was deserved. I note that the hon. Member quoted, without the slightest blush or hesitation, a document which has been provided by the clerk to a county council. I do not wish to introduce any personalities into the Debate, and therefore I will leave that matter.
    The Bill proposes to take over a very difficult and very expensive area for drainage purposes. Great urgency is the explanation of this course. A Royal Commission sat to deal with the Don Valley area and as a result of that Commission an Act was passed in 1929 and a board was set up which, without any disparagement or criticism, does not appear to have been able to effect very much since its creation. We have heard that they received a sum of money from the Ouse Catchment Board, which they have spent in one way or another. They have created officers and gathered together a staff, but beyond that and the cutting down of some willow trees we have seen very little of their activities. Shortly after the board was set up a far reaching and wider Act, the Land Drainage Act of 1930, was passed. That created a great number of difficulties and embarrassments. Those who have been some time in this House will remember the constant trouble we had and the many documents we received dealing with the drainage in other areas further south. These catchment areas cover huge dis-

    1891
    tricts. I happen to be in the Trent catchment area which extends from the Highlands of Staffordshire, through the Potteries to Wolverhampton, astride the watershed to Birmingham, falling into the Trent, and receives the waters of Leicestershire and of the Highlands of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and also waters from Lincolnshire, and so into the sea. That is an enormous area and takes a long time to survey. These matters cannot be dealt with in a burry. Water has ways of its own. It is a very intractable subject to deal with. It requires great study and observation. To think that water will adapt itself to any scheme that is devised is perfectly useless. It is hopeless to try to force water where it refuses to go. Therefore, you cannot proceed with these matters in great hurry.
    The Minister proposes that the Doncaster area shall be taken over by the Ouse and Trent Catchment areas, and the Government thereby is relieved of the necessity or the obligation of making the grant which was proposed by Dr. Addison. We in those catchment areas feel extremely uneasy in taking over these enormous and unknown liabilities. The hon. Member for the Don Valley spoke about a scheme costing £750,000, as if it was a comparatively small sum. Even the £250,000 which has been mentioned is a very considerable sum in these days. The people in the catchment areas to which I refer view with anxiety the taking over of great liabilities which they did not conceive when the catchment areas were set up. It would be another thing if the Minister of Agriculture were to carry out the obligation and the undertaking of its predecessor. If the Don Valley scheme was set up, with the main works constructed and in operation, there would be something to take over; but that is not the case. A big undertaking is necessary, and no one seems to be in a position to know what to do about it. There have been many subsidences in the Don Valley. They very often occur in colliery districts and, therefore, there has been a great deal of flooding. The water has to be pumped out and drained.
    There has been a most striking and inexplicable lapse on the part of someone in the Don Valley, because land which is marked on the Ordnance Survey as liable to flooding has been built upon by large
    1892
    housing schemes. Either the local authority, or the county council, or the Minister of Health, should have taken action to prevent such a thing occurring. But there it is, and we have heard lamentable accounts of the disasters which have occurred owing to floods. There were floods all over the catchment area at the same time and a great deal of expense was entailed. I remember the plight of Derby, and Burton for the first time for 50 years experienced floods in the town. Other minor catastrophes and losses were also entailed by the flooding of villages in the agricultural areas. All these matters point to the fact that the catchment board has a great deal to do themselves without having cast on their hands the burden of a new undertaking, a very costly undertaking and a very risky undertaking. In the case of the area of the Don Valley which it is proposed to transfer to the Trent Catchment Board it must be remembered that there are a number of old drains which will have to be renewed, machinery kept up and maintained, in some cases renewed, and banks which will have to be kept in constant order. Naturally everyone in the catchment area is somewhat alarmed at the proposal.
    It must be remembered that the county boroughs are liable for about 60 per cent. of the expenses of the catchment board, while they have only one-third of the representation. Many of these county boroughs contribute nothing at all considerable to the problem; they do not empty any large quantities of effluents into the streams, yet they are already liable, without undertaking these greater liabilities proposed by the Bill, to very heavy charges being made upon them. The Minister talks as if the Bill will entail no larger liability upon county boroughs than a 2d. rate. That is true, there is a maximum of 2d., but why should the maximum be reached? The Minister is making certain that the maximum will be reached by putting this burden on the area. Naturally they are alarmed. During all the time that there has been this flooding in certain areas due to the fact that more modern trenches were not built to deal with the rush of waters, we have been spending money in order to look after ourselves and protect ourselves, yet we are to be precepted and rated in addition for some other authority who have not been so

    1893
    vigorous in dealing with their own difficulties. That is very hard.
    This Bill is wrong in principle as it transfers a large area to another catchment board. I do not wonder that the hon. Member for the Don Valley rejoices over the Bill because his interests are being relieved of a very great liability, which other people will have to carry for them. That is a very serious matter, especially in these hard times and particularly when the burden is to be placed upon people who have interest in the area, no obligation, who have done them no damage or put them to any expense; which is the case as far as the Trent Catchment Board is concerned, and also, as far as I heard listening to the argument, is the case as regards the Don area. The Don area might very well be left to its own scheme until it has set up at least the main works which are necessary, and until the Government have discharged the obligation undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture only two or three years ago. I view this Bill and its consequences to many of the county boroughs with alarm and, therefore, I must ask the House to support me in my opposition to the Measure.
    9.4 p.m.
    Mr. DENMAN: The right hon. and gallant Member who has moved the rejection of the Bill has covered the ground so adequately that he has rendered my task easy. It is easier because the Bill undoubtedly commits greater injury to the Ouse Catchment, Area than to the Trent area. If it hits the Trent area with whips it hits the Ouse area with scorpions. Let me recall a piece of advice given some years ago; when the two Front Benches are in agreement the rest of the House had better look out for itself. I give them that warning, because it was an extremely suspicious alliance of the Front Benches on a subject on which I think they ought to have been in disagreement. However, in this Debate we are not really in much disagreement about facts. It is a disagreement almost on morals; the facts are admitted—the fact of the flooding of the Don area, the need for a considerable undertaking to relieve that flooding, and the effect of this Bill in taking a considerable amount of that expenditure from the Doncaster District Drainage Board and imposing it on the catchment areas of the Ouse and Trent. Those things are common ground.
    1894
    The Mover and the supporter of the Bill in their arguments proved rather too much when they said that they had adequate powers to do all this under existing law, and that the Bill really made no difference. If that is so we have only to reply, "Very well, leave us as we are and we are content." But that is not the fact. The Minister, of course, guarded himself with accuracy by saying that in theory there was a difference. But the theory runs into practice. The difference of making the Ouse Catchment Area responsible for the normal upkeep of the lower Don is a heavier obligation than the existing obligation to contribute towards that, by reason of the fact that it is responsible for the upper waters. I had better allude to a few words in the Act of 1931, that make the position of the Ouse Catchment Board quite clear:
    "Where it appears to an internal drainage board that by reason of the quantity of water which their district receives from lands at the higher level…it is fair that a contribution towards their expenses should be made by the catchment board. They may make an application…"
    That is a Clause under which the Ouse Catchment Board has made a contribution and under which we should, of course, continune to make a reasonable contribution; but when we are asked, as we are by this Bill, to upset that scheme, to upset the careful balance of 1929–30, and to impose the entire obligation of the upkeep of the lower Don on the Ouse Catchment Board, we say there is no justification for it. We are having imposed on us a burden without one single corresponding advantage of any kind. The question of the representation on the Catchment Board has been raised. There, so far from the position being met with some kind of counterbalancing advantage the position is made worse; instead of having one-third of the board, as now, we shall have a. lesser proportion in future by reason of an addition which is quite clearly necessary if the Bill is to be carried. There could be some compensating advantage from a device for guarding them without undermining the scheme of the 1930 Act. It would be possible in this special Catchment Board to create a finance committee on the precise analogy of a county council finance committee, with the powers of a county council finance committee, composing that entirely of those

    1895
    responsible for the payment of the money. That would be a real method of giving us some countervailing advantage for the burden that is proposed here.
    That is simply our case. The Bill is imposing a new burden without a shadow of reason. Are the Government wise in using the vast powers of their majority to override the very clearly expressed wishes of the borough councils? I say that no Government in this century could have done that, except this Government. I am thinking of the War Government, and I remember that even that Government had limitations to its powers. But no Government at all could have overridden the great boroughs in the way that this Government proposes to do. We admit that the Government can do it. But what are the Government doing by overriding the wishes of the great boroughs? They are teaching those boroughs that a strong Government is a danger, that they cannot be sure that they will have fair play from a Government strong enough to come and use them as the universal cow to be milked. That is not a good lesson.
    Then we are asked by both the Minister and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to show neighbourliness. I should very poorly represent my Yorkshire constituents if I did not show a real appreciation of that request. Of course we show neighbourliness, but it is reasonable for us to ask that the Minister should have regard to the conditions that make neighbourliness possible. The classical example of neighbourliness was the Good Samaritan. [HON. MEMBERS: "He paid his 2d. !"] He paid the 2d. yes, but what happened when he did it was not that a policeman came up and said, "Fork out 2d. or I will take you to the court in Jerusalem." That attitude would have killed all spirit of neighbourliness. If I know the spirit of the Good Samaritan in the least I am sure he would have reminded the policeman that they were on the road to Jericho and would have invited him to go there; and the 2d. would have remained in his pocket. I know that the Minister desires us to show a neighbourly spirit and desires to inculcate a spirit of good will. That being so, let him come to an agreement on the subject within the powers of the existing Acts. Admittedly those powers are very considerable. The hon.
    1896
    Member for Don Valley told us that we of the boroughs had said that we had no responsibility for the upper waters. We never said that. We agree that we have some responsibility.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member is misinterpreting my remarks. Some hon. Gentlemen representing Leeds and Bradford, 30 or more miles from Doncaster, declared that they did not send one spoonful of water into the Doncaster area, and that we controvert.
    Mr. DENMAN: Geographically that is true; but it does not affect the fact of the case, which is that we know we have to contribute financially to the Don Valley by reason of being a portion of the catchment area and being represented on the catchment board. But we resent this extra burden. Let the Minister revert to what seems to be the method of treating this matter in a spirit of good will. It is admitted that the real problem is the carrying out of one major work in the lower Don. Cannot we isolate that and treat it separately? Cannot we leave the Doncaster District Drainage Board to carry on its normal work, and leave the catchment area and so on, and take out this particular work and come to an agreement between the Ouse Catchment Board, the Doncaster District Drainage Board and the Treasury, jointly to undertake this work? Assuming that it is £200,000 and allowing 4¼ per cent. for interest and sinking fund, that is a sum of £8,500 and surely that amount could be found between those three authorities in one way or another. That is a method by which we could come to a really amicable understanding and meet the urgent necessities of the case which everybody admits.
    There are financial advantages in that method. The Minister would obviously feel great difficulty in approaching the Treasury at the present time for a general grant for drainage. It would be quite different if he were to approach the Treasury for a special limited grant for a specific purpose like that isolated act of drainage in the Don Valley And he would have a much better chance of success. It would also avoid legal costs. The Minister spoke of this select committee as a judicial body. No doubt it will give an admirable decision. I should not be surprised if it found the Preamble of the Bill not proved. But who is going

    1897
    to benefit primarily out of it? Surely it is the lawyers. This will be a long inquiry, fought bitterly by the borough councils and I am sure I speak for every borough council when I say that they would prefer to spend the money not in legal controversy but in useful work in the Don Valley. Further, there is the question of time. Obviously this committee cannot be set up before we reassemble next year. It will be some time in February before it gets to work and the Minister knows the congestion which there is at that period of the year. If he gets his Bill by Easter he will be extremely lucky.
    Compare the process of good will with the process of the steam roller. If he isolates that scheme and gets the three parties together and comes to an agreement all that might be done this year. I do not know what the position is as to the plans for doing the work but everybody will agree that the sooner the work care be got on with, for the benefit of the unemployed, the better. Therefore I urge the process of good will rather than the process of the steam roller. I shall reluctantly have to divide against this Bill if the process of the steam roller is to be used. I shall do so with the greatest reluctance because I am not only a loyal but an enthusiastic supporter of the Government, and I have often, in public and in private, gone out of my way to applaud the special virtues of the Minister in charge. It would be a cause of great regret to me to have to divide against the Government. If, however, the Minister gives us an assurance that he will actively pursue the path of good will, I admit that in those circumstances lie ought to have a Second Reading of this Bill because, should negotiations break down obviously he would want to get on with it. I suggest that we should, by general consent, give him a Second Reading, on the assurance that he will do his best to come to an agreement within the ambit of the existing law.
    9.19 p.m.
    Major MILNER: There does not seem to be a great deal more to be said in opposition to dm Bill after the speech of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). I should like to compliment the Minister on the conciliatory and pleasant way in which he has brought forward this matter and glided over all its difficulties.
    1898
    I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was hardly so clever and it is a matter of regret to me that on a question of this sort he should have committed the error of judgment which in my view he did commit. He ought to have made it clear that he was only speaking in this matter for himself and not for the Front Bench, or for the second or third benches either, on this side of the House.
    It seemed to me that my hon. Friend was rather laboured in his defence of the Doncaster Drainage Board. There is an old French proverb to the effect that he who excuses himself, accuses himself. My hon. Friend devoted two-thirds of his speech to defending the Doncaster Board against the charge of not having carried out the duties imposed on them by the 1929 Act. I believe that that board was constituted very shortly after the passing of the Act and that it has had voluntary contributions from the Ouse Catchment Board. I understand that it has not even prepared the rate books necessary to enable it to levy any, sort of rate from its constituent parts and that it has not done any work at all on that part of the river committed to its charge, namely, the lower Don. As the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) has said, it has a staff and a suite of offices arid no doubt its members meet and have a cup of tea arid a good cigar out of the contributions made in such a friendly fashion by the county boroughs. But it is grossly neglecting the work committed to it by this House. That may be a good and proper reason for taking its powers from it, but it is exceedingly hard on the county boroughs to have this additional obligation imposed upon them.
    I would like to add to the appeal of the hon. Member for Central Leeds to the Government not only for good will but for something in the nature of financial help. I had a good deal to do with the passing of the Land Drainage Act of 1930, in regard to which there was agreement on all sides that a national contribution was necessary. That was an important factor in determining the attitude taken by all parties on that Measure. It may be said that the county boroughs took that Measure very complacently and very easily. So they did, because they took at their face value the assurances given by Members of all

    1899
    parties that the Government of the day would make a national contribution. During the Committee stage of the Money Resolution the then Minister of Agriculture, Dr. Addison, said:
    "The principle that we recognise is that in connection with this work there must be national grants…I think it is recognised as was set forth by the Royal Commission that if this important work, which is not only of a local but of a national character, is to be taken in hand there must be some national contributions in aid."
    Further, Mr. Guinness, as he then was, who led the then Opposition when that Financial Resolution was under consideration said:
    "It is quite evident from the course of the discussion that it is in accordance with the general wishes of all parties that assistance should be given from the Exchequer to these drainage areas. It is long overdue. The present system has involved great injustice by concentrating upon small and poor sections of the community what, in reality, owing to the growth of civilisation which has accentuated the probelm of drainage, is a national responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1930; cols. 1515–1519, Vol. 240.]
    There was clearly an understanding which I think the Minister of Agriculture does not deny, that that national contribution should be forthcoming. The right hon. Gentleman pleads the present economic situation as justification for not making a firm offer of some kind of aid, although I gather that we have his good will and that he will press the question of a national contribution if this work is undertaken. He pleads the present economic situation, but I would point out that the economic situation affects equally all the county boroughs. One knows that in almost all of them there is a very great amount of unemployment and that rates are very high. The curious thing is that we have my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley—who lives next door to the race-course of Doncaster which has a very small rate, indeed, much smaller than the City of Leeds—seeking to impose an additional obligation on the City of Leeds and other cities, while himself enjoying, by reason of the race-course largely patronised by those who come from Leeds and other cities, the position of living in comparative ease.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the Doncaster
    1900
    ratepayers have enjoyed no benefit from their race-course in the last three years?
    Major MILNER: I was not aware of that fact. The hon. Member has offered to invite me to the races, though the formal invitation has not yet been forthcoming. I would point out that the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), so recently as the Debate on agriculture in June, suggested that national money might well be better spent on land drainage work of the character we are discussing rather than en roads and bridges and matters of that sort. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, together with the hon. Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), sat on the Royal Commission, and he knows a good deal more about this problem than most of us, and he has told the House on more than one occasion that this matter is one for national contribution. He has made a practical suggestion, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will convey to the proper quarter, as to how these moneys might very properly and fairly be found by the Government who, as the Minister says, will continue to recognise their responsibilities.
    There is one other matter to which I would like to refer. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley rather led the House to think that the Doncaster drainage area was only a small area and a poor one, which was unable to meet any large financial obligation. In the first place, I would point out that the area it covers is something like 330 square miles, including seven collieries. The Royal Commission thought the area well able to bear financial responsibility and the Act of Parliament set up a fully representative board to deal with the powers committed to it. Owing to the inaction of the drainage board it is impossible to say what the precise financial position is, and, through their not having prepared the rate books or levied any rates, it is impossible to say with any precision what sort of funds might be forthcoming from that area.
    I should like to make this further point. The House ought not to be left with the impression that the position, if this Bill now before the House is passed, will be the same as it would be in regard to voluntary contributions under Section 21 of the Land Drainage Act. The over-

    1901
    riding words of that Section are that., if it is fair that a contribution should be made, then the internal drainage board shall receive such contribution from the catchment board. It seems to me it might well not be fair to ask the whole of the Ouse catdhment area to make a large contribution under Section 21, whereas under this present Bill the Ouse Catchment Board will have to deal with the whole area equitably and fairly, and presumably will have to lay a considerable burden on the county boroughs, as on the whole of the Doncaster drainage area.
    The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) made a number of extremely valuable suggestions which I hope will be considered in a friendly spirit by hon. Members and by the Minister of Agriculture. I hope the Minister will have regard to the position that at present the Government appear to have withdrawn—I will not use stronger language which I have heard suggested in regard to the Government's action in this matter—from the partnership which they voluntarily entered into when the Land Drainage Act was passed and when the financial responsibility was placed on the drainage boards, the county boroughs, the county councils and the Government. They have withdrawn from that partnership and through the medium of this House they are asking the county boroughs to carry the baby which they undertook to hold at the time when the Act was passed. I hope that by the vote we have on this Bill to-night some indication, at any rate, will be given by hon. Members of their views on the action of the Government, and. I trust by the time the Bill comes before the House again they will have considered their present position, and that it may then be possible, in the spirit of neighbourliness which has been suggested, for the county boroughs to enter into the work which undoubtedly requires to be done, and to do it feeling that not only the Doncaster area but the Government are contributing to what must be an expensive task.
    9.33 p.m.
    Major HILLS: I agree with much that tae previous speaker has said and that this work has to be done. The flooding which took place this year must be stopped, and the real question we are discussing to-night is who is to pay for it? I would
    1902
    remind the last speaker that this is not only a question which concerns the county boroughs. It concerns the non-county boroughs who are subject to the county rates, and a large part of the cost will fall on them. I am not sure that ultimately the cost will not fall on the country districts, for it will be spread all over the area of the Ouse and Trent, and all parties will have to pay. However you look at it, this Bill does place a charge on those who are now free from the charge, and, whether they are in Leeds or Ripon, the inhabitants of those very diverse cities will equally be hit by the extra rate.
    The Bill throws the whole cost not only of this work but of future work—and let it be remembered that future work may be very expensive—on to the Trent catchment area and the Ouse catchment area. I think it is agreed that by far the larger part of the cost will fall on the Ouse area. All through the report of the Royal Commission, and all through our discussions, ran the under-current that it was impossible to drain England effectively unless the Government contributed, and at the end of our report, after saying that in many Continental countries this obligation is recognised, we went on to say, of a Government contribution:
    "The principle involved can readily be justified in this country so long as the present system is maintained, whereby only a small proportion of the national income is chargeable for defraying the cost of essentially national services from which the whole community derives benefit."
    Here we are charging a small proportion of the country with a charge from which the whole country benefits. Then again, as has been said before, Dr. Addison, when he was Minister of Agriculture, practically promised a Government contribution, and it was on that understanding that that very controversial Bill got through so easily. Lastly, Section 55 of the Land Drainage Act lays down the way in which the Government can contribute. May I remind the Minister that no economy is involved here? The work has to be done. Anyhow, the work will be done. We cannot save money by not doing the work, for we have to prevent the flooding of the constituents of the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and of other hon. Members as well, and the only question is, Who pays for it?

    1903
    There is a very strong case for a grant, but I fully realise the difficulties. I know how hard it is to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a grant. I do not ask for a grant in this case, but I plead very forcibly for the use of some of the money which is now spent on roads. Too much has been spent on roads. The speed tracks that are built all over the country do not benefit the locality, for they largely carry through traffic that does not stop, yet the maintenance falls on the area through which these roads run. In drainage we have national work of an essential character, in some cases of a productive character, a far more useful use of that money than spending it on roads. I hope the Minister will consider that point, because the money has to be spent.
    The country cannot allow what occurred the last time to happen again. It has to be stopped somehow, and I can imagine no better object for expenditure than this, and no better source or spring from which to draw that money than the swollen coffers of the Road Fund. Otherwise my constituents will be taxed for the benefit of the constituents of the hon. Member for the Don Valley. I am told that the urban district council of Bentley with Arksey built these houses, or some of them, on land that they knew, or ought to have known, was liable to flooding, and I do not think that that is denied. It is very hard on those who live miles away from this district and have no community of interest with the people in the Don Valley area that they should be called upon to pay for what is, I admit, a great misfortune, but still a misfortune which arises from their own lack of foresight.
    All of us who think as I do have the serious question to put to ourselves as to whether or not we shall vote against the Bill on Second Reading. It would be very easy to do so; at the same time, I have to bear in mind that the Bill will not go through the ordinary course, but will go to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, before which all interests can be represented. But I am bound to point out to the Minister that the big, wealthy county boroughs, such as Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, and Birmingham, are able to brief counsel, call expert witnesses, and fight their case before the Joint Committee, but a non-county
    1904
    borough, with its smaller financial resources, and still less a small local authority, cannot do that. It is not, therefore, a complete answer, and it all brings me back to the equity of a grant from the Road Fund. I thought the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) put the matter very well when he talked of a partnership between the State and the localities, and I think the State ought to bear its share. For my part, though it is very tempting to vote against the Bill on Second Reading, I do not like doing so, when the Bill has this detailed and useful procedure to go through afterwards, but I think all of us should reserve our right, if the points we have in mind are not met to some extent anyhow, to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
    9.43 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: In supporting the Bill, I would like to respond to the invitation of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), when he suggested that instead of the Bill being put through by what he was pleased to call steam-roller methods, some attempt should be made to secure an agreement in order that the country boroughs and other interested parties should be spared the cost of fighting the Bill upstairs. I believe that some of his reasons for opposing the Bill are based to a certain extent on a misapprehension, and I feel that this Debate will have served a useful purpose if we can arrive at what the present position is and at what the position will be if the Bill is passed. When that has been done, I hope it will be possible for the county boroughs to withdraw their opposition.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke as if the Bill was an attempt to introduce an anomaly, and he said that it would be a departure from the principles laid down by the Royal Commission on Land Drainage. which were incorporated in the Act of 1930; but that is the exact reverse of the truth. The two principal findings of the Royal Commission which were put into effect by the Act of 1930 were, in the first place, that the channel of a main river ought to he under the control of the same drainage authority, and, secondly, that the cost of maintaining a main river should be spread over the whole of the catchment area. I would like to quote a few extracts which really go to the root of the whole matter.

    1905
    Paragraph 61 of the Commission's Report says:
    "In our opinion if drainage is to be effective the first requirement is to clear the main stream of the river beginning with the outfall and working up to the source."
    They go on to say:
    "In view of our recommendation that the whole of the main channel of the river from source to mouth should be under the control of the catchment area authority, it is eminently desirable that in setting up the catchment area authority all subsidiary drainage authorities on that main channel should be abolished if their powers are confined to the main channel or, if they are also charged with internal drainage, should be deprived of their powers in relation to the main channel."
    Arising out of this principle which they law down as being necessary for the proper carrying out of drainage operations, they go on to say at the same time, treat the cost of these operations should be spread over the whole catchment area. Then they say:
    "The consequence of the rule of benefit"—
    that is, the old rule of law by which only those people who have benefited can be called upon to bear the cost of a drainage system—
    "is that in the majority of cases drainage authorities have wholly inadequate areas over which they may levy rates for carrying out necessary drainage works…For these reasons, we are of opinion that the area of benefit should be extended and…comprise the whole of the hereditaments in the catchment area of the river."
    These were the two principles upon which the Act of 1930 was based, and here we have, in the case of the Don River and the Doncaster Drainage Board, a perpetuation of those two very anomalies with which the Act of 1930 sought to deal. It is the only case in the country where the upper reaches of a river are considered to be a main river and then, when the river gets bigger and boarder, when it gets down to the mouth, it becomes a river of an internal drainage authority. Take the Don in its upper reaches where it passes through Sheffield it is there being maintained at the cost of the whole of the Ouse catchment area. Further down, when it comes to Doncaster, the whole of the burden is ostensibly cast upon the ratepayers of the Doncaster area, subject of course to the right of a contribution, to which I shall refer later on.
    It may well be asked why, when the Act was passed in 1930, a special excep-
    1906
    tion was made in the case of the River Don. The obvious first answer is that Parliament was naturally unwilling to kill a babe within about a year of having given birth to it. Because of the urgency of the drainage problem in the Doncaster area, the Doncaster Drainage Board had been set up only in 1929, and only on the 16th October of that year had that drainage board held its first meeting. When the comprehensive Act was carried the following year, an obvious consideration was that an attempt should be made to fit the Doncaster Board into the catchment area and yet maintain its autonomy. The second reason was that exceptional, and, in fact, unique powers, were given to the Doncaster Board for imposing on the coal-mining interests the whole of the cost of drainage works which are necessitated by subsidence. At the present time there is no opposition from the coal-mining interests to the transfer of those powers to the catchment board, provided they are given additional representation. Had the Government in 1930, when they were setting up these catchment boards in other parts of the country, given special representation to the coal-mining interests in Doncaster, they would have had similar interests demanding representation on other catchment boards. These are the reasons why Doncaster was left in an anomalous position in 1930.
    After three years' experience, the Government have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to bring the Doncaster area into line with other parts of the country. The first reason is, of course, that the responsibility for these very extensive areas which have to be included bears very hardly on a comparatively small area like that which is looked after by the Doncaster Drainage Board. This has been made more acute by the necessary withdrawal of Government grants. There is also the question of the rating books. I was sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner) went out of his way to attack, upon very insufficient information, the Doncaster Drainage Board. The board has been confronted with a problem of great difficulty. It was only at the end of 1931 that it obtained the figures for assessments for Schedule A of the Income Tax upon which it could make any calculations.
    Major MILNER: Is there any reason why it should not have had them in 1929?
    Mr. MOLSON: Under the Act of 1930, after the board had been in office nine months, the whole basis of rating was changed from acreage to annual value, and it was only at the end of 1931 that it was able to get the figures upon which to calculate. From that time onwards, and indeed before that, the Board has carried out its obligation to set up boards inside its area, and it has been constantly pressing the Government to enable it to do what catchment boards have been enabled to do, to precept boards inside its area. No drainage authority in the country is faced with the problem of the Doncaster Drainage Board. There are no less than 17 catchment boards which exercise jurisdiction over a smaller area than the Doncaster Board, and, whereas catchment boards have been provided with machinery to precept the drainage authorities within their areas, the Doncaster Board has been called upon to levy individual rates upon each hereditament within its area.
    I have dealt with this at some length, because it is unfair and unjust that people who have been struggling against great difficulties during the last few years should be attacked in the way that they have been in the House of Commons in order to prejudice the House against a Bill to which that particular matter does not seem to be altogether germane. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) made a statement, which he said was not disputed, that the local authority of Bentley had built houses below the 23-foot contour line on land which is part of the survey of land liable to flooding. It is true that houses have been built in the flooded area, but I am instructed that not a single one was built by the local authority. The local authority, in fact, had not the power to prevent speculative builders from putting those houses up in that place. The local authority referred the matter to the Minister of Health, who advised them that as the by-laws had been complied with, he had no power to prevent those houses being built.
    The opposition to this Bill comes partly from the county boroughs in the area of the Trent Catchment Board, and partly from the county boroughs in the area of the Ouse Catchment Board. With re-
    1908
    gard to the Trent area, I think I can say they need have no apprehension of any works being carried out on the Torne at any time in the near future. There are many other urgent works further up the Trent, but as far as the people in the neighbourhood of Doncaster know there are not any large works to be carried out on the Tome. With regard to subsidence, under the Part II provisions which are transferred to the catchment board if damage or subsidence caused by coal mining leads to expense, the whole of that cost can be put upon the coal mining industry and does not fall on the ratepayers.
    With regard to the Ouse the opponents of the Bill can be divided into two entirely different kinds. There are those who are actually upon the Don, upland dwellers who are sending the water down, and I would suggest that in all fairness we should be able to claim a very large contribution from those uplanders. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said seven-eighths of the water which flows through Doncaster comes from the uplands. According to my own independent figures, it is six-eighths, but there is not much difference about that.
    What is of vital significance is that our drains have automatic sluices, and when the water reaches such a height that it would come over into Bentley those automatic sluices are closed, and on the two occasions when those great floods took place those automatic sluices were closed, and all the water that did the damage was water which came from outside the Doncaster area. No one is going to persuade me that when those automatic sluices were closed the water of the Doncaster drainage area climbed up and got into the River Don. The injury was caused by the water coming down from the uplands, where the rainfall is higher and the area upon which the rain falls is immensely greater.
    There are also areas like Leeds and Bradford which claim that they are not upon the Don, and that therefore they ought not to be made liable. The answer to that is that that objection ought to have been made in 1930, when the Land Drainage Act was passed. It was then laid down, following the recommendations of the Royal Commission, that the country should be divided up into drainage areas, and we in Doncaster

    1909
    have been suffering from that principle. Works have been carried out on the Don which were not in the smallest degree of interest to us, but Doncaster loyally paid the precept, and very pleased we are to think we could contribute to helping those in need of drainage works on the Derwent. Now the same thing arises again. Those who should be pleased to help are raising objections. So far as Leeds and Bradford are concerned, they are sending us water which has the effect of blocking up the outflow of the River Don and causing a banking up of the water. That water which they send down into the Ouse Catchment Area is, much of it, brought from outside that catchment area. It is therefore only right that they should be called up to pay some of the cost of these great drainage works, which are a necessity, and are made more costly because Leeds and Bradford are importing water into the area.
    If this Bill failed to pass there would be only three courses open. It is possible there would be a revival of an old suggestion to set up a special Don Catchment Board, in which case, of course, Sheffield and Rotherham would be called upon to make their contribution towards the costs of the work on the Lower Don. The hon. Member for Central Leeds referred in his speech to its being possible to carry out this change by purely executive action, and said why was not that done? Under Section 5, I think, of the Act of 1930 the whole of the Don could be coloured by executive action by the right hon. Gentleman, as being the main river of the catchment board, but if that, were done it would be doubtful if the Part II powers could be transferred. There is no question that the main river could be transferred. That could be done by colouring the map.
    Mr. DENMAN: The hon. Member will recollect that the recommendation has to come from the catchment board and the Minister has to hear objections to it. It is by no means an automatic procedure on the part of the Minister.
    Mr. MOLSON: That is perfectly true, but as the Ouse Catchment Board are asking for the Don River to be handed over to them, if the opponents of this Bill were successful in defeating it it does not need a great stretch of imagina-
    1910
    tion to assume that they would be willing to petition for the transfer by executive action.
    Mr. DENMAN: There was not a very large majority on the Ouse Catchment Board in favour of asking for the Don River.
    Mr. MOLSON: I can hardly be expected to go into the question of the majority by which a catchment board came to a decision, but that does not alter the fact that that request has been made. The position is that in that case it might not be possible to transfer the Part II powers imposing liabilities upon the coalowners in the district.
    The third alternative would be for the position to remain as it is at present. I am not going to say definitely that under this Bill there will not be some slight additional cost imposed upon the county boroughs, hut I am going to say that it is impossible to say whether that will be so or not, because at the present time the initial cost of these works would rest upon the Doncaster Drainage Board, less such contribution as the Minister of Agriculture, acting in a judicial capacity, could hold was fairly to be called for from the uplanders; and I have produced some evidence to show that in flood time 100 per cent., and out of flood time some 80 per cent., of the water which comes down to Doncaster comes from Sheffield and the Penistone area and the other uplands.
    It is true that at present the county boroughs have a right to appeal to the Minister if they are called upon to make too high a contribution, but under the very same Sub-section—Sub-section (5, b) of Section 21—there is a counter right of appeal in the event of the Bill being passed, so that it will be seen that in every case the county boroughs do still have a right of appeal. At present they have a right of appeal if the contribution made by the catchment boards to the drainage board is too high, but, alternatively, if the works are undertaken by the catchment board itself they have a right of appeal, if the catchment board does not precept the area which is benefiting by those works to a fair extent. If the Doncaster Drainage Board is abolished, the catchment area will be undertaking responsibility for those works, and round the area where the drainage board now has authority there

    1911
    will be internal drainage boards. Under the Measure it is not permissive, but obligatory, on the catchment board to precept those internal drainage boards for a preliminary contribution towards the work, and it is only what remains over that is subsequently spread evenly over the local authorities in other parts of the catchment area. If the representatives of the county boroughs are in any doubt as to whether Doncaster would and could be made to pay a fair contribution, they have, and would have under this Bill, an appeal to the Minister on the ground that Doncaster had not been called upon to pay an adequate contribution.
    I apologise for having spoken at such length and in such detail, but this is a matter which affects my constituency very intimately. This House showed great sympathy with those who suffered in the floods which happened twice in seven months at Bentley. The Government, who have been pressed to do something, have been in consultation with the two great catchment areas in the Doncaster drainage area, and the catchment boards responsible for the drainage of that area have come to the conclusion that the best and simplest way of dealing with this problem is for this Bill to be carried. I appeal to the opponents of this Bill to withdraw their opposition on the ground that it does away with an anomaly that has resulted in great injustice to the Doncaster area. I have endeavoured to show that under the provisions of this Bill there is adequate security by means of appeal to make certain that no unfair or excessive contribution would be asked from the county boroughs.
    10.7 p.m.
    Mr. PRICE: I rise to support this Bill. I consider that it is the only practical way of dealing with the drainage difficulty that now confronts the district surrounding Doncaster. I remember when the Doncaster Drainage Bill was passed in 1929. I was then a county council member, and many of us opposed that Bill on the ground that we foresaw that the limited area and the limited powers which were embodied in that Bill were not likely to meet the requirements which were necessary for the draining of the area of the borough of Doncaster and district. The drainage board had many difficulties to
    1912
    meet when the Committee was set up, but they have endeavoured with all their might and main to operate that Bill, as far as their powers will allow.
    Hon. Members who were here at that time know that the alteration in the valuation of land and the raising of rates for this purpose, which were brought into operation by the passing of the Land Drainage Acts, 1930, made it nearly impossible for the drainage board at Doncaster to start anything of a very large character. Moreover, a position has arisen in the drainage of this district, since the passing of that Act, that makes it just that the Minister should ask that the drainage board should be transferred to those two catchment areas. The Royal Commission, on whose report the 1929 Bill was based, visualised that the only right way to deal with drainage where rivers were concerned was to allow the catchment board to deal with it from the commencement to the end. A rather anomalous position, of which perhaps some hon. Members are not aware, exists in this drainage area. There is the Ouse Catchment Board, dealing with the area of Rotherham and Sheffield, higher up the valley than Doncaster. Rotherham and Sheffield are responsible on the hillside for sending down an excessive amount of water, which joins the river Don through its tributary the Rother. When the water gets down to Doncaster it leaves the authority of the Ouse Catchment Board and comes under the Doncaster Drainage Board. We consider that the board's area was very largely agricultural land that was under water many times, and therefore that the responsibility for draining that part of the river was a responsibility that ought to have been taken over by the bigger authority.
    Although I am not living in Doncaster, but close by, I have seen the destruction that has taken place to land and to property in the Doncaster area and the distress that has been caused by flooding of houses, and I am delighted to know that the Minister is to act as judge. Every hon. Member must recognise that this is a result of very minute investigation that has taken place in the district during the last two or three years, where experts' opinion has been given and where they have come to the conclusion that the transference of the functions of the board to the larger authority is the only

    1913
    possible and practical way to deal with the general situation. During the discussions on the Doncaster Drainage Act, many of us in the county area contended that the method of raising revenue in order to deal with that part of the South Yorkshire coalfield was an injustice to the ratepayers of that area. Their difficulty arises from the water being sent from the higher land towards the Pennine Range.
    It is very unfair for anyone representing boroughs or anywhere else to say, because they live on the hillside, that flooding in the low valleys is no responsibility of theirs. We have to recognise the fact that Rotherham and Sheffield pay very big contributions to the Ouse Catchment Board. Therefore, their water, which is very largely the greatest trouble that we have in the Don district, ought to be dealt with by that large board which has a bigger authority than the Doncaster Board could ever hope to have, and which will get contributions from boroughs whose water is troubling the Don district. I do not think that any borough Member has put forward a case in this Debate which justifies opposition to the Bill and a great deal of useless expenditure in preparing briefs for the defence of a Measure which, after all, does not propose to put any excessive burden upon any of the boroughs concerned. There is, however, one thing that I should like to say.
    I trust that the Government, if they receive support for this Bill, will not endeavour to get out of their responsibility as regards the financial arrangements which we were promised in the Measure that we are now proposing practically to repeal, thereby abolishing the Doncaster Drainage Board and handing over its rowers to the Ouse Catchment Board. I think that the Government must by now appreciate fully the fact that draining of this description is a national responsibility. During the past two or three years, many miners and agricultural labourers have paid a tremendous contribution in the loss of their family comfort and, in many instances, of their property and their weekly wages, and anything that can be done to remedy that state of affairs should be welcomed by every Member of the House.
    The borough members, when they oppose drainage schemes such as this in
    1914
    the lower areas, must not forget the fundamental truth that their own districts are very largely responsible for bringing water from the watershed and the higher lands for domestic purposes—which we do not grudge them—and that the surplus water of Leeds, Sheffield, and many other distant boroughs is brought into the surface streams and rivers, and very largely helps to create the difficulties that are experienced in the lower regions of the county, like the Doncaster district. I trust that the borough Members who have offered opposition to the Bill will, after the explanation that has been given by the hon. Member for the borough most affected, and in the speech of the Minister in introducing the Bill, see the justice of bringing this drainage area into line with all others in the country, so that a practical attempt may be made to remove a very great difficulty and to bring back some security and safety to the unfortunate inhabitants of the area.
    10.17 p.m.
    Mr. EADY: Although I am glad to have the opportunity of expressing my opinion on this important subject, I cannot, as a loyal supporter of the Government, say that it will give me pleasure to have to vote against this Bill, but, personally, I am in favour of the Amendment. I represent Bradford, and am also a member of the Bradford City Council and, to a certain extent, responsible for raising the money to pay the rates. In the earlier part of the discussion mention was made of the support and assistance which has been given to the Members representing the different towns by the various town clerks. I have received a telegram to-day which I should like to read. It is as follows:
    "Bradford Corporation representatives urge that in fairness to the county boroughs affected the Bill should he withdrawn. Their representations can be made to the Minister of Agriculture before he proceeds with the amendment of Drainage Act. 1930. If Second Reading is agreed to, much needless expense will fall on the county boroughs in opposing the Bill in Committee."
    That is signed by the town clerk. There are things in that telegram which would fit in very nicely with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake), and, although we in Bradford are many miles from the Don Valley, we have always been willing to

    1915
    recognise the rights of the Ouse Catchment Board. We have heard that a neighbourly spirit should exist throughout the whole area of the board. We in Bradford have to pay rates of 16s. 7d. in the pound, while the rates in Doncaster are 12s. I do not remember any occasion when the neighbourly spirit of Doncaster was exercised in the form of offering us assistance.
    Everyone in the country sympathises with the people in the Bentley area. When the Minister of Agriculture promised that something should be done to prevent a recurrence of flooding, the Government were making 75 per cent. grants to unemployment schemes. I want to ask why this matter was not settled at that time. It would have been a much better suggestion to bring it within a scheme which would have given relief to the unemployed. Although we are told that all grants and subsidies have finished, surely some arrangement could be arrived at in the way of setting up some kind of committee to go thoroughly into the matter without having to pass this Bill. If it goes through, it will entail an expenditure of £250,000. The hon. Member for Don Valley said the utmost limit that had been recommended was £750,000. The report says the total expenditure would amount to £926,000 for a 4-foot subsidence and £1,925,000 for a 10-foot subsidence. If it has already gone to the extent of four feet, and there is every probability that this will continue, where is the liability going to end?
    Up to the present all within those catchment areas have been in agreement, and have worked amicably together. We have been willing to pay our precept, and at this juncture I would remind the Minister of Agriculture that in his opening remarks he practically said that there would be no further precept, or that there would be a limitation. I hope that, in reply to the Debate, he will confirm that assurance. If we in Bradford were certain that 2d. on the rates would meet everything for which we had to be responsible, I do not think that I should have stood here and raised objections to the Bill. But I know that when you begin upon a scheme of this character and, for instance, start off with £250,000, it will not be the end. There is always some— thing which crops up. It has been said
    1916
    that the Trent Catchment Board will have to pay only a minor amount. If there things continue and £2,000,000 has to be spent, I am afraid that the money will fall upon the Trent Catchment Board. The Minister of Agriculture commented upon the question of Section 55. Personally, I feel that if some grant could be given by the Government it would be a much more satisfactory business.
    An important point has been raised as to the amount of water which passes from Bradford and Leeds. I should like the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to note that we do not pass the water into the River Don. It does not interfere with the backwash or the flow of the river, and consequently we ought not to be held responsible. Why was not this question settled in 1930? Why did not the Doncaster area ask for permission to have the question divided up at that time? I have not heard from any of the previous speakers why the matter was left over entirely until a disastrous flood took place. The River Ouse and the River Trent Catchment Boards were constituted after the 'passing of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, and the Doncaster Board was not interfered with when that Act was passed.
    If this Bill goes through it will add a very great liability to the county boroughs and the boroughs. As a member of a town council in a district where the rates are something like 16s. 7d. in the £, I say that we can ill afford to go any further. Certainly, it ought not to be left to the catchment, board to raise the precept, but it should be put into more responsible hands. I hope that if the Bill is not withdrawn it will be left so that some arrangement can be made for appointing a committee to go further into the matter, in which case probably some good could be arrived at. In the circumstances, if the Bill goes to a division I shall, unfortunately, have to vote against a Government that I loyally support.
    10.31 p.m.
    Mr. SOPER: I rise to support the Bill. I think I am the only county borough Member who has spoken this evening, apart from the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), who has supported the Bill. I do so for the reason that we in Barnsley have suffered, as Doncaster has suffered, from flooding.

    1917
    "One touch of nature makes the whole world kin."
    but when I hear hon. Members talking about neighbourliness, and then they say that they do not think they should assist or be called upon to pay, I think there is no neighbourliness in the matter. We are not Robinson Crusoes, living on a desert island. We are made up into hamlets and constituencies, and if there is trouble in one area it is only right that other areas should come to the aid of their less fortunate friends.
    In the town of Barnsley, which I represent, there are several hundred houses liable to flooding up to the bedrooms. When I was Mayor of Barnsley two years ago a serious flood occurred, similar to the Doncaster flood, and I shall never forget the plight of the citizens of the town that night. A few months afterwards the same thing occurred again. It is not only the inconvenience and damage that is caused by the floods from which the people suffer, but there is mental stress. Whenever there is excessive rain there is agitation and fear that once again the floods are coming, and that makes it terribly hard not only for the men and their wives but for the sick children and the old persons who inhabit the homes. I would ask the House not to be impressed by the strength of the opposition against the Bill but to consider rather the force of the arguments in favour of it. My own town council, of which I am a member, as all hon. Members know, perhaps, received a letter from the town clerk of Sheffield asking them to comment on a draft statement in opposition to the Bill, but my council declined to make any such comment. They expressed the opinion that this is Bill which ought to be supported. The flooding that we experience is not directly from the River Don but from the River Dearne, but it is clear to us that if an improvement is made in the Don then we who are on the Dearne will benefit. It will minimise the risk of flooding, and that is why we do not feel that we can offer any opposition to the Bill.
    It is true that we shall be called upon to pay, but we are called upon to pay now, under the present scheme, for things which are less directly beneficial, even if they benefit us at all. We have had to pay a precept for work on the
    1918
    Derment 30 miles away, for work which has benefited some of the very councils who are now opposing this Bill. They never suggested that because this work did not benefit Barnsley that we should not pay. We made no complaint and paid, and there seems to be nothing unjust in asking them to pay when the position is reversed. We in Barnsley accept the position that the flood menace in our area will not be relieved until we have dealt with the River Don, and until this is done the Ouse Catchment Board will not pay any attention to the smaller River Dearne, which is our own immediate anxiety. Therefore, I ask the House to accept the Bill as providing the only means of rescuing scores and hundreds of homes from a danger which constantly threatens them, and which safeguards the huge amount of public money that has been invested in these houses. It is useless to talk at this hour—
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear !
    Mr. SOPER: I have sat here from half-past seven o'clock and I believe in using my chance when I have it. It is useless to talk at this hour as to whether these houses should have been built where they have been built. If everything that has been said in criticism of the sites was true, and it is not, it would not afford a single reason why the House should not pass the Bill. The issue before us is whether the House is genuinely anxious that this evil should be combated in this resolute manner, or whether there is any other method, other than that provided by the Bill, which can le, so immediately effective. I do not think there is, and that is why I support the Bill.
    10.38 p.m.
    Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Soper) has made an eloquent speech in support of the Second Reading. Barnsley is not cry far from Sheffield, and the voice of Sheffield has not so far been heard in the Debate. Therefore, I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments in order to put the case on behalf of a near neighbour of Barnsley, and I put the case with the approval of my six colleagues who have the honour to represent the other Divisions of Sheffield. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that he found himself in

    1919
    the somewhat pleasant but unusual position of supporting a Measure introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. I find myself in rather the opposite position. I well remember when reading of the appointment of my right hon. and gallant Friend feeling great delight and looking forward to supporting him in sweeping measures for the assistance of agriculture. I even went so far as to expend one shilling of my Parliamentary salary in sending him a telegram of congratulation. Little did I expect that the first Measure to be introduced by him would be a drainage Bill. But history is on his side. I am sure he will recall that a distinguished figure who once sat on the Treasury Bench was accused of having only a policy of sewage; but Benjamin Disraeli lived to survive that jibe and became Prime Minister, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will do the same.
    There is one particular issue, with regard to this Bill, which I desire to emphasise. We all know the difficult financial situation of the Government.. I appreciate as much as anyone the point of view put forward by the Minister. But is there no financial stringency among the local authorities? Do we not know full well that rates are, if possible, a more oppressive form of taxation on the back of the producer than the taxation levied from this House? In an area such as Sheffield rates of this kind press on the producer as heavily as, if not more heavily than, direct taxation. I appeal to the Minister to think once again before he places on the depressed areas—they already are a great problem for the Government—an additional burden such as this. My right hon. Friend drew a rather fine distinction between what can be levied in theory and what can be levied in fact, but hon. Members in all parts of the House know full well that in the times in which we are living when it is possible in theory to levy a rate upon industrial hereditaments it is a very short time before that theory is translated unhappily into fact. I ask the Minister to consider that point.
    He told us also—and I gather that he was commending the Bill on this ground —that as the Bill was going to a Select Committee the local authorities would have the advantage of the services of skilled and learned counsel, who would
    1920
    put their case before the Select Committee. The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) told us that there were some areas more capable than others, from the financial point of view, of engaging learned counsel. What are the facts? No local authority in these depressed industrial areas is in a position to incur large expenditure in order to employ skilled and learned counsel. That argument does not commend the Bill to me. There was another argument put forward by my right hon. Friend. When I listened to that part of his- speech I wished that he were once more a private Member, and that Glasgow came within the area of the Ouse Catchment 'Board, because it was a very persuasive argument—the argument that neighbourliness is to he one of the considerations in persuading us to bear an additional industrial burden. Neighbourliness is not extinct. One of the most remarkable features, even in these hard times, has been the way in which, in industrial areas, the poor have helped the poor. But on one consideration: They want to know what effort the individual has made to put his own house in order. I suggest that that test applied to Doncaster is one which makes us think twice before accepting the argument of the Minister.
    Even at this late hour I am going to make an appeal to the Minister to withdraw the Bill and adopt a method which would surely appeal to the National Government—the method of conference. A conference on this subject would not last as long as the Disarmament Conference at Geneva. It would arrive at a conclusion more quickly and, even if such a conference were to have an unhappy result, the Members of this House and the people of our country have become familiar with protracted conferences at the end of which we have to pay even though we think it unjust. I suggest that this problem might be referred to a conference of all the authorities interested in this area and representatives of the Ministry and all those concerned, but if my right hon. and gallant Friend is determined to go ahead with the Bill and to resist the very strong case put up by its opponents to-night, let him at least give a greatly increased representation to the great boroughs which are going to suffer under the Bill. They have to find 60 per cent. of the money in order

    1921
    to deal with the back-slidings and neglect of Doncaster. If we are to go to the assistance of Doncaster let us at least have adequate representation and representation in some proportion to the huge sum which we have to find, I appeal to the Minister to consider the situation once more before we go to a Division, otherwise I shall find myself in the unhappy position of having to go into the Lobby against a Government which I was elected to support.
    10.46 p.m.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I feel that the representatives of the county boroughs are putting their case much too high. The hon. Member who has just spoken said that he had hoped that the Minister of Agriculture would have introduced sweeping measures to deal with agriculture. The hon. Member is behind the times. The Minister has already done that with regard to meat, and this Bill, so far as a very important agricultural district in Lincolnshire is concerned, is one of the most helpful Measures he could introduce. There has been so much talk about Doncaster that one might imagine that it was only the area round that important town which was affected, whereas the floods of this spring were disastrous to hundreds of farmers in the part of Lincolnshire with which I am concerned. It is true that illustrations of the Minister of Health going about the streets of Bentley, in what looked like a gondola, were widely published and that there were very few pictures of the fields of the farmers in the Isle of Axholme who lost the better part of their crops as a result of flooding by the water which Sheffield makes use of and then kindly passes on to us to cover our rich lands. That is what happened and we feel very bitterly about it and we are grateful that steps are at last being taken to deal with it. As the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) have already spoken, I must protest against the remark of the last speaker about the "back-slidings and neglect" of Doncaster. There have been no backslidings and there has been no neglect. At the most, all one can say is that there has been a great deal of bad luck over the whole affair. The Doncaster Board was originally set up ahead of the report of the Royal Commission as an emer-
    1922
    gency. A land drainage Measure was hurriedly passed through Parliament to deal with an urgent situation and then the Royal Commission reported and the whole question was in the melting pot.
    Major HILLS: The final report was two years before the Bill.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I think the Doncaster Drainage Board was set up on an interim report with regard to subsidence. Then there was the Land Drainage Royal Commission and the Bill founded on that, which exempted the Doncaster district from coming in to one or other of the catchment board areas into which it would otherwise have come. When those areas were delimited, there was no complaint from the county boroughs about coming into the areas when they knew they would have to pay for drainage works lower down the river. The Bill was accepted as the result of the Report of the Royal Commission, as far as I know, by everybody concerned. It is only now that, owing to the unfortunate breakdown of the Doncaster district area affairs, and when they have got to come in, that we hear anything about it. It is only now that some of these towns and county boroughs have heard about it, that they are complaining. It it had happened two years ago, and it had been in the original scheme, we would never have heard anything about it in this House any more than we have about any of the other county boroughs which are in the highlands and the catchment areas. As no hon. Member seems to take any exception to that statement, I take it that it is correct.
    I want to urge the House that it should not work itself into too great a controversy about this matter. It is proposed, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, that it should go to a Joint Select Committee and if it is any satisfaction to the opponents of the Bill, I would give them this small pleasure, that the last Drainage Bill propounded by a Government that went to a Joint Select Committee was thrown out by that Committee, of which, incidentally, I was a member. The House can therefore be well assured that all the points made in the Debate will be thoroughly put by probably even more competent counsellors—because they are paid for doing it—before that committee than they have been to-night. Just because I feel that, on behalf of my own

    1923
    constituents, I must do everything I can by word and vote to support the Minister in his efforts to-night, I do trust the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
    10.53 p.m.
    Sir ROBERT BIRD: Very early in this Debate we learned that there were considerable and animated family bickerings between members of the group of Yorkshire local authorities and although we in Staffordshire and Wolverhampton can look upon such family bickerings with complete detachment, we regret them nevertheless, because they hang around what we are agreed is a very great misfortune. But one thing we cannot look upon in Wolverhampton with detachment is what the Minister of Agriculture referred to in an expression in his speech at the opening of the Debate, namely, that a burden by precept was the most burdensome of all. We in Wolverhampton, situated as we are at a most remote point from Doncaster, some 115 miles, can give no harrowing tales of floods and difficulties such as those to which we have listened this evening, but with no interest whatever beyond that of common sympathy with the misfortunes of others, we are called upon to pay the piper, nevertheless, and we gain nothing at all from the proceeds and precepts that are raised in our area. Wolverhampton stands astride the great central ridge of England. In fact, it is not very remote from the spot which is considered by tradition to be the very centre of England, and in consequence of that, we happen to be on the edge of two great catchment areas, the Trent catchment area and the Severn catchment area. The boundary between those two areas goes through the very heart of the town, and therefore we are liable to have precepts from both the Trent area and the Severn area levied upon us. As a matter of fact, they are regularly levied. I believe that we enjoy the signal and rather doubtful distinction among all the county boroughs of having double precepts levied.
    Perhaps some hon. Members may think that because of these double precepts the town of Wolverhampton is a town of rushing torrents, whose waters tumble and leap from rock to rock, and that when there are heavy rainfalls they carry maybe destruction and risk of death such
    1924
    as have occurred in Bentley, but that is far from the truth. The burden of these precepts arises solely because we possess three sluggish driblets—that is all they can be called—two of which, the Smestow brook and the Graiseley brook, trickle gently toward the west, whilst the third, the Pendeford brook, trickles at no greater velocity and volume, towards the east. The least important of these three brooks, the Graiseley, is no more than six feet across, and the Pendeford has a maximum of 10 feet. The waters of the one which flows east add an insignificant amount to the volume of the great River Trent. Nevertheless, we have to pay for it relatively very dearly. In fact, there are some in Wolverhampton who hold that that water which flows east is almost as costly as their beer.
    We have a great anxiety over the liability which may fall upon us from the precepts, and that anxiety has not been lessened by the course of this Debate. Very large figures have been used. These catchment boards as public bodies have hardly got into their stride, but I am informed that the Trent Catchment Board started off with a modest precept of no more than £6,500, but in a very short period of time, rather less, I believe, than 12 months, it levied further precepts amounting to £44,500. Therefore, we feel that our anxiety is justified, and I want to stress the fact that we have no benefit whatever, direct or indirect, from any of this money that has to be paid. Now this Bill comes along, and whilst we were formerly anxious, we are beginning to become alarmed. Here are very necessary but costly works to be started for the improvement of the River Don, and in due course it is probable that relatively heavy precepts will be levied upon us for those works. If it could be advanced that the money to be spent on the improvement of the River Don would mean work for our 10,000 unfortunate people who lack it, we in Wolverhampton would look upon this Bill in a somewhat different way, but we cannot hope that a single penny of the proceeds of the precepts which will be paid by Wolverhampton will ever enter the pocket of any unemployed man or woman in Wolverhampton. We consider that this Bill is unnecessary. We feel that there are already adequate powers for carrying out the improvements to the River Don, and

    1925
    that these powers should be exercised. In that way, we, disinterested but sympathetic onlookers of what is being done to remedy the misfortunes in Doncaster, will be spared the precepts which will be laid upon us. On these grounds, I propose to follow my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) into the Lobby if his Amendment goes to a Division.
    11.2 p.m.
    Major ELLIOT: We have had a Debate for a considerable time, and all the arguments for and against the Bill have been advanced with considerable thoroughness. It is true that there are several Members in various parts of the House who have not yet spoken, but I wonder if it would be possible to appeal to the House now to come to a decision as to whether the Bill should be allowed to have a Second Reading. Many hon. Members have expressed doubt whether the Bill is necessary. I will only say that two great river authorities who have to handle this problem—the Ouse Catchment Board and the Trent Catchment Board—have both said that it is necessary. It is a considerable responsibility for those who oppose this Bill to go against those two river authorities, set up by Statute by this House for the purpose of dealing with these very problems. It is said that there is danger of unreasonable expenditure falling upon the county boroughs. Those dangers have been rather stressed, particularly by one hon. Member who referred to the Doncaster Drainage Act Reports and Proceedings, and suggested that very large sums might fall upon the catchment boards by reason of coal-mining subsidence. It is for the very purpose of preserving the powers to recover the expense of coal-mining subsidence that we bring forward this Bill instead of acting by executive authority, as the Minister mght do by merely bringing in a, new map delimiting the Don Valley as part of the main river areas of the Ouse and the Trent.
    I have been asked whether I can give an assurance as to Government grants. It is not possible for me to give any such assurance at the present time. The Government will do their utmost to implement their obligations under Section 55 as soon as financial conditions permit, but any specific assurance on that point it would not be possible for me to give.
    1926
    The other points brought forward deal, it seems to me, rather with the general principles of the Act of 1930 than with the specific problems which we have to face. We must take the Act of 1930 as a, general settlement which it would be most undesirable for us to revise in ad hoc legislation of this nature. I suggest that in spite of what has been said as to conferences, the best method of dealing with the problem is to pass the Second Reading and allow the case to be argued before a Joint Select Committee. The method of conference has now been tried, and it has become increasingly obvious that the only effective solution was for main channels like that of the Lower Don to be taken over by the Catchment Board concerned; but while we were conferring the floods came again and subjected the unfortunate dwellers in those areas not merely to physical loss but, as the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Soper) has said, to mental strain. The dwellers in the small houses know that if there is long and continued rain they and their goods, and possibly their children, will be placed in very considerable danger, and even peril.
    I beg the House to consider whether they desire to take the responsibility of further delay in this matter. Do they not consider that the time for delay has passed? We are now at the period of the year when heavy rains may reasonably be expected. How would these of us who might go into the Division Lobby against the Bill feel if, after defeating the Bill, we read in the papers that a week or 10 days of rain had taken place and the rivers had flooded and the same melancholy catalogue of catastrophe was being repeated? I beg the House to think twice or three times before taking that responsibility. Let the House act with expedition. A solution has been brought forward which appeals to the two great catchment boards most immediately concerned; which appeals to the neighbouring county councils, and on which the West Riding County Council has circularised every hon. Member; which appeals to the boroughs not merely immediately concerned, like Doncaster, but to boroughs not so immediately concerned, like Barnsley; which affects agricultural land as well as town land; and affects coalmining as well as other industries. Let the House con-

    1927
    sider all those things; and then I would ask those of my hon. Friends who have spoken with eloquence and force against the main principles of the Bill to consider whether they cannot allow it to have a Second Reading and carry their opposition to the place where they will more fittingly be heard in argument by counsel before a Committee of both Houses.
    Resolved,
    "That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—[Major Elliot.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES RE PORTS.
  Ordered,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the arrangements for the Report of Debates and to inquire into the expenditure on Stationery and Printing for this House and the public services generally."
  Mr. Bernays, Mr. Clarry, Sir Francis Fremantle, Mr. Hall-Caine, Colonel Charles Kerr, Mr. Lunn, Sir Basil Peto, Dr. Salter, Sir Nairne Stewart Sande-man, Rear-Admiral Sueter, and Mr. Charles Williams nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  "That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports of last Session be referred to the Committee."
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to report from time to time."
  Ordered,
  "That Three be the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Ordered,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills, and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee shall have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House."
  Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Mr. Batey, Mr. Campbell, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Curry, Mr. David Davies, Mr. Grimston, Sir Percy Harris, Sir Percy Hurd, Brigadier-General Makins, Miss Pickford, Mr. Savery, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Mr. Templeton, and Mr. James Purdon Thomas nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
  Ordered,
  "That Three be the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes after Eleven o' Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  LIVERPOOL, WALLASEY AND BIRKENHEAD.
  LIVERPOOL, WALLASEY AND BIRKENHEAD.
  EXCHANGES (INSPECTION).
  EXCHANGES (INSPECTION).
  OTTAWA AGEEEMENTS ACT (RUSSIA).
  OTTAWA AGEEEMENTS ACT (RUSSIA).
  SMOKE ABATEMENT, STEPNEY.
  SMOKE ABATEMENT, STEPNEY.
HOUSING.
  LONDON.
  LONDON.
  NON-SUBSIDISED HOUSES (COST).
  NON-SUBSIDISED HOUSES (COST).
  MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE.
  MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE.
  MOROCCO (BRITISH CONSULAR SERVICE).
  MOROCCO (BRITISH CONSULAR SERVICE).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS, YORKSHIRE (FEES).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS, YORKSHIRE (FEES).
  EGYPT (GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS).
  EGYPT (GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS).
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Dawnay (V. Downe)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS (BASIC PRICES).
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of five members to serve with the Committee appointed by this House as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 6th instant, to consider and report upon the matter.

EVIDENCE (FOREIGN, DOMINION AND COLONIAL DOCUMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make further and better provision with respect to the admissibility in evidence in the United Kingdom of entries contained in the public registers of other countries, and with respect to the proof by means of duly authenticated official certificates of entries in such registers and in consular registers, and of other matters; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (SHOEBURYNESS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Urban District of Shoebury-
304
ness, and laid before this House on the 24th day of November, last, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Plymouth, I beg to move the Third Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, you will remember that on the last occasion when we had a Bill of this kind before the House there were certain slight errors found in the drafting, and it was agreed by your Lordships that these measures should be submitted to me, and that I should be responsible for going through them and seeing that there was nothing to which it would be my duty to draw the attention of the House. This Bill has been carefully examined, and I do not think I have anything to say about it or that there is in it anything to which your Lordships' attention need be drawn.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Bill passed.

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS (IMPORTATION OF MEAT) ORDER, 1932.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name. This is a Motion to approve of the Ottawa Agreements (Importation of Meat) Order, 1932, made by the Board of Trade on November 28 under Section 7 of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, which empowers the Board, after consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, to regulate by Order the importation into the United Kingdom of frozen mutton, frozen lamb, frozen beef, and chilled beef in accordance with the Ottawa Agreements. The section provides that any such Order may contain the necessary provisions for securing the due operation and enforcement of the scheme of regulation. The Order has been laid before both Houses

305
in accordance with the provisions of Clause 10, subsection (3) of which provides that any such Order shall cease to have effect after a period of twenty-eight days from the date on which it was made unless it had been approved within that period by Resolution passed by each House of Parliament.
The Ottawa Agreements with Australia and New Zealand regarding meat imports are contained in the First Schedule of the Act. It is hoped that in practice it will not be necessary to exercise the powers conferred by Clause 7 of the Act to any great extent. The importers and ship-owners engaged in the South American meat trade have consented to carry out the reduction of imports prescribed by the Agreement. They are in close touch with the Board of Trade, and, thanks to their willing co-operation, it is expected that the total restriction of imports will be effected without the necessity of imposing actual quotas on either countries or individuals. The total will be kept within the prescribed limits, and within that total the distribution of the business will be left to the trade.
It is obviously desirable that during the temporary period of restriction under the Ottawa Agreements the status quo in the standard Ottawa year, on which the maximum percentages of imports are to be based, should be preserved. New importers, that is, importers who did not import meat from foreign countries during the standard year, could not be admitted to the trade during the Ottawa period of restriction, unless by general agreement, without upsetting the arrangements. It has been recognised for some time that the only way of preventing such a disturbance of the agreed arrangements is to require importers to be licensed. Both importers and shipowners are anxious that the position should be made clear as early as possible; shipowners in particular would not be able to refuse consignments, even if they knew them to be in excess of the Ottawa totals unless they had some statutory authority behind them; and this Order contains the necessary provisions to that end.
As regards the Order itself your Lordships may possibly have seen that Paragraphs 1 and 2 provided that on and after the 1st January, 1933, no meat to which
306
the Order applies shall be imported into the United Kingdom except under licence, and that licence may be issued by the Board of Trade to such persons and on such conditions as they think fit for the purpose of securing that the importation of meat is regulated in accordance with the Ottawa Agreements. Paragraph 3 provides that meat shall be deemed to be imported under licence if the importer is the holder of a licence issued under the Order authorising him to import meat to which the Order applies, and complies with the conditions (if any) of the licence but not otherwise. Paragraph 4 provides that meat prohibited to be imported by the Order shall be deemed to be included among the goods contained in the table of prohibitions and restrictions inwards in Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876.
Paragraph 5 applies the Order to the descriptions of meat covered by the Ottawa Agreements—that is, frozen mutton, frozen lamb, frozen beef (car-cases and boned beef and chilled beef), but provides that the Order does not apply to meat produced in any part of the British Empire. It is not known whether any meat produced in the Empire is consigned from foreign ports; probably little or none is so consigned; but as we have undertaken to place no restrictions on imports of meat from Australia and New Zealand it has been thought desirable to exclude any such meat from the provisions of the licensing system. I will not detain your Lordships with a longer speech at this time, but as this was the first Order of its kind that has been before your Lordships' House I thought it clue to your Lordships that I should detain you even as long as I have. I can only say in conclusion that I have full information on the matter from the Department, and if any noble Lord desires to ask a question on the Resolution I will do my best to answer him. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Ottawa Agreements (Importation of Meat) Order, 1932, dated the 28th of November, 1932, made by the Board of Trade under the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 29th of November last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MANUFACTURE OF AND TRADE IN ARMS.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is the present position with regard to the Committee for the regulation of the trade in and private and State manufacture of arms and implements of war; when the next meeting of the Committee will take place; the reason for the attitude of His Majesty's Government in opposing the French proposals for the suppression of the private manufacture of arms; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suppose we have to be grateful that 25 members of your Lordships' House out of a total membership of 740 take the trouble to attend a debate on the question of the private manufacture of armaments. There is, despite the poor attendance in your Lordships' House, very considerable anxiety in the rest of the country in connection with the progress of the Disarmament Conference at Geneva, and in particular in connection with the question of the private manufacture of arms to which the humble address for Papers which I have put down refers. Perhaps I might remind the House that in connection with the Disarmament Conference a Committee was set up under the decision of the Disarmament Conference of the 23rd July, whose terms of reference were:
"To submit proposals to the Conference, immediately on the resumption of its work, in regard to the regulations to be applied to the trade in, and private and State manufacture of, arms and implements of war."
Fifteen States were appointed on this Committee to deal with the private manufacture of arms. The Danish representative was appointed Chairman and the Committee included representatives of France, Italy, Japan, Great Britain, the United States of America, the Soviet Union, Poland, Spain and Turkey.
The first meeting took place towards the end of September. Since then there have been a few meetings at considerable intervals. The French view with regard to the private manufacture of armaments was a perfectly straightforward one. The French representative, who has had a very considerable experience in connection with the private manufacture of arms, and who was
308
a member of the Temporary Mixed Commission, made perfectly clear what his Government's position was. He said the only solution appeared to be the total suppression of the private manufacture of arms. He then pointed out that there were various possible objections which he considered were not convincing, and he went on to say:
"In reality there is no real difficulty in the way of the total suppression of private manufacture."
He pointed out that the Treaties of Peace themselves afforded an example by the prohibitions which they had exacted in respect of certain countries, and he concluded, therefore, that steps should be taken to bring about a total suppression of the private manufacture of arms.
The French delegate was supported by the Spanish representative, M. de Madariaga, who is so well known to many of your Lordships. He came out clearly in support of total suppression. This point of view was also supported by the Polish delegate and by the delegate from Denmark who was the Chairman. The Turkish delegate produced a proposal in connection with the control of armaments, and said that private industrialists producing arms, in order to increase their profits, must conduct propaganda in favour of the arms traffic and that gave rise to a competition in armaments which may lead to war. The United States appeared to be somewhat undecided, and in point of fact the English translation and the French translation differ. Perhaps the noble Viscount who will reply for the Government and who, of course, is well aware of what is going on, could say which is the right translation. The English translation says:
"The United States delegate, Mr. Wilson, said he had received from his Government definite instructions as to the form to be given to the next convention."
The French translation says that Mr. Wilson:
"dit qu'il n'a pas recu de son Gouvernement d'instructions…"
I do not know which is right. One says that he has not received and the other that he has received instructions. It would be interesting to know which is correct. Anyway, at the first meeting he came out in favour of the regulation of private manufacture and restriction of

309
imports and exports. Then the United States delegate said that there was a change in the United States attitude, a change in their policy, and that they were prepared to accept supervision of private manufacture provided that both State and private firms were included, and provided that there was a substantial reduction in armaments by the Disarmament Conference itself.
The British attitude—I am very anxious to draw particular attention to this—was, I venture to say, lamentable. In the first place the British representative began by a quibble as to the competence of the Committee to consider the suppression of private manufacture at all—a verbal quibble which was referred to the legal section of the Secretariat of the League of Nations, who of course swept it away as entirely without any foundation or justification. The British delegate then suggested that the French delegate was not sincere in his proposal for total suppression. He said he understood that France would not insist on the suppression of private manufacture and that she would be prepared to support mere regulation. In this connection the French delegate at two subsequent meetings denied that entirely and reiterated that he stood by suppression, the complete and absolute suppression of the private manufacture of arms. The British delegate then suggested that the action which Great Britain had taken was already sufficient, and he went on to say that:
"He felt that a considerable measure of progress would have been registered if all other states followed the example of the United Kingdom and adopted similar measures of control of the private manufacture of arms."
It is interesting to know that the Government—presumably he was acting on the instructions of the Government—feel that Great Britain has done all that is necessary.
It is interesting to see, for example, the result of this control in the impartiality with which British armament firms supply equally China and Japan in view of the present state of affairs in Manchuria. For instance, last month British armament firms supplied 40,000 machine gun cartridges to China and 250,000 to Japan. The month before they supplied 200 machine guns to Japan and 1,500,000 cartridges to China. In August, 500 sets of bombs were supplied to China
310
and fifty machine guns to Japan, while in June 500 bombs were supplied to China and 1,000,000 rounds of machine gun ammunition to Japan. There has been complete impartiality during the past year, although amounts have varied month by month, Japan being sometimes up on the deal and China sometimes up on the deal. I suggest that a control which allows a state of tension between two nations in distant parts of the world to be caused perhaps to rise into a state of war, by means of supplying munitions of war impartially to both sides, is hardly a control with which this Government should be satisfied.
At the Committee on the private manufacture of arms, the Danish delegate put forward a suggestion that there should be a questionnaire sent to the Governments in order to help to obtain information. It was a harmless enough questionnaire. It included, for instance, questions as to the purposes of the manufacture of arms for which permits are required; as to the undertakings which are engaged in the manufacture of articles coming under the categories involved; as to the sales of these armaments; and as to whether there were laws or administrative regulations in the country forbidding soldiers or members of the military administration on active service to hold paid posts in private armament undertakings. I should have thought that there would have been no objection on the part of the British Government to this questionnaire, yet the British delegate opposed the sending out of the questionnaire. It would be interesting if the Government spokesman would tell your Lordships' House why there was opposition to the sending out of these questions. I should very much like to know also, since these questions have in fact been sent out, whether the Government have replied to them.
Finally, the British delegate opposed total suppression of the private manufacture of arms—that is to say, opposed the French, the Spanish, the Polish and the Danish point of view—because he relied upon certain recommendations which were made by the Temporary Mixed Commission as long ago as 1929, a contention which the French delegate swept away when he said:
"The Committee could not, in studying the question, confine itself to the lines laid

311
down by the Temporary Mixed Commission. Things had changed, ideas had developed and the work of the Disarmament Conference in particular had increased the scope of the question."
This point was brought out at the full meeting of the Disarmament Conference, on November 18, by the French delegate when he urged that a technical committee should take into account the fact that considerable progress had been made concerning this subject since the 1929 contention. In this, the French delegate was strongly supported by the Spanish delegate at the full meeting of the Disarmament Conference.
That is the position for the moment. Your Lordships will remember that Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations says:
"The Members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objections. The Council shall advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can he prevented, due regard being had to the necessities of those Members of the League which are not able to manufacture …."
munitions for themselves. This Temporary Mixed Commission then sat and a year or two later produced six reasons why they considered that the private manufacture of arms should be dealt with. Those reasons are so interesting that I venture to detain the House while I very briefly give them. They said, in the first place, that the armament firms have been active in fomenting war scares and in persuading their own countries to adopt warlike policies so as to increase their armaments; secondly, that armament firms have attempted to bribe Government officials both at home and abroad; thirdly, that armament firms have disseminated false reports concerning the naval and military programmes of other countries in order to stimulate armament expenditure; fourthly, that armament firms have brought influence to bear upon public opinion through the control of newspapers in their own and foreign countries; fifthly, that armament firms have organised international armament rings; and, sixthly, that armament firms have organised international trusts to increase the price of armaments to Governments.
Now I do not know how far these matters apply to-day, but I think it is
312
entirely unfair that individuals who may be perfectly sincere and innocent in their actions should be liable to attack under some or any of these headings. Take an example in the present board of Vickers, Armstrong. In a quotation from a paper in the House of Commons we get this:
"Contractors naturally are very keen to avail themselves of the services of prominent officers who have been associated with work in which the contractors are interested. The chief thing is that they know the ropes, since the retired officer who keeps in touch with his old comrades is able to lessen some of these inconveniences, either by securing the ear of one who would not afford like favours to a civilian…."
From that it has been said on a number of occasions that directors of such firms as Vickers, Armstrong may be appointed by reason of their past interest in a subject in Government Departments. For example, among the directors of Vickers, Armstrong to-day we have General Sir Herbert Lawrence, who has been chairman for the last six years, and was formerly Chief of the Staff in France and retired in 1922; Sir Mark Webster Jenkinson, who was the Controller of the Department of Factory Audit and Costs at the Ministry of Munitions and Chief Liquidator of Contracts at the Ministry of Munitions after the War; General Sir J. F. Noel Birch, who was Artillery Adviser to the Commander-in-Chief in France, Director of Remounts and afterwards Master-General of Ordnance; Sir J. A. Cooper, who was the principal in charge of Raw Materials Finance at the War Office and then became the director of Raw Materials Finance at the Ministry of Munitions. It is unfair that these persons, who may he perfectly and absolutely innocent and clear of any of the implications involved, should be liable, because of association with a private firm of armament manufacturers, to be implicated in the development of the armaments industry.
We know that some of the suggestions are in fact entirely true. One of the most interesting cases was that of the American, Mr. Shearer, who was paid by United States armament firms to go about Europe and foment trouble, and he was largely successful in securing the failure of the Naval Conference at Geneva some years ago. When he got back to America the armament firms who had employed him were anxious not to pay him the full amount they had agreed

313
for the work he had been successful in carrying out at Geneva. He only got $51,000 and he claimed to be entitled to $255,000. He took this case—it is an extraordinary country—to the Courts, the Attorney-General made an inquiry, and as a result of this inquiry the President of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation wrote to President Hoover and explained that he and the chairman of directors had in fact employed Mr. Shearer at a fee, I think, of $25,000, and that his duties were to be an observer at the Geneva Arms Conference, that he was to influence American and foreign newspaper correspondents and naval officers in stimulating the marine industry both for the Navy and merchant marine, that he was to send out literature to discredit American advocates of peace, and to insert his "publicity" in reputable American newspapers such as the New York Times.
He also had other tasks. One was to maintain a lobby in Washington in support of cruiser and merchant-marine bills pending in Congress, the preparation of political articles, lectures before patriotic societies, and the employment of experts for bringing influence to bear. Mr. Shearer, as far as I know, won his case. Anyway, he was awarded a considerable sum in addition to the $51,000 for his successful work at Geneva. It is interesting to note that Mr. Shearer has been at Geneva during the 1932 Disarmament Conference. What is he doing there? Surely it is undesirable, to say the least, to maintain the private manufacture of arms, with the result that we have this sort of international bribery and corruption going on to an extent of which we are unaware, but part of which, at any rate, has been laid bare by the case of men like Mr. Shearer.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that there is very considerable anxiety about the Disarmament Conference. Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, speaking at the Queen's Hall, a few months ago, said:
"There is a very sinister feature to all the disarmament discussions. I refer to the tremendous power wielded against all the proposals by the armament firms. It is no longer safe to keep in private hands the construction of these weapons of death. We must aim at getting rid of this immense instrument in the maintenance of suspicion."
The League of Nations Union, at their annual meeting at Cheltenham, passed an
314
urgent resolution pointing out that the private manufacture of arms was open to grave objections, and urging that the matter should be kept prominently before the public.
It is interesting also to know that the most rev. Primate, as a deputation with another Archbishop and eighteen Bishops and leaders of the Free Churches, interviewed the Prime Minister a few weeks ago and said this to him:
"We believe that one of the obstacles to disarmament is the vested interests of private armament firms. The Churches must protest against any group of private individuals being allowed a vested interest in the weapons of death and destruction, and we would urge that this traffic be either entirely prohibited or at least strictly controlled by Government licence."
In The Times, to-day, there is another quotation from the annual meeting of the League of Nations Union, in which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, refers to the disquieting rumours from Geneva that there is an abandonment of any effort to obtain disarmament before 1936. Has Mr. Shearer again earned some thousands of dollars by some underhand work at Geneva? The League of Nations Union passed a resolution yesterday urging that the whole influence of the Union should be to secure that the private manufacture of arms should be strictly controlled or prohibited.
In this connection there is one other point to which I want to draw your Lordships' attention, and that is the question of chemical warfare. All over the Continent there is training going on amongst school children in the wearing and the fitting of gas masks. I have here one of those gas masks which will give the House an idea of the type of training in defensive warfare against gas which is being given. These masks are not only very expensive and very unpleasant in appearance, but they are virtually training the young generation in the worst side of war. I suggest that the private manufacture of arms is intimately bound up with the chemical industry, and that in suppressing the private manufacture of arms there should also be the strictest possible control of the chemical and scientific industries. This was urged by both Denmark and France, but again the United Kingdom delegate opposed this suggestion, saying that it was too soon to discuss it. My Lords, it is not

315
too soon to discuss it, but it will soon be too late if we go on temporising in the way which the Government are doing, and many scientific workers are urging that this matter of chemical manufacture should be dealt with alongside the question of private manufacture.
The Committee on November 12, the last meeting of which I had notice—perhaps the noble Viscount who is going to reply can give later information—said:
"After obtaining an opinion from the legal section …that the Committee was not precluded … from recommending the abolition of the private manufacture of arms, the Committee decided to continue its discussion on the subject. The inquiry into this question"
has been provisionally adjourned. I venture to ask the Government if they will, in the first place, hasten the continuation of that inquiry which has been provisionally adjourned; if they will give fresh instructions to the British representative to take a more serious line in connection with suppression; if they will instruct him to support the French and Spanish view in favour of the total suppression of private manufacture of arms; and if they will in any case secure that the international supervision and control of private and State manufacture of arms are included in both aspects of the question which the British representative is to support.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I did not intend to take part in this debate this afternoon, but after the speech of the noble Lord who has moved this Motion I thought it right to say at once, as one who knows the circumstances in which Sir Herbert Lawrence and General Sir J. F. Noel Birch are in the firm of Vickers, that the suggestion conveyed by the noble Lord is at least unfortunate. Everyone knows that Sir Herbert Lawrence before the War was engaged in high finance and gave that up to come back and serve his country, and that after laying down his sword he went back to the high finance. It was on the financial side that he went back, to the benefit of that great concern. Sir Noel Birch is an expert in heavy artillery and he went into the firm to give his great knowledge in the improvement of designs. If arms are to be produced
316
at least produce the best you can, and you have to take the best advice in order to get that perfection in arms which everyone desires if you are going to produce arms. Therefore, from that point of view I think there is no reflection to be cast upon that officer because on retiring he gave his services to this firm.
Surely we are getting away from realities altogether. The idea that arms should be abolished altogether is an ideal which seems to me further away almost than the return to the days of the prehistoric age. You have got to accept the realities of the situation. I agree that it is the duty of every Government to control the production and the distribution of arms—where they are going and, under licence, where they are to be sent—but to say that you are going to prohibit the production of arms except by Governments is, I think, going away from the real situation. I cannot help thinking that in dealing with the question of disarmament as a whole we are going the wrong way about it. Our delegation, headed by the Foreign Secretary, has the sympathy of all in the great efforts that are being made in order to abolish certain kinds of weapons under which the civil population would in case of war suffer terrible calamity; but the real disarmament is the removal of the causes of war.
Arms will always be found by any who have the spirit and wish to go to war, and if we arc going to get any advance on this question of the resort to force we shall have to remove the causes that produce the desire to fight. Look at Europe to-day and the situation which is facing the Disarmament Conference at Geneva, with Germany remaining outside the Conference for particular reasons and demanding certain conditions. It seems to me that the real reason there is the grievance that is eating into the heart of the German people. I know it is said that if you express too much agreement or sympathy with the grievance of that country you undoubtedly create a stiffening of its attitude. That is perfectly true; but, all the same, the grievances do exist, and unless those grievances are tackled and dealt with by the League of Nations you will have the greatest difficulty in dealing with disarmament.
It is undoubtedly true that the relative reduction of armaments will not stop

317
wars. Though you may prevent the use of aggressive weapons, like bombing aeroplanes and gas, you will not in that way do away with the spirit and the causes of war. After all, in 1914, before the War began, if you had had a really active Tribunal at The Hague, with some power or force behind it, you might have stopped that great conflict. And therefore, with the experience of what has gone before when trying to deal with the use of arms, you not only want some form of tribunal to adjudicate on the various cases that come before it, but behind that court there must be some form of force to carry out its decisions. Though I have not studied the proposals of the French plan as closely as I might, it seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for the plan, which would concentrate force in the hands of the League. That seems to me the only way in which you will get real peace in Europe, the only way in which you will be able to control the use of arms.
I am afraid that I am rather straying from the subject of the Motion on the Paper, but these considerations are all allied to that subject, and I think that if you pursue the line which has been pursued by the Committee appointed in July at Geneva to deal with the suppression of the manufacture of arms by private individuals that will lead nowhere. The noble Lord rightly said that vested interests come in with all their powerful means of obstruction. I think that in itself will be overpowering. That is why I advocate that some form of force should be placed under the control of the League in order to deal with weapons and arms in each country. I believe that is the right line to go upon, although I, for one, wish the delegation at Geneva every success in their great efforts.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, there is a matter allied to this question which my noble friend Lord Marley was not able to cover in his speech but which ought not to be forgotten, a matter which is much debated in these days —namely, the question whether those who have influence on Governments ought to be interested in armament concerns. It is a delicate subject, and one ought to choose one's words carefully in dealing with it. I, personally, feel it my duty
318
to raise the subject to-day because of recent experience. When I have been speaking at meetings for the League of Nations Union I have had questions put to me at the end of the meetings as to whether Ministers had holdings in armament concerns, and what I thought of it. I replied that I had not searched the registers but, if it were the case, personally I regarded it as highly undesirable. This is a kind of subject that I would much rather leave alone, but "Do as you would be done by": if any friends of mine knew of questions being put in such a manner with regard to myself I should be—and I suppose all of us would be—grateful if they reported the fact.
It is well known that lists of shareholders bearing on this question have appeared in recent publications. I do not desire by any means to attack individuals but only to urge that Ministers should put themselves right if, possibly by inadvertence, they are holders of securities of this kind. I think the same applies to all Members of Parliament. They ought to look up their list of investments and get rid of every holding in armament concerns. One knows the excuses that are made, and have always been made, for holdings of that kind on the part of responsible people. Such excuses were made in the great controversy that many of us who were in the House of Commons at the time remember during the Parliament of 1910. Many of us then regretted that the Government of that day did not take a strong line on the matter.
But before the War the situation was different from the situation of to-day. There was a feeling that armaments would probably not be used; war was not definitely visualised; and of course, it can always be said that holders of such property would not allow themselves to be influenced where the public interest cut the other way. But the ease is vastly different since the War. War is now viewed realistically, and, further, we know the improper methods, to say the least, some of which we have heard of to-day, which have been employed by armament interests, especially the concealed use of the Press and the wire-pulling of paid agents. The notorious affair of Mr. Shearer, of which your Lord

319
ships have already heard, in connection with the Naval Conference of five years ago, was an eye-opener to the public. It illustrated the fact that the policy of armament firms conflicts with the public interest, even as to its methods. Well, I suppose we all agree that no one should remain in a position where his private interest conflicts, or may possibly conflict, with his public duty. Such a position, we know, is not a sound one from which to face one's fellow men.
There is a very strong feeling on this subject of armament investments. Indeed, I can think of an index of the strength of that feeling. I believe that in the Labour Party and, for all I know, in other Parties, a shareholder in an armament company who was a Minister and who declined to put himself right, would find that a proposal would be made from some quarter in his Party that he should cease to he a member of the Party. I think I am right in that. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said the other day that perhaps one of the most vital problems of to-day is the suppression of the private manufacture of arms and the control of the traffic. If that is so, it is vital that public feeling should be alive to the danger and should be aware of the money-making activities, national and international, which increase the chance of war. However reputable an armament concern may be—and we know how extraordinarily high their prestige has been, and that men of the highest standing are active members in the trade—however much that is the case, it seems to me that the association of public men with the manufacture of arms is helping to give respectability to the trade, and is, therefore, discouraging a public movement for control of the trade which is vital to the promotion of peace. It may be that international prohibition and control of the traffic is not to be yet, but here at least is one practical step that could be taken. By clearing their investment lists, if any such cases exist, of holdings, politicians can, it seems to me, do something to make the public realise that the private armament industry does produce dangers which ought to be very carefully watched.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord who started the discussion to-day was, for an angel of
320
peace, in an extraordinarily truculent mood. The noble Lord commenced by an attack upon the members of this House in general who were not present. He said that only twenty-five were here, and the noble Lord, with his speech ready, expressed great disappointment. It is not for me to say anything about the wisdom of other noble Lords who have the misfortune not to be present here to-day.
Before coming to what I had intended to say on the general subject, I want to state that it is very difficult to with hold what one would like to say in reply to the attack that the noble Lord made on certain individuals. It would have been easy to have spoken about the general idea of the undesirability of certain people being connected with armament firms and so on without mentioning names, and, incidentally, mentioning the name of one of the finest men in this country, a man of whom an act of dishonour would not be thought possible, a man who served his country magnificently in the War, who lost his dearest and best in the War, and who is, to put it in barrack language, one of the straightest men I have ever met. The noble Lord definitely attacked him. He said he was very sorry for people who were tied to a firm that did dishonourable acts such as bribery, spread false reports and so forth. He, therefore, insinuated that the firm of which he spoke was guilty of doing the acts which he mentioned, and that he was sorry for the individuals he named for being associated with it. Or, if he did not mean that, he meant it the opposite way, that the individuals he named were dishonourable men and he was sorry for the firm to which they were attached.
I presume that the noble Lord's Question is directed towards stopping incitements to war which may occur through the private manufacture of arms and the consequent pushing of sales. If war is the result of the private manufacture of arms, I certainly sympathise with him, and so would every noble Lord present. To my mind, however, it is not the capacity or ability to manufacture arms that is at fault, but rather the fact that arms, if made, may be sold to people who make a wrong use of them. It would be very difficult to get every country to agree to the noble Lord's proposal, and it is

321
of no use unless every country that manufactures arms does agree. You would have to get not only the whole of the European Powers to agree but also countries like the United States, where an immense quantity of arms is manufactured. Then, when you had done that, you might possibly find that a number of small States in various parts of the world would commence to manufacture their own arms. I do know small States that are thinking of doing it, or have begun to do it, and it would be extremely difficult to control the sale of weapons of war by those countries. We might, therefore, see the capacity for making armaments actually increased instead of diminished, and under much less control.
To take our own case it would, so far as I can see, mean that weapons of war must be made by the State and by the State alone. This would mean in this country an enormous increase of State factories, and an increase of their capacity to manufacture. As it is, we reduce manufacture by our State factories to a minimum and we only just keep alive some of our great armament firms by comparatively small orders. You must remember that we have now such a very reduced armament that our case is not the same as the case, for instance, of France or any other country with a very large Army and Navy and Air Force. These small orders enable armament firms to keep abreast of modern improvement, and to acquire the knowledge of how to manufacture modern weapons if required by the State. Their factories in the meantime are available for civilian industry, and yet also are available in time of emergency for warlike work if required by the country. The plant they use is available for ordinary commercial nonmilitary subjects of manufacture. But if you put that all on to the State it would mean that the State would have to keep up huge and uneconomical factories out of all proportion to the amount of material that they would have to turn out.
The main thing to my mind Is to stop the export of weapons except to Governments, and then only under licence, and to destroy all weapons of war that are obsolete and that might otherwise be used to the detriment of peace in what I might term odd quarters of the globe. I remember just at the very beginning of
322
the War speaking to Lord Kitchener, who said:
"I do not blame your politicians for not allowing the Army to have sufficient guns or ammunition, but I do blame the politicians for not having envisaged war, and not having made arrangements for the increased output which might become necessary, thus endangering the country."
That is our position because we are not a war-making race. I understand that the noble Lord who put down the Question is a Communist, and this attitude of mind is borne out by the letter which he sent to the Moscow Daily News on the 5th of November of this year, in which his concluding sentence was a wish that increasing success might crown the efforts at present being made by the Soviet Union.
LORD MARLEY: Hear, hear.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The noble Lord says "Hear, hear." Would it not have been better, instead of congratulating that country on the huge success it is making against us, to have suggested that it might reduce its armaments—a country that has greater armaments and is increasing its armaments to a greater extent than any other country? What about that gas mask which the noble Lord brought out just now? Is every child in Russia not taught to use that gas mask, and every woman and man also? Would it not be better if Russia were to come forward and say: "We will never use gas if you won't"? Would it not have been better to appeal to the world to do away with armaments, and would it not have been better of the noble Lord to have suggested that, instead of proposing to us that we should put our own country in danger? I think it would.
The noble Lord recently took part in a debate in Edinburgh and, in excuse for the huge military forces which are being enlisted and trained in Russia, he said that the Russian Army was only used as a means of educating people and that nearly half the life of every person who went into it was spent in cultural pursuits. The noble Lord nods his head and says "Yes." Would the noble Lord not suggest that we should have conscription in this country and adopt the Russian system of everybody being trained to arms and trained in the use of the gas mask? I suppose that is what he

323
means. He cannot approve of it in one country and not in another. This statement seems to me most extraordinary when you remember that it comes from one who was Under-Secretary of State for War in a British Government. I cannot understand how the noble Lord, with his views about ex-officers who go into armament firms, an apostle of peace such as he is, could have held such a horrible position as that of Under-Secretary of State for War. However, autres temps, autres mœurs ! Of course we quite understand that it was not an office of profit—at least I suppose it was not.
The Russian Army now consists of about 1,185,000 enlisted men and experts say that the Soviet could mobilise a force of trained and partly-trained men of over 10,000,000. The noble Lord tells us of the great success of the five-year scheme and yet we know that every man, woman, and child in that country is being taught to hate every individual outside their own country. He knows that in Russia everything is based on military organisation. Even women are not excepted. There are no private enterprises in Russia for the manufacture of arms but there are State factories at every strategic point. There is not a military invention which they have not purchased, copied and in their opinion improved on, if possible.
The suggestion put forward by the noble Lord would result in adding enormously to our national waste and national expenditure. Every factory in Russia is, in effect, a private factory. By that I mean that it is possible to compare them with private factories here. If the noble Lord's suggestion were adopted, it would mean that Russia—I am not talking particularly of Russia but of countries organised like Russia—where everything is manufactured by the State and under the control of the State, would be able to manufacture enormous quantities of weapons, whereas we, a peace-loving nation, intending to keep peace and wanting to cut down armaments but at the same time retaining the possibility of increasing their manufacture if unfortunately that should become necessary, would get into a state of panic and you would see State factories being increased and enlarged. I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer.
324
I am afraid that I have not made myself very clear, but I confess that I was a little upset by the perfectly unjust attack made upon personal friends of my own.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in a debate on a technical matter, but I have studied to some extent the opinions of experts and one or two things in connection with the traffic in arms occur to me. I think we must all agree that the present state of matters is not satisfactory. It is obviously absurd that one should have the League of Nations doing their utmost to stop the conflict between China and Japan while Members of the League of Nations are supplying both sides with the very means whereby they can carry on that conflict. It is absurd to think that we can remain content with such a state of affairs—on the one hand telling them to stop and on the other hand supplying weapons and munitions of war. It may be done quite impartially on both sides, but it is really almost a farcical state of affairs. I venture to think that something must be done to control it.
The noble Lord indicated quite truly that the great thing is to remove the causes of war and strife. It may be, and it is alleged I think with a good deal of foundation, that the present state of the traffic in arms may in itself be a cause of war. When you have the agents of a big armament firm going to country A and supplying that country, let us say, with guns of a certain calibre and force, and then going to a neighbouring country saying: "We have supplied your neighbour with these guns but we can give you bigger ones which will beat them," and touting for orders—surely that is very likely to lead to war, for the possession of such weapons is in itself an enticement sometimes to go to war when countries otherwise might have refrained.
The second alternative is the prohibition of the private manufacture of arms. I do not think that it is either practicable or desirable. I think it would be undesirable for this reason. There are, I believe, at present only some seven nations manufacturing arms to any great extent and seven others producing arms to a lesser extent—only fourteen countries in all manufacturing armaments. If we were to prohibit, the private manu-

325
facture of arms I think, as the noble Duke has just said, that the result would be that a number of States would start their own factories and therefore the production of arms, instead of being diminished, would be increased. There is a third possibility and that is that there should be a very effective form of control over the manufacture of arms. I think there can he no doubt that there is in the ordinary course of business—a business which is now legitimate—touting for orders and there is nothing to prevent it. It is not wrong to do it, but I think it is very undesirable. Surely we may hope for some form of international control if, as we hope, some agreement is reached at Geneva as to limitation of armaments. That of course must be international, but I feel that amongst the fourteen nations which produce arms it might be possible to have some agreement to set up an international board of control, and that in each nation there might be a controlling board apart from the Government which should distribute the orders coming to that nation among the different armament firms in the country.
It would be not a selling agency but only a distributing agency, placing orders amongst armament firms which would be kept in existence. If nation A wanted so many guns or so many rifles the international board would have to see that their demand did not exceed the quota allowed them under the Disarmament Convention, and that international board could then tell the boards of control in the different countries that nation A wanted so many thousand rifles. Each national board world then ask the firms in the country at what price they could supply and agreement could be reached as to how the order should be distributed. The firms manufacturing arms would have to be prohibited from going out to solicit orders. It would be rationalisation of the trade in arms. Something of that kind might be done under international control. I think it would be a practical way of dealing with this question. Total prohibition seems to me to be impossible.
I trust the importance of this question will not be lost sight of. It does not of course prevent everything that is possible being done to remove the causes of war, hot so long as nations have Armies—and
326
none of us will see the day when Armies or Navies are dispensed with—so long as national provision must be made for defence, so long will arms of some kind be required, and it is above all things important that the supply of those arms should be rationalised and placed upon such a basis as to remove the abuses which I fear exist at the present time.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I believe that to abolish or restrict arms by the repression of private firms and to hand over the entire monopoly to Governments would do very little to alleviate the present situation and might produce, as the noble Lord has told us, more disastrous results than even the present system. One cannot help feeling that if we are to get disarmament in the armament industry we must in some way control that industry by an international board. So long as there is profit to be made out of this industry and numerous companies are willing to spend large sums on new inventions arid processes of destruction, so long will these firms exist and go on flourishing. The control of these firms is one of the important features in the French plan, and once it has been accomplished it may be possible to restrict these firms to specified contracts. The noble Lord has suggested an international board. I imagine that if that board functioned properly, it would stipulate that any firms producing armaments should be precluded from supplying any nation which was not a Member of the League.
That would prevent any firms in this country from supplying armaments to Russia, for instance, which is not a Member of the League. I understand that recently we produced in this country several hundred tanks which were sold by firms here to the Soviet Government. That sort of thing would come to an end once the firms in this country were restricted to the orders which emanated from the international board. I think it would be a good thing if in corning to an arrangement with armament firms they were compensated for loss of business. It would pay the international board, the Members of the League, to grant subsidies to firms in order to keep a certain amount of plant actually in existence and to enable them to retain their skilled mechanics, so that if an emergency did

327
arise there would be the possibility of expansion when more armaments were required. As time went on the need for such an arrangement would gradually become less and less because we should have attuned the mentality of the peoples of Europe to the idea of the purely police function and the abolition of the system of international duelling.
Another point I should like to refer to is with regard to the proposals which the noble Lord in his opening speech made about the Commission. The proposals which were made by the French representative on that body are to be regarded as part and parcel of the plan for disarmament put forward by the French Government at the Disarmament Conference. I think M. Herriot has made it clear, and in fact it is stated in the plan itself, that all these proposals hang together, and that when the French suggest that the private armament industry should be repressed they envisage what was described just now as an international board of control, with powers of supervision and organisation in connection with all the armaments produced for Members of the League of Nations, both as regards the national militias which they are to have under the French scheme and also the specialised contingents which are to be armed with the super weapons. The question I would submit to the Government is therefore: Are they prepared to support the French plan as a whole and are they prepared to support the underlying principles of that plan?
It is true that we may not be in agreement regarding many details and that there are many points to be criticised, but, as has been pointed out, if we want to remove the causes of war we must first create the will to peace, and that will to peace must be expressed, as the Lord President of the Council said in another place, not merely in the terms of treaties—everyone knows that as soon as war has broken out they become waste paper—but in terms of organisation. That organisation must embrace not merely an international force but some definite machinery by which it will be able to settle these disputes in a peaceable manner. There must of course be this organisation in advance so that we may not find ourselves, as we did in 1914, in
328
ignorance to the very last moment as to whether we were going to support our treaty obligations; whether we were going to support The Hague Tribunal; whether we were going to support this, that or the other. We never made up our minds in advance what side we were going to take. The people of this country were left in entire ignorance. Surely it is time, after all the experiences of the past, that we should not drift once more into a policy of isolation, but should face these problems in a practical way and consequently give our very serious consideration to the plan which the French Government have placed before the Disarmament Conference.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I should like to reply to the charges which I think have been very unfairly made by two noble Lords opposite against my noble friend Lord Marley, that he attacked certain individuals whom he mentioned by name. He did absolutely nothing of the kind. What were the facts? He read out the charges made by the Temporary Mixed Commission against armament firms in Germany and throughout Europe and the world. Those charges stand. They are very serious. Those charges are making people consider whether something ought not to be done with this huge international octopus which is really strangling the nations. Anybody who is associated with an armament firm necessarily comes under those charges—most unfairly. In many more cases than those quoted by my noble friend the names can be found of people who are not associated with this sort of thing at all—perhaps not even the firms. My noble friend made it perfectly clear that his charge was not against persons associated with armament firms but against the firms, and he is supported by the charges made by the Temporary Mixed Commission.
Perhaps I may be allowed to draw attention to one point which has not been touched upon, and that is that these armament firms are manufacturing armaments for the destruction of our own people. When I was in Constantinople, at the end of last century, there was an agent of an armament firm who was regarded out there as of as much consequence as if he was a diplomatist. He had access to all the Embassies and was

329
a very great personage. He could go to the Sublime Porte whenever he wanted to, and through his good offices, as I suppose they would be called, the Dardanelles were furnished with a most magnificent equipment of guns, which in 1914 were trained upon British soldiers and sailors and wrought terrible havoc. There is a gun exhibited in a public Park, to-day, to commemorate the gallant deeds of a very great regiment. On one side of that gun is to be found a brass tablet, on which the deeds of that gallant regiment are commemorated, and on the other side is to be found the name of the British firm which manufactured that gun, which was captured from the Germans.
So it goes on. That aspect of this hideous traffic is not always taken fully into account, but private manufacture of armaments is going to continue. It is far too powerful for the League of Nations or Governments to have any effect upon it, and those who believe in the regulation of armaments, and in having lighter weapons and smaller weapons of all the various categories that have been drawn up at Geneva during the last six months, will feel the necessity of having private armament firms, because you have got to have all the prohibited weapons ready, so that when war is declared and those regulations are broken you are the first in the field with the necessary amount of all those weapons which have been discarded by regulation. My noble friend who opened this debate stuck very closely to quotations from what had been said by high authorities and by the League of Nations. It is a very serious question, which I am glad should be aired in your Lordships' House. It should become known to the people of this country as part and parcel of the abomination of war, which, as I have often said, cannot be dealt with piecemeal but must be dealt with wholesale.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies, I do not want to take part in this debate, but as two or three noble Lords have been good enough to quote me as being opposed to the private manufacture of armaments, I should like to explain what seems to me to be the real essential point of this discussion. There is all over Europe, and America too, a considerable body of armament manufacturers, having at their disposal very large funds and
330
being no doubt in close communication with one another. It is obvious that if they are to sell their arms there must be a disposition on the part of their customers to use those arms, otherwise there would be no demand for them. It is, therefore, to the commercial interest of these armament manufacturers to maintain, as far as possible, an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility among the various nations. I do not say that they all yield to that temptation, but it must be a strong motive with them all. If there is not such an atmosphere of suspicion it is obvious that there must be less demand for the commodity that they produce. It seems, on the face of it, that that is an unsatisfactory state of things.
But it may be said that those are merely theoretic and academic considerations; that in point of fact there is no evidence that these manufacturers do use their great funds for any such purpose. I quite admit that the evidence on the subject is not very extensive, but there are two very well-known instances in which the armament manufacturers do appear to have used their funds exactly for that purpose. There is the case, to which my noble friends have referred, of Mr. Shearer, in 1927, at Geneva. A very remarkable ease, because undoubtedly the firms which employed him were firms of the highest possible standing in the United States, or some of them, and they undoubtedly did employ him—I think they said to watch the proceedings at Geneva; but I do not think anyone who was there has any doubt that he went a good deal beyond watching and in fact utilised his energies arid abilities if possible to prevent a conclusion of those proceedings such as would promote international disarmament. That is one case, but there is, of course, also the other case, which is very well known, of the purchase in Paris of one or perhaps two of the largest newspapers by those interested in the steel factories and also armament factories, I believe, and the consequent complete alteration of policy at any rate in the case of one of those papers, so that, having been a moderate supporter of republican institutions, without any very marked attitude, it became a reactionary paper violently opposed to M. Briand and an advocate of a much more active and aggressive policy for its country.

331
It does appear to me that the possibility of that kind of thing is a very serious evil, and I have a very strong feeling, quite apart from the actual incidents that have occurred, that undoubtedly some of these armament interests do take very active steps to prevent any measure being carried into effect which will reduce the number of customers that they have. I will not weary your Lordships with other cases which have often been alleged. I merely cite those two as illustrative of the kind of evil that exists. I believe everybody admits that that evil exists. Everybody must admit that it would be desirable to reduce or abolish it, and the only question, as it seems to me, that is really important to consider and difficult to decide upon, is whether you can prevent that evil by stringent control or whether you must not go as far as to abolish private interests—that is, commercial interests—in the manufacture of arms. That seems to me—I speak with all humility—the only serious question.
I used to think that you could do it by serious control, but I am bound to admit that the difficulties of producing any form of control which would really prevent this state of things have so far baffled me. I have not been able to think of any system of control which would really be effective for that purpose, and therefore my own inclination certainly is that we have arrived at a condition of affairs when commodities and articles of this kind are so dangerous to human prosperity and human civilisation that they ought not to be left any longer in the hands of private individuals, but should only be in the hands of responsible Governments. That is the conclusion at which I have arrived. It is a conclusion not very unlike that which many people have arrived at with regard to various types of dangerous drugs; and it is for that reason that I have ventured to express myself in the way which noble Lords have cited about me outside this House.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the noble Lord who has raised this Question asked me three questions. The first relates to the present position with regard to the Committee for the regulation of the trade in, and private and State manufacture of, arms and implements of war
332
which has been set up at Geneva. I think it would be the simplest plan if I gave the House rather a full explanation of how this Committee came to he set up, and in the course of that I shall he able to answer the noble Lord's second Question—namely, when the next meeting of the Committee is to take place.
On July 23 the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference adopted certain resolutions, one of which was this:
"The Bureau will set up a special Committee to submit proposals to the Conference immediately on the resumption of its work, in regard to the regulations to be applied to trade in, and private and State manufacture of, arms and implements of war."
In accordance with this resolution the Bureau constituted the Committee for this purpose on September 22 and a number of countries were invited to send representatives to serve on the Committee. There were, I think, some fourteen or fifteen countries invited to join. All except three of them accepted the invitation. One of those which refused the invitation, or which did not accept it, was the Russian Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, of which the noble Lord is such a champion and ardent admirer. The Committee sat from October 4 to 19 last, and on November 12 the Rapporteur, the Polish representative, submitted a Report to the Bureau. I need not trouble your Lordships with the full conclusions set out in the Report, but the main conclusions were that the Committee was not yet in a position to submit concrete proposals for regulating the trade in and manufacture of arms: that any such proposals should be framed so as to place producing and non-producing States as far as possible on a footing of equality, and that the Arms Traffic Convention of 1925 and the draft Convention of 1929 for the supervision of the private manufacture and publicity of the manufacture of arms, would have to be revised. The Committee at the same time set up two Sub-Committees to deal respectively with the manufacture of arms and with trade in arms, on both of which Sub-Committees the United Kingdom was represented.
The Report was submitted to the Bureau and discussed by it on November 22, when the Bureau adopted the resolution which I now propose to read to your Lordships:

333
"The Bureau of the Conference,
"Having taken cognisance of the Report of the Rapporteur of the Committee for the regulation of the trade in, and private and State manufacture of, arms and implements of war, and heard the proposals and comments made by the various delegations at the Bureau's meeting on November 18,
"Approves the Committee's Report and the methods of work adopted by it;
"(1) Requests the Committee and the Sub-Committees to resume work as quickly as possible, in order that the Bureau may at the earliest possible moment have at its disposal all the necessary material to enable it to submit to the Conference the proposals provided for in the General Commission's resolution of July 23.
"(2) Considers that the Committee has been entrusted with the examination of all the aspects of the problem of the regulation of the trade in, and private and State manufacture of, arms, but that it must choose a practical method of work based on the declarations made at the Bureau's meeting on November 18.
"(3) Considers that it is already agreed that the provisions relating to the trade in, and manufacture of, arms and implements of war should be included in the same legal instrument as the Convention for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments.
"(4) Requests the Committee to consider in what conditions equality of treatment may be attained:

"(a) between producing and non-producing countries;

"(b) between the different contracting countries (special zones, etc.);

"(c) between State manufacture and private manufacture.

"(5) The Bureau requests the Committee to consider whether, within the general framework of supervision already adopted by the Bureau, it is necessary to provide a technical procedure better adapted to the international supervision of the trade in, and manufacture of, arms.
"(6) As regards the Committee's conclusions concerning the questions of the limitation of and publicity in regard to war material, the Bureau considers that any final formula should be postponed until appropriate solutions have been reached by the competent organs of the Conference.
"(7) The Bureau draws the Committee's attention to the desirability of collecting the necessary documentation with regard to the licence systems adopted by the different countries, and of studying the possibility of framing an international licence system."
Your Lordships will observe that the Bureau has directed that the Committee and the Sub-Committees shall continue their work. I am informed that, in fact, the Committee re-assembled on December 1 last and immediately went into Sub-
334
Committee which is now meeting almost daily. That answers the second Question.
I now come to the third part of the noble Lord's Question, in which he asks what he describes as "the reason for the attitude of His Majesty's Government in opposing the French proposals for the suppression of the private manufacture of arms." The noble Lord's Question is framed so as to suggest, I think, that this country was alone in standing out against some proposal which the rest of the Conference desired to carry into effect. Your Lordships appreciate, of course, that that is completely inaccurate, that what really happened was that the great majority of the Committee took one view, that the French representative with two others took a different view, and that the United Kingdom representatives agreed with a great majority of the Committee. The noble Lord, I presume, is referring to the proposal put forward during the first meeting of the Committee by M. Jouhaux, the French representative on the Committee. I understand that M. Jouhaux suggested that the Committee should propose that the private manufacture of arms should be entirely suppressed because of the terms of the fifth paragraph of Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. I understand, too, that M. Jouhaux referred in his arguments in favour of the total suppression of the private manufacture or arms, to a Report drawn up by the Temporary Mixed Commission on September 15, 1921, which, he said, gave an impressive description of the mischievous effects of the private manufacture of arms. That description was read out by the noble Lord in the course of his speech. In fact, as your Lordships probably know, what happened was that the Mixed Commission, in making its Report, set out in two successive pages, first, the objections that are raised to unregulated private manufacture, and then the objections that are raised to the abolition of private manufacture.
The noble Lord read out the first; that is to say, the objections which are raised to untrammelled private manufacture. He did not read out the second, and, possibly, if one wants to get a fair view of what the Committee thought, one ought to hear both sides. This is what the Committee went on to say:

335
"(1) If private manufacture were altogether forbidden, it would result that all manufacture of munitions and implements of war would be conducted by State enterprise. In the consideration of such a course, the following difficulties have been suggested by some Members:

"(a) The Covenant seems to refer only to those evil effects attendant upon private manufacture which may affect international relations. Questions of internal policy involving domestic sovereignty are here excluded, as indeed elsewhere in the Covenant. In other words the provision in the Covenant seems to deal with private manufacture only in so far as it affects the growth of armaments and relations between States, but not in so far as it affects the domestic industrial system.

"(b) A recommendation that private manufacture be abolished would doubtless be objectionable to States which do not produce all the munitions which they need. Such States would probably feel that it would be more difficult to get the necessary supplies from foreign Governments than from foreign firms.

"(c) As International Law stands today, the supply of munitions or implements of war by a neutral Government to a belligerent Government would constitute a violation of neutrality. In time of war, therefore, a belligerent would have to depend upon its own production and upon what it could get from its Allies. This might mean that all Governments would feel themselves called upon to prepare for the eventualities of war by storing up large stocks of munitions and by equipping themselves with large munition plants.

"(d) The abolition of private manufacture might result in the establishment of many new armament plants by the Governments of non-producing States. Such Governments could, of course, undertake to manufacture munitions to meet their own needs, there being no restriction on the export of iron and coal. In this way, non-producing States might become producers.

"(e) Governments might—in some countries—find it more difficult than private firms to reduce their armaments establishments on the cessation of war, owing to the Parliamentary pressure exerted by the representatives of labour engaged in the production of armaments.

"(f) Few industrial enterprises work exclusively for the manufacture of war material. For the most part, the great armament firms are establishments of a composite nature, whose activity in normal times is chiefly directed to peace industries.

"(g) It is difficult to define war industries. Optical and chemical industries are all-important in war. Aviation is an industry at present distributed among a considerable number of different factories. How far, then, should State ownership extend? Does not the acceptance of the
336
principle of State ownership of war industries lead logically to the State ownership of all industries?"

No doubt that would appeal to the noble Lord opposite, but I do not think it would appeal to many in your Lordships' House. The last paragraph I will read says:
"(h) State arsenals for the complete manufacture of arms and munitions would have to include, in addition to a large number of mechanical workshops, a complete metallurgical plant and a factory for the chemical products required in the manufacture of explosives. It is doubtful whether States will face the expenditure involved. Nor would such a State arsenal ever attain to an output corresponding to its means of production."
I have read those paragraphs just as they were printed, because I think your Lordships ought to have both sides of the picture presented, and at least I think it will be conceded that these objections are objections of very considerable weight.
The Mixed Commission met again in 1924, and their Report in 1924 stated that "the majority of the members held that as the Committee had been appointed to examine a draft convention for the control of the private manufacture of arms it should obviously leave out of consideration the question of the prohibition of private manufacture." The noble Lord opposite led your Lordships to believe that this was some quibble—that was his phrase—invented by the United Kingdom representative in 1932. Your Lordships will see that in fact it is the Report of the majority of the Commission in 1924. The majority of the Commission took the view that the private manufacture of arms must be regarded as a purely national matter, the regulation and inspection of which should be left to the national authorities, and they drew up a draft convention on the national control of private manufacture. M. Jouhaux, the French representative, was unable to accept the Report of the majority of the Commission, and he had only three supporters. It is a significant fact that both in 1921 and 1924 the Commission dealing with this question reached the conclusion that there was no case for the suppression of the private manufacture of arms. His Majesty's Government have, however, their own reasons for opposing the suggestion that all private manufacture of arms should be suppressed. Some of those reasons

337
coincide with the objections made in 1921, which I have already quoted, but is addition to those objections we believe that the suppression of private manufacture of arms—the noble Lord will appreciate that I am dealing only with suppression—would rot be to the general interest of this country.
In the first place His Majesty's Government feel that it is most important that all manufacture of arms whether by a State or by a private firm should be treated on an equal footing. We in this country depend to a large extent upon private industry for the manufacture of the armaments which we require for our fighting Services. This is not the case in all countries. It follows, therefore, that the suppression of the private manufacture of arms would operate in a very detrimental way on this country, because other countries can produce and are producing. Russia, for instance, produces all the arms which it requires in State arsenals. We depend on private industry. We should have obviously, therefore, to indulge in a very considerable expenditure to replace the factories which we were suppressing. Moreover, the existing private armaments industry in this country provides a very cheap and elastic method of providing for the expansion which is necessary to supply the requirements of our armed forces in time of war. In the second place if all private manufacture in this country were abolished His Majesty's Government would be involved in very large capital expenditure which they certainly could not face at the present moment, not to mention the complications which would be caused by the dislocation of labour, which is, again, a very serious matter under the conditions existing to-day.
There is a further point to which I should call attention, and that is that few, if any, private factories in this country are exclusively or even mainly employed in manufacturing munitions. The greater part of their peace-time activities in almost every case is devoted to civil industry. If we were to agree to suppress the private manufacture of arms in this country it would entail the complete reorganisation of the metallurgical and explosive industries, and it would be very difficult to know where to draw the line. For instance, many parts of guns, carriages, tanks and warships are produced in several different factories
338
which are devoted mainly, or almost exclusively, to peace industries. Any aircraft factory can turn out military machines as well as civil machines. To produce a finished round of ammunition a great many industries are involved. In fact the manufacture of arms and ammunition involves in some way nearly all industries. Such things as rifle sights and optical instruments form an integral part of weapons of war, but nobody would seriously suggest that the manufacture of such articles was part of the armament industry and must therefore be suppressed entirely in this country. I think I have said enough to indicate that for us to suppress the private manufacture of arms is impracticable. I should like to stress the fact that it was in view of its impracticability that our representative on the Committee was forced to oppose a proposal for the suppression of the private manufacture of arms.
At the same time want to go on to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that His Majesty's Government are perfectly prepared to accept and to enforce further control of the private manufacture of arms going beyond the control which at present exists, provided that some equitable proposal for such control can be worked out and that similar control is enforced in all arms-producing States. Obviously it would be impossible for us to enforce regulations which were not enforced elsewhere. We think that the most equitable scheme would probably be found to lie along the line of control by licences and publicity of manufacture, operated under the authority of the various national Governments rather than by some international authority. We believe that that control would be adequate to remove the evil effects of the private manufacture of arms which are referred to in the Covenant. If all the parties to the Disarmament Conference were to agree and would carry out some arrangement of this kind, we believe that the complete control of the private manufacture of arms could thereby be attained and that it would be very much more effective than any attempt to set up an international body to control private manufacture in each country, which would not only prove irksome in practice but would he very likely to prove a source of

339
constant and unnecessary friction between different States.
One or two questions were addressed to me which are not included in the Notice and with which, therefore, I cannot deal with the same certainty. I was asked whether the English or the French version of what the United States delegate said at a meeting of one of these Commissions was the more correct. Both have equal authority as the noble Lord knows. As the American representative presumably spoke in English I think it is very probable that the English version is correct, but I have no information as to which really is correct, and indeed I know of no means of finding out except by relying on the memory of someone who was there. Obviously I cannot answer that question.
Then I was asked why it was that the British representative objected to a certain questionnaire being sent out. Again that is a matter of which I had no notice and therefore I have had no opportunity for exhaustive inquiry. The representative of the Foreign Office—and it was a member of the Foreign Office who was present at the meeting—says that the British representative did not object. That is possibly the correct answer. If he did object, I should have guessed that it was because he did not think the questionnaire would serve any useful purpose. That, however, is purely speculative. Honestly I do not know the answer beyond that which I have already given. Then I was asked whether or not we had sent a reply to the questionnaire. The answer is that the questionnaire has been received, that the reply is being drawn up if it has not already been drawn up. I do not know whether it has actually been forwarded, but it will be sent shortly if that has not already been done.
I was also asked a question about chemical warfare. The noble Lord produced a gas mask and told us that one is issued to every school child in France. He suggested that these gas masks were very horrible and that it was very hard luck on the French children to have to learn how to wear them. I rather sympathise with the French children, but I think the noble Lord would be doing more than I can do to secure the abolition of such training if he would persuade those Russian friends whom he admires so much to cease to be the one European
340
nation which has an active section of its Army devoted to offensive gas warfare. So long as that section of the Russian Army continues it is obvious that the rest of Europe has to be prepared to deal with the menace it involves.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, whether we would support the principle of the French disarmament plan. I am quite sure that the noble Lord on reflection will realise that it would be very unwise for me to attempt to answer that question. I am here to deal with specific questions relating to the suppression of the private manufacture of arms. I have in a previous disarmament debate explained to your Lordships that the French disarmament plan, in common with all other schemes, is being examined carefully in the hope that one or other of the schemes or a combination of the schemes may form a basis on which some agreement may be reached. Within the last day or two there have been meetings in Geneva which I hope are to be resumed within a very short time, and I think it would be very unfortunate if His Majesty's Government were to range themselves definitely either against or in favour of one of the schemes, when they were actively engaged in discussions with the authors of those and other schemes and with one or two people whom they are anxious to persuade to come into a disarmament agreement. At any rate I have no authority to answer the question and if I had had notice of the question I should have asked the noble Lord not to ask it. I am sure he will forgive me if I do not attempt to give an answer.
I think that that disposes of the points raised except that there was a statement made by the noble Lord with regard to certain individuals whom he named. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, explained to your Lordships that no sort of attack on those individuals was intended. With regard to that I would only say that if there was no intention to make any attack upon those individuals I fail to see what useful purpose is served by naming them in your Lordships' House. If there was an intention to cast any aspersion upon them, having regard to the names mentioned, that attempt can only reflect discredit on the man who made it. I think I have dealt with the whole of the matters which are raised by the Question, and I hope also that I have made clear to your

341
Lordships what I am sure is the cardinal fact which your Lordships would wish to know. That is, that we are opposed to the suppression of private trading in arms for the reasons that I have endeavoured to give to your Lordships, but that we arc in favour of collaborating in a further means of control of that trade provided only that means can be evolved, fair to all parties, which can be applied equally all round, and which will be applied not only in this country but also in the other countries where any production of arms either by the State or the individual takes place.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I think that the debate has produced a number of interesting points of view. In particular, I am sure the House will welcome the declaration of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. There has been the usual personal attack or me, but I see that the noble Duke who knows so much about Russia has been unable to stay to press his attack, and therefore he leaves me victorious on the field complete with a gas mask which, had he gone on much longer, I should have been compelled to wear. The noble and learned Viscount who leads the House always, if I may say so, makes the very best of what case he has, however bad it is, and he has as usual made the best of his case, though he has had an unusually bad one to defend. He points out that the Russians were invited to join this Committee and refused. I am not surprised when they know that the instructions given to representatives like the British representative are such as to render almost worthless the recommendations of that Committee. That of course is the reason why they will not be involved in waste of time, but I would remind the noble and learned Viscount that the Russians have been the first always to support complete and absolute universal disarmament and their support of that, if it were a bluff, has never been called because no other nation has been prepared to support them on the line they have taken.
With regard to the statement that I made a personal attack on certain members I named of the Vickers board, I expressly said that was the farthest thing possible from my intention. What I pointed out was that under the points which have been raised by the Temporary Mixed Commission such members were very unfairly laid open to attack, and it
342
was because it was so unfair that a prominent person should be associated with armament firms which have been attacked by the Commission for their bad influence on international disarmament, that I used that as an argument for the total suppression of the private manufacture of armaments. My point is that we want this country to lead the world in these international discussions and not be always behind with verbal quibbles and reasons for doing nothing. That is why the case of the noble and learned Viscount is so weak—because he spent his entire speech in explaining why we should do little or nothing. Of all the arguments I suppose the most absurd is that if we closed private armament factories other countries not now producing would have to put up new factories and that therefore there would be an increase in armaments production. If you put up a new factory in one place it merely balances the closing down in another, and of the two the publicly controlled is far the better and safer in the present condition of the world.
The noble and learned Viscount suggested that it would be unfair to private firms to close the factories down. What is to prevent the Government buying them and letting them become Government properties? In any case it is entirely inaccurate to suggest that the manufacture of arms is cheaper in the private factories than in the Royal yards and factories. Time and again proof has been furnished that the manufacture. of arms is cheaper in the Royal yards than in the private yards. I realise that the Government have literally nothing to produce in this matter—not only no arguments of value, but no Papers, and therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SAMOA.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE had the following Notice on the Paper—To ask whether His Majesty's Government will, through their representatives on the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, satisfy themselves that the Mandate over Samoa accorded to New Zealand is being administered

343
with due regard to the best interests of the Samoans; whether Great Britain is bound by the Treaty of Berlin in 1889 to guarantee the neutrality, autonomy and independence of Samoa as a State; whether any petition has been received by His Majesty's Government from the Samoans praying for relief from the conditions imposed on them by the Mandatory; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I only desire very briefly to amplify the Question which is on the Paper. May I say that in the beginning of the Question I make a mistake by talking of the representatives of His Majesty's Government on the Mandates Commission? I am aware that the Mandates Commission has not representatives of nations, but simply individual members who act for the League. I wanted to ask this Question because I understand that His Majesty's Government in Great. Britain have no locus standi in this matter at all—that the Dominion which has the Mandate for Samoa is responsible to the Mandates Commission and to the League of Nations itself, and that our relationship to that Dominion is not that of the Mother Country to one of her Dominions, but is as one independent sovereign State to another independent sovereign State, both Members of the League of Nations. That I understand, although I would say in passing that it is rather interesting, in this tangle of constitutional difficulties that we are getting into with the Dominions, that we are allowing a Dominion to act absolutely as an independent sovereign State in one connection and in another connection we are saying to a Dominion that it cannot refer any matter of dispute to any tribunal except an inter-Imperial tribunal. I believe that we have got ample argument and justification in both cases and I only refer to it to show the difficulties we are getting into with regard to the exact status of the Dominions.
Although we can divest ourselves of any responsibility in this matter I rather question whether we can divest ourselves of what I may term interest in the fate of Samoa. I do not know whether the Treaty of Berlin of 1889 was superseded by the Treaty of Versailles on the formation of the League of Nations or not. No doubt the noble Lord will tell me. But under the Treaty of Berlin we
344
did guarantee the neutrality, autonomy and independence of Samoa as a State, and in return received certain specific concessions. As to whether the obligation still exists or not I am not perfectly certain. My reason for putting this Question on the Paper is merely that certain incidents of a rather unfortunate character took place in December, 1929, that there has been grave apprehension in Samoa that there may be a repetition of these occurrences, and that ill-feeling has sprung up accordingly. In any case here we have what is no doubt a very small State in which there is grave discontent with the Mandatory under the League of Nations Mandates Commission. I do not feel quite satisfied that His Majesty's Government can, so to speak, wash their hands entirely of a matter of this kind. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I would have dealt with the first part of the Question which the noble Lord has on the Paper, but he himself has pointed out that there was a misapprehension on his part in this matter. Perhaps it is as well for me to repeat that there is no representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on the Mandates Commission. It is the case that one member of the Commission is a British subject, but he, like all the other members of the Commission, is appointed in a personal capacity and is, in no sense, subject to instructions from His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in connection with his functions as a member of the Commission. As a matter of fact he is a member of this House—Lord Lugard—who was here this afternoon and would have taken part in the debate but for the fact that another engagement has taken him away from this House. Quite apart from this, the administration of the Mandate of Western Samoa was, as a result of the Treaty of Versailles of 28th June, 1919, entrusted to His Majesty's Government in New Zealand. The interest which His Majesty's Government in New Zealand take in all matters connected with the Pacific territories, for whose administration they are responsible, and in the native inhabitants of those territories, is well known and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have neither the right nor the

345
desire to intervene in the matter. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are conscious of the difficulties which have been encountered in Western Samoa, and have followed with sympathetic interest the manner in which these difficulties have been surmounted.
With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's Question—whether Great Britain is bound by the Treaty of Berlin in 1889 to guarantee the neutrality, autonomy and independence of Samoa as a State—the reply is in the negative. That Treaty was annulled by Article 1 of the Convention signed by the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States at Washington on December 2, 1899. The position in Western Samoa is now regulated by the Mandate issued to His Majesty's Government in New Zealand by the Council of the League of Nations, December 17, 1920.
In the third part of the noble Lord's Question, he asks whether any petition has been received by His Majesty's Government from the Samoans, praying for relief from the conditions imposed on them by the Mandatory. A petition was addressed in September, 1931, by certain Samoans to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, asking that certain alleged disabilities should be removed. The petition was forwarded by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the New Zealand Government with the request that they would cause the petitioners to be informed that their petition had been received but that the matter to which it related was one solely for His Majesty's Government in New Zealand. I desire to emphasise the point that the administration of Western Samoa is a matter for His Majesty's Government in New Zealand, and I feel sure that the noble Lord will appreciate, from his own experience in the public service, the undesirability of discussing in this House a matter with which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is not concerned.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his reply and ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can tell us what will be the business for next week, and also when we shall rise for the Christmas Recess
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: On Tuesday next there is the Second Reading of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill, which this House passed last Session but which, through lack of time, was not fully discussed in another place. It is proposed to pass it through this House again. Then there is a Motion in the name of Lord Kilmaine, to call attention to the congestion of traffic in the London streets, and also a Motion by Lord Con way of Allington with regard to building operations at Carlton House Terrace. On Wednesday, I understand, Lord Denbigh is putting down again a Motion which he had on the Paper last Session, and which he removed for the time being, with regard to the action taken by the Soviet Government in regard to certain charges made in official Soviet publications. On Thursday I anticipate that we shall he in a position to take the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It goes through Committee in another place to-day. The Second Reading is almost a formality in this House. Any debate which takes place is usually on the Committee Stage. I believe also that Lord Melchett is going to put down the Motion which stands in his name for no day named with regard to productive capacity and economic reform.
That, I think, will conclude the business for next week. I understand that there are to be certain supplementary Estimates in another place which will involve a Consolidated Fund Bill, and therefore I am afraid we cannot rise for the vacation until December 22, a fortnight from to-day. The business of the final week will be the remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill, and also of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is very little more than a formality in your Lordships' House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.