Sitting of 8 November 1933

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL.
Sir ARNOLD WILSON: I beg leave to present to this Honourable House a Petition, signed by more than 59,000 persons, drawn from very many parts of the United Kingdom, begging that the Protection of Birds Bill may be recommitted by this Honourable House to a Select Committee. They represent that the Bill in its present form will not, in fact, promote the object for which it is intended, namely, prevention of cruelty to birds. They claim that cruel practices such as have been alleged can, in fact, be prevented under the existing law; and they represent that they themselves, as bird keepers and as bird lovers, are anxious to co-operate with a view to the prevention of cruelty to birds, but will not regard the Bill in its present form as well calculated to attain that end.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Leicester (Harborough Division), in the room of Arthur Stuart, the Earl Castle Stewart, M.C. (Manor of Northstead).—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wellington, Salop) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Worthing) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
Address for
"Return showing (1) Particulars of all Aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation have been issued and whose oaths of allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1932, been registered at the Home Office; (2) Information as to any aliens who have, during the same period,
164
obtained acts of naturalisation from the legislature; and (3) Particulars of cases in which certificates of naturalisation have been revoked during the same period (in continuation of Parliament Paper, No. 103, of Session 1931–32)."—[Mr. Hacking.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  FOUR-POWER PACT.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any joint examination has yet taken place under Article 2 of the Four-Power Pact of Articles 10, 16, and 19 of the Covenant of the League of Nations?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): No, Sir.
  Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to take up those points in due course?
  Sir J. SIMON: In due course, it may be so. At present the Four-Power Pact has been ratified by two of the signatories, but has not yet been ratified by the other two.
  Mr. THORNE: Is there any paper which we can obtain which will give the full obligations so far as the Four-Power Pact is concerned?
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that Pact can be said to impose obligations in the sense that my hon. Friend means. I think that a document has been published, but, if my hon. Friend will allow me to inquire, I will let him know.

  COLONIAL PRODUCTS (NATIVE CULTIVATION).
  Captain DOWERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider the appointment of a committee to inquire into the procedure adopted by different Colonial Governments to encourage the cultivation by natives of products with which they have not been hitherto familiar; and whether he will see that the reference to such committee embraces the issues of world overproduction, degrading of quality, and prejudicial competition with investment of European capital which Colonial Governments have consistently invited?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I do not think such a committee would serve a useful purpose. Conditions vary in different Colonies, and in regard to different commodities, and I think Colonial Administrations are fully alive to and take into proper account all relevant considerations both local and general.
  Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the disastrous effects of the native cultivation of coffee in the Kilimanjaro area of Tanganyika; whether he is aware that in that area disease pests exist; and whether he will undertake to see that such disaster will not be permitted in Kenya Colony adjoining that area?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I certainly should not accept the statement my hon. and gallant Friend has made that native coffee growing in. Tanganyika has been a failure. I have been at some pains to obtain information from impartial sources, and I find that on the whole it has been regarded, as respects quality, as quite reasonably successful, and as commanding a better, or certainly an equal price, compared with coffee from other plantations. As regards coffee growing in Kenya, I have laid it down that in the interests of maintaining efficiency very special conditions must apply, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend will be interested to know that after discussing the matter with me the Coffee Trade Association of London, who had asked me to see them, put it on record that they are amply satisfied.
  Sir H. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Kilimanjaro area there has been an enormous increase of the very disease which completely wiped out the coffee crop in Ceylon, and will he make inquiries into that?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am fully alive to the importance of preventing disease coming into coffee plantations, and that is why I am insisting on very strict conditions. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will agree with me that this question is by no means confined to native plantations. Re himself has told me of an instance within his own knowledge where he was put to great expense because of the lack of
  166
  supervision and maintenance on settlers' plantations adjoining his own.
  Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman received many protests from Kenya regarding his policy of encouraging native growing of low grade coffee, thus prejudicing the higher quality of the European grades?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is no question of encouraging the growing of low grade coffee, and I think anybody who knows the conditions which are laid down, and will certainly be enforced, will see that every care is being taken to maintain the efficiency of the Kenya crop.
  Mr. LUNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has not heard of certain Colonies in 'which there is a necessity for new crops, and, in view of that, ought not this matter to be considered further than has been stated in his answer?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In my reply I stated that every consideration was being taken into account, and I think it is is very desirable that coffee growing——
  Mr. LUNN: I am not alluding to coffee but to other products.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Then perhaps the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper.

  TRANSPORT.

    LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (ELECTRIFICATION).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Transport whether any schemes have yet been submitted to the standing joint committee of the Transport Board by the North Eastern Railway Company for the electrification of their suburban lines?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Yes, Sir. The standing joint committee has before it a number of proposals for new works, including a scheme for the electrification. of the Great Eastern section of the London and North Eastern Railway.
    Mr. McENTEE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the line from Liverpool Street to Chingford is included in those schemes 7
    Mr. STANLEY: I could not answer that question without notice.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Captain DOWERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, in the metropolitan and extra-metropolitan areas, respectively, in each of the months of July, August, September and October; and whether such accidents are attributable to any special cause?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): Statistics of road accidents for the country as a whole are not reported to my right hon. Friend until after the end of the calendar year to which they relate. I regret, therefore, that the information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks is not available for the country as a whole. As regards the metropolitan and city police districts, my right hon. Friend has obtained information regarding the number of accidents involving death or personal injury during the last four months, and, as this information is in tabular form, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In reply to the last part of the question, I regret that I am not in a position to say whether these accidents are attributable to any special cause. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, it is hoped to obtain valuable information regarding the causes of accidents from a comprehensive analysis which the Ministry of Transport is conducting, but the results of this analysis are not yet available.
    Captain DOWER: In view of the appalling increase in these accidents,

    Number of road accidents caused by Vehicles and Horses in the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London involving death or personal injury during July, August, September and October, 1933, and the number of persons killed and injured in these accidents.

    Month (1933).

    Fatal accidents.

    Number of persons killed.

    Accidents involving personal injury.

    Number of persons injured.

    July

    …

    124

    129

    4,902

    5,599

    August

    …

    118

    121

    4,657

    5,373

    September

    …

    129

    135

    4,780

    5,433

    October (provisional)

    …

    104

    107

    4,127

    4,611

    Total

    …

    475

    492

    18,466

    21,016

  AEROPLANES AND PARTS (EXPORTS).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any
  cannot the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of imposing a test before the granting of a licence, and also of increasing the penalties, where reckless and dangerous driving has been proved
  Mr. HACKING: While having every sympathy with the points raised in the supplementary question, I think that it will perhaps be desirable to wait for the analysis of the causes of the accidents before we make any move. I think that it would help us very much, and may result in action, possibly in the direction desired by the hon. Member.
  Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman asks us to wait, when day after day 20 valuable lives are being lost on the roads. Has not the time come when we can wait no longer?
  Mr. HACKING: Surely it is very much better to wait a very short time to do the right thing rather than to make a mistake and do the wrong thing for want of the necessary information.
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: This loss of life has been going on for two or three years, and the Government and the Department concerned have had it drawn to their notice time after time in this House.
  Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: As the causes of these accidents are perfectly controllable, cannot the right hon. Gentleman, for certain specified populous areas, reimpose a speed limit?
  Following is the in formation:
  licences have been issued to allow the export of aeroplanes or aeroplane parts to Germany during the past six months; and, if so, will be state the nature of the machines or parts exported?
  Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No, Sir. No licence is required to export aeroplanes or aeroplane parts from this country to Germany.
  Mr. DAVIES: Has the hon. and gallant Member any information, in spite of the Tact that no licences are required, as to exports of aeroplanes or parts of aeroplanes to Germany within the last few months?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir, I cannot add to my reply—that no licences are required for aeroplane parts. No licence has been given for aeroplane armament for Germany.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    EXPORTS.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade the total quantity of coal exported from this country to countries within the British Empire, and to foreign countries, during the nine months ended September, 1933, and for the same period in 1932 and 1931?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The total tonnage of coal exported from the United Kingdom and registered during the first nine months of 1933, 1932 and 1931, as consigned to British countries, was 3,084,000 tons, 3,563,000 tons and 3,174,000 tons, respectively. The total tonnage exported to foreign countries during the same periods was 25,773,000 tons, 25,600,000 tons and 28,454,000 tons, respectively.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Does this not show that tariffs have encouraged the export trade?

    COAL MINES ACT.
    Major DESPENCER-ROBERTSON (for Mr. SMITHERS)asked the Secretary for Mines if he will inform the House of the result of his negotiations with representatives of the coal industry, and when he proposes to introduce, in the light of two years' experience of its working, amending legislation to the Coal Mines Act to remove, or to snake more elastic, its restrictive provisions, especially for the export trade?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I understand that on the 19th October the Central Council of Coalowners failed to reach agreement as to the representations to be made to the Government for amendment of the schemes under Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. With regard to the second part of the question, I am unable to make any statement at the moment.

  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Health the total number of people receiving relief on the latest available date in October, 1933, and similar figures for 1932?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The number of persons, men, women and children, in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales, excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only, and casuals, on Saturday, 21st October, 1933, was 1,290,345. The corresponding figure for Saturday, 22nd October, 1932, was 1,236,983.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make any statement on the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the financial reconstruction of Newfoundland?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am informed by the Chairman of the Newfoundland Royal Commission that the report of the Commission will be presented later in the month. Pending the receipt of the report, it is not possible for me to make any statement as to the policy of the Government in the matter.
  Mr. HANNON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when the report is submitted, he will give as much sympathetic consideration to it as possible?
  Mr. THOMAS: The report will be submitted to me, and I anticipate that it will become necessary to come to this House.

  HOURS OF WORK.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour the present position with regard to his conversations with representatives of employers and employed concerning the practicability of the 40-hour week?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As a result of my right hon. Friend's consultation with the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations, after he had met representatives of the Trades Union Congress General Council, the former body undertook to make inquiries in the various industries on the subject of the absorption of workpeople into employment, including the practicability of the 40-hour week. These inquiries have been of a detailed character, and have necessarily taken some time, but my right hon. Friend was informed last week that he will certainly have the report of the Confederation by the end of this month. My right hon. Friend hopes then to meet the Trades Union Congress General Council again, and to discuss the position with them. It will be understood that very important issues are raised by proposals of the character of the 40-hour week, and my right hon. Friend's desire, in stimulating the action which has been taken, is to secure a position in which policy can be settled, without prejudice, on the basis of agreed facts. This is, I am sure, the desire of both sides in industry.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that all experience shows that, in matters such as this, reduction in hours without any reduction in wages can never be brought about voluntarily, and that it will require an Act of Parliament; and is he prepared to bring the matter before the Cabinet along those lines, or to suggest it to his right hon. Friend?
  Mr. HUDSON: As I think I said in my answer, the first thing we have to do is to get agreed facts on which to base a policy. As soon as we have facts that are agreed upon by both sides, we may then consider the necessary steps required to be taken.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Are the Government studying what is happening in America, and will they delay action here until they find out what kind of a mess that country is getting itself into?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who are registered as unemployed but are not in receipt of benefit or transitional payments?
    Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a table of figures I wilt, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. LEES-JONES: Will my hon. Friend issue, at the same time, figures for the year 1931?
    Mr. HUDSON: I will see if I can do that.
    Following is the statement:
    UNEMPLOYED PERSONS on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 23rd October, 1933, who had no claim authorised for insurance benefit or transitional payments.

    1. Persons insured under the Unemployment insurance Acts—

    *Non claimants

    168,030

    Applicants for transitional payments in whose cases it was held by Public Assistance Authorities that their needs did not justify payment

    83,108

    Claimants disallowed or disqualified on grounds other than those referred to in the footnote* below

    10,570

    Persons with claims under consideration

    55,253

    2. Uninsured persons

    126,835

    Total

    443,796

    * These include adults whose claims had been disallowed on the grounds that they were not normally insurable and would not normally seek to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment, together with those who had not made claims to insurance benefit or transitional payments.

    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Labour the latest available figures for unemployment, giving separate figures for each area?
    Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    UNEMPLOYED PERSONS on the registers of Employment Exchanges at 23rd October, 1933.

    Division.

    Number.

    London

    …

    235,846

    South Eastern

    …

    99,880

    South Western

    …

    139,655

    Midlands

    …

    273,042

    North Eastern

    …

    506,016

    North Western

    …

    480,937

    Scotland

    …

    343,374

    Wales

    …

    220,003

    Great Britain

    …

    2,298,753

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Sir JOHN HASLAM (for Mr. HAMMERSLEY)asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in the cotton trade on the last available date and 12 months ago?
    Mr. HUDSON: At 23rd October, 1933, there were 108,005 insured persons in the cotton industry classification, recorded as unemployed in Great Britain. At 24th October, 1932, the corresponding number was 133,175.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Can my hon. Friend say how those figures compare with the year 1931?
    Mr. HUDSON: The number on 21st September, 1931, was 251,807, and on 26th October, 1931, 189,083.

    UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.
    Sir J. HASLAM (for Mr. HAMMERSLEY)asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the financial position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund?
    Mr. HUDSON: During the current financial year, because of the continued
    174
    improvement in employment, the Unemployment Fund has accumulated a surplus on insurance account of about £5,250,000. This sum appears to be more than sufficient to provide against contingencies during the winter months. My right hon. Friend has accordingly decided to apply a part of it to the repayment of the debt of the fund, which, as the House knows, had reached a total of £115,000,000. Repayment is being made as the various parts of the debt fall due for repayment or renewal. The sum of £210,000 has already been repaid and a further sum. of £1,460,000 will be repaid during the current week. A statement of the transactions of the Unemployment Fund appears in the Ministry of Labour Gazette each month.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if, before repaying to the fund, he ought not to take steps to carry out the insurance obligations to the insured person, seeing that this Government cut down the insurance obligations under the Economy Act; and is it not the first duty to see that the contract of insurance with the people who are in insurance is carried out?
    Mr. HUDSON: To do that would mean fresh legislation. I would ask the hon. Member to be patient until to-morrow morning, when he will read, with his papers, the text of the draft Insurance Bill which deals with this point among others.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is not the hon. Gentleman prejudicing the issue by devoting a sum to the repayment? Why is the Minister not waiting, before allocating a certain sum, until this House has decided what is to be done with the surplus?
    Mr. HUDSON: I think that the hon. Member, if he waits until to-morrow, will see the answer to that question as well.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I am sorry, but may I press the Under-Secretary on this point? A certain surplus has arisen; is the first duty not to those who have entered into a contract, and should not the Minister, before repaying any sum, not wait until this House decides what is to be done with its contractual obligations?
    Mr. HUDSON: The position is this: This sum, having accumulated, can either be used for repaying the debt or be left to accumulate still further. To alter that would mean fresh legislation. If we allow the money to accumulate we shall receive a comparatively small sum in interest, but if we pay back the money we shall reduce the debt. It is obviously more to the advantage of the insured person that we should pay off the debt than that we should ask Parliament to allow the money to remain idle. It will be fully within the power of this House, when considering the new Bill, to deal with this sum, which will have been used pro tanto to reduce the debt.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is it not most important, in the interests of the unemployed themselves, to get the fund really solvent?

    HAT MANUFACTURE.
    Sir J. HASLAM (for Mr. HAMMERSLEY)asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in the hatting industry on the last available date and 12 months ago?
    Mr. HUDSON: I regret that separate figures for hat manufacture are not available. At 23rd October, 1933, there were 4,806 insured persons in the hat and cap (including straw plait) industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain. At 24th October, 1932, the corresponding number was 5,367. These figures are exclusive of the millinery industry, for which separate figures are not available.

    SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. McENTEE (for Mr. LOGAN)asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in the shipbuilding industry at the last available date, and comparable figures for 1932?
    Mr. HUDSON: At 23rd October, 1933, there were 90,865 insured persons in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain. At 24th October, 1932, the corresponding number was 106,841.
    Mr. LEES-JONES: Can my hon. Friend give the figure for October, 1931
    Mr. HUDSON: On the 26th October, 1931, the figure was 109,492.

    ENGINEERING TRADES.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons unemployed in general engineering in the various administrative areas on the last available date and comparable figures for 1932?
    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:

    Insured persons in "General Engineering; Engineers' Iron and Steel Founding" recorded as unemployed.

    Division.

    23rd. Oct., 1933.

    24th Oct., 1932.

    London

    …

    8,136

    10,606

    South Eastern

    …

    4,074

    7,959

    South Western

    …

    3,790

    6,479

    Midlands

    …

    11,469

    19,108

    North Eastern

    …

    28,595

    42,488

    North Western

    …

    35,423

    45,393

    Scotland

    …

    21,340

    30,110

    Wales

    …

    1,589

    2,071

    Great Britain

    …

    114,416

    164,314

  DANZIG.
  Mr. MANDER(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make with reference to the situation in Danzig, and the appeal made by the High Commissioner to the Council of the League of Nations?
  Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. I am informed that a communication has been received from the High Commissioner in which he asks the Council to deal with certain questions which may constitute a violation of the Danzig Convention. This communication is being circulated to the Council, and it will be for the Council to decide at what meeting it will deal with the question.
  Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Can the Foreign Secretary say when the High Commissioner vacates his post?
  Sir J. SIMON: The temporary High Commissioner, Mr. Rosting has already vacated his post, some time in October, and there has been appointed a permanent new High Commissioner in the per-

  177
  son of Mr. Lester, who is the permanent resident representative in Geneva of the Irish Free State. He is extremely well known at Geneva, and very highly respected, and I was very glad indeed to be able to report to the Council that he had accepted this new position.
  Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the country that is interfering in the situation in Danzig?
  Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that it is Mr. Lester, the new High Commissioner, who has made this appeal?
  Sir J. SIMON: I did not say that. I understood that the question of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) was as to when the High Commissioner was going to vacate his post. A new appointment has been made, but I cannot at the moment inform the House whether this particular report has been made by Mr. Rosting or by Mr. Lester. I imagine, however, that it is Mr. Lester, because Mr. Rosting is now functus officio.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for the rest of the Session, and what is the object of the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald):The Motion to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is, I take it, the Motion relating to the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule. It is put down jist as a precautionary measure.
The business will be as follows:
Friday: Debate on the position of unemployed persons under the National Health Insurance Scheme. This was promised before the House rose.
Monday: Debate on a Motion of Censure to be tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, on the subject of Disarmament.
Tuesday: Remaining stages of the Local Government Bill (Lords), the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill (Lords), and the Protection of Birds Bill (Lords).
Wednesday: Consideration of Motions to approve the following Orders: Bacon (Import Regulation) Order, 1933; Sea-
178
fishing Industry (Regulation of Landing) Order, 1933; Additional Import Duties Orders Nos. 17, 18 and 19.
Thursday: Consideration of outstanding business and of any Lords Amendments which may be received from another place to the Road and Rail Traffic Bill and to any other Bills.
During the week it is proposed to consider Amendments to the Standing Orders which have been recommended by the Technical Committee appointed by Mr. Speaker. The Amendments, which are almost entirely of a drafting nature, will be on the Order Paper to-morrow.
It is anticipated that all outstanding business will be concluded in time to allow of Parliament being prorogued on Friday, 17th November. The new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 21st November.
Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the Prime Minister two questions? First of all, with regard to the Debate on Friday, how is the Debate to be taken? Will it be on the Adjournment, or will there be a definite Motion on this question of unemployed persons? My second question is in connection with the Amendments to the Standing Orders. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether it will be possible for anybody else to put down Amendments to the Standing Orders, or is that confined to this Committee; and will the right hon. Gentleman also state who will be in charge of the Amendments on behalf of the Government?
The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that Amendments will be in order to the proposed Amendments which the House will discuss at a time to be arranged. The Leader of the House will be in charge of the principal Amendments. I ought to say, Mr. Speaker, that the question of Amendments is in your control, and not in anybody else's. The Debate on the National Health Insurance Scheme concerns the position of unemployed persons, and it was requested by the Opposition before the House adjourned for the Summer Recess. I understand that before the day a Motion will be put down on the subject in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that the Protection of Birds Bill has been definitely taken up by the Government?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question with regard to the consideration of the Standing Orders? I take it that we shall only be allowed to move Amendments to the Amendments that are being proposed, and that we cannot bring up fresh ones? That is the point on which I want to be clear.
Mr. BUCHANAN: That is my point.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is rather difficult for me to rule on the matter before I see what it is proposed to do. If any Amendments are put before me, I shall have to consider whether they are in order or not.
Mr. LANSBURY: I take it that it would be in order to put on the Paper other Amendments than those which are already being recommended by the Committee. It is rather important, because we may have quite a number of rather important Amendments which we should like to put down.
Mr. SPEAKER: I see no objection whatever to Members putting down Amendments. Whether they are in order is another thing.
Mr. THORNE: Will it be in order to put down Amendments to the Standing
Orders as to the time the House meets and adjourns?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can put them down.
Mr. BUCHANAN: With regard to the Health Insurance Debate, will there be any opportunity of amending the Resolution? In other words, will it be put down in order that it may be amended if it is not satisfactory?
The PRIME MINISTER: So far as putting Amendments on the Paper is concerned, the ordinary Rules of the House will be followed.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I know that the ordinary Rules govern it, but it is almost impossible to amend a Resolution on the morning of the Debate,. I am asking whether there will be an opportunity to put down Amendments.
Mr. LANSBURY: The Resolution will be handed in to-night and will be on the Paper in the morning.
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)" —[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 41.

Division No. 295.]

AYES

[3.24 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Castlereagh, Viscount

Elmley, Viscount

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

Cautley. Sir Henry S.

Emmott, Charles E. 0. C.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

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

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Albery, Irving James

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Chotzner, Alfred James

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Clarke, Frank

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Bailey, Eric Alfred George

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Everard, W. Lindsay

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Falie, Sir Bertram G.

Balniel, Lord

Cook, Thomas A.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Cooper, A. Duff

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Copeland, Ida

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Courtauld, Major John Sewell

Ganzoni, Sir John

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Crooke, J. Smedley

Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

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

Blindell, James

Cross, R. H.

Gledhill, Gilbert

Borodale, Viscount.

Crossley, A. C.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Bossom, A. C.

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Gluckstein, Louis Halls

Boulton, W. W.

Curry, A. C.

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

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

Goff, Sir Park

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Davison, Sir William Henry

Goldie, Noel B.

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Dawson, Sir Philip

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Doran, Edward

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Browne, Captain A. C.

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Duggan, Hubert John

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Burnett, John George

Dunglass, Lord

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

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Eady, George H.

Hanley, Dennis A.

Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brinly)

Eden, Robert Anthony

Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Harbord, Arthur

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Harris, Sir Percy

Hartland, George A.

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Savery, Samuel Servington

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A,

Martin, Thomas B.

Shepperson. Sir Ernest W.

Hepworth, Joseph

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Shute, Colonel J. J.

Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Holdsworth, Herbert

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

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

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Hornby, Frank

Milne, Charles

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne. C.

Howard, Tom Forrest

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Soper, Richard

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

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Spencer. Captain Richard A.

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Hurd, Sir Percy

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

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

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

Stevenson, James

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Nunn. William

Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

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

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

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

Stones, James

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Palmer, Francis Noel

Storey, Samuel

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Pearson. William G.

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Peat, Charles U.

Strickland. Captain W. F.

Ker, J. Campbell

Percy, Lord Eustace

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Petherick, M.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Knight, Holford

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

Sutcliffe. Harold

Knox, Sir Alfred

Pickering. Ernest H.

Tate, Mavis Constance

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Pike, Cecil F.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Templeton. William P.

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Procter, Major Henry Adam

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

Leckie. J. A.

Pybus, Percy John

Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Lees-Jones, John

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement

Leigh, Sir John

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

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

Leighton. Major B. E. P.

Rankin, Robert

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Rawson. Sir Cooper

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Levy, Thomas

Rea, Walter Russell

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Lewis, Oswald

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Liddall. Walter S.

Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)

White. Henry Graham

Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)

Reld, William Allan (Derby)

Whiteside. Borras Noel H.

Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Whyte. Jardine Bell

Lloyd. Geoffrey

Runge. Norah Cecil

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wills, Wilfrid D

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tsldel

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

Mabane, William

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

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

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Womersley, Walter James

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

Salt, Edward W.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

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

Samuel. Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

McKie. John Hamilton

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Magnay, Thomas

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

NOES

Banfield, John William

Hicks, Ernest George

Owen. Major Goronwy

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

Hirst. George Henry

Parkinson, John Allen

Buchanan, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Price. Gabriel

Cape, Thomas

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Cove. William G.

Kirkwood. David

Thorne, William James

Daggar, George

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Tinker, John Josiah

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lawson, John James

Wallhead, Richard C.

Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Leonard, William

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Edwards, Charles

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

George. Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Lunn. William

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Wilmot, John Charles

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

McGovern. John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grundy. Thomas W.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Maxton, James.

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
"to amend the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1933, and to make further provision for the training and assistance of persons who are capable of, and available for, work, but have no work or only part-time or intermittent work; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Sir Henry
182
Betterton; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Thomas, Secretary Sir Godfrey Collins, Sir Hilton Young, Mr. Elliot, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Hudson; to be read a, Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE 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 (No. 2) BILL.

    SCHEDULE.
    3.34 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 5 to 9.
    In moving the deletion of Section 2 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act, 1920, from the Schedule of this Bill, I want to say that this is not the first occasion that we have tried to delete this provision from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. We have objected to the continuance of these provisions for many years, and our opposition is even stronger to-day than it has ever been, as I shall endeavour to show. In spite of the fact that we have raised this issue for several years past, it is worth pointing out once again what they mean in practice, and I will explain to the Committee once again what we are trying to do in moving the deletion of this Section from the Schedule. Our first objection is that when this provision was inserted in the 1920 Act, the Government of the day not only made a definite promise to the country that the provision would come to an end in 1925, but they actually inserted that promise in the Act of Parliament itself. In spite of that promise, this provision has continued for 13 years. I do not like Parliament making promises that it does not carry out. I do not like Governments doing it either. In any case, when a promise is put into an Act of Parliament it has a very much sounder basis than one given. by mere word of mouth by a representative of a Government.
    The provision to which we are objecting to-day is commonly called the two-shift system. It provides that an employer, on an appeal to the Home Office, and after satisfying certain conditions, can secure an Order for employing his work-people, contrary to the provisions of the factory laws of this country, for eight hours a day at any hour between 6 o'clock
    186
    in the morning and 10 o'clock at night. Someone may say at once, "Well, there is not very much wrong in that," but hon. Members must understand that the provisions apply to young persons from 16 years of age upwards. As I shall try to prove, we contend that these provisions are harsh, unnatural and unnecessary especially in respect of young persons of 16 years of age and over. But before doing so, I want to show the Committee how these Orders have grown in number as the years have gone by. In 1921 there were 146 Orders issued; in 1922, 95; in 1923, 88; in 1924, 97; 1925, 86; 1926, 69; and when we come to 1927 the figures run up to 104; in 1928, 117; 1929, 113; 1930, 129; and in 1931, 227 such Orders were issued. When we come to 1932 the Home Office issued 293 Orders, and up to 31st October of this year the number had already reached 267. The number of Orders, however, do not indicate the number of workpeople affected because one Order alone might easily affect a thousand workpeople; and we have no information either to show the ages of the workpeople affected by these Orders.
    I want first to ask the right hon. Gentleman representing the Home Office how many of these Orders have fallen into disuse. That information would be very important. I am not sure whether the Home Office keeps a record of the number of Orders which fall into disuse. It would be very helpful if we could have the information, because, if we added all the number of Orders together, they would run into a very formidable figure, but I Cannot believe that they are all in force at present. In 1929, according to the information obtained then, there were 148 Orders in continuous use and about 10,000 workpeople affected. It is a monstrous state of affairs that this country is rapidly getting into the position where two shifts a day, are operative just as if we were in, the middle of a period of trade prosperity. We have over 2,000,000 people unemployed on the one hand, And the employers turn round and say: "We cannot cope with the orders that are coming in; we must speed up our factories and work two shifts a day. "We make a strong complaint against the suggestion that the position of industry in this country warrants the claim that the employers are making, that factories must

    187
    be kept on at full speed for 24 hours a day in order to cope with the immense number of orders that are coming in from home and abroad. Some of the first request's for these Home Office Orders were made on the plea that the demands which were coming in from abroad for British products had to be satisfied forthwith. Therefore, the Home Office were asked to issue Orders so that employers could cope with those urgent orders from abroad. I do not think that that argument holds good any longer, because the complaint is now made that hardly any orders are coming from abroad at all.
    I should like to advance another argument against the continuation of the issuing of these Orders by the Home Office. What does it mean in relation to family life? The final test of every piece of legislation is how it affects the human being. Let me try to picture the position. When I was a collier I had to work occasionally at nights, and I did not like it. I preferred to work during the day, although I worked in darkness even during the day. Let me put the case which think can arise in a family consisting of a man, his wife and two children—a son and a daughter. The boy works under the two-shift system, starting at, say six o'clock in the morning. He must get up, I suppose, at 5 o'clock, and his mother has to prepare breakfast for him at 5.30. The husband goes to work at seven o'clock and another breakfast has to be prepared for 6.30. The daughter goes to work in a shop or an office and still another breakfast has to be prepared at eight o'clock. At mid-day the son comes from work at two o'clock or 2.30, at the end of the two-shift system and a meal has to be prepared for him. The husband and daughter come in at other hours and meals have to be prepared for them. The household, therefore, becomes in fact a small cook shop. We object to that sort of thing happening in our family affairs. [Laughter] Hon. Members may laugh. They employ servants to do the work, but in this case the housewife has to do it all. I do not think it is fair, in view of all the new inventions that have come along enabling almost everything to be done by machinery, that a, system should be adopted whereby the housewife is adversely affected in her household duties in the way I have described.
    188
    We have another objection to this system. Perhaps I ought to interpose a special word here, because I have been called to account for suggesting that this provision affects children. Someone was good enough in some official document to say that I had stated that children were employed on the two-shift system in this country. This provision of course affects young persons of 16 years of age and upwards. I regard a boy or a girl of 16 years of age however in the present industrial conditions of this country as nothing but children. The rich people take good care that they do not call their boys and girls anything but children until they are 18 years of age, and some even up to 21 years of age. Some of them are children at that age, and a number are old women at any age. I stated 12 months ago that the Home Office were allowing employers to exploit the workpeople by granting these Orders. I have no hesitation in saying that every move that an employer makes to get away from the ordinary practice of starting work at seven or eight o'clock in the morning and finishing at five o'clock in the afternoon is an unnatural exploitation of the faculties of the work-people. The employer may of course argue that he is doing it for the sake of economy.
    I object very strongly to the extension of this system also because it has crept, at last, into the great textile industry of Lancashire, where this sort of thing was totally unknown up to a few years ago. I think the first Order for that purpose was granted during the lifetime of the present Government. I am glad to think that their lifetime is not going to be extended very much further. Let me put another point against these Orders. They are a relic of the great War. They were granted in order that we could turn out munitions night and day. without stopping. From the point of view of those who believe in war it is all right to turn out as much munition as you can, but we object to legal provisions that were intended to apply to nothing but armament factories being carried into the peaceful avocations of the people and continued for so long. If this Government has its way we may have double shifts in armament factories later on.
    Will the Under-Secretary tell the Committee to what type of employer and industry these Orders have been granted Do they apply to gramophone record

    189
    making, to textiles and so on? We would like to know what are the industries covered by the Orders. Are they factories that produce for home consumption or for the export trade? I think that is a fair question.
    The argument has been put forward by the supporters of the system that they have increased employment by the adoption of the two-shift system. Will the Under-Secretary tell us where there is any foundation for the argument that you increase employment by adopting the two-shift system? It is like saying that you increase the water in the sea because the tide comes in twice a day. I do not think that the number employed in industry has been increased by one person by the adoption of the two-shift system. Everyone connected with local authority and educational work in this country will agree with me when I say that young persons employed under a two-shift system, which means that those employed on the afternoon shift return home in some cases after ten o'clock in the evening, are debarred altogether from the social amenities of their neighbourhood and also from attending any educational classes of any kind. That is most unfair to these young people.
    There is one further question, and a most pertinent question, which I must put to the Under-Secretary. How many of these Orders have been granted to gentlemen who have come from Germany, Belgium, Hungary, Sweden and Norway to establish factories in this country? I do not know how many of these factories there are. According to statements made by Ministers as to the rate at which they were being put up before the summer recess, one would imagine that every factory in this country would ultimately be run by foreigners. The attitude of mind of the Government was that they were growing by thousands, by leaps and bounds; that many foreigners with capital with coming here to show the English people how to produce commodities. That, I thought, was an insult to our own people; but it is the Tory mentality. Will the hon. and gallant Gentlemen tell us how many of these Orders have been granted to factories established by foreign capital and run by foreigners? We should then know where these phantom factories are situated. The Government have been quiet on this
    190
    matter for some time; we have not heard very much about it in any of the propaganda speeches which have been delivered during the last two months and, therefore, I think we should get to know something about it now.
    I know that as in answer to my criticism we shall have the stock argument—I can almost see it on the lips of the hon. and gallant Gentleman already—that in 1924 the Labour Government granted Orders and that in 1929 the Labour Government granted similar Orders. Surely that argument cannot prevail now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, when he uses that argument, that it is grossly unfair to judge the activities of any Government of any political colour which is in a minority in connection with our factory laws. When we get comparative figures about 1932 or 1933 someone always asks what are the figures for 1931, as if we did not know that the whole thing was prepared beforehand. I ask the Under-Secretary to tell us whether the Government have seriously considered the necessity of continuing the practice of granting these Orders under what is called the two-shift system?
    There is also the argument, which no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman will use, that the working people themselves vote on this matter, that there is a ballot before a decision is reached and that a majority of the working people are always in favour of this provision. I ask any hon. Member who knows anything about industry whether it is not the case that when an employer employing say 500 workers makes a suggestion, as is often the case, that the factory cannot continue much longer unless the two-shift system is brought into operation, such a suggestion in itself makes it almost impossible for the workers to vote against the introduction of the two-shift system. There is a suggestion there that they might lose their jobs unless it is adopted, and that is sufficient to bias the issue in the minds of the workers. I say that such a ballot of the working people, although carried out quite fairly, does not give a true indication of their desire. In any case, if any employer or Government Department were to ask working people whether they prefer to work from seven or eight o'clock in the morning until five in the afternoon, or start at six and stop

    191
    at two, their decision would be overwhelmingly in favour of the ordinary day shift as the better alternative.
    3.56 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I desire to support the arguments of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) from my own experience as a secretary of a trade union and also as one who has endeavoured to do something for the cause of technical education in industry. Let me draw the attention of the Committee to the point that is involved. Because of the operations of these Orders, because you are allowing the working of two shifts, ordinary Factory Act legislation, which forbids young persons under the age of 18 years of age to work except between certain hours, is altered and young persons can be employed until ten o'clock in the evening. When these regulations were made there was a great deal of hesitation in the minds of those interested in factory legislation as to whether it was really wise to depart from the ordinary factory legislation. Arguments, however, were brought forward at the time, the most convincing being that the employers said they were in the middle of a boom period—this was in 1920—and had a considerable amount of orders on hand. They asked that the regulation should be made, temporarily, to enable them to cope with the orders they had. When the matter was debated in this House assurances were given that these Orders were of a purely temporary character and would disappear in the course of time. Instead of that they have been kept on ever since.
    I make this appeal to the Committee. I consider the two years between the ages of 16 and 18 very vital years indeed in the life of a young person. The trend of modern industry is to take children into industry at the age of 14, use them up to 18 and 19 years of age, to exploit them to the utmost, and then throw them on to the street. A good many young persons of 21 years of age are already too old for the jobs that they have recently filled. In addition, you have an army of at least 100,000 young persons between 16 and 21 years of age who are unable to get any employment at all.
    The effect of this system is particularly hard and cruel so far as any educational
    192
    facilities for young persons are concerned. I have been asked by county councils, by borough councils, by people interested in education, to do all that I possibly can to use my influence, as far as it goes, to impress upon young people the necessity of technical education in their own industry. This debars them from any chance at all. I hope hon. Members will visualise what happens to young persons employed on this second shift, which runs from 2 o'clock in the afternoon until 10 o'clock in the evening. That means that the young person is condemned to an existence which, in effect, is all bed and work. They get home late from work and lie abed late in the morning, and, after looking round, it is almost noon, and they must get ready for the factory. I put it that a system of this kind is altogether wrong in these modern days. Further, if British industry is absolutely unable to flourish without exploiting young persons between 16 and 18 years of age to this extent, then British industry must indeed be in a very bad and a very sorry way.
    The exploitation of child labour has always been one of those subjects which have appealed to all men and women of good will. Apart from any political bias all sorts and conditions of men and women have realised that it is for the good of the community that young persons between these ages should be looked after and not be allowed to be exploited, that their entry into industry, instead of being made harsh and wearisome, should be made as pleasant as possible, that they should be encouraged to educate themselves as far as possible, and be encouraged to take a real, live interest in the work they perform. I suggest that the real argument against this provision is that it takes away that incentive to industry, that it chokes and drives off the young person from taking any interest in industry at all. It simply brings the young person down, more or less, to the level of a slave, without the possibility of enlightenment, without the possibility of developing, as he or she should at that stage, all the best that is in them. Consequently, I hope and trust that the time may have come when the Minister may see his way to drop this Regulation.
    It may be argued that the Labour Government of 1924 or 1929 agreed to this. That is no argument at all in this House to-day. I am not here to defend the

    193
    action of the Labour Government of 1924 or 1929. I am dealing with the thing as I find it now, and I say, out of my own experience, I am convinced that this Regulation inflicts a very cruel wrong upon young persons. If it be true, as the hon. Member suggested, that employers are now coming along in the textile factories asking for this Regulation to be put into force for their benefit, then I think the condition in Lancashire will soon be as bad as it was 40 or 50 years ago, and even worse than it was under the half-time system. No industry in the long run has really benefited by the exploitation of the labour of young persons of this tender age. I say that it is bad business for the industry, bad business for the nation and very bad, and even tragical, business for the young persons concerned. I hope that the Minister may afford us some hope that the promises made when this Regulation was introduced in 1920 are at least to be redeemed, and that we are to take from the Statute Book what, I consider, is cruel and harsh treatment of young persons.
    4.8 p.m.
    Mr. McENTEE: I would like to add my plea to the right hon. Member opposite for this provision to be taken out of the Schedule. I remember coming here in 1922 for the first time and making an appeal then with others for the removal of this Act from the Schedule. I remember, further, being associated in 1924 with the party, to which I still belong, when they formed a minority Government, and I would say this to the Minister. He may make the reply which my hon. Friend thought might be made, that the Labour Government at that time, not in this House perhaps, but in another place, were tackled as to what their action was going to be in regard to the Act we are now considering, and we got a reply at that time, which I remember very well, from the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Prime Minister, and at that time was Prime Minister in the Labour Government. The reply was to the effect that it would be impossible for the Labour party as a party to pass a Bill through this House unless they could secure practically the unanimous support of the Liberal party in the House at that time, and we were informed that certain representations had been made in the usual way, and that although a large
    194
    measure of support could be secured from certain Members of the Liberal party, there was not a sufficient measure of support to enable us to carry it. That was really the reason given to us then, and I think a similar reason was given in 1929. It must not be taken that, because the Labour Government did not remove this Act from the Schedule, there was any feeling in the Labour party at that time different from the feeling at the present time.
    I think, however, this ought to be viewed from quite a different aspect. After all, it was admitted by everybody who was responsible for the Factory Acts that when they were carried it was because they were necessary for the protection of young people of the ages that we are now considering. When the attempt was made to modify those Factory Acts so as to allow young persons to work from six in the morning until 10 at night, very serious opposition was raised by Members of all sections of the House of Commons, and it was only agreed to by this House on the strict understanding that it was temporary, and that it was only necessary because of the special circumstances which existed at that time. All those who voted for it, no doubt, in 1920—I was not here myself —did so in good faith, and in the belief that as soon as the special circumstances then existing had passed away, the Act would be taken out of the Schedule, and we would come back to the old conditions imposed by the Factory Acts. Year after year this matter has been brought up since, and we are always met with some excuse, but never with a reason which any intelligent person could accept, and, frankly, I do not think that anybody on the Government side to-day could say that there is any reason for a continuance of this Act from the point of view of industry. From the public health point of view, either it is right or it is wrong that these young persons should work under the conditions they are working under to-day. If it is right that they should, why not repeal those parts of the Factory Acts which refer to the conditions of the employment of these young persons? If the Factory Acts are justified, as, I believe, most Members will admit, why should we pass this Act year after year?

    195
    Reference has been made by my hon. Friend to the lack of opportunity for young persons to get technical education. I am interested in technical education, too, but I am more interested in general cultural development, and I want every opportunity given to these young people to take advantage of the facilities provided, which some of us in this House never got when we were their age. I cannot help feeling that it is a bit mean to take advantage of these young people, and not allow them to have the opportunity to use these facilities. From the educational standpoint, I do not suppose there is an educationist in the country of any political party who would not agree that the continuance of this Act is detrimental to the interests of the young people. From the public health standpoint, I do not believe there is any one in any political party in this House who would disagree that it is also detrimental to the general health of the young people.
    Therefore, I ask myself, what can be the reason that induces the Government year after year to press for the inclusion of this legislation in the Schedule? The only reason that I can give to myself is that pressure is being brought on them from outside somewhere. Whence can that pressure come? I suggest it can only come from that section of the community in the industry that is anxious to exploit young persons, and to evade all the provisions of the Factory Acts. I suggest to the Government that they ought not to allow pressure from a source like that to influence them in their judgment in a matter of such importance to young people. After all, there are among employers, just as there are among all other people, good employers and bad employers, and I suggest that it is only the bad employer, the employer who has no regard for the health of these young employes who would wish to maintain this Act against the better judgment of everybody qualified to judge as to the effect upon the education and health of the young people. I hope, therefore, that the Government, with their very large majority, will resist that pressure, which, no doubt, has been brought to bear upon them, and will accede to the request which has been made by my hon. Friend.
    4.14 p.m.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Our attitude has been challenged by my hon. Friend opposite. Of course, there is no question of what, our attitude to this particular provision is. I think that Parliament has never altered its opinion as to the undesirability of a two-shift system for young persons. In fact, if it were not so, it would become part of the permanent legislation of the country. Every year, unfortunately, these expiring laws contain this provision to continue what is, after all, emergency legislation. I sometimes think that expiring law provisions would be a very good thing to do away with, because they do encourage slackness in Government Departments. I think that if my right hon. Friend, the very able representative of the Home Office, had to come down this year and introduce new legislation to impose this provision, not only would he hesitate to do so, but I believe he would not for a moment think of doing it. Obviously, year after year, automatically, the Government are inclined to let these things slide. When the Session is expiring, the expiring laws go on expiring, and I think that is the only justification. If I remember rightly, in 1920 this provision was made because there was a little trade boom. Ever since then it has been justified because there has been a trade slump.
    We cannot have it both ways. My right hon. Friend the Under—Secretary now suggests apparently a coming trade boom as a renewed justification for these very undesirable proposals. We do not want to be too hard on an individual employer if an emergency does arise in his industry. If an employer knows that these provisions exist, naturally he takes advantage of them, but if the provisions did not exist no doubt he would be able so to adapt the factory conditions and modify the organisation so that instead of employing juniors he could bring in a certain number of adult workers. Public opinion is growing in favour of keeping young people out of industry as long as possible. It seems unfortunate that automatically—I cannot believe deliberately—these provisions are renewed year by year. I hope we shall have some assurance from the Government that this really is the last time the provisions will be embodied in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I agree with the last speaker in hoping for some assurance from the Government that this is the last time these provisions will be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. But I do not see why we should trust the promise of any Government when it comes to the Factory Act. We know perfectly well that the Factory Act was never a Government Bill. It was a Home Office Bill. Every Government since 1920, Tory Governments and Labour Governments, have put off dealing with this matter. I can never forget the Parliament of 1920. It "did for" the Coalition of that day. The House was full of War profiteers. All that was necessary was to mention anything to do with humane legislation, such as education or the employment of women and children, and Members would rise in their thousands and shout one down. There was never anything like it. That was at a time before the women had become organised.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see the connection between the Noble Lady's speech and the Bill dealing with the employment of young persons.
    Viscountess ASTOR: The Bill refers to the employment of women and young children, and I am speaking about the consciousness of the House which in 1920 passed that Bill. This House is quite different from the House of 1920. There are very few in this Parliament who want to see children and young people working these abominable hours. When the Children Bill was going through Standing Committee we had a definite promise from the Government that they would regulate the hours of work of children in unregulated trades. Otherwise, the Government would never have got the Bill through Committee. But the Government have done nothing since, and we are not certain that they are going to do anything now. Why cannot they have the courage to bring forward a new Factory Act and pass it? What are they waiting for? They have the whole country behind them; they have far more power than any other Government has ever had. We ought to have a national policy for juveniles as far as factories are concerned. Some countries have absolutely upset everything in order to take children up to the age of 16 out of factories. I beg the House and the Home Office to do something. I know that the
    198
    Home Secretary is for it. Who is keeping him back? It is not the House of Commons, and I do not think it is the officials of the Home Office.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Lansbury.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Do not bite your leaders. I do not blame the leaders so much as the House of Commons. What are we sitting here waiting for? Why do not we make up our minds what we are going to do about these young persons? We can exert pressure on the Government. If the Government will not give us a promise to deal with the matter we ought to vote against them even on this Bill. The trade unions have not pressed for the reform. They have always been pressing for other things. The whole House is to blame for nothing having been done. There is not a section of the House that is not to blame. I beg the Under-Secretary to go back to the Government and demand that something be done, or to give us an assurance that something will be done about these juveniles. The position is very awkward for some of us. We want to back the Government, but sometimes we feel rather like kicking it. In this case we will not believe a word that the Government say until we see something in a Bill The Government could pass a Bill quite well.
    Of course there is a certain section of industry that is never ready to reform itself. Those employers were not ready in Shaftesbury's days. They are willing to sweat anyone. It is only a very small section of industry, but we are in this House to protect the people who cannot protect themselves. In this case it is the young people. I appeal to the Government and the House. Why do we not get to work and do something? Do not let us sit still. We hall never get a better Government than the National Government. The chance of real reform is through this Government. Once we get hack to party polities every party will play its tricks. This House of Commons is the best I have ever seen, but I am afraid its Members are not used to dealing with Governments. If they understood Governments they would get up and make speeches on this subject. Then the Minister would run back to the Cabinet and the Cabinet would take action, and we would get a Bill to protect the

    199
    juveniles. I say to the Under-Secretary: Give us some assurance and do not make us vote with Members of the Socialist party. Much as we admire their hearts we are a little nervous about then beads.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): We have all been much interested in the speech of the Noble Lady. I am in perfect agreement with her description of this Government as the finest Government that has been in office for many years, but I must protest against the violence with which she threatens me. I think she said that she felt very much like kicking the Under-Secretary of State.
    Viscountess ASTOR:No, the Government.
    Mr. HACKING: Then I take it I am exempted from that form of punishment. The hon. Member who moved the deletion of these lines in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill said that this was not the first occasion on which his party and he had objected to this two-shift system. That is quite true. Each year that this Bill has been before the House the Government, whatever Government it may have been, has been asked to delete these same words in order to remove the opportunity of the two-shift system being worked by women and young persons of 16 years and over. The Noble Lady has fallen into the same error as has been frequently made by many speakers. She refers to these people as children. The Bill has nothing to do with children. It refers to persons of 16 years and over. Let us make that clear. In the eyes of the law there is a great difference between a child and a person of 16 and over.
    I am very glad that on this occasion at any rate the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has been more accurate than he was on the last occasion on which he addressed the House on this particular issue. He has to-day given a rather half-hearted apology for a statement that he made last year, but he has not been completely accurate even to-day. He said that the employer by making application to the Home Office could, under certain conditions, obtain permission to work a two-shift system. That in itself is misleading. It is true that the hon. Member qualified his statement
    200
    later, but when he said that the employer could make application to the Home Office he surely meant that the employer and the workpeople jointly could make the application? Do not let us have all this thrust upon the employer, for the employés share the responsibility of making the application.
    Mr. R. DAVIES: Does the Under-Secretary mean that a suggestion for the adoption of the two-shift system would come from the employés were it not for the fact that the employer made the suggestion to them first of all?
    Mr. HACKING: I said that it is a joint application. It is probable that the employer knows more about his business than any individual workman, and it is almost certain that he will make the suggestion originally. But the hon. Member said that the application was made by the employer, whereas it is made by the employer and workpeople jointly.
    Mr. McENTEE: Made by the work-people under duress.
    Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member also talked about people employed on two shifts a day. That was a misleading statement, and I know he did not mean it. But the hon. Member ought to be careful in the words he uses. To the ordinary person his statement would mean that the same people were working two shifts a day. He knows that that is not true. The hon. Member's words are not only heard in this House but in view of the position which he now occupies and has held in a former Government his words are studied very carefully outside this House and people are apt to believe that what he says is in fact true. I would like at once to make it clear that the same people do not work during two successive shifts. The hon. Gentleman, as I have said, gave us a half—hearted apology to-day. I want to state exactly what the position is with regard to the two-shift system. Last year the hon. Member for Westhoughten said that this Act made it possible for women, young persons and children to be employed at night. That is not true. The hon. Gentleman speaks with authority, and he has already told us that his words went out as far as Geneva and were published in an official book there. I should like to indicate to the Committee how his words appear in that book. They are published in an issue of "Industrial

    201
    and Labour Information" of 23rd January, 1933. This is a publication of the International Labour Office, and it contains a statement based on the hon. Gentleman's remarks headed as follows:
    "Young workers. Night work by children in Great Britain."
    Children as I have said do not come under the terms of this Section. Moreover, there is no night work in connection with this Section.
    Mr. BANFIELD: What about night baking?
    Mr. HACKING: There is certainly no night work within the meaning of the term as we know it and as industrialists know it. What is the position? This Section does not make it possible for women and young persons or for anybody else to be employed at night and the Section does not deal with children at all.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Young persons.
    Mr. HACKING: Yes, "young persons." The Section does not do that which has been described by many speakers. It authorises the Secretary of State, if a joint application is received from the employers and a majority of the workpeople in any factory or workshop, and only if the application is a joint one, to grant an Order, not for the employment of anybody at night, not for the employment of any children at any time, but an Order enabling women and also young persons of 16 years and over, to work under a two-shift system, averaging not more than eight hours per day between 6 o'clock a.m. and 10 o'clock p.m., and on Saturday up to 2 o'clock in the afternoon only. Even this is subject to a proviso. If the organisations representing a majority of the employers and a majority of the workpeople in any industry make a joint representation against the granting of Orders in that industry then the power of my right hon. Friend to make Orders under the Section ceases as regards that industry. If an Order is already in existence and my right hon. Friend receives a joint representation against it from the organisations of workpeople and employers, then the Order terminates within four months. My right hon. Friend has never received such representations. All these Orders with one exception are still in existence.
    202
    Nothing could be more fair or more generous than that arrangement. It means, in plain language, that if employers and workpeople desire the two-shift system they may have it under certain clearly defined conditions such as the hours that can be worked and the welfare conditions in the particular workshops concerned. If, on the other hand either the employers or the workpeople do not want that system they cannot be forced to have it under any conditions or in any circumstances. The hon. Member for Westhoughton asked what was the effect upon employment of this two-shift system. Of course he knows, because he has previously been told in the House of Commons, that it is difficult to ascertain the actual number of persons affected directly and indirectly. The hon. Member was told in 1930 by the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr. Short, that it was estimated that about 40,000 persons were affected directly and indirectly. to-day if one may venture a guess, because it can be little more than that, there are about 50,000 or 60,000 affected directly and indirectly. It is fair to say that but for this extra shift, half the shift workers, at any rate in most cases, would be unemployed. This is quite apart from the large number of other workers indirectly affected such as those engaged in preparatory work and also those engaged in subsequent processes.
    Undoubtedly the system in most cases must reduce the cost of production by spreading overhead charges. We still have to export in order to keep our people employed at home. We are still therefore in competition with foreign manufacturers. So far as is known employers in all other countries, at any rate in the leading manufacturing countries, are free to employ women and young persons on this same system. That in itself is a strong argument in favour of the retention of the system here. It is in the interests of the employment of our own people. I do not know whether the Committee are fully aware of the procedure regarding these applications. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) said that there was intimidation. He used some such word as that.
    Mr. McENTEE: I say so undoubtedly.
    Mr. HACKING: I think "duress" was the word used by the hon. Member. It

    203
    may be difficult for me to convince the hon. Member. I can only say that usually these applications are actually signed by the workers concerned. Sometimes a ballot is held, but in every case one who is a friend of the workpeople in the person of a factory inspector visits the works in respect of which an application has been made. In fact, the application is generally made through the factory inspector, and in any case the factory inspector visits the factory before submitting any application that he may have received and satisfies himself that the proposal has been properly explained to the workpeople and that a majority are definitely in favour of the application.
    Mr. McENTEE: How many of them are afraid to say otherwise?
    Mr. HACKING: I do not hold such a low opinion as that of His Majesty's Inspectors of Factories, and it is an opinion the expression of which I would resent.
    Mr. McENTEE: I did not say anything about the factory inspectors. What I say emphatically, and I have experience which I do not, think the right hon. Gentleman has, is that the workers are intimidated to a certain extent if the employers want this system brought into operation. When the factory inspector comes round the workers are afraid to say a word to him because they know that if they do the "sack" awaits them, if not immediately in a short time afterwards.
    Mr. HACKING: I cannot accept that statement. It is not a question of any individual seeing the factory inspector, and even if it were, it is very unlikely that the factory inspector would tell the employer "So-and-so as an individual does not desire this two-shift system." Does the hon. Member mean to suggest that a number of workpeople who do not desire the system may be compelled to sign the application for fear of all being discharged? I cannot imagine that any employer is going to dismiss all his work-people because he has been thwarted in his desire to get a two-shift system. I apologise to the hon. Member for having wrongly interpreted what he said earlier with regard to the factory inspectors. I thought his accusation was against the factory inspector and that he suggested that they were intimidated. I withdraw what I said to him on that point.
    Viscountess ASTOR: There is already a tremendous shortage of factory inspectors. We have economised on factory inspectors in the last 10 years. Is it quite certain that the factory inspectors go into every one of these cases? I should also like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what is the effect of this system upon the workers themselves.
    Mr. HACKING: I was about to deal with the question of health. As far as. the inspectors are concerned I am satisfied that they go into these cases very carefully and make the fullest possible inquiries. They do not make inquiries in front of the employers, but quietly from the workpeople, and I am certain that there is no intimidation such as has been suggested. I would ask the Committee to weigh carefully what I am about to say now. There has never been a request of any kind for the repeal of one of these Orders, and no individual case of dissatisfaction in the minds of the workpeople who have been working these Orders has been brought to light. The fact that we have not had a single request for repeal goes some way at any rate to show that this system is not unpopular among those who are working it. The hon. Member for Westhoughton asked how many Orders had fallen into disuse. Only one has been rescinded. That does not mean, however, that all the others are necessarily in use. What it means is that all the others may be used—that they are still operative.
    I come to the question of the type of industries in which these Orders have been granted. I cannot give exact figures, but in the main they have been granted in the hosiery and light metal industries. The hon. Member said that the cotton trade had recently been granted an Order or Orders. That is not quite accurate. The facts are that Orders, few in number, have been granted in the cotton industry over several years. It is nothing new to grant an Order in that industry.
    The hon. Member for West Walthamstow and the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) asked how the health of the workers was affected by this system. I can only quote from the report of an investigation made by the Industrial Fatigue Research Board into the two-shift system in certain factories. The

    205
    investigation was carried out by Miss May Smith and Mr. M. D. Vernon. In the report they talk under one head of the sickness, and I read:
    "No conclusive statistical evidence has been found of a greater amount of sickness under one system than under the other."
    Again they say:
    "When the visits were grouped by departments, it appeared that the total sickness of the departments on shift work was exactly the same as that of the departments on day work."
    Again:
    "It appears that only half as many days were lost through sickness by the shift workers as by the day workers and that there were only about half as many visits to the first—aid room."
    That really looks on balance as though those young persons engaged on the two-shift system were in better health than those engaged on ordinary day work.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Did they approve the two-shift system?
    Mr. HACKING: They did not consider the two-shift system except from the point of view of its effect upon the health of the workers. I was asked about the abuse of this system. All that I can say is that in 1932 there were 1,564 Orders operative, not of course all in use at the same time, and proceedings were taken on only six charges in connection with the failure to comply with some portion or other of an Order; five charges related to women and one to a young person. In each case—and this I think ought to show the vigilance of the factory inspectors—the prosecution was initiated by the factory inspector. It was he who took action, and in each case a conviction was obtained, but the abuse of this two-shift system from the figures that I have given is, it must be agreed, infinitesimal, and, moreover, it shows that there is a considerable desire by everybody concerned to work the system. I submit that there seems at present really no case for its abolition.
    I said at the beginning that every Government is asked to delete this part of the Schedule and I repeat that no Government has ever done so I repeat that statement, because I would not care to disappoint the hon. Member for Westhoughton, who knew that I would bring forward the argument that the Labour Government on two occasions had recam-
    206
    mended to the House exactly what we are recommending to-day. I do not want to disappoint him, but I would like to put this in rather a different light. No Government has definitely asked the Committee or the House to delete this section, and, moreover, no Government has ever even recommended its deletion. If I might quote the language that was used by Mr. Short on the celebrated occasion in 1930, it was as follows—and I am going to make the frank confession that I have read the whole of his speech and am going in the first instance at any rate to quote something which the hon. Member opposite will be very pleased to hear read. Mr. Short said:
    "I can assure the Committee that the Government do not desire or intend that this system shall become a permanent part of our industrial law or our industrial conditions."
    But,
    "If the two-shift system was brought to an end this year it would mean grave dislocation and would no doubt contribute to the industrial depression."
    If Mr. Short had said that this was an undesirable system but that they could not prevail upon the Liberal party to help them in getting it abolished on that occasion it would have been one thing, but, as a matter of fact, he said, "If you abolish the two-shift system this year, you are going to create unemployment, poverty, and all the things that we do not desire to see in this country." I quoted the exact words, but that is obviously what he meant. It was a bad thing, in the year in which he spoke, for this system to be abolished. With those last words that Mr. Short used, I am in complete agreement, and I maintain, and I desire to impress this upon the Committee, that those words apply with equal force to-day as when he used them three years ago. For that reason, if for no other—and I could give many other reasons were there time—I ask this Committee to resist the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member opposite.
    4.51 p.m.
    Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: The defence of the right hon. Gentleman representing the Home Office really makes the matter a good deal more serious than I had supposed, because the defence which he has so ably put forward is in fact not

    207
    a defence of this provision as an emergency provision, but, speaking, as I must suppose he does, the mind of the Government, he has brought forward all the arguments he could, with great conviction, to show that this system was a good system and one to be continued. If that be the case, we are considering something very serious indeed, and it shows what an unfortunate system it is to introduce legislation of this kind as an emergency and then to have it coming forward year by year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The result is that unless somebody actually makes a riot, the Government come to the conclusion that everyone is satisfied and it may as well go on.
    From what words of the representative of the Home Office can hon. Members of this Committee to-day look forward to this being abolished at any time? Really, his defence was on the merits of the system. He defends the effects of it on health and on industry; everything is good about it. If that be so, the Government should take their courage in both hands and give this to us as a substantive piece of legislation which could be debated and given proper consideration, but the only intimation I heard that there was anything temporary about this arrangement in the mind of the Government was when the right hon. Gentleman said that we still need to export in order to keep our people employed. I am very glad that he recognises that, but are we to understand that this system is to go on until the time comes when we no longer need to export in order to give employment, because, if that be the case, I am afraid we shall have to wait a very long time? That argument is always very dangerous—to say that we justify this because, if we continue this system, we bring down production costs and thereby it is easier to export our goods. That argument could be developed in favour of things which everybody in this Committee would recognise as an abomination. It could be argued for any kind of sweating, and when an argument of that kind is put forward, we must not regard it as conclusive, but it has to be examined very carefully.
    After all, whenever this Measure is presented to us in this form, simply in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, then
    208
    the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say that no case for its abolition has been made out. That is not the point. The burden of proof is on him, when he is dealing with the continuance of emergency legislation, to show that there is still, in this year, special reason for keeping it on. Except in his very last sentences, he did not approach that side of the question at all. From his very last sentences we are bound to conclude that even after the National Government have been here so long, conditions are so grave that emergency measures of this kind must be continued. I should be very reluctant to believe that the Government were treating it on those lines, which is rather an accusation against the state of industry at present, but if they are dealing with it on the lines that three-fourths or seven-eighths of the right hon. Gentleman's speech led us to believe, that this is a good system and that it ought to be continued for the benefit of those who take part in it and the benefit of industry, then, in the name of honesty and in order to get the proper consideration, let us have it put before us in proper form.
    4.55 p.m.
    Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: There are certain considerations in relation to this question which have been lost sight of. I would like to remind the Committee, first of all, that there is one of the leading trade unions of this country which has entered into specific agreements with employers' associations providing for the working of a two-shift day. I say at once that that relates only, of course, to the employment of adult work-people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Wait a moment; I am making a good point. There might be some ground for the contention of hon. Members opposite if they could show that the employment of young persons in industry was a separate industrial factor, but, of course, it is not. You do not get these young people, fill a workshop with them, and look to them for your production. The young persons are working either in ancillary occupations or in complementary occupations to adult workers. If you were to take the young persons out of your factory, you would dislocate that organisation and indirectly cause great hardship to the adult workers themselves.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: suppose we understand correctly that when the trade union made arrangements for the two-shift system those arrangements did not violate the main provisions of the factory laws, as this two-shift system does?
    Mr. RAMSAY: That is quite a new point. I am not prepared to say that there is anything in this provision that we are discussing that violates the main provisions of the Factory Acts either in letter or in spirit, but I say that you cannot take these young persons out of this particular Act without doing a real hardship to adult workpeople who must have the help of these young people in the particular occupation which they are pursuing. I am not at all persuaded that we are not convincing ourselves entirely wrongly that hardship is in fact being inflicted upon young persons. I know a good deal about the working of factories and about the feelings of the people who work in them, and I challenge Members of the Opposition to go into any industrial area in this country and present to young people an opportunity of working from 6 to 2 or from 2 to 10 and finding out for themselves whether they would not grab the opportunity. [An HON. MEMBER "Not because it is right"] I hold that it is right.
    There are men in this House—I am one of them myself—who have started work at 6 in the morning and gone on till 5.30 p.m. I am not justifying that, of course, but in those days, if we had been able to knock off at 2 or if we had started at 2 and knocked off at 10 p.m., we should have considered that we were getting a half-holiday each day. Working from 6 to 2 and from 2 to 10 is an industrial arrangement which, in my experience, is liked by the workpeople for the amenities that it gives them, and I do not believe that hon. Members of the Opposition are representing the sincere opinion of the workers in industry in indulging in some of the sentiments to which we have been listening to-day.
    4.59 p.m.
    Mr. EADY: I should not have intervened if I had not had some little experience of the subject under discussion. I was half afraid that the Government had no supporters whatever, but I have experienced the two-shift system, and, first of all, I am going to answer the hon. Member who intimated that the work
    210
    people were practically blackmailed or intimidated to give their opinion as to whether or not they wanted to work on the two-shift system. Allow me to tell the Committee that when this application goes in, a factory inspector comes along and interviews the workpeople, not while they are working, not while the machines are running, but during the meal hours. He mixes among the workpeople and asks them their opinion as to whether or not they are in favour. I am of the opinion that the workpeople themselves favour this system of two shifts. It gives them more liberty and more recreation.
    Let us look at it from another point of view. There are certain times in every business when orders are plentiful, and naturally every employer is anxious to get his orders out. There are enough bad times, and when he has the opportunity he wants to take every possible advantage to get the orders out. That applies particularly to a seasonal trade. At such times the employer puts in an application for permission to run his machinery to the fullest limit. There is not the slightest objection to this system. It works very satisfactorily and the work-people are satisfied. The employer is satisfied, too, for it helps to reduce costs. It also helps the export trade. I do not labour that point, however. The point I emphasise is that it helps the employer to get out his orders and to distribute his goods during the season when they are wanted.
    Mr. LOGAN: Am I to understand the hon. Member to say that the business he has in mind cannot be carried on unless there are two shifts because it is a seasonal occupation?
    Mr. EADY: My contention is that when the employer has the opportunity of getting through an extra amount of work, the two-shift system is a great help to him. I am not going to say it is not possible for that work to be done without it, But where a large factory has certain orders to get out, it is to the interest of the employer and the work-people that they should be got through. It should not be overlooked that by this system you are engaging a double number of people. Are we out to find employment or are we not? This system has been carried on for a few years satisfactorily, and I should like to see it embodied in a permanent Measure. There

    211
    is no question of hardship to young people, for they have sufficient protection from their parents and the trade unions. This Measure is very useful to the trade of the country, and I hope that it will continue for many years to come.
    5.6 p.m.
    Mr. LOGAN: The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Eady) has made an admission in what he has said about rush business in a seasonal occupation. He said that the two-shift system was an advantage to seasonal occupations and that the workers were delighted. Is there a Member of the House who is not aware of the difficulties that have arisen in regard to the workers in seasonal occupations? Is there a Member who has not had pressure brought to bear on him in regard to people in industries which are classified as seasonal occupations? How often do we find people, after a seasonal rush when they have exerted all their influence to get a particular trade to themselves, dismiss their hands so that this seasonal occupation becomes a class of industry which throws the workpeople on to the scrap-heap. An industry which must have two shifts a day and can give occupation only to seasonal workers, is dangerous to legitimate business, for it brings in a class of persons who are classified as casual workers. The Ministry of Labour has had to deal with the question of workers in seasonal occupations, which week by week in our industrial areas are throwing hundreds upon the scrap-heap for, although they have con
    tributed to unemployment pay, they are not able to get any benefit whatever.
    The Ministry ought to consider the question of granting a licence to these seasonal occupations which are not legitimate industries, so that there should be greater scrutiny over them. In the interests of people engaged in legitimate business, competition of this kind that only produces seasonal workers ought not to be allowed. The legitimate trade gives continuous work from year to year, and the spasmodic system of the seasonal trades is a danger. As this question has been raised by a supporter of the National Government, perhaps the Government will consider the question of giving a licence or permission to the seasonal type of business. It is a system that ought not to be tolerated. I have had cases where people engaged in seasonal occupations have paid contributions for unemployment benefit, and when they have lost their jobs they have been denied the right to benefit. Has the Minister considered in connection with this Bill the question of seasonal work? I do not think it was really intended that it should deal with that type of industry. No doubt the conscience of the hon. Member for Central Bradford was pricked when he raised this point; at any rate, he raised a point which is worth the Minister's attention.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 57.

    Division No. 296.]

    AYES.

    [5.12 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Cook, Thomas A.

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Brown,' Ernest (Leith)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Alexander, Sir William

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Copeland, Ida

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Buchan, John

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

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

    Buchan-Hepburn. P. G. T.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

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

    Burgin, Or. Edward Leslie

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Burnett, John George

    Cross, R. H.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Crossley, A. C.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Bailey. Eric Alfred George

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

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

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Balniel, Lord

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Dawson. Sir Philip

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Denville, Alfred

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

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

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Dickie, John P.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Doran, Edward

    Bernays, Robert

    Chotzner, Alfred James

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    Borodale, Viscount

    Clarke, Frank

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Boulton, W. W.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Dunglass, Lord

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Eady, George H.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon, Walter

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Llewellyn-Janes, Frederick

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

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

    Salt, Edward W.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Faile, Sir Bertram G.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Mabane, William

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

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

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. sir Ian

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Slater, John

    Goff, Sir Park

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Martin, Thomas B.

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

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Soper, Richard

    Granville, Edgar

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Milne, Charles

    Stevenson, James

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Stones, James

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Storey, Samuel

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Sueter, Rear admiral Murray F.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Hartland, George A.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Templeton, William P.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

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

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Pearson. William G.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Penny, Sir George

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Petherick, M.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

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

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

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsand)

    Hornby, Frank

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

    Purbrick, R.

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

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

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Jennings, Roland

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Rankin, Robert

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Reid, David D, (County Down)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Withers, Sir John James

    Knight, Holford

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Womersley, Walter James

    Lees-Jones, John

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks

    Lewis. Oswald

    Rungs, Norah Cecil

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Blindell and Lord Erskine

    NOES

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McGovern, John

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Batey, Joseph

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Maxton, James.

    Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Milner, Major James

    Briant, Frank

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

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

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Buchanan, George

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Price, Gabriel

    Cape, Thomas

    Hirst, George Henry

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cove, William G.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Thorne, William James

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Kirkwood, David

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    White, Henry Graham

    Edwards, Charles

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Wilmot, John Charles

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lunn, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. G. Macdonald.

    Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 11 to 13.
    The effect of carrying this Amendment would be to bring to an end the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920. The passing of that Act has led to a very interesting and, in some ways, successful experiment, and I have not the slightest doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in seeking to justify the continuance of the Act, will point with pride to the fact, that whereas in 1913 we produced only about 9,000,000 lbs. of dyestuffs in this country, in 1922 the figure had risen to 20,000,000 lbs. In 1929, the peak year was reached with 55,000,000 lbs. There has been some decline since, but in 1932 the figure was 49,000,000 lbs. I do not wish to repeat many of the arguments used last year. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), who is not in his place at the moment, gave at that time an admirable survey of the history of the dyestuffs industry in this country since the passing of the Act of 1920, and I do not propose to cover the ground he traversed on that occasion. I am sorry that none of his colleagues are here. I want to say only this about his speech, that his arguments were so convincing and his case was so good that he persuaded us on these benches to go with him into the Lobby in support of bringing the Act to an end. I do not know whether he and his friends are going to return the compliment to-day, when the Division is called, and join us.
    It is interesting to review, after 13 years, the arguments originally used to persuade the House of Commons to pass the Act for the regulation of the import of dyestuffs. It was contended that the industry was vital to the future of the country, not merely for industrial and commercial reasons but for defence purposes. I would like hon. Members to note that point, because I shall refer to it later in another connection. It was contended that it was the duty of the State to afford some assistance to an infant industry which, in the national interest, ought to be established in this country, and that assistance has been given. The industry has been established. It is no longer an infant industry. I do not think even the Parliamentary Secretary will advance that argu
    216
    ment this afternoon. It is now a Colossus, with one foot in Britain and another on the Continent of Europe. Instead of being an infant industry, it is to-day part of an international cartel, and it is difficult to understand why this huge international combine should need the special protection of the British Government, even so far as the British side of it is concerned.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, in replying to the Debate last year, informed the House that the Tariff Advisory Committee were to consider the matter during the year. They have done so, and I want to make some references to the report they issued in September of this year. Last year objection was raised to the continuance of this Act by a number of Government supporters. I do not know whether we shall see them raising objections on this occasion. Among them was the hon. and gallant Member for Salford West (Commander Astbury). He wanted the Act abolished, as I understood his speech, and a tariff introduced in its place. I suppose he meant that there should be an additional duty. He knew quite well that the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty was applied, and still is, I think, to dyestuffs imported under licence, and I imagine that what he wanted was additional duties. No doubt he will be specially interested in the Tariff Advisory Committee's report, because it seems that experience is teaching them that in some ways tariffs are not as useful as their advocates have contended. I shall quote the relevant passage from the report, which is on page 7, where the Tariff Advisory Committee say:
    "The restrictive effect upon importations of a system of protective duties seems likely, from what we have been told and from what we know of the history and present position of the dyestuffs industry generally, to be much weaker than in most other trades. There is a large surplus productive capacity on the Continent which, in seeking an outlook wherever one can he found, would surmount any moderate obstacle in the shape of protective duties of the order we have normally recommended hitherto. If the British industry is to be afforded that reasonable security against potential unrestricted foreign competition which it can fairly claim, some other form of safeguard is necessary".
    I wonder whether the Tariff Advisory Committee, when they penned that paragraph, had in mind the fact that there

    217
    are also many other industries outside this country which have a large surplus productive capacity which cannot be effectively dealt with by tariffs. Apparently that point is being driven home to them by the experience they gain as information in regard to industrial matters is placed before them. I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary will resist our Amendment to-day on the ground that the Tariff Advisory Committee recommend the continuance of the Act. I suppose that will be the main argument he will advance. They have certain comments to make about the present situation of the dyestuffs industry, to which I would briefly refer, and as I do so I want to put one or two questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. Last year he had something to say in reply to the criticism of the continuance of the Act because the cartel had come into existence. I will read a few of his remarks, quoting from the Debate in the House on 8th December, 1932:
    "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1932; col. 1847, Vol. 272]
    The argument has been used that the cartel sent up prices immediately the British Dyestuffs Corporation became part of it. The hon. Gentleman tried to prove, and perhaps did prove, that the price increases were largely due to the fact that we had gone off the Gold Standard, and not to any sinister intentions on the part of those who were operating the cartel. The Import Duties Advisory Committee have something to say about the cartel, and I want to quote what they say, because it is very interesting. It will be found on page 6 of their report. They say:
    "Much else has been said to us about the existence of the international cartel agreement between the principal British dye—making concern in this country and the powerful organisations on the Continent.
    218
    The contents of this agreement had not been disclosed to parties outside the cartel, and the submissions which we have received in regard to it are necessarily based on conjecture. It is said that the very existence of the cartel provides the principal dye-making concern in this country with a sufficiently effective protection. We have had an opportunity of considering the terms of this particular agreement, and there does not appear in these terms anything to which objection might be taken either by makers or consumers; but obviously everything depends upon the way in which the cartel is operated. It appears to us that provision should he made for securing adequate investigation of any authoritative complaints that may be made, and we make some suggestions as to this. At the same time, we think that users and makers realise that they are in a state of mutual interdependence, and that the British interests in the cartel are alive to the responsibility which rests upon them because of this fact."
    I want to refer to their suggestions in regard to the cartel, because I would put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary. The committee suggests that it would probably be wise to do something, seeing that the cartel exists. I will quote from their report again, page 9:
    "We think that the present regime, if permanently established, would meet with a readier acceptance on the part of colour users, if means could be found to remove anxieties as to the possibility of exploitation. If some provision could be made whereby complaints by any responsible body of consumers as to exploitation in respect of dyestuffs and intermediates generally or of a particular class or classes thereof could be addressed to an independent authority, who would have powers of investigation and whose findings would be made public, a substantial reason for the opposition of the colour users to a continuance of the present system should, we think, be removed, and we understand that it would meet with general acceptance if the duty of investigation were entrusted to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. If requested to do so, we are prepared to undertake this task."
    I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether or not the Government intend to put into operation some such proposal as is suggested in this recommendation. Obviously the Advisory Committee have come to the conclusion that in certain circumstances it would be possible for this cartel grossly to exploit the consumers and users of dyes in this country, and that for confidence to exist it is necessary that some such suggestions as they make should be put into operation. I would very much like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us

    219
    whether or not the Government propose to do what the Advisory Committee recommend, in the passage which I have just quoted.
    Further, do they intend to do anything in the way of setting up a standing joint committee of producers and consumers, as requested or suggested by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, in, I think, the last paragraph of their Report? It is obvious that even to the Advisory Committee the present situation is in some way unsatisfactory, and consequently they suggest that the Act should continue and that, where dyes are brought into the country on licence the 10 percent. Ad valorem duty should not apply to dyestuffs generally but that the Act should be continued.
    I want to say a word about the costs argument which has been used, and which was put forward by colour users and people who consume dyes in this country, against the continuance of the Act. One of the general arguments, the main argument in fact, that has been used, is that the process of development of the dye industry in this country, by a system of regulating the import of dyestuffs, has put certain burdens upon colour users and consumers, and has, to some extent, increased their cost of production. It is suggested that it is very difficult to ascertain precisely what amount has been added to the costs by the operation of this Act during the last 13 years, owing to the nature of the industry, the taxes upon it and its dyeing costs. The users are contending that, in some ways, the Act has increased their costs, and they point out that now, if ever, the lowest possible cost of production for textiles is necessary if they are to meet competition effectively in the world market. Whenever this question of competition in the world's markets arises, it is contended that we have no chance of regaining markets at all, unless there are lower costs of production.
    One of the first things that is usually done in the face of circumstances like these is to attack the wages of the operatives in the various textile industries. That is usually the first line of attack, when it is desired to lower costs of production. If, as the Colour Users' Association contend, there are now enhanced costs of production, in the later stages,
    220
    at any rate, of this process of establishing the dye industry in this country, by reason of the methods which have been used, surely we have reached a point, now that this industry is part of an international combine, where we have not to ask the workers in textile industries to take lower wages in order that competition may be met in foreign markets, and to bolster up the profits of an international cartel. That is the point on which, I think, we ought to have some answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. In my own area, for instance, a demand is being made at the moment for reductions in wages in the fine gauge section of the hosiery industry. Dyeing plays no unimportant part in the cost of production of hosiery. I have heard it stated more than once that a fair figure to fix is probably in the region of Is. per dozen pairs for dyeing costs——
    Mr. CAPORN: Can the hon. Member provide a single instance of a dyer in the Nottingham area who objects to this Act?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Caporn) made a speech on this matter last year and he did not want, in that speech, to have to go before the Import Duties Advisory Committee at all. I carefully read his speech. He thought it would take the advisory board too long to deal with the matter. Incidentally, in the course of his speech, he made the same sort of statement which he has just risen in his place to make, that there has been no progress among the dye users of Nottingham in the hosiery trade in connection with this matter. I am not saying that there has been. I am talking of hosiery manufacturers for the moment, and not of dye users, and I am merely pointing to the fact that, so far as the hosiery manufacturer is concerned, one part of his costs is somewhere in the region of Is. per dozen pairs for dyeing, and when a dozen pairs of hosiery—I am thinking for the moment in terms of lisle and not of silk —costs 16s. 6d. from the factory, Is. is no inconsiderable part of the costs. That is my point.
    The other point is that there is, at the moment, a movement on foot to reduce the wages of the workers in the fine gauge section of the hosiery industry. Presumably that demand is being made

    221
    on the usual grounds that competition has to be met, and that costs must be lowered, and so the first line of attack is again upon wages. All that I am asking is, whether through the instrumentality of this Act, costs of other kinds are being artificially kept up while the workers are having to pay the first price, so far as reductions are concerned. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply to that point.
    I have only two or three other things to say. At first sight I shall probably appear to be saying something that is not relevant to the present topic when I refer to yesterday's Debate, but in a moment I shall be able to make my point clear. I listened with a good deal of interest to yesterday's Debate and to those speeches which were breathing out threatenings of slaughter. With many of them I agree. I agree with the sentiments that were expressed. Politically, it was stated yesterday, Germans were outside the pale and, in existing circumstances, we ought not to have anything to do with them. This Government is fostering an industry built up by Government regulations during the last 13 years, and its figureheads have no scruples about entering into industrial agreements with German dye producers and German chemical undertakings to exploit, in all probability, British dye consumers, and incidentally to assist in reducing the wages of British workmen. If these dye costs of production are going to be made the basis of a demand for wages reduction, it seems to me that some of the boasted patriotism about which we have heard so much looks nasty—very nasty indeed—in the light of the industrial arrangements that have been made from time to time.
    The setting up of import regulations in connection with dyestuffs is said to have something to do with national safety and national defence, and not merely with commercial and industrial purposes. If it has something to do with national defence, all the details of this cartel arrangement should be made known to some impartial body outside, if Government support is to be continued to be given to the industry. We are told a good deal about what happened in endeavouring to make it possible for this country to make dyes which we could not make before. I know something about that. We had not a dye that was any good for
    222
    hosiery, after the War. If you had a pair of black stockings which came fresh from the dyeing, and you put your hands down them, your hands were black immediately you withdrew them. We had no fast black dye at that time. I claim to know something about that, in more ways than one. These dyes depend upon chemical formulae in one way or another. Does the cartel make any provision for the exchange of chemical formulae between one part of the cartel and another? Some of the chemical formulae would be very important, should. a conflict arise between us and some of the Continental nations. We have a right to know what are the ramifications in every way of this international cartel. I think that we are justified in moving this Amendment to-day, because we have reached a stage in the development of the industry, now that it is part of an inter national cartel, in which it ought no longer to need the special protection of the British Government.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    5.45 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I am certainly not prepared in 1933 to do what I did not do in 1930. On the contrary, all the arguments which we put forward in 1930 in favour of bringing to an end the artificial protection of this industry have been strengthened by the lapse of time. The very foundation of the case for the protection of this industry and the prohibition of imports from abroad, when this scheme was originally put forward, was that it was to be a temporary measure 10 give time to the industry to organise itself, to build up its goodwill, to make experiments, to organise its laboratories. It was always understood, and it had been put forward by the industry itself, that once it was established, once it was on a permanent foundation, it was quite prepared to meet free competition and to permit imports to come in. We have had the advantage now of another of these reports.
    I do not believe in looking up people's past in these wicked times; it is rather a cruel and unkind thing to do; and I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary did on that historic occasion when there was so much difficulty in guiding the Bill through in order to get these duties extended: but, whether he voted for it or whether he voted against it, one

    223
    thing I think he will accept, and that is that it was on the understanding that it was only going to be for a very little time longer. Year after year, however, we have Governments coming down and—I do not want to be unkind—sneaking things through under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. This Government has leisure, it has time, and, above all, it has the power, if it really is determined to do so, to give permanent protection to this industry and to continue these prohibitions and interferences with the raw material of a most important industry. If the Government are determined to do that, they ought to follow the proper procedure, which has now been established by Parliament, and submit the matter to the tribunal set up for the purpose, the Tariff Commission.
    This problem cannot be treated as an isolated one. This industry does not stand on its own legs; it is dependent on other industries; and it is common knowledge that the industry above all which has to face the fiercest foreign competition in the neutral markets of the world is the textile industry. In that industry Japan is undoubtedly filching many of our best markets. She has made immense inroads into the Australian and New Zealand markets, of which we largely had a monopoly up to a year ago. There may be explanations of that, such as low money wages and long hours; but it has been put forward by, I think, the President of the Board of Trade that one explanation is the fine organisation of the industry and its high standard of efficiency. A very big factor, especially in the silk industry and in the cotton industry, is the supply of cheap dyes—cheap colours.
    In this interesting report it is put forward as a new factor that, owing to the establishment of a cartel, conditions are now changed, and prices are no longer lower. That is a very novel argument for continuing this protection and prohibition of imports. Is the Minister satisfied that the cartel does not really owe its existence largely to the fact of the tariff, and the monopoly which has grown up behind it in this very country? If we had a free market in England, it is very doubtful whether the cartel could function effectively. This is not an isolated example. We had an example of it in the case of incandescent gas mantles. Before
    224
    there was a tariff, there was no cartel; when the tariff came into existence, the cartel was established, 'and there is no doubt that the big monopoly which has grown up in this country under the aegis of a tariff is in a position to bargain and make arrangements with the cartel. There is undoubtedly growing up throughout the world a great dyestuffs monopoly.
    I maintain that our first consideration must be our big textile industry. It is true that the silk industry is quite prepared to come into the deal. That is not surprising, because they have always asked for tariffs themselves, and I 'suppose they feel that, if they were to ask for a free market for their raw material, users of their material might come in and ask for the abolition of their privileges. On the other hand, there is the big Colour Users' Association, which, in paragraph 6 of the report, is stated to be representative of almost all the dye-using industries, with the textile trades predominant. The report goes on to say that its existence and co-operation has contributed materially to the smooth working of the Act. That is to say, they played the game. It continues:
    "The association has declared itself opposed to a continuation of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, and also to the extension to the dyestuffs industry of any degree of tariff protection whatsoever."
    Now again, however, for the third, fourth or fifth time, this privilege is automatically to be renewed. I think we are entitled, at the end of this Session, to have a clear statement of the future policy of the Government. What do they propose to do? Are they going on with this makeshift system of day-to-day policy, or are they going to bring forward a new policy; and are they going to submit that policy to the Tariff Commission? Or, alternatively, are they now going, as has been promised time after time, to allow this industry, after it has had time to build itself up on a sound foundation, to fact the full free light of competition, and give to manufacturers 'and users of this essential raw material an opportunity to buy it in the cheapest market?
    5.55 p.m.
    Mr. J. JONES: Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), one is reminded of the old adage:

    225
    "Hope springs eternal in the human breast."
    The hon. Member is asking this Government to do something which he knows they will not do, and we generally find him iii the Lobby supporting them to see that they do not do too much; or, if he does not go in to vote for them, he stays outside so that he may not vote against them. In this case we want to know where we are getting to. Hon. Members who, when Protection was established by the votes of those who supported the Government, protested when the issue was the question of Protection for what they are pleased to call Free Trade—Free Trade spells competition, and competition inevitably ends in monopoly—are now grumbling against the effects of their own doctrine, because throughout the world to-day the countries that used to be our cutomers have become our competitors.
    I remember, as a young man in Lancashire, working in a textile manufacturing concern, where we got 17s. per week for 56 hours, and 2d. stopped for club. That firm was busy night and day, year in and year out, producing textile manufacturing machinery to equip factories in Japan, China and the East generally; and now, when all the factories are built and fully equipped, and able to produce goods under conditions that we cannot dream of, you are turning round and talking about the effects of that competition and the results of its inevitable economic development, which means that, even if the workers of England were prepared to live on nothing at all, they would not be able to compete against the low wages and horrible conditions of employment that prevail in these Eastern countries. Tariff Reform is simply tariff-raff reform; it touches nothing. Now the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green comes along with some of his grandmother's medicine. So far as we are concerned, we believe in a national organisation of industry in the national interest. We are asking for the right of the people to organise industry in the interests of the people. Hon. Members opposite used at one time to believe in democracy—government of the people by the people for the people. We believe now in industry by the people for the people, which is a different proposition. I used once to stand at meetings listening to
    226
    people talking about one vote for every man and woman in the country. "One man one vote" it was called at first, and later on it was called "adult suffrage."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting rather far from the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act.
    Mr. JONES: We have been dyed with this stuff for a long time. It is the kind of stuff that we used to be dyed with when we were politically unconscious. Now we have arisen to a sense of the situation, and we ask the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, who objects to the Government's policy, why he has been supporting it so much. Why is he sitting on those benches? You cannot have your cake and eat it; you cannot pretend to be against the Government to-day and with them to-morrow. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear that. After all, the chickens are coming home to roost. You are beginning to discover now that the old game cannot be carried on much longer, that you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds all the time and every time. Why should there be this opposition to the Government's proposal now, when hon. Members allowed it to go through on the theory that after the War was over everything in the garden would be lovely?
    The Dyestuffs Bill was a temporary proposition, but we know very well that the majority of the Government's supporters meant it to be a permanent part of their machinery. They believe in Protection as a matter of principle. I do not object to their believing in Protection; it is their principle. They have always been advocating protection for themselves, but not protection for the common people of this country, not protection for wages. They have never supported the workmen in their protest against reduction of wages, but they have always supported those who have demanded protection for their selling capacity. They are Protectionists when they are selling something, and Free Traders when they are buying anything. They do not believe in protection so far as great classes of people are concerned.
    Now the Dyestuffs Bill conies along. I happen to be a member of a union which is interested in this matter. Many of our

    227
    members work for this combine in Great Britain—for a combine has been made, not merely of Continental manufacturers, but inside this country, for the protection and control of the home market. As a consequence, they have closed down seven chemical factories in this country, and concentrated their production in one factory. Seven factories have been closed down. Is that the Tory policy? As the result of this combination and control of synthetic production of chemicals, thousands of members of the various trade unions interested are practically out of work. There is no hope for them. This Government has no solution of the problem. It cannot solve anything. We are supporting Amendments against all these Bills because whatever Amendments we may propose we know will be beaten by the mutual consent of those who pretend to be opposed to them. Some of them will talk in the House against the Government but not vote against them, because they are afraid they may not be on the next coupon, and their names will not appear on the list of the next National Government candidates. They are hanging together, because they are afraid they may hang separately. We are going to hang them as soon as possible.
    6.1 p.m.
    Mr. EADY: I oppose the Amendment because I know the benefits which have been conferred on the textile industry by this Act. In my opinion, it has been a very useful one, and I hope it will continue. The Mover of the Amendment stated that the Bill was favouring a system of attacking the wages of the workpeople. Surely he is sufficiently intelligent to know that this could not possibly be. What on earth have dye-wares to do with the lowering of wages in the textile trade? I am surprised at a. gentleman of his ability making such a statement. The question of Japanese competition has been introduced. I am of the same opinion about that, that it has nothing to do with it. I hope the Government will be strong enough to carry on this Act, as it has been of very great benefit to the textile trade.
    6.3 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Last year, when this matter came before
    228
    the Committee, in a somewhat comprehensive review I pointed out what had been the attitude of the Dyestuffs Industry Development Committee in their various reports and I said that, with an industry divided against itself, it was a little difficult for the Government to deal with it as a whole, and for that reason the Government had decided to ask the Import Duties Advisory Committee to inquire into the whole circumstances of the industry and see how the interest of the country would best be served. Mt Import Duties Advisory Committee accepted that task and have issued their report. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) asks me to make an announcement of the Government's intentions with regard to the problem as a whole, and I very gladly respond. The Government have decided to adopt the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee on the policy to be followed in the future, and a l3ill to give effect to those recommendations will be introduced in the new Session, but as there is doubt whether it will be possible to find time for full consideration of the Bill in all its stages before 31st December it is necessary, as a purely precautionary measure, to continue the existing Act for a further period.
    The Committee will understand that this is a matter that must be dealt with by legislation. It is not one that ought to be dealt with continually by being included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but the Government have reluctantly been obliged to continue the Act in the Schedule as a precautionary measure, lest it should not be possible to complete all the stages of the new Bill by the end of the current year. The Import Duties Advisory Committee have been informed of the proposals of the Government, and it is understood that they intend in the near future to make appropriate recommendations regarding changes in the Import Duties referred to in their report and, immediately those changes are put into force, the President of the Board of Trade will issue under the 1920 Act, a general licence permitting the importation of the goods which the Committee have recommended should no longer be subject to prohibition. That is a clear announcement of what the Government proposals are.

    229
    The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) put one or two questions. They were very largely relating to matters which flowed, in his view, from the existence of the cartel. He mentioned how desirable it was that any agreement of an international character should be referred from time to time to some impartial committee. He will have read with interest that this very cartel agreement has been under consideration by the Import Duties Advisory Committee and will note their comment upon it. The first question was whether the Bill which the Government propose to introduce will include a provision for the protection of consumers. Certainly, there will be a provision in the Dyestuffs Bill which will deal with that recommendation. I refer to the recommendation in paragraph 20, page 9, of the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. He then asked whether any steps would he taken to set up a joint standing committee of makers and users. The answer again is in the affirmative although that, of course, will not be done in the Bill. On both those matters the recommendations of the Advisory Committee will be followed. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green called attention to prices. I am sure he never wishes to make a point unfairly. I ask him to look at the last six lines on page 5 of the report. The Committee, who had before them the various partners in this great industry, say:
    "It has been frankly stated that the users have no serious complaint as to the prices charged by the dyestuffs industry, but they are apprehensive as to what may happen in the future."
    So that for the present there is no complaint. The future will be safeguarded by the provisions which the Government propose to include in their Bill. I trust that with that explanation the committee will feel that this precautionary inclusion in the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is an obvious necessity.
    6.9 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES:I should not have intervened but for a statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris).I want hon. Members to get away some what from the effect of Japanese competition on wages. It may be interesting
    230
    to the hon. Baronet to know that wages in Lancashire are not too good. When I heard so much about Japanese competition before the summer Adjournment I thought I would make inquiries about wages in the Lancashire textile industry. I have been astonished to find, in my own division, young men of 22 and 23 years of age working a full week in the textile mills for as low as 15s., on the plea that they are still little piecers waiting for men's jobs. As long as young men of 21, 22 and 23 years of age are employed for six days a week at full time for 15s. I am not very much impressed by Japanese competition consequent on low wages. [Interruption.] I will give the hon. Member proof if he wants it. It is common knowledge. Anyone representing a textile constituency will agree that the wages of little piecers are as low as 15s. a week.
    Mr. EADY: You said 19 to 21.
    Mr. DAVIES: 21, 22 and 23 years of age.
    Mr. EADY: Not in Yorkshire.
    Mr. DAVIES: I am not speaking of Yorkshire. I am speaking of Lancashire. Surely there is some county apart from Yorkshire to be considered. As far as I am concerned, Lancashire is more important than Yorkshire, and, if I may say so without offence, a more intelligent county too!
    I have been astonished at the absence to-day of one or two Lancashire representatives who have always complained that the monopoly of our dyestuff industry consequent upon tariffs was damaging their trade as colour users The hon. And gallant Member for West Salford (commander Astbury) has complained more than once on that score, and I was very much impressed by his contention that the dyestuffs Act had made it possible for a monopoly to be created here at home to the disadvantage of colour users. The strangest thing of all to me, however, is that when the present Government want to make out a case for tariffs they always put up a Libearl to make it The President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary are supposed to be two good Liberals, and if you read their speeches a few years ago you would find that they contradict every word they have said lately

    231
    on the subject. I am a little amazed at what the hon. Baronet said on this issue. He seems to wobble. Does it not stand to reason that, if Free Trade in principle is good, we ought to adhere by it irrespective of the Government in power? I make the confession on my own behalf that I am an unrepentant Free Trader. [interruption.] I should like the hon. Member to make his applause a little more musical in future if he does not mind.
    Major PROCTER: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of allowing dumped Japanese low-wage goods to come into this Lancashire of his and stop employment for our people?
    The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I do not think we can allow
    the Debate to extend to one on Free Trade generally.
    Mr. DAVIES: I will answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman in another place. I have tried to weigh the effects of the Dyestuffs Act in a very simple fashion, as to whether its continuance really does more good than it does damage to our own colour users. I am convinced by speeches which have been made in the House from time to time that the colour users of Lancashire really are at a disadvantage because of this Measure and, therefore, we shall vote against its continuance.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule".
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 56.

    Division No. 297.]

    AYES.

    [6.15 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Dickie, John P.

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

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

    Doran, Edward

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

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

    Duckworth, George A. V.

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

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Astbury, Lieut.-com. Frederick Wolfe

    Dunglass, Lord

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Eady, George H.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Eillston, Captain George Sampson

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Borodale, Viscount

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)

    Bosom A. C.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Boulton, W. W.

    Falle Sir Bertram G.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Browne, Captain A. C.

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

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Buchan, John

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Mabane, William

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

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

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Goff, Sir Park

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Burnett, John George

    Goldie, Noel B.

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Granville, Edgar

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Cassels, James Dale

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Magnay, Thomas

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

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

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Clarke, Frank

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Milne, Charles

    Cooke, Douglas

    Harbord, Arthur

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

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hartland, George A.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Copeland, Ida

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hornby, Frank

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Nunn, William

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

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Pearson, William G.

    Denville, Alfred

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Peat, Charles U.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Penny, Sir George

    Petherick, M

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

    Salt, Edward W.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Selley, Harry R.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

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

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

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

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Rankin, Robert

    Slater, John

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dine,C.)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Somerset, Thomas

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Stevenson, James

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

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

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

    Stones, James

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Storey, Samuel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Mr. Blindell and Mr. Womersley.

    NOES.

    Banfield, John William

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Batey, Joseph

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Bernays, Robert

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maxton, James

    Briant, Frank

    Grundy, Thomas w.

    Milner, Major James

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

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Price, Gabriel

    Cape, Thomas

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cove, William G.

    Hirst, George Henry

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Thorne, William James

    Curry, A. C.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    White, Henry Graham

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Leonard, William

    Wilmot, John Charles

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lunn, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    6.24 p.m.
    Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, in page 4, column 3, to leave out lines 31 to 46, and to insert instead thereof the words "the whole Act."
    The Public Works Facilities Act was passed by the Labour Government in 1930, receiving the Royal Assent in August. The Act arose, I understand, out of a conference of local authorities convened by the Prime Minister, particularly in view of the gravity of unemployment, to see what could be done to facilitate the desires of local authorities in removing certain difficulties and making it possible to proceed with greater speed in providing employment. Other conferences were held with local government organisations, and generally the Bill received the support of the municipal authorities and local government organisations and was considered to be a desirable Measure. The local authorities at the time pointed out obstacles—and that is why I am asking the Government if it
    234
    is possible for them to review their action in regard to the proposal to drop Section 1—which undoubtedly existed and prevented them from acting rapidly and putting into operation certain phases of public works. The obstacles are very extensive. The then Minister of Health the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), in moving the Second Reading of the Bill pointed out the existing difficulties of local authorities, and if the proposal of the Government is carried here to—night those difficulties will still remain. He reminded the House of the various steps which had to be taken when a local Bill was being promoted, and said:
    "During October and November the local authority or statutory undertaker has to publish notices of the scheme in the newspapers. By the 30th November they have to deposit plans, books of references an sections. By the 15th December they have to serve the necessary notices on owners, lessees and occupiers of lands affected. The 17th December is the last date for depositing petitions for the Bill and copies

    235
    of the Bill at the Parliamentary Office. There are two further steps to be taken before the end of December. By the 18th January they arrive at the stage when the examination of petitions for Bills begins. Towards the end of January there is a conference between the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lords Chairman to determine in which House particular Bills should begin. The 12th February is the last date for Petitions to this House against Private Bills. It is only at that point that serious legislation begins. Then there is the Committee stage, and the fact that there are generally Committee stages taken separately in the two Houses makes for a good deal of further delay. It is very unusual for a Private Bill, the preliminary action on which has been taken in October, to reach the Statute Book before Easter. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1930; cols. 808–9, Vol. 241.]
    I should have thought that the fact of that very elaborate and complicated machinery which has to be pursued in regard to promoting a Bill would have appealed to the Government as being unnecessary and undesirable, and that after the. Bill was passed and had become an Act they would not have considered it desirable to drop this very useful piece of legislation. The Conservative party, at the time the Bill was introduced, said that they had no desire to impede the Labour Government in making any arrangements which might be necessary to assist in providing employment, and, after certain criticisms had been levelled at the form in which the Bill was then drafted, I believe they generally agreed to support it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) spoke very much in its favour, and stated that in his experience it was eminently desirable that some such arrangement as the Bill provided at that time should be embodied in our legislation in order to get over much of the difficult situation with which local authorities were faced.
    I should like, if it is possible under the Amendment, to ask the Government to look at the matter in a wider way than they appear to be inclined to do at the moment. I am aware, from public statements made from time to time by representatives of the National Government, that in their opinion public works are not as remunerative and do not employ the personnel as was originally claimed would be the case. I am sure that those statements have been made without a full examination as to the remunerative capacity of public work or its
    236
    utilitarian value apart from its financial and economic return as regards employment of personnel. If public work is to be taken in hand as something extra to ordinary employment then, obviously, the wages paid to the employes who are engaged in some branch of public work will produce benefit by the amount of the trade that they will put into circulation by disposing of their wages in the purchase of goods. Many economists have examined the statements of the Government representatives—I refer particularly to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and one by the President of the Board of Trade—and if there was time adequately to debate the matter, I think we could prove that the statements of the Government are very inadequate when they say that the amount of money spent upon employment of personnel was not having such good results as had been claimed by those who urged the spending of the money in that direction.
    In regard to public works, the particular Section of the Act with which I am dealing gives an opportunity for local authorities, or some competent undertakers agreed upon by the local authorities, to do work of a public character, and I would ask the Government how in many phases of public life they are going to deal with this matter if they drop the present Section? Take waterworks and water storage. Who is going to initiate work in that direction? Who will come forward and say out of the many months of rain during the year that they will store up sufficient water to meet our needs for some other period of the year? That is work of a public character so important that instead of obstacles being placed in the way of facilitating its execution the Government ought to be desirous of leaving available what machinery we have for that purpose and even extending it rather than diminishing it. There are other classes of public work. The Royal Commission reported, 18 months or two years ago, on the question of road bridges. It was stated by the Royal Commission in their report that there were something like 7,000 road bridges in Great Britain not equal to ordinary road traffic. The traffic has to be diverted and expense, incurred in diverting it away from many roads which could be used if our bridges were ordinarily sound to meet the needs of our

    237
    present transport system, and it would be of decided advantage to the community. The present rate of repairing and strengthening these bridges is, I understand, about 300 or 400 a year, and the Commission recommended that 1,000 bridges per year should be put into general repair in order to be able to meet our needs.
    The Government, in their desire to look after private enterprise as against public enterprise, are overlooking many deficiencies in private enterprise, and are not taking the necessary steps or providing the machinery that would allow public works to develop in the way they ought to do. There is the question of planning. How are we going to deal with that unless we have public works and a national plan and unless we lift the work out of the hands of private enterprise? Private enterprise will not be able to take an economic view and plan for Great Britain. Private enterprise will deal with its own specific industry, wherever it deals with it at all, and if it desires to extend, it will extend in that system of economic development generally closely associated with and compatible with its own industry. If we are to have anything like economic planning, and everyone agrees, more or less, that it is necessary at the present time, public works will come more and more into the public eye. Undisciplined private enterprise is very erratic in its work and generally inadequate in its result. What is to take the place of private enterprise except public enterprise? If private enterprise is not equal to the task of meeting the needs of the country, then public enterprise appears to me to be the only sensible and logical alternative. Public enterprise will have to be developed more and more as the years go on.
    I am pleased to note certain reductions in the figures of unemployment, but I am afraid that no one in looking at the figures can feel certain that there is a sense of permanency about them. Are we not apprehensive that the unemployment figures which have been reduced are more of a temporary than a permanent character? If that be so, what are we going to do with those people who have not and cannot find employment? What is to happen to the unemployed? If public enterprise does not take the place of private enterprise, and if private enterprise is not able to employ the people
    238
    to-day, what is going to happen to the unemployed? Are they never to have a chance of getting employment? Private enterprise will always have, even at the end of its maximum effort, a substantial amount of unemployment. What is going to happen to those unemployed? Is there not some gap to be bridged between the work of private enterprise at the present time and that which the country needs?
    A bridge must be built, and if public enterprise is to bridge the gap, there should be some real opportunity given, and the Government should do some useful work in that direction. If public work is to be done, it will have to be done by public enterprise as against private enterprise. We shall have opportunities at an early date of going into this matter in much greater detail, but I feel very seriously, and I am sure that every hon. Member must feel, that if we had anything like intelligent planning for a number of years and if we had the desire and the will impartially to organise the economic resources of labour that have been demoralised by charity—efforts to deal with unemployment by the agency of charity are demoralising to the giver and demoralising to the receiver—we should do an enormous amount of work in making our roads and houses much better than they are to-day, and we should do valuable work towards eradicating the slums, provided we utilise the material and organise with skill the labour available for the purpose.
    I would beg the Government not to drop this part of the Act. Why do they wish to drop it? What is their reason for dropping it? Are they apprehensive, or have they been asked to drop it by the municipal authorities who requested the Government to introduce the Bill originally? Have the local authorities expressed the view that this part of the Act is no longer necessary? Have the people who were consulted by the Government at that time said that it is no longer necessary The Government are seeking to drop machinery which ought to be used by them, and I would ask them not to drop it, because it is machinery that could be brought into use at a later period, even if it cannot be used at the present time. We cannot leave to private enterprise the job of meeting the needs of the nation. There are many things which the nation has to put under

    239
    public direction and control. There are many directions in which private enterprise has limited usefulness and is no longer capable of satisfying the general need. This particular machinery is useful, and it would be a mistake to drop it.
    The conditions responsible for bringing the machinery into being have not disappeared since the Bill was introduced and the Act has been in operation. The unemployment that existed at the time the Labour Government introduced the Bill in 1930 was just over 2,000,000. That was in July, 1930. In July, 1933, the registered unemployed were 2,438,000. I could also give the figures for September of this year and September, 1930. There are over 300,000 more unemployed in September of this year than in the year when the Bill became an Act. Therefore, I would ask the Government not to scrap this machinery. I know of no other way of providing employment for a very large number of our people than the range of public works. We know that there are certain industries in which the personnel is larger than that industry will ever again be able to absorb. Over 250,000men in the mining industry will never be required again. There are 150,000 to 200,000 people who will probably never be required again in the textile industry. If private enterprise is not able, with all the opportunities they have, with the Government encouragement they have received, with protection, quotas and other things provided for their aid, to provide work for this large number of unemployed, I suggest that the next alternative is some form of public enterprise.
    I suggest that the municipal authorities who urged the introduction of the Bill in 1930 shall not again be placed in a position in which they were handicapped by the circumlocution methods which meant that five or six months passed before it was possible for any serious attention to be paid to their request. I wish to rationalise the procedure and make possible their approach to the problem of providing employment where they think it is practicable and would meet some public need, quite apart from the mere business of providing employment. The provision of employment in itself would be of enormous value. The very fact of being able to provide employment and give men and women an oppor-
    240
    tunity if earning their living would be an enormous advantage.
    What has happened in the case of the millions of pounds which have been spent in the dole, as it is called, and through the Poor Law? You have nothing as a result of that expenditure except pale-faced, dejected and demoralised men and women. I suggest that it is wrong to take any step whatever which will impair or render less effective and easy the opportunities of municipal authorities to provide employment by the means of public works, and that it is right and proper that the Government should give them every facility. I urge on the Government that the period of the usefulness of this provision has not passed. I believe that in the future the demand of public authorities for waterworks, harbours, roads and bridges, and the clearing of slums will increase and, therefore, I home the Government will withdraw the proposal that this provision should be dropped and accept the Amendment. that it should be continued, because I feel certain that its usefulness will be apparent in the early future. If the Government have no specific reason for dropping it, I hope that they will agree with my Amendment.
    6.48 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I desire to support the Amendment. Only this week I received a letter from one of the largest firms of steel manufacturers in my constituency, indeed one of the largest firms in the country, which has always been consistently Conservative and did its best to prevent my coming to this House at all, asking me to take the first opportunity to urge on the Government the necessity for public works. They point out that, as a consequence of the Government's attitude since 1931, their steel department has been more or less at a standstill, and that men have been unemployed as a result. The number of men unemployed at the Employment Exchange at Darlaston is between 25 and 30 per cent. of the total number of insured persons, and this steel firm suggests that the Government should give facilities to municipal authorities to get along with works of public utility. My hon. Friend has alluded to the question of bridges, and has pointed out that the Royal Commission suggested that at least 1,000 bridges which are no longer capable of carrying modern traffic should be re-

    241
    built or reconditioned every year. Many municipal authorities and urban district councils realise the danger of these bridges, and would be only too pleased to take steps to put them in a proper state of repair. Their difficulty is that they receive no encouragement from the Government.
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Will the hon. Member give me the names of the authorities who wish to strengthen these bridges whose requests have been turned down?
    Mr. BANFIELD: A good deal of what I am saying can be found in the report of the Royal Commission——
    Mr. STANLEY: That was three years ago.
    Mr. BANFIELD: Yes. I am not in a position to quote to-night any information more than that which I have been able to dig out of the report.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must call the attention of hon. Members to the fact that we must not, on this Amendment, get into a general discussion on public works. This proposal deals only with certain machinery for expediting public works for which private legislation is necessary. I do not want to curtail anything which the hon. Member has to say, but in view of the interchange between him and the Minister of Transport just now, I think I must draw attention to the limits of the Debate.
    Mr. BANFIELD: It will be agreed that if these facilities, which it is now proposed to drop, were continued, it would help matters very considerably and would be a gesture from the Government that they proposed to look more favourably on works of public importance. Local authorities would thus be able in many instances to do something for their own local unemployed. In spite of anything the Government may say to the contrary it is far better, in the long run, to provide actual work for the unemployed rather than settle down to a system of unemployment pay. This is most important, because in spite of the drop in the figures I am satisfied that the hard core of unemployment still remains, and that the number of men who have now been out of employment for over 12 months continues to grow. These men are eating their hearts out. They have
    242
    no desire to be continually unemployed; they want a chance to work. It will be admitted that to give better facilities for public works would allow local authorities a better chance to proceed with such schemes as they may have in their mind. I have heard it said that it is easier and perhaps cheaper to pay unemployment money than to embark on schemes of public works—
    The CHAIRMAN: Now the hon. Member is getting to something which is distinctly outside the Bill. He is now asking a question as to how unemployment should be dealt with. What we are able to deal with on this Amendment is simply and solely whether this machinery should be continued or not on the particular matter of the promotion of private legislation.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I am sorry that I have trespassed outside the scope of the Amendment. I can only urge that at the moment 'there appears to be no real reason for dropping this particular provision. Even if the Government are not very sympathetic at the moment, that is no reason why it should not remain in the Bill. I hope the Government will realise that it would be a tremendous mistake to put anything in the way of municipalities providing more employment and adding to the amenities of the community and the well-being of the nation.
    6.56 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: This proposal conjures up many memories of the year 1930. I remember the Conservative party demanding that public works should be expedited and that the Government should show themselves a Government of push and go. I remember the jeers and the criticisms— the justified criticisms— of the slow and sleepy Government of that day, which was not doing anything by way of public works. Let me remind the House of the description of the Act:
    "An Act to expedite the procedure for empowering local authorities and statutory undertakers to execute works which will contribute to the relief of unemployment: to facilitate the acquisition by such authorities and undertakers of land and easements required for the purposes of their functions; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
    As I understand, tucked away in a small line of this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is a proposal that these powers should come to an end at the end of December,

    243
    1933. I know it has been the policy of the last two years, through financial stringency, for the Government not to encourage public works. The President of the Board of Trade has pointed out that they have lost faith in that policy, and do not propose to embark upon it again. That may be right or wrong, I doubt its wisdom, but what on earth is the reason in a machinery Bill to drop a proposal which was intended to improve the cumbrous, slow, and, above all, the expensive method of private Bill legislation? I should like to see this particular Section recognised us part of private Bill procedure connected with local government. I do not know why at the end of a Session this very excellent improvement in our local government procedure is to be done away with, and why we are to go back to the old machinery of private legislation. Such a proposal requires some explanation. The Committee ought to know why it should go out of its way to repeal this most excellent provision.
    One of the weaknesses of local government has been the slowness of the machinery for private Bills. We in London are more fortunate; we can do things through our General Powers Act. We have a special status which is denied to other local authorities, and it is a very slow process even as it is. But it was as a result of appeals from every part of the House, particularly from the Tory party, that machinery was speeded up by short-circuiting the methods of local authorities when it was necessary for local public works. The scheme still, of course, had to come to Parliament, but this was an attempt to simplify procedure. I think it was one of the good things done at the end of the life of the Labour Government. For some reason in 1933, without any explanation, this proposal is smuggled through in this peculiar makeshift Bill. I hope it will not be smuggled through, at any rate without adequate explanation.
    7.1 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: I want to underline what my hon. Friends on this side of the House have said and what has been said by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and to express amazement that the Government have taken the opportunity of trying to abolish this Section which, as my hon. Friend has said, to the
    244
    knowledge of those who were in the House at the time this Bill was put through, met the needs of the local authorities so well that the Bill actually went through without any opposition on the Second Reading. But the surprise is all the more intense because the unemployment figures, although they are improving—and I am glad to say that they are improving—are yet some 300,000 above what they were when this Act was put through. I ask myself, therefore, why it is that the Government are taking a step of this kind. Have the Government abandoned altogether any plan of employing men, particularly long-distance men, who are out of work at the present moment?
    It is true that the unemployment figures are improving, but there is a menacing fact in connection with the present figures of which this House would do well to take notice. I am sure that the Ministry of Labour, which watches the figures in their various sections and in their proportions, must be well aware of this fact. In the basic industries this numbers employed are actually getting fewer. There are to-day 75,000 fewer men employed in the mining industry than there were two years ago. That is a pointer to some of the other basic industries. If one liked to analyse the figures, he would be able to show that not only are the wholly unemployed increasing— that is, the people who are without employment— but the Ministry of Labour itself has admitted that, whereas the numbers of those unemployed for 12 months and more were two years ago 100,000, to-day they are over 300,000. Then, of course, there is the fact that the figures of those 'N h o have gone on to the Poor Law or the Public Assistance have increased during the past two years by some 330,000. I heard someone on that side the other day say that the people who went on to the Poor Law still had to register and therefore were found among the figures of the unemployed. But that is not at all a tenable position, and the Ministry of Labour would, I think, admit that the people who are counted as being not normally insured—that is the middle-aged people, who are very often the best and most able craftsmen—are struck off the register and go on to the Poor Law. Those people do not register at all. Only a few months ago I was informed by the Ministry of

    245
    Labour that during the past two years the people who have been struck off the register for that reason—what is known as the "poor condition" numbered 253,000.
    I am therefore amazed that the Government are taking away a. Section in this Act which gives the local authorities, if they wish, the opportunity to short-circuit all the roundabout and costly methods that have to be used of carrying new Bills upstairs in order to get some scheme going. The Government are actually cancelling the Section 0in this Act which makes it possible to do that. They have already, of course, closed down the Unemployment Grants Committee. That is hopeless. Now they take a further step by making it impossible for local authorities who are eager to meet the needs of their own areas to express those needs as they did in the past. It is a pity that the Ministry of Labour is not dealing with this matter as well as the Ministry of Health. I remember when this Act went through that these benches were crowded with hon. Gentlemen who are now sitting either on the Government Benches or behind them, and we were continually assailed with questions on what we were going to do about these unemployment figures, and what steps we were going to take to get the men working and to encourage the local authorities to get them working. Now there are 300,000 more unemployed than there were at that time. As I have shown, the long-distance unemployed men have trebled themselves in the last three years.
    The depressed areas which some of us represent are infinitely worse because of the operation of this machinery. After two years of that the Government are now going to take away a Section which represents the only little hope the local authorities had of ridding themselves of any expense in doing a little for their people. I wonder if it is not possible at this eleventh hour—I do not know why we should mention the eleventh hour particularly, but at this last moment—to ask the Government to forgo the cancelling of this Section, and thus the neutralising of this Act. It is true that in the near future we have another opportunity of meeting this situation as far as the unemployed are concerned, but hardly
    246
    anywhere in the country are there now any schemes going, because even now the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour—the Unemployment Grants Committee—give no encouragement to these people. I do think, however, that even Conservative Members, Nationalist Members, at least those who have public experience of local authorities, ought to express the local authorities' view and vote against this proposal unless the Government alter their line of action.
    7.10 p.m.
    Mr. HARBORD: I am sorry to intervene in this Debate, but I desire to represent a point of view which I feel very strongly. I have been a public man for many years; I have taken a great interest in unemployment questions, and before coming to this House, during the last few months, I have taken the trouble to ask the council of which I have long been a member its point of view in reference to these proposals. The Government, it setms to me, have no occasion to ask that this Section should be dropped. They still have the power of dealing with any application that may be made to them, and, if these applications are in their opinion unreasonable and against the public interest, they can defeat them. But in a town like mine, after Christmas, there is for three or four months a terribly lean time. We have thousands of unemployed people. We have dealt with the problem by works of public utility, for which we have received grants from the Government of the day, and we have tided over those people with little extravagance. They have been put to work perhaps four days in the week at the current rate of wage for labour in that district. Those steps have given human happiness to many people, and at a time like this are moneybags to weigh against human happiness and comfort? Is it a time when cheap money is so abundant, but unemployment is still so considerable, that this Section should be maintained? I belong not to a Labour council but to a Conservative council. I am proud to be a supporter of the Government, and I take pains to try to keep them in office and secure their hold upon the affections of my constituents. I urge them to be generous by not dropping this Section, and to meet the views of my council. The Government have sufficient powers for the purpose of safeguarding public interests, and I ask them most

    247
    strongly to abandon this proposal. I could make a long speech on the merits of work of public utility. I ask the Government to encourage local authorities such as mine to deal with their unemployment problem. When I put to my council the question as to what my attitude was to be, I had a unanimous vote that I should say to the Government: "Keep the Section in for the benefit of the deserving"—not for every application that may be made, but using wise discrimination. Why should you shut, bar and slam the doors in the faces of the working people of this country who, after months of suffering and unemployment, will be put in a sorry state if the Section is abandoned?
    7.14 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): There seems to be much Suspicion, misunderstanding and misapprehension as to what exactly the Government are doing, and it might be well if I intervened at this stage to say what we are doing. It is really not necessary to discuss the whole question of unemployment, under this Act——
    Mr. J. JONES: The Chairman will decide that question.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: He has already ruled that it does not come in. Nor is it necessary to debate this question of public works or otherwise. You can still support this present proposal of the Government believing, as some people may, in public utility works. I do not understand the argument of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord) that this Section is vital for the preservation of this country and particularly of Yarmouth. Yarmouth has never applied to utilise the machinery of Section 1 of this Act. I could show in a moment that, if any Government embarked on a scheme of public works, this Section would not be missed.
    Let me explain exactly what is the effect of this Act. Section 1 deprives Parliament of its jealously-guarded procedure in regard to Private Bills. It took away every stage of a Private Bill except the Report stage and the Third Reading. When it was introduced in another place Lord Parmoor, then Leader of the House, explained that this Act was only required to be continued until the end of 1932. It was an emergency
    248
    measure. The real value of this Act lies in the other sections. I will show how practically inoperative Section 1 has been. Since January, 1932, only three schemes for the whole of England and Wales have been submitted and confirmed under this special provision. There was one in 1932 and there were two last Year. There were only 14 before that, when. Labour was at the helm driving forward great schemes of public works. There are now only four schemes on the stocks, two concerning the Ministry of Transport and two concerning the Ministry of Health. For that reason we allow this special procedure to Continue to the end of this year. So far as I know there. are no other applications from any local authorities to permit schemes under this section. The section was very narrowly drawn to exclude everything controversial
    It is all very well for the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) to say that all water supply, bridge repairing and town planning schemes must stop, if this Section is repealed, but it is not the case. No big water scheme would ever go through under it; it would be too controversial. No Bill is required for a small scheme. As to bridges, the operative section is Section 3 of the Act, and that we are continuing. No Bill is required for strengthening or widening or repairing bridges. As to town planning, there is a special Act.
    I hope I have allayed some suspicions in the minds of hon. Members. The really effective part of this Act is Section 2. That gives power to the appropriate Minister to whom application is made to dispense with the procedure of bringing in a Bill in the case of a local authority which desires to acquire land and which cannot otherwise acquire land unless a Bill is promoted. The Section enables the Minister to dispense with the Provisional Order, which involves a Bill, and to simplify altogether the power of a local authority to acquire land. There are other useful provisions permitting rapid entry after acquisition has been made of a property. Nearly three hundred special Orders have been made under Section 2. Section 3 is another useful section dealing with the right of easements over land in connection with bridge construction. I ask the Committee not to see in our action something which is not really there.
    Mr. HICKS: Is it not correct to say that the municipal authorities were called into conference by the Prime Minister, and that after exhaustive discussion upon the matter they urged upon the Government the need for Section 1? Is it not correct that subsequent conferences were held and that they also urged its importance? Am I to assume from the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that all this effort by the Government and municipal authorities has been of no value at all, that the machinery which is provided under the Act is of no use, and that no one will be under any handicap if the machinery is removed? Although the Parliamentary Secretary says that the volume of application has not been such as to justify the retention of the section, is it not the case that the Government have placed a dead hand on municipal authorities so far as public works are concerned, in the last two years, and have discouraged them in every possible way? Would it not still be possible for the Government to feel perfectly satisfied with their authority in the matter if they allowed the section to remain in?
    7.22 p.m.
    Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: We have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary a speech in which he has made it clear that in his opinion this Act as a whole is a useful Act. He has drawn our attention to the useful work done under Sections 2 and 3. In fact, regarded from the Government's point of view, the Act is quite a satisfactory piece of legislation. Why then does the Minister tinker with it at all? I cannot understand. If Section 1 is doing no harm—and nothing in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech has indicated that any harm is being done —why interfere with the Act in this way? It may be that no great number of applications have been made under this particular Section. That may have been because people were not encouraged and did not consider that the prospects were very good, under the present Administration, in bringing forward schemes, but in any event why close any door at this time by which useful work might be done? In matters of government a great deal depends not only on the actual measures, but on the psychology of the
    250
    thing. People are discouraged because they have the impression that the policy in general is a policy of restriction. Why should it be necessary to go out of one's way to make another gesture of restriction which, as far as I can see, is totally unnecessary. It will cause trouble, despondency and opposition where there is no necessity for it at all.
    Who has complained at any time that the rights of Parliament were being swept away by the shortening of the procedure with regard to private Bills? What is the reason behind the Government's proposal? One cannot see the motive. As far as I can gather, some of those behind the Minister are disappointed that the Measure does not go further and close down public activities altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I thought so; one cannot help hearing remarks that are made. I am glad that the Front Bench does not take that attitude. I ask them, however, to go further, and to take every opportunity to encourage those who are so hopeless now, and not to offer them cold water in a quite unnecessary measure for no conceivable reason at all.
    7.26 p.m.
    Mr. J. JONES: I am rather surprised that a Government of this character, with such a tremendous majority, should take away from the local authorities indirectly a power which has only recently been granted to them. The Parliamentary Secretary said that owing to the paucity of schemes in the last two years the Government were justified in the step they were taking on this Act. Does he not know that local authorities up and down the country, even those with Labour majorities, have been saying to themselves, "What is the good of proposing big schemes when we know that the Government have issued an ultimatum that no more money will be found for carrying out the schemes"? The cry has been for economy, economy, economy, however unjustified it may be. Much useful work is in abeyance simply because we do not know where to find the money without the assistance of the Government.
    Take the case of my own locality, only a 6d. omnibus ride from this House. We were lucky to get through a scheme for a £3,000,000 road to the docks. We had another scheme for increasing decent transport between Eastern England and

    251
    London. That scheme was stopped half way through by the Government. That was economy. But the scheme will ultimately have to go through, as otherwise there will be two bottlenecks left. Some future Ministry will have to give us permission to go on with the rest of the scheme, and instead of costing £750,000 to complete the scheme, in the end it will cost us £2,000,000. That may be economy, but it is not efficiency. What benefit will the Government gain by omitting this Section. Will they gain anything? Surely they are not so friendly to the lawyers as to make it easy for them to draw money from the ratepayers. In West Ham alone our average charge for law expenses in connection with Parliamentary Bills, are in the £ on the rates annually. That represents between £5,000 and £6,000. It must mean a lot more to other districts which have bigger interests than ours.
    We are not asking that the Government should give us any new privilege, but that they should leave us as we are under the present Act, and that we should not be compelled to spend a lot of the ratepayers' money on legal expenses. After all, Parliament is a comparatively new institution compared with local government, because government in this country began not at Westminster but in parish and village meetings. Of course I do not expect all of my hon. Friends to have such historical knowledge as I possess. This proposal takes away from the localities a power only recently given to them. We are taking away that power before it has had a chance of being effective. There is one thing which stands out and it is that if we go back to the old method we shall be placing a heavier burden on the local authorities. We shall make it more difficult than ever to get schemes through and therefore we on this side stand by this Amendment and ask the Government at least to give us
    the crumb of comfort for which we ask and save something from the wreck.
    7.32 p.m.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) I ask the Government why they wish to repeal this Section? The Under-Secretary told us that there were only four schemes affected by it, but even if only one scheme were affected, would not that make it worth while to retain the Section? Is it not worth while to continue these facilities if even one more man can be put into employment? Why withdraw these facilities I If the machinery is in existence, it does not follow that it is going to be used in order to spend an unlimited amount of money. I think that is an argument which will appeal to many hon. Members of the Conservative party. Indeed, I think it ought to appeal to every fair-minded Member whether he be Conservative, Liberal or Labour. If the Government insist on withdrawing these facilities, we must conclude that they have some motive for doing so which they have not yet disclosed. With all respect to the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), I suggest that those who are real economists will support the retention of these facilities, because economy means wise expenditure. It does not mean merely being mean and withdrawing ail expenditure. The effect of this Section of the Act is to provide for economy by the municipalities and for the reduection of their expenses. Therefore, I cordially support the Amendment and I hope that hon. Members opposite will go to a Division upon it, and that many Members in all parts of the Committee will give it their support.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 57.

    Division No. 298.]

    AYES.

    [7.34 p.m

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Blindell, James

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Bossom, A. C.

    Burnett, John George

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Boulton, W. W.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Atholl, Duchess ot

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Cassels, James Dale

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. w.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Boyce. H. Leslie

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

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. ot Thanet)

    Braithwaite, Maj.A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)

    Clarke, Frank

    Balniel, Lord

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Beaumont. M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Brockiebank, C. E. R.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Copeland, Ida

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Leckie, J. A.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Salmon, Sir. Isidore

    Cruddas, Lieut Colonel Bernard

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Salt, Edward W.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Little. Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Liewellin, Major John J.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

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

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Selley, Harry R.

    Denman, Hon. R D.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Dickie, John P.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Doran, Edward

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

    Shepperson. Sir Ernest W.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Dunglass, Lord

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Eady, George H.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Eastwood, John Francis

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Slater, John

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Maitland, Adam

    Somerset, Thomas

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Emrys-Evans. P. V.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Martin, Thomas B.,

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Mason, Col. Glyn k. (Croydon, N.)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Falie, Sir Bertram G.

    Mayhew, Lieut. Colonel John

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Milne, Charles

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Stevenson, James

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

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Stones, James

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Storey, Samuel

    Gluckstein. Louis Hall*

    Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Ralph

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Sutcliffe. Harold

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Nation. Brigadier-General J. J. H

    Templeton, William P.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Thomas, James p. L. (Hereford)

    Granville, Edgar

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Thompson, Luke

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Nunn, William

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Grimston, R. V.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Pearson, William G.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Peat, Charles U.

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

    Hartland, George A.

    Petherick, M.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

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

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

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

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

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

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

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Hornby, Frank

    Ramsbotham. Herwald

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

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

    Ray, Sir William

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Reid, David O. (County Down)

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

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

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Sir George Penny and Mr.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Womersley.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Banfield, John William

    Grundy. Thomas W.

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Bernays, Robert

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maxton, James

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

    Harris, Sir. Percy

    Milner, Major James

    Buchanan, George

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Cape, Thomas

    Hirst, George Henry

    Parkinson, John Allan

    Cove, William G.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Janner, Barnett

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Curry. A. C.

    Jenkins. Sir William

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

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Thorne, William James

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edwards, Charles

    Kirkwood, David

    Wallhead, R'chard C.

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Wilmot, John Charles

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Lunn, William

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

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G. Macdonald.

    Question put, and agreed to.

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

  FIREARMS AND IMITATION FIREARMS (CRIMINAL USES) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. HACKING: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I believe that this Bill will be welcomed on all sides of the House. It was introduced in another place during the previous part of this Session and passed through all its stages there. There has been general anxiety, during the past few months, regarding the increased use of imitation or dummy firearms for purposes of intimidation and the avoidance of arrest. The Government have been pressed on many occasions to introduce legislation to prohibit the possession or use of such firearms, and this is a Bill which we believe will achieve that purpose. I propose at a later stage to move a slight Amendment to the Bill, but I shall deal with that at the proper stage. We believe that the Bill, in substance, will carry out the wish of the House by making it a serious offence for any person to use or attempt to use a firearm or an imitation firearm in certain clearly defined circumstances.
  Genuine firearms are dealt with under the Firearms Act, 1920. The purchase, possession, use, or carrying of firearms or ammunition is prohibited under that Act unless a person is in possession of a. firearm certificate. The manufacture and sale of genuine firearms and ammunition are also prohibited under that Act, except by persons who are registered as firearm dealers, but there is no control of imitation firearms. To deal with the imitation firearm in the same way as the genuine firearm is dealt with is not desirable and is in fact not necessary—that is, by way of a firearm certificate or by means of registration as a firearm dealer. To deal with the problem in that way would be exceedingly inconvenient. Imitation firearms have in fact a legitimate and harmless use. There would be, in my submission, an undue interference with industry, at any rate with a certain portion of the toy industry, if dealers and manufacturers had to be registered before they were allowed to sell or to make such articles as, for example, toys capable only of firing paper caps, or
  256
  dummies which might be used for letter-weights, or cigarette lighters, or imitation revolvers which are used for theatrical purposes, and many other articles of a harmless nature. If you had to compel the manufacturer of that type of imitation armaments to be registered, I believe you would be interfering with a legitimate and harmless trade. It would in fact be absurd to have to possess a firearm certificate or an imitation firearm certificate before one could carry or use a particular form or a particular shape of cigarette lighter. If one had to insist upon a certificate in cases such as those, obviously the law would be held up to ridicule.
  This matter then, I submit, has to be tackled, not from the manufacturing end, nor even from the standpoint as to whether it is right or wrong in all circumstances to possess these imitation firearms. We have rather to consider the form of use or attempted use to which these weapons may be put. There are certain cases where it may be perfectly right and innocuous to possess or to use an imitation firearm, but there are clearly other cases where such possession or use is distinctly and obviously wrong and should be prohibited by law. Those cases are dealt with in this Bill, and the genuine article is also brought within the terms of it. By this Bill in fact we intend to make it an offence for a person to use or attempt to use a firearm or imitation firearm either for the purpose of resisting the lawful apprehension or detention of himself or of any other person, and we also wish to make it an offence if a person is found in the possession of such an article when committing, or when arrested for, the offences specified in the Schedule to the Bill. At the present time a dummy or an imitation firearm may be used as effectively as a real weapon, and yet it does not expose the offender to any special penalty. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that many criminals have been assisted in their endeavours to escape justice by producing out of their pockets an automatic toy pistol or other imitation weapon. By this Bill it is intended to put an end to this manner of assistance to evade arrest.
  The Bill is a comparatively short one, and perhaps I may briefly run through the Clauses. The first Clause places a maximum penalty of 14 years' penal servi-

  257
  tude on an offender for the use or attempted use of firearms or imitation firearms to avoid the arrest of himself or of any other person. The second Subsection of Clause 1 makes it clear that this is 'an additional penalty over and above the penalty for any other offence that he may have committed at about the same time. The second Clause lays it down that if, when arrested for any other offence, a person has in his possession any firearm or imitation firearm, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, even though he did not actually use the weapon, but it will be noted that the second Sub-section of Clause 2 states:
  "This section applies to the offences specified in the Schedule to this Act."
  There is a long list of offences to which Clause 2 applies. I do not intend to go through them all now, but if anybody has any doubt as to what they are in detail, I could provide that information to save any hon. Member the trouble of looking up the particular Section in any particular Act. Clause 3 makes it clear that there may be a conviction for possession, even if there is no conviction under Clause 1 for using any particular weapon, and Sub-section (2) of Clause 3 gives a direction to the courts of summary jurisdiction that they may not deal with an offence if there is attached to it a charge under this particular Act. Clause 4 provides that a firearm or imitation firearm, though incapable of firing any shot, shall be deemed to be an offensive weapon for the purposes of Sections 23 and 28 of the Larceny Act, 1916, and the nature of the offences in question is clearly laid down in the two paragraphs of this Clause 4. Clause 5 simply gives the short Title, interpretation, and extent of the Act, hut Sub-section (2) of the Clause requires a small Amendment. There are other types of weapons, in addition to what are commonly known as firearms, which we would all be anxious to include in this particular Measure. I refer to weapons defined under Section 6 of the Firearms Act, 1920, as:
  "any weapon, of whatever description, designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas, or other thing."
  I am sure it is the desire of the whole House that it should be made clear that this Bill will include not only what are called imitation firearms, but weapons of another kind.
  Mr. LOGAN: Will it include fountain pens?
  Mr. HACKING: If they are used for a particular purpose. We must make it certain that these types of weapon are, in fact, included under the terms of this Bill. It is not clear at present that they are so included, and I therefore would propose in Committee to insert, at the end of line 5, on page 3, these words:
  "and includes, except for the purpose of the definition of the expression imitation firearm,' a prohibited weapon as defined by Section 6 of the Firearms Act, 1920."
  If any hon. Member desires to have a copy of that Amendment, I shall be only too glad to provide him with it to-night. I realise that to-morrow we go into Committee on the Bill, and there would not be very much time for Amendments to be moved to that particular Amendment, as it will only appear on the Order Paper to-morrow morning for the first time.
  Mr. LOGAN: With regard to the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, I do not know whether what is known as the fountain-pen type of weapons would be covered by his proposed words.
  Mr. HACKING: I think they would, because Section 6 of the Firearms Act, 1920, says:
  "any weapon of whatever description, designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas, or other thing."
  I think, therefore, they would be included.
  Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why it is proposed not to extend this Measure to Scotland or to Northern Ireland?
  Mr. HACKING: Because I understand that among other things the Scottish Office control their own police force, but I think that question might properly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, because, of course, I cannot reply on his behalf. I would say that representations have been made to the effect that a Clause should be inserted in this Bill increasing the age at which genuine firearms can be sold to young persons. There have been many questions asked in the House during recent months in connection with that side of the problem. In fact, many hon. Members of the House have pressed the

  259
  Government to increase the age at which these young persons can purchase firearms. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Pybus) has taken a special interest in this problem. The Government would have liked to meet him and his friends in their desire to raise the present age limit and to put some Clause in this Bill which would have the desired effect, but it is felt by the Government that the Bill does not really provide the most appropriate occasion, for, as is indicated by its short Title, the Bill confines itself to the criminal use of firearms and has nothing to do with the age at which firearms can be purchased or anything of that kind. I have reason also to doubt whether such an addition as has been pressed upon us would actually be in order, but I will say this, that we hope that a further opportunity will present itself for dealing with this problem of the supply of arms to young persons, and when it does present itself, I can promise my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and his friends that the Government will give to it their most sympathetic consideration. I hope that he and other Members of the House will be satisfied with that assurance. I should like to have included that point in this Bill, but we are unable to do so, firstly, because I believe it would have been out of order and, secondly, because we believe that this is not the appropriate occasion upon which a new Clause covering an important matter of that kind should be included.
  It may be complained by critics that we are legislating ahead of necessity. It is true that gunmen are not so numerous in this country or so daring as they are in certain other parts of the world, but. our desire is to prevent this profession from becoming a popular or a remunerative one. That is really the object of the Bill. I believe that the Bill will command support from every quarter of the House, for while its provisions will not inflict any hardship whatever on ordinary honest traders, it is believed that it will form an effectual deterrent to dishonest persons who might without the Bill be inclined to use firearms or imitation firearms for the purpose of intimidation or in order to prevent themselves or their unscrupulous friends from being brought to justice for their misdeeds. That at any rate is the intention
  260
  of the Bill. The intention is to stop such use of firearms or imitation firearms, and I therefore submit the Bill with confidence to the House and ask that it should be given its Second Reading
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It falls to me to give the blessing of this side of the House to this Measure. This is the first disarmament plan that the Government have ever brought before the House of Commons. It is a real disarmament plan indeed, and I am hoping that, having disarmed the civil population in our own country, they will carry the principle to Geneva and try to put it into effect there too. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. In this Bill the maximum penalty is 14 years under Clause 1 and seven years under Clause 2. That makes 21 years all told. I gather from the provisions of the Bill that these two new penalties are in addition to other penalties which may be inflicted in connection with offences arising out of them. It seems to me that the total number of years of penal servitude which can be inflicted in this case is greater than the total number inflicted upon a person who commits murder and whose sentence is commuted, because he serves only 21 years. The penalties in this Bill are probably the most severe in regard to the number of years of penal servitude that we have ever passed through the House of Commons.
  I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have told the House something about the criminal statistics upon which the Bill is based. I do not want to be too critical of the Bill because every good citizen wants to prevent the use of firearms by anybody, but I am afraid that Governments are getting too inclined to bring in new legislation because of Press propaganda. I would have preferred it if the right hon. Gentleman had given facts and figures from the criminal statistics upon which the Bill is based. It is no use taking any notice of the daily newspapers as to what we ought to do in regard to changing the law. This Bill seems to deal only with the use or the attempted use of firearms. I wonder whether the Bill will affect in any way the growth in this country of groups of people who carry other weapons. I think that the members of the Fascisti carry something in their belts. If I had my way I would

  261
  prevent all that sort of thing in a country like ours. If people cannot argue themselves into power they have no right to try and intimidate other people and seize that power. When a man is too lazy to think he generally puts his arguments into the muzzle of a revolver. Is there anything in this Bill that will prevent people marching through the streets with weapons in their belts or in any other part of their clothing? On the whole, we on this side of the House agree that the law should at least try to prevent the use of firearms by anybody except for legitimate purposes.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I would not say that this is an unpopular Measure because most people take the view that the use of firearms is a crime that should be severely dealt with. I agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) that the Minister might have laid down the basis of his case for introducing this Bill. Generally speaking, when a Government acts it does so because of some facts on which its case is based. The right hon. Gentleman made a general assumption, but I wish that Ministers when they are making a case would try and think of the House of Commons more as a court of law. There you have to prove facts, not fancies. It is becoming a common occurrence in this House for a Minister to say that there has been a large number of cases or that something has happened, but they actually give us no facts on which their statements are based. The Under-Secretary said that there had been a large number of these cases, but he gave no figures to prove it. How many of these cases have happened in the last three years and in what areas have they happened?
  The Under-Secretary was pressed to-day by Members in all parts of the House much more vigorously than he is being pressed on this Measure in connection with the alarming loss of life from motor accidents. No one can but view with alarm the grave menace of the roads. When the pressure was put on the right hon. Gentleman what was the nature of his answer? The loss of life from motors is far greater than it has ever been proved or is likely to be proved in the case of firearms. In that case the charge is not that people are actually killed, but that there is the threat to kill
  262
  in order to rob. In the case of motors, it is not a threat for the actual killing is going on from day to day. The Under-Secretary, however, callously says that we must wait until we have investigated facts and figures of motor accidents. Why? In the main motors are owned by people who belong to the more comfortable section of the community, and in the main the people who are injured and killed belong to the less fortunate section of the community. This Bill is a striking contrast because those who rob belong to the more unfortunate sections and those whom they threaten to kill are either themselves in defence of property or are interested in the property.
  In the case of loss of life from motors the Government say, "We will not move, we must take our time and must plan." I venture to say that even if they do plan there will be nothing like the 14 years' sentence which is laid down in this Bill. As the hon. Member for Westhoughton pointed out, the cumulative sentence here can well be over 20 years. It seems to me that in this case the Government are pandering to a popular appeal to bring in this Measure. What is the definition of an imitation firearm? An imitation firearm might well be a pipe. A pipe held in a man's hand is not far from the shape of a firearm.
  Sir COOPER RAWSON: It depends on how drunk you are.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member has probably more experience of that than me.
  Sir C. RAWSON: I hope that the hon. Member did not imagine for a moment that my remark was intended to be personal.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: A pipe held by a man might well be an imitation firearm, but there is no definition in this Bill. The Bill seems to give the courts terrible powers. When penalties are increased in the Bill the Minister usually makes the case that the present law is not sufficient to deal with the problem. The Under-Secretary has not taken that line to-day. He has not said that the law is not capable of dealing with this problem. The Bill gives tremendous powers to the courts and to people who are in charge of investigating and probing crime. A man who is half drunk might hold his pipe like a firearm, and the Bill gives too grave a

  263
  power for the courts to use against him. My main criticism is that the Under-Secretary has never given us the facts. In his concluding sentence he said that this country has not been faced with the gunman as, I assume he meant, America was; and he said that we were dealing with it because it might occur. That would be an argument for passing any Bill. One can conjure up any sort of prospect.
  I do not know to what idea this Bill is pandering, but in my view there has not been a great number of these crimes. I frequently visit criminal courts, and the impression I have formed is that, for the most part, crime is on the decrease, with the exception of what I call petty crime. Burglary is not on the increase, and pocket-picking is very much on the decrease. The crime which I find on the increase is such as is forced on people very largely on account of poverty. I was speaking recently to the sheriffs in Glasgow, and one of them told me that he was amazed by the number of people coming before him who were not criminals at all but had been forced into committing petty, miserable, mean crimes. This is a Bill which I cannot accept at its face value. I think the idea behind it is to give to the Courts and to those who assist in the administration of justice a power which may well be used in a tyrannical fashion, and on that account I view the Measure with great alarm and a great deal of suspicion. Though the Opposition, for honest reasons, about which I have no criticism to make, are not going to divide, if I had other followers beside the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) I would, despite the unpopularity of the action, divide against the Bill.
  8.17 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON: Although I think the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is correct in saying that the old-fashioned form of burglary—night burglary—is going out, I do not think he is right in implying that the modern smash-and-grab raid or theft combined with assault is going out of fashion. I think he will find, if he examines statistics, that such cases are on the increase, and they, of course, are the type of offence with which this Bill attempts to some extent to deal.
  Mr. R. DAVIES: The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks my hon. Friend to analyse the figures. We are all very anxious to know why this Bill has been brought before the House. Has the hon. and gallant Member himself found anything in the criminal statistics which would prove the statement he has just made?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. Member knows quite well that I am not at the Home Office, and therefore it is not my business to provide statistics for the House. The remarks I have just made arose from the fact that recently I was present at the annual conference of magistrates at the Guildhall. where this question was referred to, and where certain statistics were quoted. Naturally I did not note down those statistics, and I am speaking now from memory, but I think I am speaking accurately. The point I rise to make is really a small Committee point which I wish my right hon. Friend to look into before the Committee stage comes on. Section 7 of the Firearms Act, 1920, imposes a penalty for the possession of firearms with intent to injure. Though I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that that Section conflicts, to some extent, with Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill. It seems to me that a man could be tried under either Section 7 of that Act or under Clause 1 of this Bill, and possibly under Clause 2. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) who, like myself, was formerly at the Home Office, said he thought the penalties in this Bill were the greatest that have ever been sanctioned by this House. I would draw attention to the fact that the penalty under Section 7 of the Act of 1920, which was drawn up from the old Explosve Substances Act, 1883, is not 7 or 14 years, but 20 years.
  Mr. DAVIES: I understand that the maximum penalty under Clause 1 of this Bill is 14 years, and under Clause 2 is 7 years. Together they make 21, which is one year more than 20.
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. Member does not imagine that a man could be tried under Clause 1 and Clause 2 at the same time, because obviously he could not.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes.
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The additional penalties to which my right hon. Friend referred were additional penalties other than those arising from being tried under Clauses 1 and 2 at the same time. They deal with other offences committed by a man, apart from Clauses 1 and 2. What I want him to realise is that in recent years, since the War, we have passed an Act dealing with the possession of firearms in which we agreed that the penalty should be greater than 14 years. My point is that I would like my right hon. Friend to satisfy himself that there is not any conflict between the first two Clauses of his Bill and Section 7 of the Act of 1920, and, if he thinks it desirable, and if there is any conflict, that there should be a varying punishment as between the 7 and 14 years and the 20 years which are laid down. I am not myself satisfied that the best way of dealing with this question is to give the same punishment to a man who is in possession of a real firearm as to a man who is in possession of an imitation firearm, though that is a nice point, and it may be there is a good deal to be said on both sides. Possibly it is the fact that the two classes of arms are grouped together in this Bill that makes the offender liable to a less penalty than under the Act of 1920, which deals only with the genuine firearm. If the right hon. Gentleman will look into this small point between now and to-morrow I shall be much obliged.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. LOGAN: I think every Member ought to feel satisfied that it is the intention of the Bill to do something good, that is, to prevent the use of firearms or the carrying of imitation firearms for the purpose of committing robbery or burglary, which must evidently be in the mind of anyone who carries a firearm. I heard the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) say that in Scotland the penalty for murder is only 15 years. According to this if you did kill a person in Scotland it would mean two penalties of 15 years each. My experience of the carrying of firearms is of very recent date. I heard the report of a revolver, and it was my unfortunate lot to go into the house next door and find a young man of 21 years of age shot dead. He had thought that a man was holding an imitation revolver. That young man of
  266
  21 had been shot dead in a post office in the Scotland Road.
  I believe it should be illegal for a man to carry a firearm, whether he shoots you or does not shoot you, unless he is in a land where it is necessary for him to be able to protect his life. In a civilised State such as ours he has no right to carry a lethal weapon. But while I feel that way about an instrument which could do great harm to some unfortunate soul who was attacked, I am not able to understand why it should be that if any person makes, or attempts to make, use of imitation firearms the penalty should be 14 years. It should be a question for a judge to take all the circumstances into consideration. The question of imitation firearms certainly ought not to be linked with that of firearms that are really active.
  Another point in which I am interested is in Clause 4. I believe that in paragraphs (a) and (b) there is reason for saying that if the Bill passes into law it will be a very useful Measure. I do not think that an hon. Member in any part of the House will disagree with what is proposed there in the case of an attempt to rob. For example, a lady may be held up on the road by a weapon of this description, even though the purpose is only to frighten her, in order that she may give up her goods. I do not know whether hon. Members have ever come into contact with the use of a pistol which can be converted. I have sold firearms, and I know that we have had to get permission. We have had to register and to take all particulars of the person to whom we have sold the firearms. We have also had to know all about weapons that were being taken in pledge. There are toy instruments on the market which the ordinary trader may hand over the counter, but which an ingenious person may turn into a deadly instrument. A toy revolver can easily be bored and made into a most deadly pistol. I am anxious to do no injury to the legitimate toy shops, but I should like to see provision in a Bill of this description for dealing with a person who tries to commit a depredation or a robbery by turning a toy pistol into a proper one. I find in London shops instruments which are sold as toys, but which could be turned into a pistol in five minutes. These are not sold to the ordinary person for fun. Those who wish to commit a depredation

  267
  or a hold-up are not going to get their pistol at a proper firearm shop, because they would have to give particulars by which they could be traced, but they can go into a thousand and one shops that are selling toy pistols to-day up and down this country.
  While the legitimate trade of the shopkeeper should not be interfered with, something ought to be done about the instruments which appear in our police courts very often, with which robberies or shootings have taken place and which have proved to be toys bored and made into five-chambered or seven-chambered pistols. You are dealing in this Bill only with the person who makes the hold-up, and not with the shopkeeper. The toy pistol is not dealt with in any enactment whatever. If you are going to deal with the question of hold-ups with toy pistols, I consider that this Bill ought to be made complete by including the pistol which is on the market in the form of a toy. I am not referring to the dummies which can never be used or be bored, but to the pistol which has a central pipe which, on a lathe or a borer, can be made effective.
  I do not think that the use of a toy pistol ought to carry with it a penalty of 14 years. You might find one judge woo would say that a pistol which could never kill ought to be treated on the same level as a revolver which would kill if fired, but no man can fire a dummy pistol and kill anybody. While I believe that the use of such pistols to frighten ladies or children ought to be punishable, this penalty is too great.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed 50.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr Hacking].

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  8.32 p.m.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The very big Bill which I now have the honour to introduce to the House is a tidying up of the law. The purpose of
  268
  it is the consolidation of the law of local government for England and Wales. The geographical scope of the Bill covers England and Wales, but does not cover, in general, the City of London, which is dealt with by its particular Statutes. This great Measure of consolidation is one for the simplification and clarification of the law, and will, I am sure, be welcome to the House, the Members of which are wont to feel the great difficulty caused by the number and variety of Statutes. This particular instalment of the consolidation of local government law deals, in particular, with the constitution and the powers of local government authorities. The authorities with which it deals are the county councils, the borough councils and the county district councils, including urban and rural, and, lastly, the parish councils. It consolidates the law relating to their constitution and their powers.
  The magnitude and the utility of the Bill is shown by the fact that. it repeals wholly or partially not less than 900 sections of other Acts of Parliament and 33 Schedules, and that it repeals 47 Acts wholly, thus effecting a very great simplification of the law, and incidentally a very great economy in the conduct of public business. By means of such simplification, one avoids legislation and the necessity for that expensive form of luxury, the private Bill. This great Measure of consolidation does not come before the House without ample predigestion by responsible and qualified persons. The inquiry which has led to this consolidation was instituted in 1930 by my predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who sits opposite to me now. and I am sure it will be a pleasure to him that the initiative which he then took arrives now at its period of fruition. The Committee was presided over by the late Lord Chelmsford, and on it were representative Members of all the three parties, including the then Members for Uxbridge, Leeds and the University of Wales, and also representatives of the four great associations of local authorities; and I should like to pay my tribute to the great ability and industry with which the Committee achieved its labours. Its sittings lasted for two years, and resulted in a unanimous report, a most remarkable circumstance which has made

  269
  it possible to present to the House this Measure for the simplification of the law.
  As a result of the labours of that representative Committee, the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, and was referred in the first place to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, so that it has already received the very careful deliberation of representatives of both Houses in the Joint Select Committee. The Joint Select Committee sat for five whole days, and took evidence on all matters requiring any consideration in the Bill. As a result, a number of minor Amendments were introduced into the Bill in order to prepare it for the consideration of the Houses of Parliament. After that stage the Bill received all its regular stages of consideration in the House of Lords, and has passed now from that House. It will be seen, therefore, that the Bill has already been subjected to prolonged and minute scrutiny at the hands of highly qualified persons, and this great Measure of consolidation, which has occupied the labours of persons of specially high qualifications for 21 years, I now recommend with confidence to the consideration of this House.
  This is an instalment of a long process of simplification, clarification, and consolidation of local government law, which has been in progress now for a good many years under my predecessors and myself. We have codified the Poor Law; we have codified the housing law; we have codified the law relating to the sale of food and drugs; we have codified the law relating to National Health Insurance. This codification of the law relating to the constitution and powers of local authorities is the next instalment of that long process, and I hope that, when the House has dealt with this great Measure, no long period will elapse before there is another and final instalment of this codification in a Bill to codify the law relating to public health. That, indeed, will be almost the biggest task of all, because, as many hon. Members know, the law of public health needs codification almost more than any other portion of the law relating to local authorities and their powers.
  I have described this Bill as a Measure of consolidation, but I want to leave not one shadow of possibility of misunderstanding in the minds of Members of the
  270
  House as we proceed with the consideration of its Second Reading. I cannot say that absolutely every letter and every line of this Bill is consolidation. It is not; it could not be. The innumerable Statutes relating to local authorities have been passed at different times and in different senses, and they are completely irreconcilable with each other. In order to reduce them to a single intelligible code, it was necessary to modify and accommodate them by a certain number of what I might call mechanical amendments of the law, but the minimum number of amendments has been made that was required to make it possible to reduce all these varying codes to one without making complete nonsense of them. I can certainly say to the House that, in the opinion not only of myself but of those who have considered this great Measure, there is no substantial modification of the law at all; it is simply an accommodation of conflicting Statutes, and the incorporation in the general national code of a number of special provisions which have been found useful particular local Acts, which the House has become wont to repeat in those local Acts as they turned up one by one and which are now, for convenience and economy, incorporated in the general code. I think I may say that there is no amendment of the law except for the purpose of co-ordinating and reconciling conflicting elements in our law, and there is nothing controversial there involved. Finally, let me say that I am very well aware that there are various particulars in which many Members of the House would like to see the law relating to the constitution and powers of local authorities altered and amended. I am fully conscious of that, and of the fact that there are quite active controversies about some of these amendments. I am perfectly sure that we all desire to achieve this consolidation and simplification of the law, but I am sure that, with our knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, we shall know that we should defeat our own purpose if we confused the stage of consolidation with the stage of emendation We must consolidate first and amend afterwards. I am quite aware that this consolidation is only a preliminary stage to the possibility of emendation, but I would say to the House, let. us exercise, as it were, a self denying

  271
  ordinance and self-restraint; let us realise that, whatever we think about possible amendment of the law, the way to facilitate and arrive at that is first of all to clarify the law by consolidation. After that it will be 10, 20 times easier to effect the amendments that we desire. If we confused the consolidation stage with acrimonious controversies such as there might be on the question of emendation, I am very much afraid that we should lose the benefit of this great advance in the simplification of our law. It is very important that we should get this Bill before the end of the Session. I do not think that there is any high controversy, and, therefore, I venture to ask for the cordial co-operation of the House in the Committee stage to advance the Bill rapidly towards the consummation which we all desire.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: This is. I think, the first occasion on which I have spoken in this House in whole-hearted agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. I share the views which he has just expressed. I hope that this Measure will receive its Second Reading by the House with unanimity, and that it will be put on the Statute Book at a very early date. Those of us who have any knowledge of the vast body of law relating to local government, many aspects of which were outside the real scope of the consideration of the Committee, big branches of law such as the right hon. Gentleman has referred to—for example, that relating to public health—anybody who has any knowledge of this enormous mass of legislation with regard to the constitution and powers of local authorities will realise how complex the legislation affecting local authorities has become, and will realise the need, before any big new developments are made, of putting in as simple a form as is possible the present law. The fact that this Bill contains 306 Clauses and 11 Schedules shows how difficult it is to simplify the law with regard just to one or two aspects of local government. It is the considered policy of the Ministry of Health to do what it can to tidy up this complicated series of Statutes which affect the duties of the Ministry of Health.
  This is an agreed Bill. Had there been any real question of vital import-
  272
  ante, we should have had the associations of local authorities on their hind legs as soon as the Bill was introduced. The fact that. although I understand there may be Amendments, broadly speaking the Bill has been accepted by the organisations representing the authorities, is an indication that they believe that it is a useful Measure. It is true that this is not pure consolidation, but the terms of reference to the Committee that was set up nearly two years ago, when I was in office, gave them power to suggest Amendments where necessary to make a complete picture and to tidy up the structure of the constitution and powers of local authorities. So that, technically, the Bill is not a pure consolidation Measure. Its primary purpose 13 consolidation and its secondary purpose is to make the consolidation effective by minor alterations in the law. I am not going to pretend that I and my colleagues think that the law with regard to local government is satisfactory, but we accept the Minister's statement that the clarification and simplification of the law is necessary before there can be any real far-reaching changes in the structure of the law relating to local government. I should hope the House will give the Bill speedily a Second Reading, and my colleagues and I will do what we can to help the right hon. Gentleman to get it on to the Statute Book at the earliest moment.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: The right hon. Gentleman remarked that this was probably the first occasion on which he had been in complete agreement with the Minister. Certainly it is the first occasion on which I have been in agreement with both him and the Minister, and anyone who takes any interest in local government must share their extreme gratitude towards those who have taken so much trouble in preparing this Measure. If I have too few opportunities of paying tribute to the work of the Department over which the Minister so ably presides, let me say now how grateful we all are for the work that has been done and for the fact that the Government have found time to sandwich this very important Measure into their already over-crowded programme. I rise only to say that, while I agree that it is necessary that the Bill should be passed into

  273
  Law in the few remaining days of the Session, it would be extremely undesirable if all the various questions which have divided us on local government were to be raised on it. That is the last thing that any of us would desire. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there are certain alterations and emendations of the law, and I hope, where the view is expressed that those alterations are not in themselves good, or may cause harm, he will at least consider reasoned Amendments and will not set his face absolutely against any alteration of the Bill.
  I would draw his attention to one series of alterations which may have a very great effect. I refer to alterations in the procedure at county council elections. I have read the proceedings of both the Investigation Committee and the Joint Select Committee. It appears to me that those proceedings suffered from what is always a danger in the case of Bills which have been dealt with in this way and which escape the glare of publicity which is apt to shine on Measures produced in this House, and certain evidence which might have been of value was not offered and put before them. I believe that the effect of some of the alterations in county council procedure, alterations which have a very good reason behind them, will have the effect of increasing both the expenditure and the trouble of county council elections. I am certain that the Minister would be the last person to desire that anything should be done which would make it more difficult to get the right sort of candidates to come forward at county council elections. He would dislike very much, and I think the whole House would disapprove of, anything which would tend to make county councils the preserve either of those so well endowed with this world's goods that they could afford any amount of time to contest an election or those who merely went into local government from ulterior motives. Anything that might tend to prevent the ordinary citizen taking his share of local government is a thing to be deplored. Most Members of the House will agree that anything that would tend to increase the influence of party politics on local elections is also bad. I say most Members, because I know there is one section in the House which does not share it. I am convinced that these changes
  274
  will have both those effects, and my purpose in rising is to appeal to the Minister to consider Amendments dealing with the actual changes in the law that are being made, and putting points of view which may not even yet have been fully gone into by the committees which have done this admirable work. Subject only to that, I join in the unanimous desire which has been displayed to get the Bill on to the Statute Book at the earliest moment.
  8.53 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: The Bill has, of course, been carefully considered by the County Councils Association. Although it is a consolidating Bill, certain Alterations are made in the law. But they are entirely non-controversial, and we welcome the Bill and regard it as a most valuable Measure which will be of great help to local authorities. We shall have to put forward some minor Amendments in Committee, but I think they will be non-controversial, and the Minister will probably accept them. We regard this as 'a very valuable Measure, not merely a Measure of consolidation, but the foundation on which the Minister proposes to base the Amendments which he will make in the future. We are shortly to consider a Money Resolution which refers, apparently, to Clause 109. I should like to be assured that county councils will not be put in a worse position than they are now by that Clause, and that we shall not have any financial loss. If there is any financial loss, we should like to know what it is likely to be.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: Nobody welcomes a consolidation Bill upon any branch of the law more than the practising lawyers who have the difficulty from time to time of advising on complicated matters, when they are unable to find in one certain place the whole code of Sections dealing with a particular subject. Although it is a great inconvenience to those of us who know our subject to find that a Section which we have known by some familiar name for years has become enshrined in a new consolidation Statute, nevertheless we recognise that it is essential that, as far as possible, the laws of this country should, bit by bit, be got into an accessible form where we shall be able,

  275
  certainly in some of the great matters, and particularly in a matter like local government, to find people who are untrained in dealing with Statutes able to find that which they want without having to rely upon professional assistance.
  My only criticism is not a criticism of this Bill. I desire to sound a note of warning with regard to future consolidation Bills which, I hope, will come before this House at a very early date, and that is the combination of a consolidation Bill with Amendments. In this particular case I do not suppose that it would furnish any inconvenience to anyone. The Amendments are small, as I understand them, and the subject is not one which lends itself to any great display of dialetical skill on the part of the lawyers in the Law Courts. But when you are dealing with other subjects, there is a great danger that Amendments which may be put in may cause a great difference in the construction of other parts of the same Act when they come to be considered in the Law Courts. In looking at the Eleventh Schedule to this Bill, I rejoice to find that there is a Schedule of 38 pages of Statutes and parts of Statutes which tare being repealed in order that we may get the whole code of law enshrined in this one volume which I hold in my hand.
  The only other criticism I would venture to offer is a criticism of the form of ballot paper which appears on page 210. As a West countryman, I am delighted to find that the form of ballot paper for use at a contested election of a county councillor or of councillors of a borough is apparently, to contain the names of all people from the West country, and that they are to come from two different boroughs and two different counties. Although, no doubt, if that example is followed in county council elections it will add to the gaiety of elections, I do not feel that such an expedient is likely in, the end to produce a homogeneous county council of people who are near at hand and ready and able to attend to their business. At any rate, it is not a serious criticism, and I should like to thank the Minister and his predecessor for the services which they have rendered in consolidating a code of law with which unfortunately I have been too familiar in times past.
  Sir H. YOUNG: By permission of the House, may I give my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) the assurance which he requires. The Clause to which he referred cannot possibly place any charge upon any local authority. It relates to the repayment to the Exchequer of a possible sum arising from a default of an acting medical officer of health. There can be no charge upon a local authority.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will it take any money away from the local authority?
  Sir H. YOUNG: Neither in meal nor in malt, will it place any burden upon the local authorities.
  9.0 p.m.
  Major MILNER: The Minister was good enough to pay a compliment to the committee which sat for two years, and I am sure that that committee, of which I was a Member, as was the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) would not wish an opportunity to pass without paying a tribute to the great assistance and help rendered by the officials of the Department of the right hon. Gentleman in the memorandum of information with which they furnished the committee. It would have been impossible without their assistance, and the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsman who produced the draft Bill, to have got through the work which was accomplished by the committee. I should like —and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree—to pay tribute on behalf of the committee to those gentlemen for their assistance.
  The only other observation I would mare is to commend the Bill to the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) spoke on behalf of the County Councils' Association, and perhaps I may presume to say a word on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations. Other associations representing local authorities have approved the Bill, and that association, whose Secretary also sat on the committee, also approved of it. As a lawyer, I feel that it will be of very great assistance indeed to all engaged in local government work or having the necessity to consult Acts of Parliament or law hooks on the subject, because in effect the Bill codifies

  277
  to a large extent, at any rate, one branch of the law. I hope that it may be an example and an encouragement to other Government Departments to proceed with the codification of other branches of the law.
  Something has been said with regard to the few Amendments which have been made. I can assure the House that they have been made solely to clear away inconsistencies, ambiguities, overlapping, or something of the sort, because the Bill not only consolidates but brings into one code the present three codes dealing with the law of boroughs and county boroughs, county councils, and rural and district councils. There are many Amendments of the law which members of the Committee would have desired to recommend to the House but we felt that they were beyond our province and might excite controversy, and we therefore refrained from making them. I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  9.30 p.m.
  Sir JOSEPH NALL: I rise only to make one or two observations regarding some of the Amendments of the law which have been put into this Measure. I am sure that the whole House welcomes consolidation Bills of this kind if only for clarity and future reference, but I deplore, and offer a mild protest against, what is rather a growing tendency to use consolidation Bills for the purpose of securing amendments of the law. While they may not be material to people in general, they are regarded as of importance in some quarters. In particular, the amendments of the existing law relating to the election of borough councillors, I think, ought to have received more attention than appears to have been the case. There is, as many Members of the House know, a growing nuisance in local elections of persons being nominated far more than one ward at a time. We get. that sort of thing in the City of Manchester, where crank candidates are nominated for perhaps three or four wards. They are regarded as cranks because they do not poll a serious number of votes, and it would be quite proper to enact that such a person should not be nominated for a number of wards. One must have in mind that a candidate can be nominated for more
  278
  than one parliamentary constituency. That is the law at the present time.
  This Bill seeks to offer a remedy of sorts in regard to the duplication of the nomination of the same individual in one election, borough council and so on, but I think it does it in a wrong way. It does not limit the number of wards for which a person may be nominated but provides that the Mayor or Returning Officer may allocate him to one of the wards for which he is nominated, at the pleasure of that Mayor. In other words, the Mayor, if he is in some cases actuated by party motives, may allocate this candidate with crank intentions to a ward where he will be most nuisance to the party to which the Mayor is opposed, and he may secure his elimination from the ward in which the Mayor's own party is interested. That seems to me to be a wholly improper and irregular power to put into the hands of returning officers at this time of day, when we know that there is increasing difficulty in securing impartiality on these occasions. I should have thought that such a proposal, which is a material amendment of the law relating to borough council elections as it exists to-day, ought not to have been included in a Measure of this kind.
  I gather that some of the Amendments relating to borough council elections have been brought up on the pretext that they used to apply to the elections of Poor Law guardians. Poor Law guardians have been abolished, unfortunately, and it is surely no excuse to use that as a pretext for amending the law relating to borough councils, and bringing forward things that may not have been good in the election of Poor Law guardians. There is another Amendment to which I would draw attention. On page 190, line 45, it is provided that the returning officer shall fill up nomination papers. That is quite wrong. The person nominating the candidate is usually the person to fill up the nomination papers and I cannot understand why the Bill should provide that the returning officer shall fill up the nomination paper. It may be an error of drafting. The paragraph says:
  "At an election of a county councillor or of councillors of a borough, the proper officer shall provide nomination papers and shall supply any local government elector for the electoral division, borough or ward, as the case may be, with as many nomination papers as may be required and shall, at the

  279
  request of any such local government elector fill up a nomination paper."
  The proper officer has plenty to do without filling up nomination papers, and I think that may be amended in the Committee stage. There are other Amendments, such as requiring the candidate to sign a form of consent. That is entirely new and ridiculous. The candidate usually hands in his own nomination papers, and to cut him out because he may have forgotten to sign the paper before he handed it in seems to me ridiculous and an unnecessary piece of humbug in a Consolidation Bill.
  The point that I particularly wish to raise is in relation to Clause 145 which purports to re-enact Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1925. In some quarters there has been complaint that the department's interpretation of that Section 46 of the Act of 1929 has been contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission and contrary to the evidence which the Department itself gave before the Royal Commission in matters relating to the extension of county districts or county boroughs or municipal boroughs on the review of district boundaries. I understand that this matter has been discussed between the Department and the County Councils' Association and that some undertaking has been given to the Association to effect an amendment of the law in due course. My only observation on that is that I hope my right hon. Friend in any future interpretation of the new Section 145 will not so stretch his interpretation of these words as to create the feeling in the field of county local government that words are being used for a Purpose for which they were never intended, and that in fact very material extension of boroughs and districts are going to be put through without any real opportunity for the parties concerned to state or fight their case before any body other than the inspector whom the Department sends down.
  It seems to me that it is unfair to put upon the Department the onus of deciding a first class borough boundary extension case merely through the process of a local inquiry conducted by one of the Minister's officers. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had this in mind when he said that the Bill would avoid certain resort to Private Bill legis-
  280
  lation. I do not object to that, because, having sat as long as I have on Private Bills, I have always regretted that local authorities waste so much money in that form of amusement, for I believe it is amusement to a great many of them. It is time that that scandal of local government, the annual promotion of the annual Parliamentary Bill, shall stop. It is one of the most scandalous things in local government that great cities and many county boroughs come here year after year spending anything from £500 to £5,000 on Bills which, if their Town Clerks knew their work and read properly the law which is now being codified in this Bill, might very well be avoided.
  That brings me to one final word in dealing with local government. I think that the House in the next few years will be called upon to devote some attention to the question of the reform of local government. We have had a great many Bills reforming the law relating to local government, but we have not had a reform of local government itself, except that we have had a depreciation in the kind of administration that we get. The fact is that local government as it exists in some parts of the country to-day is becoming a menace to the welfare of the people in industrial localities, and is becoming an extravagance which harassed industry and hard-pressed ratepayers simply cannot afford to bear. Many great authorities are hopelessly unwieldy in size and personnel. We find boroughs with, say, 140 or 150 persons functioning in the work of local government when the job could be far better done by 40 or 50 competent people, or even fewer. I hope the Department and my right hon. Friend, as a result of this Bill, will next turn their attention to a drastic overhaul of the whole system of local government and that we shall have a really effective Measure which will eliminate the annual resort to Private Bill procedure on the part of local authorities upstairs.
  In particular, I hope that my right hon. Friend will arm himself and arm his Department with powers similar to those that have been successfully used in the case of extravagant boards of guardians dealing with Poor Law matters, and that where it is shown that local authorities have got their local government into such a state that the rates exceed 10s. in the £, it should prima facie be a case for inquiry on the grounds of extrava-

  281
  gance, and that facilities should be available for the Minister to supplant them in order that the Board of Commissioners may clean up their administration and put their house in order.
  Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: What about the difference in rateable values?
  Sir J. NALL: Rateable values are already pretty uniform, but I do not see what bearing the uniformity of rateable values has on the point. I am asking for measures to be taken to secure uniformity of administration in local government. Uniformity of rateable values is one thing, uniformity of efficiency is the thing most necessary to-day, particularly uniformity in economy of administration. This Bill is a necessary preliminary to a overhaul of what is the greatest social menace of to-day, inefficient and wasteful local government, which is assuming greater and more disastrous proportions as the years go by. I hope that the Department, having secured this consolidation of the general law relating to local government, will find itself in a position to take up with a firm hand and a quick hand the whole problem of extravagant and inefficient administration, and that as a result of this Bill we shall see an improvement in that direction. I understand that the Committee stage is to be taken immediately——
  Sir H. YOUNG Sir H. YOUNG indicated dissent.
  Sir J. NALL: In that case, I will put my Amendments on the Order Paper. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet the various points suggested and that where he is changing the law and may be disposed to retain some of the Amendments put into the Bill he will not press his Amendments in what is primarily a Consolidation Bill too strongly against the wishes of some of us who would like to see these things put in a milder form or deferred to a later date.
  9.19 p.m.
  Mr. TINKER: I am afraid that I cannot give whole-hearted approval to the Bill because it carries forward a pernicious practice which I want to see altered. I refer to the election of aldermen. As this is a consolidating Bill I am wondering whether I shall be able to move Amendments dealing with that
  282
  matter. Aldermen do not come before the electors, they are appointed by the councillors, and we may have the position where with a majority of one the councillors are able to elect all the aldermen and thus create a balance of parties entirely opposed to what the real strength should be. If the Bill receives the approval of this House we shall be consolidating the present system of appointing aldermen and I want to know whether I shall be able in Committee stage to move an Amendment on this point. If I am not then I must protest against the Second Reading of the Bill, but if I shall be in order in moving an Amendment then I would agree to the Second Reading and wait until Committee stage to put my Amendment down. I have felt this point for a long time and have intended whenever an opportunity presented itself to voice my protest. It is admitted that we have a democratic form of Government.
  Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Ask the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps).
  Mr. TINKER: We have a democratic form of Government, and if you examine the speeches of Members of the Labour party you will find that in the end it means that. I am dealing with an undemocratic form of election which has grown up during the years gone by, and I hope that I shall have an opportunity of dealing with the election of aldermen on the Committee stage of the Bill.
  9.23 p.m.
  Major LLEWELLIN: I rise chiefly to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) with whom I served, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Health in the Labour Government, on the Committee. I fully endorse the tribute he has paid. At every meeting we held to consider the consolidation of this law we were furnished with the most admirable memoranda, showing where the existing laws were to be found, and which particular provisions applied to county councils, to boroughs and which to urban district councils. It was very useful memoranda to those who were not so knowledgeable as the officials of the Ministry or the Parliamentary draftsmen, and who would have had great difficulty in seeing their way through this mass of

  283
  legislation without this assistance. I agree also with him that both he and I on one or two occasions would have agreed to go outside our terms of reference and made bigger amendments than we thought we were justified in doing, but both he and I, and the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) our third colleague, realise that we had to restrain ourselves or there would be no possibility of a Measure of this sort being passed into law. In reply to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) although I am not an authority on the Rules of Order of this House I think that Amendments can be put down to every Clause of the Bill, but unless hon. Members show the same self-restraint as we did on the Committee there is no hope of the good work which we hope we had done in this Bill ever passing into law, the whole Bill must fall to the ground.
  I appeal to the hon. Member for Leigh and the hon. and gallant Member for the Hulme Division of Manchester (Sir J. Nall) not to put down controversial Amendments but to leave them to a later occasion, when they may raise the question of the abolition of aldermen and as I understand the hon. Member the complete abolition in some cases of spendthrift councils. If the Bill, which I believe does a good deal to make the law much simpler, is to pass into law it can only do so if hon. Members will show some self restraint in amending the existing law. If we are going into a large number of controversial subjects then I am afraid that the years of work which we did so amicably together on the Committee may be lost, and I for one should hope that that will not be the case.
  Perhaps I might say two other things to the hon. Member for the Hulme Division of Manchester with regard to the two points that he raised. With regard to the returning officer filling in the nomination papers, that is not an amendment of the law that we made. It has been the law since 1882, and we made no amendment of it. With regard to the amendment that we thought fit to make, concerning the allocation of a candidate by a returning officer to a particular division, we had three points of view before us when we went into the matter. It was clear that some of these crank candidates are a great nuisance
  284
  when they put up for seven, eight or nine different wards, sometimes causing an election that otherwise would not happen. There was one particular case of a man who put up for eight different wards and did not poll more than 214 votes in the whole aggregate of the eight wards. In a large number of those wards there would certainly otherwise have been no expense falling on that municipality. We thought that something ought to be done to remedy that state of affairs.
  We had three alternatives before us. The first was to make every candidate in a local government election put down a deposit in the same way that hon. Members of this House who are candidates have to put down a deposit. We found great difficulty in settling on what was to be the amount of the deposit, and we thought that this might at any rate be a controversial way of dealing with the law, because it would affect not only crank candidates but all candidates for local government election. The second way was to prevent the man from being nominated for more than one ward at a time. That was difficult, because of course people may be nominated, and we have now brought in a provision which allows that a man may to some extent be nominated for more than one ward. We thought that the best and the simplest way, and the one which would mean the least amendment of the law, was to give to the returning officer the power of allocating the crank candidate to one particular ward. The result is that the crank candidate will not get the ward that he wants and will be deterred at another election from standing for more than one ward. At the same time the returning officer, if the man is obviously a crank candidate, will presumably put him into a ward where there is going to be an election in any case, and so will be able to save the municipality the cost of fighting an election over such a man. We thought that was the best way of dealing with the situation, and I hope that that proposal will have the support of all parties in this House. Although we do not want to deter anybody who is a bona fide candidate for any ward from standing for that ward, it seems clear that when a man stands for two, three or four wards he is merely a crank candidate and ought to make a selection of wards. However, there will

  285
  be a controversy as to whether we have dealt with that matter in the right way.
  I will only make this final appeal, as I have done before, that, except for those particular ways in which we have sought to amend the law, all Members of the House may show a certain amount of self-restraint and try to reserve their Amendments—which many of them will have much at heart, as the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) undoubtedly holds the one he raised—for another occasion and allow this Bill to pass. I think all hon. Members will agree that it makes the law better, and all of us would like to see the law better than it is. If hon. Members start putting down Amendments on every point, it is clear that this Measure cannot become law. The work was started under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman who was the Minister of Health and has been carried on by his successor, the present Minister of Health. I hope that the House, and the right hon. Gentleman, will do something to make the law more acceptable to the ordinary man and more intelligible to the vast mass of the citizens of this country.
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. LECKIE: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but the remarks of the hon. Gentleman on this bench have called me to my feet. He admitted that this was a Bill for the consolidation of local government, and yet he went out of his way to call for a further Bill for the reform of local government altogether, evidently especially attacking those local authorities which have a rate of over 10s. in the £. It is evident that the hon. Gentleman does not understand why in working-class areas rates are so high. The fact is that in a town where over 90 per cent. of houses are working-class houses and where the property is not very valuable, the rates must be high in order to raise sufficient money to carry on the administration. The produce of a penny rate in many of the working-class constituencies is ridiculously small as compared with the produce of a penny rate in districts that are wealthy and have a great deal of valuable property. The penny rate is not a fair test of the spendthrift character or otherwise of any local authority; the true test is the cost per head of population. You will find that many of the highly-rated areas, when
  286
  judged by the cost per head of population, come out very well indeed as compared with the wealthy and low-rated areas. It is only right that I should make this protest on behalf of highly-rated authorities who are doing their best to struggle on in spite of unemployment and distress.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir H. Young.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair].
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate with amendments the enactments relating to authorities for the purposes of local government in England and Wales, exclusive (except in relation to certain matters) of London, it is expedient to authorise the forfeiture and payment into the Exchequer in certain cases of sums payable by county councils to councils of county districts equal to one-half of the salaries of persons appointed to act as medical officers of health of county districts." (King's Recommendation signified).—[Sir H Young.]
  9.35 p.m.
  Sir H. YOUNG: The point is a very small technical point. The motion deals with the power of county councils to impose certain penalties upon acting as well as actual medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors, and it is necessary to enable the proceeds of any such action to be repaid into the Treasury.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Southby.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes before Ten o'Clock.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE (RUSSIA).
  TRADE AND COMMERCE (RUSSIA).
  INDIA (ARMY OFFICERS: EXTRA REGIMENTAL EMPLOY).
  INDIA (ARMY OFFICERS: EXTRA REGIMENTAL EMPLOY).
  UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).
  UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (CASTLEFORD AND PONTEFRACT).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (CASTLEFORD AND PONTEFRACT).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICY IN CHINA.
EARL PEEL EARL PEEL rose to call attention to the policy of His Majesty's Government in China; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I desire to present to your Lordships this afternoon some considerations in connection with our policy in China. Our attitude to China is, of course, always a matter of importance, but I think it is even more so to-day because of the changed conditions of the world and our difficulties in trade. The general shrinkage of our exports has caused us to search carefully the word for further markets. We have made our Agreements at Ottawa, our trade treaties with Sweden, Argentina and other countries, but, of course, these efforts, however well intended—and, I hope, successful—can only cover a rather small portion of the ground. We cannot relax, for one moment, our efforts to increase our export trade. We are often advised by noble Lords opposite to cultivate the Russian market. Their advice, no doubt, is extremely well intentioned, but if we are to cultivate the Russian market surely we ought to pay far more attention to the great Chinese market with its 500,000,000 of people. Not only are they incomparably greater in numbers but they are far more responsive in many ways to trade questions. I need hardly allude—I do not wish to do it in any spirit of contrast —to their proverbial commercial honesty.
We have been called a nation of shopkeepers and they have been described as a nation of traders, and indeed one of the most remarkable things in the history of China in the last few years is the extent to which, during the worst troubles and during the most tiresome conflicts between warring elements, they have still carried on their trade under all those adverse conditions. At present, of course, in this country public opinion is deeply occupied with various problems, groups of problems, such as the American

55
Debt, the controversy about the Locarno Treaties, Germany's retirement from the League of Nations and a host of European questions. To some extent, I am afraid, China, which ought always to be in the foreground of trade questions, has somehow slipped into the background. When I say that I am not forgetting the recent incidents at Manehukuo and those armed activities, which I am careful not to call war, between China and Japan. They form a large group of questions to some extent by themselves and I do not intend this afternoon to give them more than a passing reference. I would like to ask the British Government—I think my noble friend Lord Stanhope is going to reply—whether, immersed as they are in so many problems, they have been able to give lately their attention towards the reshaping of our attitude to China in the new conditions that prevail. I wish to consider as briefly as I can some of those problems, and one of the chief reasons I have put this Motion on the Paper is that I hope to obtain a considered statement from His Majesty's Government of their general policy towards China.
In the nineteenth century we always took a foremost part, a lead I might call it, in our relations with China, to which I think we were entitled by great financial and trade interests in that country. Indeed, our interests in China have always been those of trade and if, at different times, we have been led to the brink of a different course it is really, I think, that we have followed in the wake of other Powers rather than followed our own more wholesome initiative. In leading up to the point I wish to present I must start with a reference to the Washington Conference of twelve years ago. The most important of the several results which issued at that Conference was the Nine-Power Treaty, which laid down the policy in general terms to be followed as regards China. I should like to quote the first five lines of the first Article, the governing Article in the Treaty:
"To respect the sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial and administrative integrity of China, to provide the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunity to China to develop and maintain for herself an effective and stable government. …"
Owing to circumstances resulting after that Treaty this arrangement has rather
56
tended to become a policy of abstention and not much assistance has been given to China to establish and confirm that stable government which we must all desire.
I think it is a very remarkable fact that among the ten points which were put forward in that Conference by the Chinese delegation was one which says that:
"provision is to be made for future conferences to be held from time to time for the discussion of international questions relative to the Pacific and the Far East, as a basis for the determination of common policies of the Signatory Powers in relation thereto."
It is there—and it is remarkable in view of what has happened in the last ten years—that the Chinese apparenty wished for closer co-operation by urging conferences at stated intervals.
I must also refer to our declaration of policy in 1926 and 1927 which must be comparatively fresh in the minds of your Lordships. I regret to say that that policy, however well intentioned, cannot be said to have been a great success. Not everybody has the gift of prescience and this declaration was succeeded rapidly by revolution. It was, I believe, only a few weeks after the handing over of the Concession at Hankow that Chiang Kai-chek turned out the Russians and Borodin returned to Moscow with Mr. Eugene Chen and other allies. No doubt that was a sample of what we have been so often confronted with in China. We have moved forward with the very best intentions, but unfortunately found there was no settled government on which we could rely to carry out their side of the agreement. Other attempts have foundered, partly owing to the tremendous force of the National movement at that time in China, which was rather apt to interpret the best attempts of other Governments as Attempts to establish some form of control. Perhaps as a result we have been to some extent too much inclined to wait upon circumstances and let matters drift, but it is plain we cannot gain any high degree of respect from the Chinese if we follow such a course and if they see that, instead of following a definite policy, we are merely waiting upon events. May I say in parenthesis that other Powers have shown no slackness of any kind and

57
are only too busy to strengthen their foot-hold in China?
Now the situation in China is again different. Since the Revolution of 1911 the present Nanking Government is undoubtedly the best we have seen in China. Among the leaders are General Chiang Kai-chek, a very far-sighted man who can be relied upon to take up one thing at a time and generally to carry it through, and, even more important, to act upon the undertakings he has given, and Mr. T. B. Soong, who has for the moment retired from the Government, though I understand it may not be long before he returns to it. He is a man of great force and ability. He has reduced his expenditure and—rare in these days—has managed to balance his Budget without recourse to loans. Then there is Mr. Wangching Wei, the Prime Minister, a man of great force of character and high reputation for honesty. Three men of, high ability and integrity are enough to form a Government and it was about a year ago that this Government laid down a new line of policy. That was to concentrate all effort on the Yangtse valley and the adjoining Provinces containing a population of something like 170,000,000. They were anxious to construct an efficient State, to avoid lighting any more civil wars, to leave districts outside their own control to their own devices for the present, and to trust that the magnet, as it were, of good government in the Yangtse valley would gradually draw other Provinces to themselves.
On those lines the Nanking Government has undoubtedly had considerable success, and during the last eighteen months has cut down expenditure by £12,500,000. They have had, of course, and still have, great difficulties to contend with. The Communists in South Central China almost constitute a separate Party. They remain undefeated. In spite of many campaigns against them they still hold their own, and their propaganda, as in some other countries, exists almost everywhere over the whole of China. Then the Government have also to contend with difficult matters in the shape of the illicit tax bureaux, which are set up along the different creeks and waterways, and I may perhaps explain that a creek in China is sometimes 200 yards wide. These self-
58
constituted officials, in these bureaux, prey upon the peasants and make their lives hard and difficult. In spite of all the economies to which I have alluded the Government (and I think in this they are not peculiar) suffer from lack of money to carry out their own business, but, more than that, they suffer from a lack of disciplined and trained personnel and civil servants, who have to carry out the orders of the Government in the more distant regions under their control. The Government, I think, fully recognise that in a huge agricultural country like China the future of the country is based very largely on the prosperity of the peasants, and although they have the will to do so they hardly have the power or the resources to carry this out.
Last September, only two months ago, a very momentous meeting took place. The question there debated, at Kuling, was whether or not China should look to the West or to the East. There is, of course, a very strong Party in China, in favour of siding with Japan, partly because Japan is near at hand and partly because they feel that they understand the Japanese better than nations further West. I might add that Japan for her part—and I have no reason whatever to pass any criticism upon her action—has not been at all backward in pressing her influence and attentions upon China; but in spite of all this the Western Party has won its way. There is another element which has had some effect recently, and that is the proposed Russo-American rapprochement. The view, I understand, taken of it in China is that they attribute that rapprochement, however wrong they may be, to fear on the part of America of Japan's political and economic dominance in the Far East. It arises, in their view, from America's desire to counteract that influence.
Now when the Chinese are thinking of the West at that Conference, their thoughts are no doubt going mainly to America and this country. It is possible, and I think it to be true, that of the League of Nations, with its large European content, they are a little suspicious, and it must be added that recent events in connection with that body in the Far East have not added to their respect for that great institution. The advantage that we have is this, that first of all we

59
have been known to China longer than any Western nation, and that indeed they trust us more than they do others. There was, of course, as your Lordships will remember, a few years ago, a great outburst of anti-British feeling in China, but that, I think, was very largely due to Bolshevist propaganda, and with the expulsion of that Russian element from China the hostility very rapidly died down. They recognise, further, the very great trade interests that we have in their country, and many of them, no doubt, would welcome activity on our part as a counter-weight to more pressing influences nearer home. They are well aware—and this is borne out by our history there—that we have no aggressive desires, nor do we wish to acquire any territory there. Indeed, our present policy of devolution in India has made it clear to them that we do not wish to enter into any fresh engagements of a controlling nature in China or the East. There are so many elements, therefore, at the present time, which are favourable to us in China, that one has to ask oneself whether this country cannot adopt a rather more active policy, and, if so, how and in what ways can we offer any assistance to the Nanking Government; or whether we should merely content ourselves with a policy of abstention or of kindly but distant observation.
May I make one suggestion at the moment? and of course it can be only in the nature of a suggestion. The Government have many advisers at present—several of these gentlemen have been lent to them by the League of Nations—but, of course, advisers are of little value if their advice is not carried out, and the results of this advice have not been very obvious, nor have any advisers been entrusted with, executive authority. In the history of China there have been several examples of great administrations that have been most successfully built up under foreign executive officers, but though, of course, under the general control of Government, they were given great freedom of action, probably because their disinterestedness was so entirely apparent. There is, of course, the classic instance of Sir Robert Hart and the Customs. There is the other case, where I think the control exercised by the Central Government was more close—the case of Sir Richard Dane and the building up of the Salt Gabelle. These are
60
instances of the great assistance that has been given to the Chinese by methods which have not done any injury to Chinese pride. I have spoken of the great difficulty that the Government has there in carrying out its own policy. Might it not be possible, for instance, to suggest that help should be given to the Government in the form of a gendarmerie, which could gradually establish and extend order throughout the Yangtse valley? The Chinese Government fully understand that without the establishment of law and order none of their schemes can be fruitful. This, of course, is merely a suggestion, and no doubt your Lordships could suggest many other ways in which assistance could be given, though I do not intend this afternoon to suggest anthing in the way of loans or other financial assistance.
We have had a great deal of experience in the last twenty or thirty years of dealing with China, and we have had some unpleasant experiences. It may be said: Is there not some danger in giving strong support to the Nanking Government? May not that Government disappear, as other Governments have disappeared? May we not be accused of supporting one faction against another? We had an experience of this when in 1913 the Powers recognised Yuan Shih-kai and thought at that time that they were performing rather a liberal and forward action. But not very long afterwards the Southerners treated this action of the Powers as backing up the reactionary Party against the Reformers and Sun Yat-sen. In fact, in the general charge that has been brought against the action of the Treaty Powers this has been one of the main counts in the indictment. I cannot think, however, that in the present situation we should run any such risk. The Nanking Government certainly can be called nothing else but a popular Government, and the Cantonese themselves could hardly maintain that Nanking was not a National Government, though they themselves have not perhaps fully recognised it. Of course, the details of any such policy must be worked out when full advice has been received from our Minister, but in a country so distant as China no doubt the Foreign Office and the authorities concerned give a good deal more liberty to their Minister or

61
representative in working out details than they perhaps would do in countries nearer home.
The question remains whether the Minister should have his headquarters in Peiping, a great distance away, or whether, if he had his residence in Shanghai, he would not be in much closer touch with the Nanking Government, and be able to discharge most of his duties personally, instead of through a minor official. In that way he would attach in the minds of the Chinese perhaps more importance to their own Government because it obviously has more importance in the minds of other Powers.
I should like to suggest, too, that there is a considerable advantage in being in touch with the great British community in Shanghai itself. I certainly do not suggest that in all matters the Minister or the Government should follow the advice of the Shanghai community, but I do suggest that, in a great many cases difficulties and troubles have arisen because the two have not been in sufficiently close touch, and perhaps the Shanghai community has not always understood exactly what the policy of the Government was. On the other hand, there might be some advantage to the policy of the Government in being in close touch with the community there. If we look at the actions of other Powers, we find that they have adopted this policy and that their Ministers—not so much the Ministers' subordinates—are constantly in Shanghai and at Nanking; and it may be (I do not know) that instructions of this hind have already been given to our new Minister. It has been considered—and no doubt I am treading on delicate ground here—that it is quite sufficient to send a Minister, and not an Ambassador, to China. I should like to observe that, for historical and sometimes for sentimental reasons, we are represented by Ambassadors in countries which, if you measure them by the standard of their trade and importance, certainly cannot compare with the gigantic territories of China.
Before making my general request to the Government I must make some reference to the position in Shanghai—so very important an element in our relations with China. No doubt, the position of that community is to some extent anoma-
62
lous, but I think we are no longer moved in these days by what I may call constitutional pedantry, and, if it is an anomaly, it is an anomaly, of course, of China's own making. It was the original hostility and distrust of foreigners that kept them to that particular area and built up that tremendous community to which the Chinese themselves are so ready to resort. The Chinese, of course, enormously outnumber the foreigners in the International Settlement. But it is also a. vast centre of Chinese economic life, and its fortunes depend upon the security which that degree of foreign control affords.
I do not wish to say very much about the risks and dangers connected with this question, because they have been so very fully set out the remarkable Report of Mr. Feetham, with which your Lordships, I have no doubt, are quite familiar. Mr. Feetham points out that the dependence of the judiciary upon the Executive in China is one feature which differentiates our system from that of China, that in order to establish the rule of law the Judiciary should no longer be regarded as a department of the Executive, and that until the independence of the Judges has been secured it will be very difficult to do without those securities which have built up the fortunes of Shanghai. This, however, is an international question and cannot be dealt with except in full harmony with other Powers. I believe that some years ago there was an agreement drawn up for the giving up of our rights and privileges in the Treaty Ports, and also of our rights in Shanghai; but this document, I understand, was never signed. I do not know where the document now is, or whether it is likely to see the light at any time. But it is for that reason that I lay such great stress—certainly in regard to the International Settlement—on not doing anything without the concurrence of the other Powers.
There are also some other problems, upon which I can only touch, connected with the Shanghai Settlement. There is, of course, the pressing forward of the Japanese for some greater power of control in that Settlement. That and similar questions will no doubt come up later. I would just allude to the removal of the battalion from Shanghai, which no doubt was done for excellent military reasons, but as that removal almost coincided with the building of larger

63
barracks by the Japanese at Hongkew, the Chinese were apt to draw some inference from that coincidence.
May I just sum up what I shall ask of your Lordships in a very few sentences indeed? The circumstances of the times are extraordinarily favourable, it seems to me, for a fresh definition of our policy towards China. No sort of suspicion at the present moment rests upon us. We stand high, I think, in Chinese opinion. I have made one or two suggestions, bat I am very conscious of the fact that, as a layman, without official information at my disposal, I can, only make these suggestions very tentatively. The only advantage I have, perhaps, is that of a rather larger field of discretion than has the Government itself. The Government, of course, one recognises, must speak on these matters subject to the law of reticence. But I do say that in view of the experience we have had in our dealings with China for the last fifteen years, if the Government find themselves able to indicate generally the line of policy that they intend to pursue towards China, it will be not only of enormous benefit to all those who are engaged in the great China trade, but it will also be of great value in contributing towards our friendly relations with China itself. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I am very glad to support the noble Earl in his general request to the Government to define their attitude in regard to China. In doing so I propose to call the attention of the Government and of your Lordships more particularly to the industrial and commercial aspect of the question, the great powers of expansion which seem to lie in the Chinese trade, and the consequential beneficial results one hopes for upon employment in this country. I shall try to give in a very concentrated way some picture of this vast problem which covers so many millions of lives and such a large area of the world's surface. If one looks at the progress of industrial activity during the last century one sees that there has been a great move, both across the Atlantic and across the Pacific, of industrial operations; and, if your Lordships will forgive me putting this in a personal way, it seems to me a striking fact, as I regarded it the other day, that in my grandfather's lifetime, in regard to the manufacture and export of such a product as alkali, he had seen
64
the United States of America begin by being a large importer, become in course of time self-supporting, and eventually become a considerable exporter of that product. My father, in his lifetime, saw exactly the same thing happen in the case of Japan; Japan, originally a large importer, became self-supporting, and in turn became an exporter of that material. It is quite a possible thing that in my lifetime I shall see the same thing occur with China.
Leaving out of account for the moment the general difficulties of the economic nationalism of the future and its effect upon any particular trade, it is clear that if such a development occurs over such a large area the opportunities for the development of our own trade are hound to be very large. In the meantime, and while we need not regard the distant future too much, we must take into account that there will be very large opportunities indeed for the expansion of the trade of this country. The complexities and the difficulties of trading with China are considerable in their own way, but they can be overcome, and a very satisfactory trade can be and is carried on with that country. If I may once again suggest a small picture of the sort of thing that occurs, I think this will present an idea of the way business has to be done. Again taking the product akali as an example, it has been found that it is most suitable to pack it in double bags, and for this reason: It is shipped from this country, and it goes about 1,500 miles up river by steamers, and then it is carried by porters, perhaps 50, 100 or 150 miles, into the interior. These porters are able to take the double bags and cut them up and so form a packet suitable for human transport. Thus you have the distribution of what is one of the world's raw materials going on, on the backs of men. It is, in fact, carried on bamboo poles considerable distances into the interior.
I just cite that as an example of the potentialities of the expansion of trade with a country which is in such a primitive condition—primitive in every sense, not only in regard to its peasant population, large, immobile, and self-supporting, but also in regard to this further fact, that you get great cities of 750,000 or 1,000,000 people where the whole water supply is done by human transport, by

65
carriers. That gives one a picture of the enormous field of expansion which lies in the development of this country, a development which, I think, we can certainly see coming along in the future, and which can only be for the benefit of China itself and of the human race at large, and certainly of our trade. At the present moment we export to China between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000 of goods a year, and in that we are third to the United States and Japan. But it is very gratifying to see that our share has increased between 1931 and 1932 from 8·3 per cent. of the total trade to 11·2 per cent. Of the principal products which this country sends, cotton accounts for £2,000,000, metals for £1,300,000, machinery for £1,000,000, and then one gets chemicals, threads, and tin about £500,000 each. The extraordinary immediate power of improvement, I think, can be gauged from these very remarkable figures—namely, that the increases in the value of cotton and metal exports from this country between 1931 and 1932 were 78 per cent and 50 per cent. respectively. That is an extraordinary reflection, in the disturbed world conditions, of the power of rapid expansion which is likely to take place in that vast country.
I think what I have said is sufficient to show how important this question is to the commercial and industrial interests of this country, and I am bound to draw attention to the importance which this question has upon the policy that this country adopts in regard to silver. I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the merits of silver this afternoon, but it obviously has a very large bearing on the question. As a matter of fact so important has the China trade appeared to us, so far as the chemical industry is concerned, that the Chairman of Imperial Chemicals Industries, Sir Harry McGowan, has only just left China after making a personal survey of the position there and the opportunities which present themselves. One can only wish that this example may be followed by other important industrialists in this country—to go personally and see on the spot what has to be done, and in this way acquire a personal and thorough knowledge of the situation.
There is one other point I would like to put before your Lordships as an example of the possibility of rapid ex-
66
pansion. The figures show that, due to the disturbance of world conditions, there was a shrinkage of 25 per cent. in value in the total trade of the country between 1931 and 1932. That shows that by inference our trade had extended rather more than would appear from the first figures I quoted, but with the extraordinary disturbance in world conditions and with the great disturbance of the position in China, it is clear that as the world settles down, and as China settles down, there is bound to be a large and rapid development in which we ought to get our share. We are hound to a very large extent to be affected by the policy of the Government there. I must say it is my belief that China, which was always essentially one of the best governed and best controlled countries, will once more be well-governed and controlled. I am deeply grateful to the noble Earl for calling attention to this matter, for calling attention to the Far East and perhaps diverting attention from the heated atmosphere of Europe. This matter is of the greatest importance to the industrial and commercial interests of this country and we shall be very glad to hear from the Government what their policy is.
LORD LUGARD: My Lords, I desire to say a few words by way of a footnote to what has fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Peel, with the object of bringing before your Lordships' notice what appeared to me when I was in the Far East as perhaps one of the most important needs of the British interest in China. At the time I speak of, some twenty-five years ago, in the year 1907 and subsequent years, the United States of America had devoted the whole or the greater part of her Boxer Indemnity to the tuition of Chinese in the American Universities, with the result that a very large number of young men returned to China, with very crude and ill-digested ideas of Western democratic forms of government. Reinforced by many other students from Japan and other countries, they exerted a very considerable influence in the political sphere and the result was that the Mancini dynasty fell. At that time there was considerable activity in railway construction in China, and the influence of these students was not less potent in the economic and commercial spheres than it was in the political sphere. Engineers naturally framed their

67
specifications and drew up their tenders according to the standard and the technical terms which are used by the countries in which they had been taught, with the result that the orders for materials went to those countries.
What is needed is that this great demand for Western education should be obtainable by the youths of China without the necessity for prolonged residence in a foreign country where they become completely denationalised. This need not preclude the possibility of their completing their studies abroad, either by graduating in the last year or two of their courses, or by post-graduate courses in foreign Universities. The Hong Kong University was founded with the object of meeting this need and according to the youths of China an opportunity of being trained in their own environment, no longer in antagonism to the traditions and beliefs which their people hold in reverence. It was hoped that some of the students from the University would become leaders in the new era which was inaugurated by the revolution of 1911, that others would supply the trained medical men who were so urgently needed in the country, and that others again would become engineers with some knowledge of British standards and British technical terms. There was, however, at that time a considerable feeling among an important section of the commercial community—a feeling of distrust in the higher education of the Chinese, especially, at any rate, in those branches of it in which it was feared that they might become rivals and competitors. That feeling, I think, has long passed away.
Largely, however, due to the foresight and the generosity of the great firm of Butterfield and Swire, and also to the enthusiasm of the Chinese throughout all parts of China and Malay, who put up the bulk of the money, the project was carried through. The Governments of Peking and Canton lent pecuniary assistance and sent students, and the British Government gave a small sum in order to establish what were called King Edward VII scholarships. Later on, when the students of the Chinese university colleges became leaders in riotous demonstrations, the undergraduates of the Hong Kong University set an example of discipline and loyalty and refused to
68
join in popular strikes, at, I believe, very considerable danger of personal risk to themselves. Owing to the circumstances under which the University of Hong Kong was founded, it was never properly endowed. The world-wide generosity of the Rockefeller foundation has greatly strengthened its medical faculties, and I hope the Carnegie Trust may also give some help. Quite recently, as your Lord ships are aware, a. comparatively small sum of £200,000 has been assigned to the Hong Kong University from the British Boxer Indemnity, which amounts, I believe, to somewhere in excess of £11,000,000, but a sum of £8,000 or £9,000 a year is altogether inadequate to give effect to the potential services which a British-Chinese University situated on the borders of China ought to be able to render, and could render, to the Chinese people, to the Chinese Government and to British commercial interests in China.
I may add that quite recently the University of China Committee has established a. hostel for Chinese youths in London who may come here to go through their post-graduate courses or even to graduate in their last year or two at a mature age when their characters are formed. Here, it seems to me, is an instrument ready to hand to promote in the best possible way British influence and British interests in China, and I trust His Majesty's Government will not lose sight of that instrument.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, I will endeavour not to detain your Lordships long but having spent some five years in China, from 1923 to 1928, I would like to make some observations on the subject introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. There is so much going on in the world to-day that we are rather apt both to overlook the importance of events that are now taking place in China and to forget the direct responsibility of the West for disorders caused by them. A clash of cultures arose from the West forcing its way into China all through the nineteenth century until, reluctantly and to protect her culture and herself, China was forced to the conclusion that she must adopt some -Western system. Hence she has embarked not on one but on a whole series of revolutions in every department of life—political, educational, economic, industrial, agricultural—and is striving to do in one gener-

69
ation what it has taken us the whole course of our known history to evolve. It was only to be expected that there should be a good deal of confusion. In the past the fall of the Han dynasty, a far simpler matter, was followed by four hundred years of anarchy and civil war.
So my first point is a plea for our cooperation with the rulers of China in a really constructive policy of helpfulness to them. This plea has the powerful support of the Commission presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who stated that international co-operation was the final requisite for a satisfactory solution of the problems they set out to consider and also of Mr. Justice Feetham, who laid down international co-operation as the only adequate basis for any genuine system of self-government in the International Settlement of Shanghai, and for such security as that Settlement affords. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, pointed out, the future of that Settlement and the concessions in other cities of China and of other extra-territorial rights constitute the main problem of our future policy in China. These rights seem to me to have been acquired almost, I might say, as the natural and inevitable consequence of the contact of East and West to which I have referred. When British merchants and others first wished to live and trade in Shanghai they were not permitted by the Chinese authorities to reside within the walls of the City but land was leased to them on the mud flats outside the walls. There they were left to administer their own civil affairs and also to be subject to the judicial control of their own consular authority. It was really a question of practical administrative convenience. It was due to the energy and enterprise of the British and other foreigners who settled on those mud flats that there arose on those mud flats perhaps the most prosperous and important city of modern China.
Mr. Justice Feetham has pointed out that the settlement system is based on the two fundamental principles of self-government and the rule of law which has resulted in security for life and property and an improvement in the general conditions of life, and that the success attained by the Council of the Settlement has been mainly due to honest and efficient administration. It is because of these advantages that no fewer than
70
1,000,000 Chinese have chosen to reside in the international Settlement rather than in the Chinese parts of the City in spite of the intense feeling of nationalism that has grown up in China. I think it is generally admitted that the growth of these foreign concessions has been of immense value to the trade, finance and industry of China and in these recent years of disorder they have been the only places in China in which law and order were secure. But for them finance and commerce could hardly have been carried on at all in China. I need not detain your Lordships to argue at length that these same principles of self-government: and the rule of law, honest and efficient administration and security for life and property are desirable not only in a few concessions but are essential for the whole of China, and, in fact, must form the foundation on which the whole structure of New China must rest.
My second and main point that these concessions and our judicial privileges must not be indiscriminately surrendered. but that we should carefully weigh and examine the laws and the administrative system of the Chinese Government and agree to their demand for the recovery of full rights over foreigners when, and only when, we are satisfied that their machinery is working in such a way as to provide for them those essential features to which I have referred. No responsible body of persons can maintain that these Treaty rights can be maintained indefinitely. As long ago as the Treaty of 1902 we undertook to give them up when the proper moment arrived, but, as has already been pointed out, the policy we adopted in 1926 and 1927 in regard to Hankow and other places has not improved our relationship with the Chinese, and if it were extended indefinitely it would impose upon them responsibilities which they are not yet able to bear and would deprive China of some of those centres in which, under foreign protection and administration, Chinese trade has been able to flourish during the last difficult years. Nor do I think that China has gained a great deal from the policy adopted at Washington of leaving her to work out her own salvation if she could. A great deal has already been done with regard to cooperation and I would like to welcome

71
the sending out of technical experts by the League of Nations.
I would point out that there are now five Chinese members on the Council of the International Settlement of Shanghai and there are others who have been co-opted on some of the committees. All these members are doing most valuable work. The future maintenance of the Settlement is also essential to form a training ground for Chinese to go out from it and administer the Chinese cities. It is rather interesting to note that Sun Chuan Fang, one of the ablest of Chinese provincial Governors, when he created a central authority for the Chinese parts of Shanghai, laid this down as his aim:
"… so that it might have the necessary authority to improve the municipal government, gradually converting the area outside the foreign Settlement into a model city, the result of which should form the basis of our demands for the abolishing of foreign concessions."
Further instances of co-operation can be found in the Customs Service built up by Sir Robert Hart and operated jointly by Chinese and foreigners, and more recently in the flood and famine relief work carried out jointly by the Chinese and foreigners under the leadership of Sir John Hope Simpson. That has occurred only in the last few years. Anyone who has studied the record of that administration will see with what extreme ability and efficiency it was carried out by all those concerned.
I would emphasise as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has pointed out, that the Settlement at Shanghai is not a British concession. It is not for us to surrender even if we wished to do so. It is international and any step we may take must be taken in consultation and co-operation with the other nations concerned. I would further urge that any action we may take should only be taken in consultation with those men on the spot who are most directly concerned—the Municipal Council itself, the chamber of commerce and other representative bodies. The Council have already provided us with the most able and thorough Report of Mr. Justice Feetham which does not seem to me to have received in this country quite the attention which it deserves. Further, we are dealing with an Eastern people, and when we have settled the broad principles of our policy the methods of execution have to be left to those on the spot and to those who
72
know the workings of the Eastern mind. I do not pretend myself to know how the Eastern mind is going to work, but I am certain that it works in an absolutely opposite direction to the Western mind.
I support further the suggestion regarding the movement of our Legation to Nanking. Anyone who has visited Peking must regret leaving such wonderful and charming surroundings, but if our new Minister is to exercise any real influence on the affairs of China he will be handicapped by being so many hundreds of miles away from the present Capital. It would also be well that he should be in closer touch with Shanghai. I regret the reduction of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force by one infantry battalion. I was in Shanghai when the Expeditionary Force first arrived and it was because it was adequate that it was able to achieve its object and to preserve peace without having to fight. There are few better ambassadors of our nation than our troops. The men have their own inimitable way of getting in touch with the people of the country in which they are quartered and among the comments one heard from the Chinese was this: "They no belong soldier; they belong gentleman."
The present time is opportune for a re-statement and a new emphasis of our policy both owing to the character of the present Nanking Government and because a new Minister is going out to represent us. The future of China is of peculiar importance at the present time. The world is seeking markets for its products and a stable, peaceful and orderly China could take almost unlimited quantities of such products as wool and wheat, and manufactured goods. Finally, I would urge that in our policy we might well adopt an attitude rather similar to that adopted by the late Lord Balfour in his very wonderful Mission to the United States of America when she first entered the War—to place at her disposal all our experience in working these Western institutions which she is striving to adopt and to help her to evolve a new system for the benefit not only of British and other merchants, but for the benefit of the people of her own vast country as the whole.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, the debate this afternoon has covered

73
a very wide field. I am afraid it is a very long time since I had personal knowledge of China and therefore there is little I could say which could be of value from a personal point of view. It may amuse the House to hear that perhaps I myself nearly took part in one of these revolutions because when Dr. Sun Yat-sen was in London he invited me to go out and take part in a movement he was then making. Considerable reference has been made to trade in China and I am sure the House will rejoice that the Chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries has been travelling recently in that country. When I was there more thay twenty years ago one of the complaints made was that firms in England seldom had their own commercial agents there. I entirely agree that with that vast population the chances for increased trade are considerable and I hope the example given by the Chairman of Imperial Chemical industries will be widely followed.
The statement which I have been given by the Foreign Office is rather long, but I hope your Lordships will forgive me for reading it. It is, I feel sure, unnecessary to say that the policy of His Majesty's Government is one of sincere friendliness towards China. Our aim in consequence is to maintain cordial relations with the constituted Government of that country. For a number of years there was, unfortunately, such political confusion in China, with rival Parties claiming or aiming at the position of governing the country, that His Majesty's Government, like other foreign Governments, could only live from day to day and do what they could for the maintenance of legitimate British interests, while taking such opportunities as offered for carrying out the promises which had been made to China after the War and at the Washington Conference, and for laying the foundations of satisfactory relations for the future. It was in this spirit that, in a time of inconclusive rivalry between different Parties, His Majesty's Government took part in the Tariff Conference and in the inquiry into extra-territoriality for which the Washington Conference provided. His Majesty's Government further, took the lead in the so-called December Memorandum of 1926 in proposing that the Powers should pursue a constructive policy in harmony with the
74
spirit of the Washington Conference and going as far as possible towards meeting the legitimate aspirations of the Chinese nation. That was a Memorandum communicated by His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Peking on the 18th December, 1926, to the representatives of the Washington Treaty Powers.
This is a paragraph of the Memorandum. The Powers, it said,
"should abandon the idea that the economic and political development of China can only he secured under foreign tutelage, and should declare their readiness to recognise her right to the enjoyment of tariff autonomy as soon as she herself has settled and promulgated a new national tariff. They should expressly disclaim forcing foreign control upon an unwilling China. While calling upon China to maintain that respect for the sanctity of treaties which is the primary obligation common to all civilised States, the Powers should yet recognise both the essential justice of the Chinese claim for treaty revision and the, difficulty under present conditions of negotiating new treaties in place of the old and they should therefore modify their traditional attitude of rigid insistence on the strict letter of treaty rights."
The Memorandum went on to say that he Powers
"should endeavour to maintain harmonious relations with China without waiting for or insisting on the prior establishment of a strong Central Government."
While there was at the time no Government with which it was possible to negotiate as representing China as a whole, His Majesty's Government proceeded to investigate what measures they could take by unilateral action, without revision of treaties, to meet the aspirations of the Chinese people.
These measures were formulated and were laid before the Chinese authorities in the north and in the south in January, 1927. They implied an immediate and radical modification of the old treaty position, so far as His Majesty's Government were concerned, and were an earnest of further modifications as soon as conditions permitted. The despatch of the Shanghai Defence Force early in 1927, as a result of the danger threatening the International Settlement, was an unfortunate necessity, which in no way diverted His Majesty's Government from their fundamental aim any more than they had allowed themselves to be diverted from it by the unfortunate manifestation of hostility at Hankow and elsewhere about the same time. As a

75
result of this carefully-considered policy the atmosphere in China was soon changed for the better. When at last the National Government of China was set up in the autumn of 1928 and was generally accepted in China, it was speedily recognised by His Majesty's Government among other Powers, and a treaty was signed in that year recognising the complete autonomy of China in tariff matters and ensuring most-favourednation treatment for British goods.
Apart from this, the measures taken by His Majesty's Government to carry out their promises—in many cases before the establishment of this Government—may be summarised as follows: The British concessions at Hangkow, Kiukiang, Chinkiang and Amoy have been returned to Chinese administration; the constitution of the British concession at Tientsin has been reformed, so as to place British and Chinese on an equal footing as regards franchise and representation on the council; at Shanghai, to which Lord Addington referred, five Chinese now have seats on the Council of the International Settlement, and an increasing number of Chinese are being appointed to posts in the municipal administration. The modern Chinese Courts have been recognised as the competent courts for the trial of cases brought by British plaintiffs or complainants, without the attendance of a British consular representative. The Chinese Court in the International Settlement at Shanghai has been restored to the full control of the Chinese authorities. This was done in consultation with other interested Powers. The agreement to this effect was valid for three years, and on its expiry this year it was decided, after most careful consideration, to renew it for a further similar period, and thereafter until denounced by either side. The Chinese Government for their part have given assurances that they have under contemplation measures for remedying certain defects which had shown themselves.
The Customs Revenues have been freed from Diplomatic Body control, and the Customs administration is no longer an instrument of foreign tutelage, but has become once more a Chinese administration. Wei-hai-wei has been returned to China, and an agreement has been reached as regards the remitted Boxer Indemnity, by which most of the funds are to be spent on railway and other
76
materials manufactured in the United Kingdom. The biggest question still remaining to be adjusted is that of extraterritorial rights. His Majesty's Government recognised as long ago as 1902, in the so-called Mackay Commercial Treaty, that changes were necessary in this system. It was again recognised at the Washington Conference, and the problem was fully enquired into by an International Commission in 1926. Conditions in China for some years following were such as to keep the question in abeyance, but when at last there seemed again to be grounds for hoping that stability of administration had been reached, negotiations of the details of an extraterritorial agreement were begun.
EARL PEEL: When was that
EARL STANHOPE: I cannot say exactly, but it was after 1926. Good progress was made by the negotiators, and a stage was reached when the progress could be reported to the two Governments. Meanwhile, however, in the summer of 1931, civil war again broke out and later there came the Manchurian dispute and a further spread of the Communist movement, so that the question remains in that position. From what I have said your Lordships will see that we have tried to meet the national aspirations of China in very full measure. In China, as elsewhere, of course, there is a strong national sentiment sweeping through the country, and therefore with regard to one of the suggestions of my noble friend, that as to the gendarmerie, he will agree with me that the first move must come from China herself. Should such a suggestion be made His Majesty's Government would do their best to see what assistance could be given.
Then another question was raised with regard to the removal of the Legation from Peking. This question has been periodically under the most careful consideration, but up to the present time His Majesty's Government have not considered that any change in the existing arrangements is either necessary or desirable. It is very much open to doubt, when all factors are taken into account, whether any real increase in efficiency would result from the change, and the question is complicated by important considerations of health and expense. It is probably not generally realised what

77
a large staff is employed at the Legation, and what a great expense would be incurred by building adequate permanent accommodation for them. The Chinese Government have themselves, once or twice in recent years, at critical junctures, transferred the seat of Government to other places from Nanking, and the permanent removal of the Legation headquarters to Nanking might involve some risk of proving to have been made in vain. Besides the provisional capital, Loyang, which was the actual seat of Government for some months last year, there is an auxiliary capital, Sianfu, officially so designated by the Chinese Government.
Peking is superior to Nanking and Shanghai from the health point of view, and Shanghai, which has sometimes been suggested as an alternative site, is open to the objection that its own special problems, important as they are, might absorb too much of the energy of the Minister, instead of being dealt with, as they should be in the first place, by the Consul-General. A great deal of thought has been devoted to making the most suitable arrangements for the conduct of business. Sir M. Lampson, the present Minister, has paid constant visits, often of long duration, to Nanking, and the Counsellor of the Legation—he is hardly what some noble Lord described as a subordinate official—normally resides there. Somewhat similar arrangements are observed by other important Powers. The United State and Japanese Ministers are represented at Nanking by Consular officers with diplomatic rank, and the French and German Ministers by Secretaries of Legation.
Lord Lugard raised a question with regard to the Hong Kong University and education in China. I am informed that the sum paid from the Boxer Indemnity was settled by agreement, reached with the Chinese Government in 1930, and put into effect, so far as legislation was concerned, by the Act of 1931. The disposal of the fund is governed by that agreement and apart from sums already allotted to the Hong Kong University and the Universities China Committee, is in the hands of the Board of Trustees set up by the Chinese Government in China. His Majesty's Government have no power to devote any further money from that source to Hong Kong University.
78
The statement that I have made is of a very general character, but of course I have had to cover a very wide field. I think, however, it will be clear from what I have said that His Majesty's Government have done as much as—indeed more than—any other single Power to demonstrate their friendliness to China, and consideration for the legitimate and reasonable aspirations of the Chinese people. It is a matter of the deepest regret that there is not at this moment a greater measure of peace, stability, and uniformly effective administration. His Majesty's Government have played the part that a proper regard for British interests and genuine friendship for the Chinese people have dictated, but the essential problem of further progress is one which only the Chinese people can solve, and if it is suggested that His Majesty's Government can take further action to help them, it is difficult to see what could be done that would not involve interference in Chinese domestic affairs, and entail commitments beyond our strength. Such interference, even if welcomed by the Chinese themselves, would in all probability in the long run prove useless, if indeed it did not delay the final settlement for which we all hope.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Earl's apology for the length of his statement need have been made; indeed, I was longing to hear a good deal more. I was very much impressed when he told us that he very nearly became a revolutionary. I think it is a compliment to him to say that I should not have suspected it unless he had informed me of the fact. But I am in some difficulty as I feel that I cannot press the noble Earl for answers on various points, because he has very frankly told us that he is communicating, not his own knowledge, but a statement handed to him by the Foreign Office. It is obvious, therefore, that I cannot press him with further questions. I can only say that in my view it is very unfortunate that in your Lordships' House, where there is such a number of Peers who really have great knowledge on this subject, we have not got a direct representative of the Foreign Office who would be able to answer. I am very much obliged to the noble Earl. He would fill any post of that kind with

79
great skill and I am only sorry that he is not in that position. I do not press my Motion for Papers because there are so many Papers, and I do not want to be overwhelmed with the plethora of them. Therefore I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

UNIVERSITY DEGREES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I do not propose to trouble the House to go into Committee on this Bill, but I should like to say a few words. The debates on this and the previous Bill have shown how much importance is attached to the conferment of University degrees. The first Bill introduced dealing with this question was entitled the University Spurious Degrees (Prohibition of Use and Issue) Bill, and the object was to put an end to the traffic in spurious University degrees. On that occasion we had a most interesting speech from the most rev. Primate, telling us all about Lambeth degrees, and another very interesting speech from the noble Earl, Lord Iddcsleigh, about the degrees conferred by Papal Universities. That Bill was very strongly supported at the annual meeting of the Joint Standing Committee of Convocations, held at the University of Liverpool, when the following resolution was passed:
"That this Committee representing the graduates of the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, Durham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield desires to express its approval of the principle laid down in the University Spurious Degrees (Prohibition of Use and Issue) Bill now before the House of Lords, and that the executive of the Joint Standing Committee of Convocations be empowered to take what further steps they may deem necessary."
This shows what strong feeling there is on the part of graduates of those Universities. However, that Bill, owing to the objection of the Minister of Education, who under one of its clauses was made the judge of what was a spurious degree, was withdrawn.
I then introduced the present Bill. The Government, through the Minister of Education, Lord Irwin, expressed approval of the principle of the Bill, but it was evident that unless that. Bill was approved of by the older Universities there was no possible chance of its
80
getting through. I gave an undertaking that if they did not approve I should withdraw the Bill. In September last the Universities Bureau of the British Empire, which consists of representatives not only of the Universities of Great Great Britain and Northern Ireland but also of those of the Irish Free State and all other Empire Universities, met and considered this Bill. They raised certain objections, and said they did not consider that even this new Bill quite met their view. However, I have been in communication with representatives of the Association of Scientific Workers, who are very much interested in this Bill, because they feel that men and women 'ho have laboured so hard to get degrees which are of great value to them should not be prejudiced by the assumption of false degrees by other people who are not entitled to them, and they have agreed to meet me and to see if we cannot come to a conclusion. I thought I should make this statement because this Bill is regarded as one of importance by a great many people in this country who are not at all satisfied with the present position; and I only hope that when that meeting takes place the result will be that I shall have the honour on another occasion of bringing forward a Bill which at last in its final shape will have met with the approval of all parties concerned. In the circumstances I beg to move that the Order of the Day be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
Moved, That the Order of the Day for the House to be in Committee be discharged.—(Lord Jessel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and Bill, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

DISARMAMENT.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE had given Notice that he would call attention to the proceedings at the Disarmament Conference, and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it is only right that your Lordships should have an opportunity of discussing the question which really overshadows all others in importance, both nationally and internationally, at the present moment. More especially as it was discussed in another place only yesterday it is convenient and right that your Lordships should have an oppor-

81
tunity of discussing it at the earliest possible moment. I have read the proceedings in another place yesterday with very great attention, and, if I may be allowed to say so, the statement of the Foreign Secretary was very comprehensive and as a master of exposition he was able to make a very good case out of the past proceedings. But I have always thought that Sir John Simon might be trusted to make the best of a very bad case with his great dialectical skill, and I cannot consider that his speech can be accepted as satisfactory, or can dispel the general mistrust that has grown up with regard to the attitude of His Majesty's Government in connection with this question of disarmament.
A great deal of the debate was taken up with past history land a good deal of recrimination, but I agree with the leader in this morning's issue of The Times newspaper, where it says:
"It was perhaps natural, therefore, that little should have been said about the future and that the impression should have been conveyed that the problem would still be approached by exactly the same methods as those which have led to a breakdown."
It is my desire to direct your Lordships' attention more to the future than to the past, but in examining the future we have necessarily to see how to avoid the errors of the past. The great incident which has disturbed the proceedings is the withdrawal of Germany from the Disarmament Conference and her withdrawal from the League of Nations. In considering that, and the effect that it has had—necessarily an alarming effect, though I myself have never been one to take an alarmist view of the situation—I have never thought that the peace of Europe was in danger, but it has necessarily made a very great change in the proceedings and in the methods that have to be adopted. We have got to try and understand what it means more thoroughly.
It is perfectly true that Germany has got an incorrigible habit of doing the wrong thing at the wrong moment. They are the clumsiest diplomatists in Europe. That we know by experience, but there is a further fact which, I think, we have to take into account with regard to the whole psychology of the German nation at the present time, and I would say with regard to the world situation at the present time. I do not believe that sufficient
82
account has ever been taken of the extraordinarily deep and injurious defect that the years of the War had on the generation that was under sixteen while it was being fought—malnutrition, withdrawal of the ordinary education facilities, withdrawal of parental influence, withdrawal of ordinary social intercourse, and the absorption of the young minds in the catastrophe which they heard talked about morning, noon, and night. I am not alone in thinking that that has had an indelible effect on youth, and we see signs of it all the world over. We see signs of want of development, a hysterical desire for excitement. We see signs of it more especially in Germany where the malnutrition of the four years of the War was aggravated still further by the blockade which still continued after the War was over.
It has shown itself undoubtedly in German youth very conspicuously. It has shown itself in a very serious way, and I think people who have been studying Germany during the last few years have noticed it in the German youth. They have noticed that what might be called this hysterical sadism and moral confusion has now been put into a channel by Chancellor Hitler He has harnessed it. His appeal is a very simple one; his object is quite intelligible; his methods are utterly deplorable; but his backing is colossal. We have got to take that into account. It is no good saying they are in the wrong. It is no good deploring the outrages which are taking place. We have got to take account of this fact. I might say here in passing that in this period since Chancellor Hitler got the reins into his hands there has been reason for alarm, and I think it is a matter of great congratulation to our neighbours across the Channel, France, that under the very wise leadership of the late Prime Minister, M. Daladier, they avoided taking offence on occasions when they might, from over-excitement, have been led to rash words, if not actions.
Your Lordships will remember that the last War was fought, we were told—it was dinned into our ears, especially by several of the speakers who were speaking in another place yesterday—to crush German militarism. That was supposed to be the prime object. I was never taken in by that, because you cannot crush militarism by war. You only breed

83
militarism by war, but we never supposed it would breed so rapidly as, in fact, it has done. What I think is regret-able is that the Powers—our own Governments and foreign Governments—have been faced during the last fifteen years with this question of equality of status of Germany. It had to come forward sooner or later. A decision had to be made sooner or later. Either Germany must arm up to the level of the other Powers, or the other Powers must arm down to the level of Germany. Those were the two alternatives that stared statesmen in the face, and the question was never tackled. In fact, we seemed to get, during the fifteen years, further and further from real concentration on that particular question, till at last impatience, turning under the Hitler régime into exasperation, has led Germany to take this very strong step.
Our complaint on this side of the House is that there has been a great lack of leadership on the part of Great Britain. I hope I shall not hear the old taunt, which some people never tire of making, that one is a friend of every country but one's own, directly you criticise the Government. To mistake this Government for the country that we all love is really the most ridiculous absurdity. We are not friends of this Government and we do not pretend to be friends of this Government. We are here to criticise them, and I exist to criticise them, but that does not mean that I am not a friend of this country which I value above every other country in the world. Sir John Simon said we had an immense moral authority. That is perfectly true. He knows from his great experience at Geneva what a great moral authority this country has, and they have failed to use that authority in taking any bold initiative. They have taken the temperate line. They have modified other people's proposals. They have always tried to be the skilful advocate adapting this measure and that, but they have never taken the bold move for which the world and all the nations of the world have been waiting.
I want to take the four possibilities of the future, because it is with the future we are concerned. First, to stop the Disarmament Conference, and to say that it has been a failure; therefore to allow Germany to rearm; and to adopt what is known as the isolationist policy.
84
We on this side of the House would reject that out of hand. We do not believe that you can isolate yourself in the world to-day. We must take our full share, and our share can only be taken through the machinery of the League of Nations. The Conference on Disarmament must go on, and must go on year after year if need be. The second alternative: Take what Chancellor Hitler has said and what the Soviet Government have said—take them at their word. They have said they will completely disarm at the earliest possible moment if others will. We have never said that; this Government has never said that. I doubt if this Government could say that, because the enormous weight of the armament interest and the gigantic influence of the Services and the tradition of the Services in this country would make a suggestion for complete disarmament very difficult for any Government to make.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I ask the noble Lord whether he desires that we should completely disarm.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I was taking as the second alternative the suggestion that we should say, as the German Government have said, and as the Russian Government have said, that we would completely disarm if others would completely disarm. We have not said that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That is a different thing.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: No, we have not said that. I was suggesting we should say it. I was suggesting, as the second alternative, we should say that, but we cannot say that because of the reasons I have given, and, therefore, it would be unwise to expect the Government to take that alternative. The third alternative is to go on along the old lines, and this is the alternative which I think it looks as if the present Government would take—to go on along the old lines, to continue the proceedings in the Disarmament Conference as they have gone on during the last eighteen months, to take the British Draft and continue with it as the basis of discussion. I very respectfully state that to take the British Draft for a future basis of discussion, after the events that have recently happened, would be altogether futile. What is the British Draft? It is

85
not a British proposal; it is the scraps front the discussions of the experts which
have ranged over eighteen months.
I have before now in your Lordships' House declared that I considered that the proceedings in the Disarmament Conference were initiated and were conducted in the wrong way, on the wrong lines. They were discussing minute details with a view to arriving eventually at some principle. Of course it ought to I have been the other way round. They ought to have laid down a principle and then made the experts fill in the details. We have had these absurd discussions on qualitative disarmament, on offensive and defensive weapons, without, any sort of decision being come to. I know what I think about it is in your Lordships' eyes of no value Whatever, but I should like to quote what a distinguished general has said because it entirely bears out what I have said in your Lordships' House, and expresses the opinion which we on this side of the House hold with regard to the method adopted by the Disarmament Conference. He said:
"They had spent months sand months, and used reams and reams of paper trying to draw a hard and fast line between offensive armaments and defensive armaments. As one who had been at the job all his life he did not know where they were going to draw that line. An umbrella was a defensive weapon when used as a protection against the rain, but in a crowd an umbrella used for jabbing another man in the eye could be a very offensive weapon. In -the long run the only defence was vigorous counter-attack, and he did not think it mattered very much whether a battleship was twenty thousand tons or ten thousand tons. A 10,000-ton battleship could be just as offensive as a 20,000-ton ship; in fact it could be more so, because it was able to poke into holes and corners where a 20,000-ton battleship could not go. He did not think they would find a solution on that line. That sort of argument seemed to him to lead nowhere, any more than it mattered whether a gun was 6 inches or 16 inches. What the League of Nations was out for was the principle of disarmament. It was not a change of ships that they wanted, nor a change of guns but a change of attitude towards war, so that, as civil people, they would recognise it as an evil to be avoided in every possible way."
I think that is an admirable epitome of the proceedings at the Disarmament Conference. The words are those of Major-General Sir John Daniell in a speech not long ago in Sussex.
Are we going to go on with that type of discussion? Are we again going to
86
call out the experts and try to thrash out the vexed question whether a tank is offensive or defensive? Is it, going to be a qualitative disarmament? Is this interminable discussion to go on? If so, I am perfectly sure that nothing will come of it. The British Draft Convention is merely the scraps left over from the expert discussions in the various Commissions. It reminds me of the impoverished family in some remote corner of the world that had their 'meals off a long deal table with dips for where the plates ought to be. At the end of the meal the fragments were all brushed into a drawer at the end of the table and on Saturday they ate the drawer. Well this British Draft Convention is the drawer. It is the scraps. It is as indigestible as anything that has been produced at the Disarmament Conference. It is not on those lines that there is any hope of success in the future.
Moreover, the British Draft, by the various speeches that have been made on it since, has become very much mitigated, and I do not think that Sir John Simon's statement to the League of Nations on October 14 can be really read through and thought to be a great pronouncement on disarmament to which all the Powers would be ready to subscribe. It is no doubt very clever and picks out points here and there where Germany can be tripped up. I do not for a moment suggest that it was on account of that statement that Germany left the Conference, but I do suggest that a very different statement could have been made which would have prevented Germany from leaving the Conference. At any rate it looks more and more, as the discussions go on, as if the reluctance of the Powers to come to any agreement with regard to the various weapons and various standards was going to be balanced by gradually allowing Germany to rearm. If that is the case, of course the Disarmament Conference will have been worse than a failure; it will have been a most terrible tragedy.
Now I come to the fourth alternative, and this is the one which is concrete and simple, and which we on this side of the House have ventured to put forward. I think it will be discussed more fully in another place at a later date. We want these technical discussions to cease. We want simplicity. We want

87
to take some standard which has already been laid down. Therefore we suggest that Great Britain should propose that the Powers—by stages it must necessarily be, but within as short a period as possible—should reduce their armaments to the scale imposed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. There is no need for the discussion of this weapon and that weapon, of this tonnage and that tonnage. It is laid down in the Treaty and I need not go over it again. It has been imposed on Germany for fifteen years. It can be adopted by the Powers if they will agree to do so. At any rate we suggest that we should take the lead in asking for that, and just as we feel confident that disarmament is in itself and by itself an insufficient guarantee that there will be no more war, we want to see the tightening up of arbitration procedure. We want to see the strengthening of the League of Nations. We want to see it rehabilitated. We want to see Germany brought back into the League. We want to see Russia and the United States in the League and the League really used as the international organ for keeping the peace between nations. In addition to that when you get the League working you will have to revise your Treaties. That cannot be shirked any longer. You must not leave the sore places which were made by the Treaty of Versailles and the other Peace Treaties.
My Lords, this may seem to be an idealistic policy but I do not think it is so necessarily. I believe it is only through a measure of this sort, it is only through the authority of a real League of Nations that you are going to make any advance on this question. One thing is certain, that the road we have taken is the wrong road and therefore we ought to take a different one. That, I think, every one will admit. This suggestion comes as a new move in a new direction, a stride forward which, with the moral authority which the Foreign Secretary said we have in the League of Nations, would carry a great deal of weight and persuade others that the time has come for a real advance. Some may say that it would be a concession to German threats. I do not think we ought to let any false pride of that sort stand in the way of doing the right thing if we believe it to be the right
88
thing. Though we may have delayed doing the right thing it is never too late to take a step in advance. We must not go on judging German diplomacy by what is going on in Germany itself. Nations are strangely governed in these days, and there are many forms of government with which we fundamentally disagree, but that is no reason why we should not talk to the nations in the councils of the world in such a way as to preserve good relations and amity between the nations.
Mr. Eden, in his concluding remarks in the debate yesterday, deprecated the League being dragged into Party politics. I do not know why there is such a terrible dislike in some quarters of Party politics. It is as if Party politics meant that those playing it were playing to get into office, playing for salaries. I always understood Party politics to mean the principles in which we believed. When you see that the League of Nations is not being used in the proper way it is right that any Party that chooses should call attention to that fact and say that the League should be so restored as to inspire confidence in the peoples of the world. That section of opinion which wants rearmament, that section of opinion which was so very articulate in the Conservative Conference that wants a higher expenditure on armaments, has faith in force to secure the position of this country. I have no such faith. After all, the greatest display of force the world has ever known in the years 1914 to 1918 has given security to nobody at all. It certainly has not made the world safe for democracy, which is one of the things we were told it was going to do.
No, my Lords, I think it is madness to meet these demands which are being made by rearming Europe. I am afraid it is going on. I am afraid this is a great opportunity for those who are making money out of armaments and who naturally welcome a scare which will bring orders. Armament firms have got to be tackled. I think the French delegation on one occasion did make suggestions at the League for tackling armament firms. They have got to be tackled. They are not national institutions, they are inter national. They are great international institutions for furnishing arms very often to our potential enemies. We hear

89
now in some quarters that Germany is rearming. I do not know to what extent that is true or not, but I do know that the British Empire is furnishing Germany with metals that are essential for armaments. But that is the way. There is no nationality in this armament business and, until the Governments of the world tackle it, it will always be a menace to the peace of the world.
I have tried to put the future before your Lordships. I want to elicit from His Majesty's Government what are their intentions. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, in putting forward the previous Motion that was before your Lordships said he deplored that we had not in this House a representative of the Foreign Office. But we have a very distinguished representative of His Majesty's Government, a Cabinet Minister, the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House, and I am quite sure that he can speak on behalf of His Majesty's Government in telling us what are their intentions. After the eight hours of debate in another place I could find no sentence conveying the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to the future procedure in the Disarmament Conference, except that it seemed that I could infer that it was to jog along oh the old lines with the old British Draft Convention and try to get some agreement on standards and ratios. I hope that that is not the case. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will tell us to-day that there is a fresh outlook, a new path, a real call to the nations, that in spite of the difficulties, in spite of the withdrawal of Germany, in spite of the apprehensions which exist—no doubt not all without justification—in many parts of the world, the British Government is going to stand up and suggest a line which will give fresh hope to the world that this matter at last will be settled. I beg to move for Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I hope not to detain your Lordships for more than a comparatively short period. I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord who leads the Opposition with very great interest. It has the advantage that it presents a view to us with which we may not agree. It speaks, in truth, the sincerity of the convictions of himself and also, I gather, of a number of the Party to which he belongs, but I am not sure that his observations would
90
command the support of all the members of his Party or that the views he presented would find complete agreement amongst them. It would not be germane to the present discussion to enquire further into that, but he did make observations, showing deep feeling, with much of which I am in agreement.
His desire for peace, and the words which he spoke quite definitely against rearmament, must find an echo not only from all those who support the noble Lord, but I believe from every member of your Lordships' House, including those who represent the fighting Services. I do not believe that any of them, used as they are to methods of warfare and knowing far better than we do all their terrible consequences, has any desire for war, and from my conversation with those who have been our leaders in the field, who are members of your Lordships' House, and who also take their part elsewhere in public life, I do not for a moment accept any suggestion that they have had any part in trying to prevent peace or bring about war; and I do not think the noble Lord suggested that. The noble Lord made an attack on armament firms. I do not propose to enter into that, because I know nothing about it, save to say that it did seem to me he was overstating the importance that could be attached to the propaganda of armament firms for the sake of increasing their business in the supply of arms. That it may have had an influence is possible. We have read books which tell of intrigues, but I think that in these days it would be very difficult for any firms of that description to pursue with success any such policy as was indicated.
The noble Lord began by a reference to, the statement by the Foreign Secretary in another place yesterday. My own impression is that it was a very complete statement couched, as it necessarily would be, in lucid language, conveying to the House and the country what had been in the mind of the Government, and to my mind it carried the conviction that the Government had been doing its utmost in the cause of peace, striving all it could to promote it and to prevent rearmament. I doubt whether that could be challenged and again, as I understood the noble Lord, he did not challenge it. What he did challenge was the action that has been taken and must, be taken. I have

91
no desire to travel over the wide field of all the causes that have brought about the present situation, but would confine myself to the alternatives that he discussed.
Before dealing with those, however, I would join issue with the noble Lord in one respect. I think he was really not just to the present British Government. He attacked them for lack of leadership on the part of Great Britain and seemed to indicate that they really had done nothing except to produce the British Draft Convention in February. Surely that is not a fair statement to make. I feel convinced that if he will cast his mind back a little he will admit that it is idle to say there has been lack of leadership. Such a statement is not true if it suggests that we have taken no steps with regard to disarmament for ourselves. We have indeed given an example to the world by disarming ourselves—to use an expression used by the Foreign Secretary recently—to the edge of risk, and when the noble Lord addresses your Lordships, and through you the general public, and suggests that we have done nothing as a Government or as a people, I do think it is essential that that should be borne in mind. I do him the justice of saying that, as I understood his argument, he has not failed to notice and realise that that has been the case, and it is unfortunate that when attacks are made this matter, which is so important, is often left out of account.
May I point out to him that it is this very reduction of armaments which has caused anxiety in the minds of those who survey the situation and realise what is happening in the world? It may be that because of that some speeches have been made which have led to the suggestion that we were in favour of rearmament. So far as I understand it that is really not the case at this moment. I trust, indeed, that no such proposal will be put forward by the Government. So long as we are labouring for peace it would seem not to help us if we were now to come forward, having given the lead in disarmament, to give a lead in rearmament in consequence of recent events. I believe the immense moral influence and authority this country has in councils abroad, and particularly in the League of Nations, can best serve the interests of the world by continuing to labour for
92
peace, by striving in every way possible to promote it, by not being disheartened when difficulties occur, and by having a definite policy and striving constantly to press it forward to the utmost of our ability. I believe moral influence in the world is a vastly important factor and cannot be very easily moved aside. It has its effect and the influence of this country has, I believe, grown during the last few years. In my view it has very great weight, and, there again, I do not think there is any challenge.
But I turn to the particular discussion —the alternatives to which the noble Lord referred. He talked at one moment of isolation, and obviously he could not agree. In this respect I find myself in complete agreement with him. I think it is idle for us to assume that we can isolate ourselves from Europe, for obviously, geographically, we are nearer to the Continent of Europe now than ever before in the world's history, by reason of inventions and the developments of science. What at one time was a long crossing of the channel now becomes a question, comparatively, of a few minutes. Therefore it does seem to me that we ought not to attempt to isolate ourselves, that we ought not to abandon the influences that we do possess, and that therefore we should continue to take our part where it properly should be taken.
The second alternative to which the noble Lord referred, as I understood his observations, was as to the continuation of the Disarmament Conference. I very much hope that it will continue. I do not believe that it will be useless, and indeed, so far as I have been able to understand from the President of that Conference, who is a member of the noble Lord's Party—from all I have read of him and know of his views, he would be the last to wish that the Conference should be discontinued. Indeed, it could not be discontinued. It has always been a great difficulty to know what would happen. Even in the short period when I was Foreign Secretary, although the Disarmament Conference had not yet commenced, nevertheless constantly questions were coming before me, and I remember perfectly well the perplexities that I saw in the situation and the difficulties that there would be in handling it. Of course, one recognises the simplicity with which the matter can be disposed of

93
by those who have only to argue about it, especially on one side, and the immense obstacles which confront those who set themselves to work to make proposals. I am not suggesting that because those obstacles are so immense we need not trouble further about them. On the contrary, I say continue the Conference, proceed on your course, and strive to arrive at something practical.
Reference has been made to complete disarmament, and it was said by the noble Lord that, although that might be the view put forward—and I rather gather it is the view which he would like —no Government really could put that forward. I agree with his conclusion but not with the reasons which he gave. Obviously no Government, charged with the safety of its population and their interests, would for a moment dare to run that risk, especially when dealing with an Empire such as ours. I will not, however, take up further time on that subject.
The only other point is the fourth alternative to which the noble Lord referred, and that was in connection with the British Draft Convention, which was introduced early this year, I think, by the British Prime Minister. I do not agree that nothing had been done, as I have said already, firstly, because of the disarmament to which we have already had recourse. I would also, when it is said that we have done nothing, point to the British Draft Convention, and suggest to those who think about it, and who have taken the trouble to study it, that it was a great move by this country. It was definitely the conclusion of the British Cabinet—and it was really an important step to take, because it was the proposal of the British Government—that there should be equality of status for Germany. It completely changed the situation, and was going a long way ahead. What would follow from it, of course, had still to be discussed, and it is, I understand, because of the proposal and the difficulties which have emerged in striving to reach conclusions, that we have arrived at the present situation.
Do not let us leave out of account the fact that one of the reasons why it has become so difficult is the change of situation in Germany. I have no wish to discuss the new régime, but I think it is essential that, considering the situation,
94
we should bear in mind that there was a great change. We should remember that when first the declaration of policy as to equality of status was made, we had not seen what has happened more recently, and there was not so much fear of militarism in Germany as many now think, and as I cannot help thinking, with some justice, we have reason to fear at this moment. But of course we must take into account the definite statement by the German Chancellor, and Baron von Neurath, in favour of peace, although we are not at the moment in agreement as to the means of arriving at it.
All I can find in the observations and arguments of the noble Lord seem to me not to advance the situation, except perhaps what he said finally, when asking the Government for their view. We are in this very difficult position at this moment, caused, no doubt, by the withdrawal of Germany from the League, but no one can suggest now, especially after Baron von Neurath's statement, that Germany's withdrawal from the League was because of the British Foreign Secretary's speech at Geneva. That, at any rate, has now completely disappeared, because the statements of the German Foreign Minister make it quite clear that in withdrawing they were acting in pursuance of a policy upon which they had made up their minds before Sir John Simon had uttered one word of his speech. Even so, it brings us eventually to this difficult question: How are we to operate? What are we to do? I agree with much of the criticism that fell from the noble Lord with regard to offensive and defensive armaments. I confess that I have never quite understood how it was expected to reach any satisfactory conclusion. I can understand why some armaments winch may appear to be more easily used for the purpose of defence should be retained, whilst others which would appear to be the most suitable for attack might be suppressed. I can follow that line of argument, but I have never been able quite to understand how you can distinguish between the two in the final conclusion and the use that is to be made of the weapons.
The noble Lord said that what he would desire is that these technical discussions should cease. No doubt he would find a great deal of support for that, but, even so, you have eventually

95
got to come to them. I am afraid it is hopeless to think that you can get a reduction of armaments without discussing the various kinds of armaments. But eventually, it seems to me, we always got back to the same difficulty. We must depend upon agreement, and there must be means found of seeing that the agreements are carried out. I do not want to go into the question of inspection. Nevertheless, one cannot but think that that is one means, if not the only means, of securing knowledge of what is happening in a foreign country, and of realising whether or not there has been a breach of any convention that may have been made in respect to armaments. I do not suggest that such an inspection can be completely effective, but I do suggest that it is an effective means. I doubt whether there is anything more effective.
But, in any event, while anxious to hear whatever the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House will have to suggest as to the future, I think that wise words were uttered by the noble Lord when he said that we ought not to let false pride interfere with doing what we may think right. As a general proposition I do not think any one would dispute that. It becomes, of course, a little more difficult when you are dealing with nations, and especially when you are dealing with a number of them. But I ask the Government to tell us that they will not let any such question interfere with doing what seems to them the proper and legitimate thing, and of following the best means of reaching a conclusion. Particularly I imagine that if the Conference is to proceed now at Geneva we shall try to get all nations into it, and that we shall make every attempt, as I feel that we shall, to carry Russia and the United States with us, because that is of immense importance. If, as the result, you were to reach a conclusion in which all were quite definitely agreed, and Germany stood isolated, refusing to take part in it, refusing to discuss it with the League, cannot but think that the isolation in which Germany would be must have an important effect upon her, and that in the result the moral influence of the world would triumph over Germany if she attempted to take that course. I hope to see—I would even say that I expect to see—in the future that the League of Nations will gain strength,
96
that it is not to come to an end as some suggest, and that, with the assistance of the League, we may give effect to what obviously our people want, and that is that we should continue to fight not only for our own peace but for the peace of the world.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I cannot refrain, in rising to address your Lordships on a question of this kind, from adverting in one or two sentences to the very deplorable loss that your Lordships' House has suffered since we last discussed this question in the death of Viscount Grey of Fallodon. I do feel that we are poorer in approaching any question of foreign affairs without his guidance and his counsel, and I am quite sure that, as the years go on, there will be a fuller and a more complete recognition of his enormous merits as a Foreign Minister and his great leadership to this country during a great many years of his life.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for raising this question. It is unquestionably one of enormous importance, and I am perfectly certain it is one which is exciting the very deepest interest all over the country. I have been very much struck lately in going about the country with the spontaneous interest taken in the matter. It is very, very deep. I do not recollect any question which has, apart from Party politics altogether, suddenly sprung forward into a matter of such deep interest as this question has done in the last few weeks. I was very glad to notice in the speech of the Foreign Secretary that he recognised that most fully, and said that he was confident that the country deeply desired both peace and disarmament. I believe that is true.
There are a good many subjects which have been touched on here and in the debate last night which I should have liked to say something about, but I am afraid of wearying your Lordships by prolonging my observations too much. In particular, I should have liked to say something about the question of the private manufacture of armaments, because it is a subject upon which I feel very deeply, but I am not going to say anything on the present occasion on that subject. I hope some future opportunity may arise when it can be debated, and fully debated. To my mind this topic

97
divides itself into two parts—namely, the question of what has happened, the past, and inevitably the conduct of the Government in reference to the past; and the future. I feel myself—and in that respect I Am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—that it is the future that is really interesting the country, and which is in itself of vast importance.
The past is only really of interest so far as it throws light on what we may expect in the future. Nevertheless, it is quite natural, with our Constitution, that when the matter comes up for debate, particularly in the House of Commons, it is the past conduct of the Government which fills the largest space. I observe that almost the whole discussion last night, or, at any rate, a very large part of it, raged round the question of how far, if at all, the Government was to blame. Therefore, I shall say a few words about that, but I do not wish to prolong these observations more than I can help. One of the subjects I am forced to leave aside, because I do not want to burden your Lordships too much, is the discussion of the measures of disarmament which we have taken ourselves and in respect of our own forces. There is rather more to be said on that subject than was said last night, but of course everyone recognises and admits and rejoices—perhaps everyone does not rejoice, but I at any rate rejoice—in the fact that a considerable measure of disarmament, or a considerable measure of reduction of armaments, has been undertaken by successive Governments.
Putting that aside for the moment, let me try to present, I hope without undue offensiveness to the Government, what is the anxiety that is felt about their conduct in the past. I am sure they will agree there is anxiety. There is a great feeling in the country that things are not going as well as they ought to go. What is the reason? Of course the suggestion is not—I cannot believe that it is to any extent, apart from a few extremists—that the Government are in favour of war. That is an absurdity. No Government that could be conceived in this country would ever be in favour of war. The feeling—and I admit I share it a little myself—is that there has been an inadequacy in the conduct of the disarmament negotiations. That is the
98
thing. I know it is said that the Government have taken the initiative over and over again. They have certainly done something. It is quite inconceivable that any Government could have sat for two years in a great International Conference without saying anything or making any proposal. I do not suggest that for a moment. But I do say quite deliberately that they entered upon this Conference without any definite policy of disarmament in their minds at all. That I do say; and I say that is borne out by their conduct in the early months of the Conference. They made no definite proposal then at all. They proposed, I remember, a programme of work. That was not a proposal as to what should be done, but as to the method in which the work should be done. They made no actual proposal.
I think that was all the greater pity because at that stage it was quite evident there was a very large measure of agreement in the Conference as to the kind of steps that might be taken. There is no doubt about that at all. There is on record a speech of the Italian Foreign Minister making certain definite proposals for the abolition of those armaments which were forbidden to Germany. That was a perfectly definite proposal with only one qualification, and it was approved at the time by the German representative and by a very large number of the representatives of the smaller States. It was regarded, I shall not say with absolutely definite approval by the American representative, but still with a great deal of sympathy and in some respects with quite definite approval. It is quite true that the French Government pressed very strongly their view about security, but I have a very strong feeling that in the face of a real definite proposal being put forward you would be able to arrive at some conclusion with regard to French difficulties in that matter. Let me remind the House of the European situation at that time. You had as Chancellor in Germany Dr. Bruning, who was unquestionably favourable to that proposal on broad lines. You had the Italian Foreign Minister, Signor Grandi, who had avowed himself in favour of it. You had in the latter part of the summer a General Election in France which resulted in a great movement towards the Left, and which was very largely fought, as Frenchmen have assured me, on the

99
question of peace and disarmament, and you had just come into office M. Herriot, who was, whatever may be said in criticism of that very distinguished statesman, unquestionably bound to make a move in that direction if he could do so.
If at that time the British Government had come forward with a definite scheme, I believe there would have been a very good chance of complete agreement, and it is because nothing was done at that time that I think there is ground for making criticism of the British Government. But it was not only the question of what was actually done. There was the whole atmosphere in which the negotiations were being conducted. There was no Cabinet Minister in charge. I have said this to your Lordships before, and I shall not dwell on it more than a moment. Ministers came out from London, stayed for a few days, and returned to London, and the impression was created, wrongly or rightly, but in fact created, I can assure the House, that the British Government were not really in favour of disarmament—certainly that they did not regard it as a matter of the first importance or one on which the whole future of Europe, as I think, depended. That was the situation which undoubtedly existed, and undoubtedly caused the impression that I have described both abroad and in this country. I do not believe that any honest, man, looking at the facts at that time, will really dispute that such an impression existed.
It was a little confirmed, let me say this, by the treatment of this question of disarmament in Ministerial speeches. I am not going to give you a catena of speeches, but there was a considerable number of speeches, partly by important Ministers, partly by—I shall not say unimportant, because they are all important—but by Ministers of less importance, in which the question of disarmament was treated (shall I say?) cavalierly, as a rather troublesome question which they did not think mattered very much. That was the kind of atmosphere. I do not wish to say anything which will be offensive to the Government, but even the Prime Minister seemed to me to take that line. He scarcely ever mentioned disarmament in his speeches. I could not tell how many speeches he made on the subject, but very few, and on some occasions at any
100
rate, as when he went to Rome, he used language in which he appeared to suggest that the proceedings at Geneva were matters of very minor importance. It was that kind of atmosphere, that kind of talk—it is for others to say whether that really represented the views of the Government or not—which is very largely responsible for the anxiety which exists at the present time in the country on the subject.
I know my noble friends believe that it is all due to the wicked propaganda of the Labour Party, led by that now almost mythical figure, Sir Stafford Cripps. I can assure my noble friends that they greatly exaggerate the value and effectiveness of Labour propaganda or. indeed, of any propaganda. I have often wondered how the great mass of my fellow-countrymen arrive at their political opinions. I have never been able to satisfy myself that propaganda has anything to do with it, but they do reach conclusions, sometimes very strong and vigorous conclusions, deeply held. I believe it is by a kind of political intuition, and I do not believe there is any other reasonable explanation of it. I do not for a moment believe that the speeches, however eloquent, of this or that political leader produce more than a very moderate effect. I do think that the cause of this anxiety is the doubt created by the attitude of the Government themselves and what they themselves have said. It is that which causes doubt to spring up in the minds of the people, doubt as to whether they are really putting their backs into the question, whether they really regard it as a question that matters and one on which the whole future of this country and indeed of civilisation may depend.
That is the way vast numbers of my fellow-countrymen regard the question. Until they are satisfied the Government take that view also they will feel anxiety in the matter. I quite admit that during the debate last night there were many passages, particularly in the speech of the Foreign Secretary, which I was very glad to read, which did recognise that he felt very deeply the great importance of the question, the vast importance of the success of this disarmament movement, and, not least, the immense importance of doing everything that could be done to strengthen the League of Nations. I am

101
very glad that that was so, and I hope —I hesitate to use this language—that the period of nebulosity with regard to disarmament is over, and that we shall have a very vigorous and concrete attitude adopted by the Government speakers themselves in the future. My criticism of last night's debate is that so little was told us as to what was really the future policy of the Government. That is what the country wants to know. We do very much want to know what exactly the Government are going to do. They told us that the Conference was to go on. That was very good as far as it goes, but it was nothing new. We knew that before. But they did not tell us what attitude they were going to take when the Conference met.
I ventured to describe what was the attitude of the Government in the beginning of the Conference. I said that it was not anything very definite. They had no definite policy. They were prepared to accept any suggestions that were made and to consider them, but they did not come forward and make any suggestions themselves. I do hope that nothing of that kind is going to be done in the coming meeting of the Conference. There was an ominous phrase, which I hope I was mistaken about, in the Foreign Secretary's speech about this being a matter which mainly concerned France and Germany. I do hope that kind of attitude is not going to translate itself into action when the Conference meets. It is absolutely vital to the success of the Conference that we should come forward with a perfectly definite and clear policy. I will say in a moment what I think the policy ought to be. Unless that is done, I am quite confident there is no prospect of the success of the Conference.
What do I suggest? It is not my business, perhaps, to suggest anything, but, as Captain Eden the other day was good enough to ask those who made criticisms to make constructive criticisms, I will, for what it is worth, make some effort in that direction. I listened with great attertion and interest to the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. He wants something striking and new in the policy. In a way, so do I But he thinks nothing can be done with the present British Draft Convention. If I understood him rightly, he would rather
102
favour dropping that and starting something entirely fresh. With the greatest respect to him I think that would be a very dangerous course. I think if you were to drop that which, after all, has received a measure of approval from the Conference, and start something entirely fresh, the probability is that you would find yourselves in greater difficulties than you are in at present. I would rather say what I have always said, that the presentation of the Draft Convention, though it came, as I think, a year too late, or very nearly a year too late, was a step in the right direction. It was a definite proposal. It did enable the Conference to begin to discuss things practically and seriously. I do not mean to say, I never have said, that I thought the Convention was perfect, or nearly perfect, but it was a step in the right direction. I would, therefore, prefer to see whether you cannot so amend that Convention as to make it a practical proposal on which agreement can be reached.
I am about to say something of the Germans, and I wish to preface it by saying that I was much flattered by the quotation from observations of mine made by the Foreign Secretary—a quotation which he made, oddly enough, for the second time, and I am very grateful to him for quoting me. I adhere to everything I said then and which he quoted. I think that the conduct of the Germans in withdrawing from the Conference, whatever may be said about their grievance, was a most unfortunate step and can only be explained, as it was explained by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, by the curious infelicity in diplomatic negotiations which the German Government has always shown. I think it was a most deplorable step. Nevertheless, I cannot help wondering whether an agreement is not possible all the same. I think it is.
I was shown yesterday a document which I am going, if your Lordships will so far permit me, to read to the House. It is the translation of a statement that has appeared in a French newspaper, and it purports to be a copy of the official Note sent by the German Foreign Minister in reply to a proposed Anglo-Franco-American Convention. The notice is dated October 6. I have sent my noble friend (Viscount Hailsham) a copy of this document. I will not read anything which is not in that document. This document

103
may be an entire illusion. I do not know. I am going to ask my noble friend whether he can help me about it. This is the document:
"(1) The German Government is willing to accept, as a basis, the British plan."
One of the questions I want to ask my noble friend is, supposing this document to be a genuine document and not a mere illusion, what is meant by the British plan?
"It considers reasonable the proposal for a Convention to be signed for a period of five years, as laid down in the above-mentioned plan. But it is impossible for the German Government to accept the proposal relative to a trial period. The German Government has no objection to the proposed disarmament being effected by stages, for practical reasons relative to the disposal of material. It would be possible to fix the period of the first stage for two years after signature, and that of the second stage for three years after the expiry of the first. The German Government will be forced to claim that the principle of equality of rights be applied as soon as the first stage shall be put into force.
(2) Germany is prepared, as proof of her desire for conciliation, to undertake to change the Reichswehr into an army made up of short-term recruits. The Government of the Reich is, however, unable to give precise indication with regard to the quality and quantity of material required by this new army until the actual conditions laid down in the Convention regarding material are known."
"(3) The British plan deals with three distinct categories of land weapons:—

(1) Arms to be absolutely prohibited in the future:

(2) arms to be limited quantitatively:

(3) arms to be authorised to the Powers without any limitations whatsoever.

With regard to the first category, Germany is prepared to accept any prohibition of any weapon whatever, provided that this prohibition be applied generally. Further, Germany is prepared to give up all kinds of weapons owned at the present time by the armed nations on condition

(1) that these nations undertake to destroy these weapons in a given period, which should not exceed the period of the Convention:

(2) that the use of these weapons be prohibited in the future."

That is a little obscure, but according to my reading—I may be wrong—it means that if the other nations will agree to give up at the end of five years certain weapons then the Germans will not ask for them. They will not ask to be allowed to have weapons which are ultimately going to be destroyed.
104
The document goes on:
"The German Government wishes to be informed as soon as possible exactly what weapons the interested Powers propose to prohibit and destroy."
"With regard to the second category that is those to be kept to some extent—
"it is estimated, according to the British plan, that certain kinds of weapons will be limited qualitatively and quantitatively. The Government of the Reich is anxious to know as soon as possible how these weapons will be defined, and what will be the quantitative limits imposed. By the application of the principle of equality of rights, Germany should be authorised from the beginning of the application of the Convention to possess certain kinds of weapons which the other Powers will be authorised to keep in specified numbers. The only point remaining for discussion is the exact number of weapons in this category to be allowed to Germany.
"(4) With regard to the third category (weapons to be limited neither quantitatively nor qualitatively) the Government of the Reich estimates that there will be no question of any limitation for Germany so long as no limitation is laid down for the other Powers."
The document goes on to elaborate that a little and I do not think I need read the rest.
Your Lordships will observe that according to that statement, if it was really made, the Germans accepted the principle of short service. They accepted disarmament by stages, by periods which do not seem on the face of them very unreasonable—that is to say, a total period of five years divided into two sub-periods of two years and three years. They accepted the general prohibition of weapons, and, if I am right in my reading, they said that they would not ask for any which are to be abolished within the five years. I put aside, for the satisfaction of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the discussion as to whether these were offensive or defensive weapons. That does not really arise in this way of looking at it. It was a question of reaching some step of equality with Germany irrespective of the question of offensive or defensive weapons. I must say to safeguard myself that I do not accept the view that it is impossible to make any such distinction in practice. That is what they accepted. Then they demanded the right to have those weapons which were ultimately to be kept. That is to say, if the other Powers said that they propose to keep tanks under sixteen tons—there was something

105
I think, of that kind in the first British plan—the Germans said: "If you are going to keep them always, then we ought to be allowed to have them immediately." I think the answer to the German difficulty is to say that we do not propose to keep them. That is the proper answer, and if that is so the Germans would have said that they did not want them.
Then comes the demand for complete freedom as to other arms. I do not know what are the exact technical difficulties, but that seems to me a matter of minor importance. It does seem to me, having made that demand, and baying had no official reply—or at least no reply from the Conference—the conduct of Germany in withdrawing is still more extraordinary. On the face of it it looks as if there were reasonable prospect of agreement being reached on some such terms. I should be very grateful to my noble and learned friend if he is in a position to tell me whether there is any truth in that statement. It comes from a respectable French newspaper and it appears to be a translation of a definite official document. I shall be grateful to him if he can tell me what is the British plan referred to, and whether any official reply was sent to this German document. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby in his Motion for Papers will include a Motion that the Papers shall be laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House. I do not know what the British plan was, and it is impossible to know how far the Germans came, but obviously there are some conditions which will necessarily have to be made to any acceptance of the German plan. There must be provision for the control of armaments, for supervision of disarmament, and there must be, I think, provision as to what is to happen to a country which, after accepting definite limitation of armaments, proceeded to break that acceptance and to rearm. Those things would have to be dealt with, but I cannot help feeling that there does seem to be some basis of discussion, and I shall be intensely grateful if my noble and learned friend in his reply can give us any hope that that kind of discussion is still open.
If I might venture to do so I would say that what I conceive to be the kind of proposal which might be serviceable
106
would be that, when the General Commission meets again, there should be an amendment to the British draft plan proposed on the kind of lines which I have described in reading the German Note. The British Government should lay that down as what they propose. I know that it is said: "Well, we cannot do anything without consulting this or that Power and we must be guided by whether they are favourable or not." I ask your Lordships whether that is a reasonable position in which to put the Powers you are consulting. They are asked in private to come forward and sponsor definite proposals which will almost certainly be violently criticised by a section of their own public opinion. It is not doing them any service. It is far better that the proposal should be put forward as the brutal British proposals. No doubt there would be a certain amount of criticism of the British Government, but that would not break our bones. It is not so difficult to give way to proposals made and supported by a great mass of international opinion as it is for Governments to agree from the first with proposals which will get them into trouble with their supporters.
I do not much believe in private talks, but let the Government have them if they think them useful. They should, however, put these proposals forward on their own responsibility. They should put forward an amended British plan and then the Conference should go through it, as we go through a Bill in this House, and vote. I do not believe in the doctrine that the Conference should not vote. I believe that in the end you would have a Convention approved by an overwhelming majority of those represented at the Conference, because I believe the overwhelming majority are passionately anxious to get something done. You would get it and go to the full Conference and say: "Here is a document which has been approved by the General Commission by an immense majority." Is there anybody who is going to take the responsibility of destroying that document by refusing assent? It may be there would be some, but better we should know it if there is. I think that probably nobody would take that responsibility.
When you have this document, either at that or an earlier stage, you would say to the Germans: "Here is a proposal and

107
we should be glad of your observations. We should have been glad of your assistance, but we can only present to you what we suggest and we should like to know what you think of it." It may be said that that would be humiliating to us. I do not think so. There was a big meeting I attended at Geneva just before I came back and a French speaker, M. Pichot, representing the ex-combatants—there are two big societies, one called F.I.D.A.C. and the other C.I.A.M.A.C., and it was one or other of those two—speaking as a man who had been wounded in the War, urged this very procedure. "Do not give it to the Germans," he said, "as an ultimatum, but ask them for their assistance. When you have made your document, ask for their consideration of it, because I think that is the best way of reaching agreement." If the Germans accepted it you would get what you wanted; if they rejected it, and rejected it unreasonably, I agree there would have to be a consultation of the Council of the League to see what could be done. I shall not anticipate what the results of that would be in this matter. I am delighted to find I have the unexpected support of Mr. Winston Churchill, who apparently thinks that this is the moment when the League of Nations could operate with immense effect. Whatever you do I am sure you cannot hope to succeed unless you have presented beforehand to the German Government a treaty which is reasonable and fair and will take full and reasonable account of their objections, and which is also reasonable and fair to the French and will take full account of their objections. I see no impossibility about meeting one or the other, and I earnestly hope that the policy of the Government will be something like that.
It is absurd for me to say to your Lordships, who are as well aware of it as I am, that this crisis is of an immensely serious character. We have to face not only in this country, where it is not very powerful, but in other countries, a determined attack on the whole organisation of peace. If there is to be a complete failure and we have to admit that our organisation of peace, whether of the League of Nations or whatever it may be, has failed, there will be a serious set-back to the whole scheme and spirit of that organisation. I do not know what the consequences may be, but they will be in my
108
Judgment extremely serious and as far as I can see, it means, without question or doubt, that if this plan of organising and protecting peace has to be abandoned, sooner or later, and I am afraid not very late, we shall come again to the terrible consequence of war and the absolutely catastrophic results which war must have on the civilisation of the world. I do not believe that will happen, but unless the Government are really going to put the whole of their strength into this question and not allow minor considerations—no doubt of value, but not of the first importance, of a technical or other character of that kind—to hamper them, to cause a want of vigour or determination in their conduct of the case, I am very much afraid the chances of success are extremely remote. Even now, though it is rather late, if the Government put their whole strength into this, backed up, as they will be, by the whole of the Dominions of the Commonwealth in the great efforts to secure disarmament, I believe they will succeed, and I am sure it is only a moderate statement of the truth that the country is watching with the deepest anxiety what may be the outcome of the present state of things.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, whatever differences of opinion there may be in regard to the Motion upon the Paper there seems to be general agreement that the House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for initiating this debate. No one is more qualified than he to initiate a debate on disarmament both by his profound knowledge of the subject and by his record of public life for nearly thirty years. The last two speeches showed considerable divergence of opinion in regard to whether the Government had or had not given a lead at the Disarmament Conference. The noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party was of opinion that a lead had been given, although I gather it was not so much at the Disarmament Conference—
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I referred to the Draft Convention.
LORD ARNOLD: The Draft Convention was simply the odds and ends left over and was put forward at least a year too late, and prior to that the Government had given no lead. They had been turning down proposal after proposal—that

109
the history of the first twelve months of the Conference—culminating in the farcical alternative proposal to the United States. How is it possible in those circumstances to say that any lead worthy of the name has been given at Geneva? The country does not think it has been given. It did not think so at East Fulham, or Kilmarnock, where the majority came (town by 9,000, and evidently they do not think so at Skipton, where the Government vote is down by 10,000. We are faced by grave times. I do not think there is immediate danger of war, but it is the tendency of these times which matters and nothing will apparently shake the complacency of the Government. Whoever is to blame, they have done nothing wrong—Hitler is to blame and ought not to have left the Conference, but Hitlerism has been produced because for years the Treaty of Versailles has not been carried out. I believe that if we had been in the position of Germany and things had dragged on so long we would have left the League of Nations.
The question of the lead Britain has given in Disarmament is one which should be carefully examined. The Government case put yesterday by the Foreign Secretary is that, comparing the destroyers, and the capital ships with those of 1914, there has been a considerable reduction and, comparing am numbers of the Army there has been a reduction, but the Foreign Secretary skipped lightly over the Air Force. What is the total result? The Val expenditure on armaments in this country in 1914 just before the War began—and it was not low then ill view of the unsettled state of Europe—was about £80,000,000. In the current year it is practically £109,000,000. Where is disarmament on a big scale? Making an allowance for the change in price level it comes to pretty much the same figure now as before the War.
LORD MOTTISTONE: What about the armaments of other nations?
LORD ARNOLD: If the noble Lord will allow me, I will make my speech in my own way. He ought to know that it is not possible for a speaker to say everything all at once. I say, looking at those figures, that there has been no disarmament on a big scale at all. Obviously there has not. We are spending practically as much, even allowing for
110
the change in the value of money, as in 1914. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made a speech not long ago in which he said we could not possibly do anything more, and that we had already done more than anybody else. That may be true, but it does not alter the fact that we have not carried out the pledges which we gave in the Treaty of Versailles.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Does the noble Lord say that we have not carried out the pledges given at Versailles? I was present at the signing of the Treaty, and at all the Conferences, and I say that that is absolutely untrue. Every pledge that we have given we have carried out to the full.
LORD ARNOLD: I am very much surprised to hear the noble Lord make that statement, because taking the words of the Treaty of Versailles I do not think the statement can possibly be substantiated. We entered, for instance, into the Covenant of the League of Nations, and we have not carried it out. The fact remains. No doubt our record is better than the record of France in regard to disarmament. France has increased her armaments enormously since the Treaty of Locarno, although then undertaking that disarmament should follow. Disarmament has not followed. The noble Viscount or the Foreign Secretary has stated that we have disarmed to the edge of risk. What risk? Against whom do we want armaments at this moment? Is it against Germany? Germany is supposed to be disarmed. Are we to be armed against France, our pre-war Ally? Is it Italy, or Japan, from whom we are separated by I do not know how many thousands of miles of sea? Is it the United States? What is the risk in carrying disarmament even further than it has been carried by this country? I am prepared to agree that compared with other countries our record is the best, but it is the fact that neither in the spirit nor in the letter have the Treaties of Versailles and Locarno been carried out.
Why, even in the current year there has been an increase of armaments in this country. There is an increased armament budget of £4,500,000 this year, while the Government are preaching economy, and the social services are being starved and the Sinking Fund is suspended to reduce the tax on beer, in order to make a present to the brewers. Let us get the

111
facts about these things. The Government are very sensitive on this point of disarmament, in view of the by-elections, and complain that it is unfair to say that they are not as keen about disarmament as other Parties. It is not what the country thinks. What did the noble Marquess say? He said that our expenditure on armaments was a good insurance, and that if a bigger premium were wanted we would willingly pay it. That is not the talk of a man who is keen on disarmament, and it is this kind of thing which has led to great disquietude in the minds of a great many people in the country. That cannot be denied.
The general situation in Europe is that statesmen will do everything for disarmament except do it. They will talk about it, go to Geneva, write about it, confer about it, and perorate about it, but they will not do it. And yet the peoples want disarmament, and statesmen are pledged to carry it out, and now, fifteen years after the War, it has not been done. Statesmen will take no real risk for peace and that is the trouble. France will not take any risk for peace, none whatever, and I do not agree that we ourselves are taking anything which can be called a real risk for peace. It is an exaggeration of language to use those words. Unless a halt is called there will be nothing before us ere long but a renewal of the race for armaments, and war will come, sooner or later.
There is one, as I consider, very fundamental matter in regard to the present situation, which so far has not been discussed in this House nor yesterday in another place, and it has a very direct bearing upon the whole question of disarmament, and of war in the future. The whole character of warfare for the future is changed owing to the development of aerial warfare. That cannot be denied. The old idea that you could preserve the peace and ensure security by preparing for war, has now gone, because of the development of aerial warfare. The position is that there is no effective defence against aerial attack at the present time, and I think that that is a matter which all Governments and all peoples ought to face. It is vitally necessary to realise the change which has come about. It is the heart and centre of the whole business, and Lord Rothermere is calling for 5,000 aeroplanes, but that will not help you
112
materially. I see Lord Halsbury sitting in his place, and he made a speech in 1928 to which I listened attentively, and which I have read several times since. That is a compliment which I pay to very few speeches, whether made in this House or outside. It was a most weighty speech. The noble Earl has had experience, owing to his work in the late War, and subsequent study and investigation of this matter, and he has pointed out the tremendous peril to London which would unquestionably arise in the case of another war. He has even gone so far as to say that if conditions were sufficiently favourable, forty tons of gas would be sufficient to decimate the whole population of London. Forty tons of poisonous gas is nothing compared to what will happen in the next war. It would be a mere bagatelle. He finished up his speech by saying that any expert would agree with this, that London is at the mercy of any nation that is close enough and evilly disposed enough to come and obliterate it. London could be absolutely and completely obliterated. There is no secret about these things.
I would like to commend to your Lordships' attention a book called "The Character of the next War," issued by the Inter-Parliamentary Union of Geneva. It has been described as the most terrible book ever written. It is a very terrible book. That book makes it perfectly clear that as things stand at present there is no effective defence against aerial attack, particularly in any gigantic town like London. We have here collected in one area nearly one-fourth of the population of Great Britain; nearly as many as are living in the whole of Canada, and one and a-half times as many as are in the whole of Australia—all herded together in one not very big area. What are you going to do about it? Your 5,000 aeroplanes will not help you. There is no effective defence. Professor Noel Baker, one of our very great international authorities, in this book says that under present conditions there are no means of defence against such attacks. In the English manœuvres not very long ago 250 aeroplanes converged on the capital. Only sixteen of them were discovered by the searchlights. There is no guarantee whatever that those sixteen would be shot down. The other 234 were free to roam at, will over the whole ext

113
of London. There is no secret about these things.
The question is what are you going to do about it? It is no good having a big Air Force, or a big Navy—how will the Navy help you against that sort of thing? It is no use having a big Army; how will it help you? There has been a complete change in the situation. The fact is that civilisation has now got to the stage when it can pretty easily destroy itself. That is what it has come to. I suppose that is what Mr. Baldwin meant in a recent speech when he said that the next war, as far as he could judge, would be the end of civilisation as we know it. When you have got to that stage there is only one thing to do, and that is to disarm—to get agreement to disarm if possible. Do not mobilise these terrible instruments which have the power to desolate the whole population of London with a not very large number of tons of poison gas. And it is not only London, but other big towns as well. With the increased power and range of aeroplanes no great city in Great Britain will be safe. It may be said, Cannot we retaliate? Of course we can if we have enough aeroplanes, but what is the good of that? What, satisfaction, what advantage would it be to us, if London has been decimated, to go and do the same to cities on the Continent? It does not really help you. No, the situation has now become so appalling that if humanity is to be saved it must come to some agreement with regard to disarmament, or somehow disarmament must be brought about.
What is to be done? As the noble Viscount has just pointed out, Sir John Simon is going back to Geneva to carry on apparently in pretty much the same way as he has carried on before. That has meant failure hitherto, and I am not hopeful of any better result, certainly if the matter is to be in the hands of Sir John Simon. There again, it is a pity that the Government do not realise what a great many people in the country think about their Foreign Secretary. This is too serious to be burked. I consider that Sir John Simon is the worst Foreign Secretary this country has had for fifty years, and I could wish very much that if these matters are to be carried on again at Geneva somebody else should go as Foreign Secretary. He never ought to have been put at the Foreign Office.
114
He scarcely possesses one of the essentials that a British Foreign Secretary should have. He was only put in there as a makeshift in this so-called National Government. They had to do something for him, and he was put in there as a. sort of balance, as part of the penalty that had to be paid for this log-rolling, this so-called National Government.
A great deal has been said in the course of the debate, and Sir John Simon said the same thing yesterday—in that sense I agree with him—to the fact that there is much power in the moral factor. The noble Marquess said it. Very well, I go so far as to say this. Let Great Britain do all she can to bring other nations into agreement with regard to disarmament. Failing that, I personally shall he prepared to suggest that we disarm ourselves—disarmament by example. I believe, if you did that, you would set the way which other nations would follow. Herr Hitler has said he is prepared to go down to the last machine-gun if other countries trill do the same. Russia has made that offer too. If we cannot get agreement I shall be prepared that we ourselves should rim the risk, whatever the risk may be. It is not a big risk, because you cannot have any security whatever in regard to the air. I think it is the lesser risk of the two. I do not believe that if you did that you would be in danger yourselves. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said in a previous debate, if Great Britain did that I do not believe that Germany or anybody else could mobilise sufficiently to attack us; they would not have the moral factor behind them among their own people. I do not believe that the thing can be done.
Before I sit down I want to say one or two words about another matter which has not been mentioned in this debate to-day, but which figured largely in the discussions in another place yesterday. I mean the Treaty of Locarno. I am not going to discuss the Treaty of Locarno to-day. I am not going to consider how far the recent happenings have invalidated Locarno. What I do say is this, that as disarmament in effect was a part of the Locarno Treaty, if it could have been forseen that that disarmament was not going to take place and that France, so far from disarming, was going considerably to increase her armaments; and if it could have been foreseen that Ger-

115
many would leave the League of Nations, as I am afraid she may do, I do not believe the Treaty of Locarno would ever have been signed. However that may be, I feel that these are days for plain speaking, otherwise we arrive nowhere. And I do protest against members of the Government, Mr. Baldwin and others, going about with their hands on their hearts and saying: "Of course we shall keep our word; our word is our bond," and so forth. Your Lordships know as well as I do that all countries make treaties, and all countries break treaties. If it suits them to keep treaties they keep them; if it does not suit them to keep them, they do not. If our word is our bond, what about the Kellogg Pact, what about various clauses of the Treaty of Versailles'? Treaties have their place in international relations, but do not let us make ourselves ridiculous by going about and saying that we always keep our treaties. Because, as a matter of fact, we do not. It is not historically true.
My own view, reading between the lines of what Sir John Simon said yesterday, is that if Germany does go out of the League of Nations Locarno is absolutely dead. In any case according to him it amounts to practically nothing. The French have never taken it as amounting to anything whatever, as far as we can see. There is not the slightest indication that France has refrained from adding one extra gun on account of Locarno. There are many opinions in the country about Locarno. I am not suggesting for a moment that this Government favour war or would willingly go to war. Of course they would not. No Government would do that. It is a question of their policy, and of the tendency of their policy. But I do tell the Government that if, later on, it comes to another war, they are not going to have the British people mobilised behind them en masse, as they did in the last war. That will not happen. I was reading not very long ago in a paper very far removed from pacifism words to the effect that, Locarno or no Locarno, British Government or no British Government, the British people would not consent to have an army sent abroad to fight on the Continent again. If that kind of thing is appearing in papers favourable to the Government, it shows it is going to be a very difficult thing to mobilise the
116
British people again for war on the Continent of Europe.
I am quite aware that those of us who speak as I have done, those of us who are pacifists, are open to attack—not that I think it is justified—and we are also open to something stronger, abuse and so on. But I do hope, as Lord Ponsonby said to-day, we are not going to have those cheap jibes which not infrequently fall from the Treasury Bench on such occasions. Times are too serious to allow of that. Let us have the matter thoroughly discussed. We have our case. We utter a protest against the emphatic protestations of those who take the view that it is only by arming up to the hilt that we can keep the peace. We deny that. But if there are to be these dogmatic assertions, we pacifists also can enter the ring. We are in a very strong position. There are a few things we can say. We may be pacifists so far as warfare is concerned, but we are not pacifists in debate. We are quite prepared to hit back, and lay down our own propositions, and before I sit down I shall lay down six, all of which I believe to be incontrovertible.
The first is that the undertakings regarding disarmament given at Versailles and Locarno have not been carried out. The second is that people everywhere want disarmament, and it is the duty of statesmen to give effect to the pledges which have been given and to effect disarmament. The third is that all attempts to limit warfare by what is called qualitative disarmament will fail in the future as they have failed in the past. The fourth proposition is that there is no effective defence against air attacks, and that the next war is likely to inflict the most appalling destruction on civilian populations, to say nothing of damage to houses and property. Fifthly, it cannot be disputed that another war would not settle anything, but would inflict nearly as much harm upon the victors as upon the vanquished. My last proposition is this, that the only sure safeguard for civilisation, having regard to the position which has now developed, lies in universal disarmament, and that any risk involved in Great Britain alone giving a lead in that direction is less than the risk involved in any other course. If we cannot get agree went, let Great Britain do that. It

117
be the right course, and in the end I believe it will prove to be the safest course.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for intervening at the present stage because I know there are some of your Lordships who have not yet spoken and whom we shall look forward to hearing a little later on, but one or two points have been made, notably by my noble and learned friend Lord Cecil, which I think require answering publicly at a time when they can reach the public, and therefore have felt it desirable in the, general interest that I should say what I have to say at this stage. I would like to preface my remarks by observing how profoundly I share the regret which my noble friend Lord Peel expressed earlier in the clay that there is no representative of the Foreign Office here to answer for the Government. It is quite true of course that as a Cabinet Minister I know the minds of my colleagues and I share responsibility for Government policy. But nobody knows better than my noble friend Lord Cecil how different it is for the Minister who is actually in charge of the Department to speak on any particular topic compared with a colleague who may be fully informed as to the policy which it is decided to pursue, but who may not fully appreciate the repercussions of all that he says on collateral matters, which perhaps are not so present in his mind as in the mind of the Foreign Secretary. However, I shall do the best I can to deal with the criticisms that have been put forward.
To begin with, I should like to accept, what I think everybody in this House has stated, that there is no difference between the Parties in general, not merely in their desire, but in their burning anxiety for the preservation of peace. That was very powerfully stated by the noble and learned Marquess who leads the Liberal Party, and it is, in fact, axiomatic in the policy of every Party. If I make any complaint against the Socialist Party opposite it is not that I suppose that they believe anything different from what I have just said, that they do not fully believe and know that we are as anxious as they are for peace, but, I do complain that they use language in the country which is calculated to give
118
the opposite impression, and that they endeavour to use the real desire for peace which people of all Parties share as a Party weapon by misrepresenting the Government as being in favour of war. The noble Lord who introduced the debate began by stating that there had grown up in this country a general distrust of the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to disarmament, and the noble Lord who spoke last, and who indulged in what he called plain speaking but which some other people might call personal abuse, vaunted himself on the fact that the by-elections to which he referred showed that the general distrust had taken root in the minds of people outside. No doubt it is I rue that it has been the constant anxiety and effort of the Socialist Party in recent months to create such a general distrust, but I cannot think that in doing that they are serving the cause of disarmament or the cause of peace.
But I do not want this evening to deal with the matters which have been discussed on any sort of Party lines. I feel bound to register that protest, however. I do not intend, if my noble friend Lord Cecil wilt forgive me, to enter afresh into controversy with him as to the conduct of the Government in February, 1932, and as to whether we ought to have brought forward specific proposals, different from those of the Preparatory Convention which was prepared by the Committee over which my noble friend presided—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No, no. I did not preside, I was a, member.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM:—the Committee of which my noble friend was a very prominent member; or whether it was possible to persuade France, for instance, to abandon submarines, or Japan or the United States to abandon battleships eighteen months ago. All I can say is that if my noble friend has information which leads him to think that was possible, it is information that has not reached me. I rather prefer to deal with the present situation which is, after all, the matter which is most important, from the point of view not merely of this country but of the peace of the world as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, complained that there had been a lack of leadership on the part of Great Britain, and he said that the world was

119
waiting for a bold lead from this country. I waited, and I am sure all your Lordships waited, with anxiety to hear a suggestion as to what direction that lead should take, because we at any rate in the National Government are anxious to get the most useful suggestions, no matter from what unlikely quarter they may emanate. But when I get his suggestions I confess—I hope he will forgive me for saying it—I did not find they were very helpful.
He told us that there were four possible courses, of which the third was to go on along the old lines working on the British Draft, and that was a plan which he thought was no good. It incidentally happens to be the plan which, if I understood him aright, the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, thought was the only promising one. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, preferred the fourth plan, to follow up what he called the policy of his Party, and the policy of his Party consisted, in part, of strengthening the League of Nations and of bringing Soviet Russia and the United States of America into the League. He will forgive me for saying that these are not statements of policy, but an aspiration. We should all like to see the League of Nations strengthened. We should all rejoice to see the nations which have at present stayed outside coming into it. But it is not a Party policy or a policy of a Party in this country to make the United States or Soviet Russia come into the League. We can hope they will. We can encourage them if they show any desire to do it. We can welcome them if they do come. But those are aspirations which, I suppose, we all share, but which, unfortunately, at present do not look very likely to be fulfilled.
Then he went on to propose what undoubtedly was a definite policy. He proposed that the United Kingdom should go to Geneva and should there invite all the nations to reduce their arms to the scale which was permitted to Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. I think I am correctly quoting what he desired. That, no doubt, is a very heroic gesture, but what the Government desire to do is to achieve agreement at Geneva and I wonder whether there is a single member of this House, or a single person who has studied contemporary politics in either House, who seriously believes that that
120
proposal has the remotest chance of acceptance, or that the effect of it could possibly be to produce agreement at Geneva. Does anybody suppose that if we were to invite France to-day to disarm to the extent to which Germany is now disarmed, she would do it? Does anybody expect that if we invited Japan to disarm to the extent which Germany is now disarmed and to discard those weapons which Germany is not at present permitted to have under the Treaty of Versailles, she would do it? Does anybody suppose the United States would do it? I mention only three Powers, not because they are particularly aggressive Powers, but because they happen to be three of the greatest Powers. Does anybody suppose for that matter that Italy would do it?
It is a wholly unpractical and useless policy to go and put forward as the British proposal at Geneva something which we know in advance must be rejected by all those whose assent is essential if we are to produce any form of Convention at all. Therefore this much-vaunted plan really is a counsel of despair, and certainly it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government, and I do not believe it ever would be the policy of any responsible Government if it once had to face the responsibility of dealing with facts instead of making debating points. But because that policy is hopeless, I hope nobody imagines that it is hopeless to try and do anything. My noble friend Lord Cecil put forward a different suggestion. He began by reading a document which he was good enough to send to me three or four hours ago and about which he then informed me he was intending to ask some questions. I have not had it very long.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I ought to apologise to my noble friend for not having sent it earlier, but it really was not possible for me to do so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was not making a complaint but only an explanation. I have not had long to investigate it, but I have communicated with the Foreign Office. I can assure my noble friend that the document is a document which we saw for the first time when he sent me a copy. It purports to be an official Note sent by Herr von Neurath in reply to a proposed Anglo-France American Convention. There is

121
Anglo-Franco-American Convention, and there has been no Note delivered to the British Government by the German Government on anything like these lines. But what embarrasses me a little, because I have to take rather a difficult position, is that if I left it at that I should certainly convey a misleading impression to the House. We have never seen this document, we have never heard of this document, and we have no knowledge that any such document existed, and as a Note to this Government I do not believe it does exist, but it is perfectly true that during the months from June to the 14th October there were proceeding constant conversations between this country, the United States, Italy, France and Germany. There were negotiations and discussions which were arranged to take place when the Conference adjourned in July, and which everybody desired should take place, in order to see how far it was possible to reach complete agreement upon what was called the British plan, the British Convention which we put forward in March of this year, and what modifications, if any, might be suggested or accepted by other parties.
In the course of those negotiations it is perfectly true that at one period there was a suggestion made by one of the other Governments that a modification, which would not affect the essential features of the Draft Convention, would be for the Convention to be longer in its period than was originally suggested. Five years was the period in our Convention, and it was suggested that might be lengthened perhaps to eight years, and that the eight years period should be divided up into two parts; that during the first part there should take place a transformation of the continental long service, or comparatively long service, armies into a shorter service, into what has sometimes been described as a militia basis; that during that first part certain categories of weapons should be no longer manufactured, and that during the second part of the eight years period certain weapons, which at present existed, should be destroyed, and that quantities of other weapons which were still allowed to exist should be reduced to named figures which could be stipulated in the plan. It was also suggested that, as soon as the Convention was signed—that is to say, at the beginning
122
of the first period—there should be set up a Supervisory Commission charged with the duty of seeing that each country was carrying out its obligations under the Convention. That is to say, that during the first period there were no weapons being manufactured of the prohibited character, and during the second period, that the proper destruction was taking place and the proper limits were being observed.
That was a plan which was discussed and with regard to which the Germans raised the difficulty that they were placed in a position of inequality during the early period because other members would have weapons which were denied to them, and a suggestion was made by the Germans that they ought to be given samples of the weapons which would ultimately be permitted and common to all the signatory Powers as a token of equality. The Foreign Secretary asked the German Government to communicate to him what they meant exactly by samples, in order that he might consider that-suggestion, and in October last—it was in fact, I think, on October 6, which I see was the date of this document—the representative of Germany in this country came to the Foreign Secretary and made a communication from his Government. The communication was not identically in the words of this document, but the document looks so much like the communication that it is at least possible that this document represents the instructions which were given by the German Government to their Ambassador in this country. I have no sort of idea, if that be the case, how it ever reached any newspaper, however reputable, but that is a possible solution of the genesis of this document which the noble Viscount has read to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I ask for an explanation of one point? Did the noble and learned Viscount say that the Supervisory Commission was to come into operation at the beginning of the first period or of the second period?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: At the beginning of the first period. That has always been the plan. The noble Marquess will remember that that was made explicitly plain at Geneva when the purport of these conversations was reported by Sir John Simon to the Conference. It appears in the White Paper which has

123
been published containing the proceedings of the Bureau of the Disarmament Conference on October 14 when the President, Mr. Henderson, requested the Foreign Secretary to make a statement with reference to the conversations which bad taken place between the United Kingdom, French, German, Italian and United States delegations. In response to that invitation Sir John Simon gave an account of the conversations. This is what he said:
"The scheme, therefore, which emerged for consideration, as the result of a number of these interviews, was one in which the proposed period of eight years would begin with the transformation of Continental armies on the lines set out in the British Draft, together with the setting up, through the medium of the Permanent Disarmament Commission of an adequate system of supervision—"
so it is quite clear that it was to be from the beginning.
Sir John Simon went on:
"so that the sense of security, which the due observance of the Convention will afford, should provide the groundwork for the practical attainment of the twin ideas of disarmament and equality. Mr. Henderson has suggested that the Permanent Disarmament Commission might be set up as soon as the Convention is signed without waiting for ratification."
So it was suggested that it should be set up even before the first period—
"If this suggestion is found feasible it ought to be welcomed for it aims at shortening the period when actual disarmament and attained equality would be effectively reached. It is understood on all hands that the supervision contemplated would be of general application."
Then the statement goes on to discuss other matters. I have read that passage because I think it is important to point out that from the very first time when these conversations were made public it was made perfectly clear that the setting up of a Commission charged with supervisory duties was to take place at the very inception of the whole plan—and even before, if possible. At any rate it was to operate from the very beginning of the first period without waiting for the commencement of the second period, and the Commission so set up was to be charged with supervisory duties over the performance of their obligations by every nation and was not, of course, aimed at any one in particular.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount
124
will forgive me for interrupting. It is rather an important matter. I have followed the words he quoted from the document dated October 14. Are we to understand that this was Jrafted subsequent to the receipt by the Foreign Office of some document which resembles that which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has read out?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No. I am sorry if I gave that impression. This is not something that was drafted. This is a speech delivered on October 14. Of course the speech was delivered after the interview of October 6. That interview conveyed certain communications from Germany to this country, but no document resembling in any way the document which my noble friend Viscount Cecil read was handed to us at any time. We have never seen that document or anything like it, but we had on October 6 a conversation at which a communication was made not dissimilar in outline to the proposals contained in this document.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I understand the noble and learned Viscount to say that the German representative—I do not know whether the Charge d'Affaires or the Ambassador himself—called at the Foreign Office on October 6, or some date about that time, and made a communication.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: One knows that such communications, not always but often, take the form of reading from a document a message which the foreign representative has received. It may be that the German representative read from this document, or something like it. Normally—I do not think there is any secret about it—the Foreign Secretary or whoever receives the communication makes a Minute of the communication and embodies it in a Despatch to the British representative abroad, at Berlin in this case. That Despatch is no doubt in existence. I would like to suggest, if it does not conflict with any public interest, that it would be very desirable that that Despatch should be laid on the Table.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That is a matter on which, of necessity, I must consult the Foreign Office. I cannot express any opinion on that now. All I

125
can say is that no document was handed in and no aide memoire left. I have not checked everything in this document to make sure that it is identical with the conversation, but I have no doubt that it is so substantially. I do not think that. I am being indiscreet if I go so far as to say that there were two points which struck the Foreign Secretary at once with regard to this document. The first point was That, whereas the discussions which road taken place with Baron von Neurath referred to the question of Germany having samples and the request we made, to which we were waiting for an answer—and other nations too were waiting for an answer—was to be told what exactly was meant by samples, this communication contained no reference to samples. It, in fact, proposed that Germany should have the right to rearm at once.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Subject to a discussion as to numbers.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Subject to a discussion as to numbers for each of the signatory Powers, but that there should be rearming by Germany without any—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: am very sorry to interrupt, but this is really a matter of some importance and I do not want any mistake. I may have misread it, but I understand the document to say: "I f you, the other Powers, are going to keep certain arms then we ought to have them because you can only keep them on the ground that they are defensive. If that is so, then we ought to have some of these arms, but we can see that the question will still be open to discussion, how many we ought to have."
VISCOUNT HALLSHAM: I am not sure we are much at variance except that, it having been stated by Germany that "We must have samples of the kind which are ultimately to be allowed to everybody" and the question being put as to "What do you mean by samples?" the answer is that "From the very beginning we must have equality" which, I think, means: "We will not be content with a sample; but we must have rearmament on the kind of scale we are to receive when the Convention is signed." The other observation which struck the Foreign Secretary very much was that, all through, the British conception, both
126
in December, 1932, when Germany was invited back to the Disarmament Conference, and in the Draft Convention of March, 1032, was an equality of status within a framework of security and, so far as we were able to ascertain, there was nothing at all about any sort of security in the proposals which were made.
VISCONT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That depends on what is meant by the British plan.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Again I am only speculating because I am speaking about a conversation, but I imagine this document means the Draft Convention because it begins by saying:
"The German Government is willing to accept as a basis the British plan. It considers reasonable the proposal for a Convention to be signed for a period of five years as laid down in the above-mentioned plan."
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I must apologise, and this shall be my last interruption. Whatever plan it refers to, if I understand the document, it does not: quarrel with anything except those points dealt with it says they agree to accept the British plan as a basis. I suppose it means they would have accepted something in the nature of control.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know and, as I say, the document is new to me. But so far as the conversation is concerned the two points which struck the Foreign Secretary was that samples had disappeared into a claim for complete equality with regard to rearmament and, secondly, that there was no reference in the communication to any question of security, which in our mind has been essential, because we think it is an essential factor in any framework of peace and in effective disarmament. That communication was made on October 6. Again I am in a little embarrassment to know how far I may properly go, but there was a Cabinet Meeting on October 9, as anybody can see who looks at the newspapers, and I do not suppose that it is a wild assumption that that document would have been considered. On October 10 the Foreign Secretary went to Geneva and he had a series of discussions with the various representatives of the Powers who had been engaged in the conversations, including two at least with the German representative

127
—Herr Nadolny, I think it was, at that time—and at one of those conversations I think representatives of other Powers besides Great Britain were present. As a result of the conversations—Herr Nadolny having left Geneva on either the 12th or 13th—Sir John Simon was invited on the 14th to recount to the Bureau the general purport of the conversations, and your Lordships will find, in a statement he made on October 14, the record of the alternative proposals, though they are not really alternatives, but a modification of the British plan which had been the subject of discussion. Obviously he could not properly state what would be the attitude of the different Powers. Their representatives were there and each had an opportunity of making a statement.
Your Lordships will remember the effect of that speech by Sir John Simon. He was followed by Mr. Norman Davis, the representative of the United States, who says that he was glad—I am quoting—
"to be able to confirm Sir John Simon's account of the conversations and to endorse and support the position he had taken up on the important questions of substance before the Bureau for immediate decision."
He went on to say that
"as a result of the frequent and exhaustive conversations he had had during the past few clays with Sir John Simon, they had come to the common conclusions so clearly and forcibly expressed in that statement."
He was followed by the Italian representative, M. di Soragna, who thanked Sir John Simon
"for his very clear and full statement on the present position of the very serious question with which we are dealing."
The Italian representative added:
"We are hopeful and confident that the world may find in this programme, as we do, a positive basis for the subsequent work which has still to be done in achieving the aim to which we all look forward in the same spirit of conciliation and peace."
M. Paul-Boncour, on behalf of France, expressed thanks to Sir John Simon and Mr. Norman Davis, for the frankness of their statements and pointed out
"that the conversations had taken place at the specific invitation of the Bureau and the Chairman."
Baron von Rheinbahen, representing Germany, said he desired to limit his observations to stating that
"the view of the German Government on disarmament is marked by two claims or
128
elements: (a) Real and substantial disarmament, of the highly-armed Powers; and (b) the immediate practical application of equality of status the question of quantity being open for negotiation. In this sense, I have taken note of the very important statement of Sir John Simon and shall report it at once to my Government."
Then the Belgian representative finished up by saying that
"the Belgian delegation unreservedly concurred in the ideas expressed by Sir John Simon and supported by those who had spoken after him."
I cite those passages because I think they show that no one present, after hearing Sir John Simon, suggested that his account was inaccurate or that he did not fairly report the effect of what had happened, and Italy, France and the United States all said that the proposals he had outlined seemed to offer a practical basis for the successful conclusion of a Convention. I have taken a little time over this matter because, the document being a new one, it was important to deal with it as fully as I could. In addition to the interviews to which I have drawn attention the Foreign Secretary saw the German Ambassador on October 10 before he went to Geneva, so that we kept closely in touch with the German Government and were able to exchange views as fully as possible. I think that supplements, but does not vary in any way, the accounts which have already been given of the various discussions which led to the meeting of the Bureau on October 14. At the meeting of the Bureau the German Government contented itself with the statement made by Baron von Rheinbaben. The German representatives had left Geneva one or two days before the meeting and on October 14 the declaration was made that they were not going on with the Disarmament Conference or the League of Nations.
An appeal has been made from various quarters of your Lordships' House that the British Government should not let any false pride intervene in preventing an attempt still to reach a measure of agreement. I can assure the House quite sincerely and with absolute conviction that there can be no question of false or any form of pride in a matter of this importance and of this international gravity. We have throughout been anxious to do all we can to achieve a disarmament agreement. We have set

129
an example of which, in spite of Lord Arnold, we think we have a right to be proud, of the extent to which we were willing unilaterally to disarm, and the extent of the risk which we were prepared to take, in order to try, by the force of example, to persuade other people to accept that disarmament policy which we regard as essential for the permanent peace of the world.
We have striven to achieve success at Geneva. Lord Cecil of Chelwood apparently does not think much of our efforts. He even suggested that the Prime Minister had not shown much appreciation of the importance of Geneva, because he did not often make speeches upon it. The Prime Minister has a good many subjects on which he has to make speeches, lied although I have not a table of the number of speeches that he has made on Geneva, it is certainly the fact that he went himself to Geneva in the early stage of the Conference, within the first few months, and spent a considerable time there, and from my own personal knowledge he laboured most assiduously in endeavouring to find the basis of an agreement which could be acceptable especially to the German and French nations, as well as to the other nations represented. I do not think that this at any rate is an indiscretion, if I say that, to-day, in dis-armament, really the crucial difficulty is the difficulty of reconciling Germany's claim to equality with France's claim to security.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It has always been so.
VINSCOUNT HAILSHAM: I agree, but in recent years it has been a burning question. Unless you can find some way in which Germany's sense of resentment at being placed in a position of inferiority is overcome, and at the same time France is given a feeling of reasonable security that she shall noble the victim of unprovoked aggression in the future, it is hopeless to expect that any real progress can be made towards disarmament. We have been conscious that that has been the crux of the problem. It has been obvious from the first. That has been the principle which directed our labours and we have directed them in conjunction with other nations, and especially perhaps Italy and the United States, who have worked very hard with us in the same direction.
130
We are not going to abandon hope because Germany has left; the Convention or because Germany has given notice to leave the League of Nations. I think it was a very unfortunate mistake for Germany to have made—a mistake in her own interests, though perhaps she say that she is the best judge of them. I think it is also a very great damage to the international peace structure of the world. I think it was a very real mischief that she should have gone out as and when she did, and a very unfortunate decision which she took. She has taken it, but she has still two years before her notice to leave the League becomes effective. Since she has left she has, through the mouths of her Chancellor and her Foreign Minister, protested her desire for peace, and if those speeches are accurately reported she has indicated her willingness to resume conversations with one or other of the great nations, with a view to disarmament. We intend to do everything that in us lies to produce agreement. I cannot say that we are going on exactly as if Germany had not left. I do not know whether that would be possible. My noble friend said: "Try and put in the Draft Convention which appears in this document." I do not think that that would be a very satisfactory method, because I cannot imagine that France, for example, would accept a document with those things in it, and I am not sure that my noble friend himself would think that a document which provided for substantial rearmament for Germany was in the interest of disarmament.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I said so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am pleased that I have rightly interpreted my noble friend's feelings. On the other hand I think it would be a disaster for the Convention to break down, and all that I can usefully say to the House at this moment is that we are at this time conducting conversations with the Powers—I will not say principally affected, because it might be misleading, but with the Powers which have the largest armaments which would have to be regulated or reduced under the Convention, and the Powers who are most difficult to reconcile in their divergent views—as to the most useful and hopeful way in which some measure of agreement may yet be

131
achieved. I do not myself at all throw over as impossible any scheme of qualitative disarmament. I am not suggesting, and I hope I shall not be understood as suggesting, that that is the policy of the Government—that they are only going in for that. I do not want to be understood as ruling out any kind of disarmament which we find will meet with general acceptance, or ruling out any method for reaching disarmament which we find is likely to meet with general acceptance.
I do not think it would help in our efforts to produce a result if we were here and now to proclaim that this or that was the method which we intended to press to a conclusion. When one is actually engaged in discussions with a number of other Powers, who have just as much right to their own views as we have, and are just as anxious to achieve success, I do not think that that is the best way to get your own way or to persuade others to accept your plan. We are discussing with other Powers what is best to be done in a difficult situation. We are most anxious to repair the mischief which we say has been done to the cause of disarmament by what we regard as the mistake made on the 14th October. We are going to labour, as long as we remain the Government of this country, wholeheartedly in the endeavour to bring into operation some scheme which shall solve the great problem of reconciling the need for security, which is quite naturally asked for by some Powers, and the need for equality, quite rightly insisted upon by others, and to reach such a measure of disarmament as will result in the permanence of peace and the avoidance of those horrors of war so graphically described by more than one of your Lordships in the course of this debate.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I do not intend to take up your time for more than a few minutes, but there are one or two matters which I desire to bring forward. I do not think there has ever been a talk about disarmament (and certainly this is no exception) where anybody who has talked has not run away from what he meant by the word "disarmament." The other question they run away from is what they think is going to be the result if they got it. If the noble Viscount wrote a dictionary and I looked up in it the word "disarmament" I think I should see, "See panacea '."
132
But is it going to be a panacea for anything? To begin with, you cannot disarm. It does not matter how much you try, you cannot do it. During the last War two new weapons came into being. One was the aeroplane, the other was poison gas. In the conversations before the Versailles Treaty Marshal Foch pointed out that you cannot disarm in respect of those weapons, short of doing away with every factory both on the chemical and on the aeroplane side. The result is that you cannot disarm in the two weapons which will be the dsciding factors in the next war. What is the good of talking about big guns which were used at the beginning of the last war? They are not going to be used at the beginning of the next. The next war is going to be war in the air and it is going to be war against the civil population.
It may be said, quite rightly: "It is all very well for a member of this House to make a statement of that kind, but on what does he base it? "I will give your Lordships a few things that I base it on. First of all, it has been stated for a great many years now in a published book by Rudolf Hanslian, who is the head expert on poison gas in Germany, and he has stated that that will be done in the next war. It has been stated by Pavlov in Russia. It has been stated by plenty of people in other countries—Austria, Italy and France. Only the other day Professor Banse, who at the present time is the head of a military college in Germany, published a book in which he deliberately said that Germany would in the next war attack the civil population from the air by poison gas—and he mentioned the civil population of this country, too. It is quite true that Herr Hitler has banned that book, because, as he somewhat naively said, it might give a wrong impression of Germany's aims in foreign countries: but the Professor is still in his job. The Chancellor also was not quite accurate when he said that the Government could not be responsible for individuals who chose to write these things. The Professor is not an individual in that sense at all. He is a Government servant and paid by the Government as the head of their military college, and nowhere has the Chancellor ever said that that is not to be the considered policy of Germany.

133
The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, mentioned a speech that I made some time ago, and I should like to tell him that that speech had a sequel. A certain member of the Cabinet in the late Labour Government was very interested in the matter, and he asked me if I would go down and debate the whole question at Cambridge with Mr. J. B. S. Haldane who, of course, is the big expert on gas. I went down and we held that debate. I put my case forward. It was on the agenda paper in rather a stronger form than I had meant to move it, but I thought: "Well, I will take it on and see what happens"; because my Motion was that, having regard to poison gas attacks, possibly from the air, the next war would be the end of the whole of civilisation in Europe. After I had made my speech, to everybody's astonishment Mr. Haldane got up and said he regretted he had to agree with everything I had said. There is no answer to this except retaliation, and you cannot get retaliation by disarmament. The only way you can save yourselves in my view—and it is a matter that has been a great worry to me for many years—is by having plenty to relatiate with, and to get the people of all countries to realise what it is going to mean. I do not mean the politicians, I mean the people at large—let them realise that it means mutual obliteration. Then, and then only, I think you might get an end of war. But you will not get it by this so-called disarmament. You must he strong, and show your strength, and then you will not have to use it.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I do not intend to delay your Lordships at this late hour, but I think that the discussion we have had has been of extreme interest. I hoped that the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House towards the end of his speech was going to tell us something of the Government's intentions. It is extremely difficult for him to do it, because of course, as we appreciate, it is not exactly his Department, but I hoped that on this second day of the debate, when the first day in the Commons had been occupied so entirely with the past, we might in your Lordships' House have an opportunity of hearing from the Government something of what they intended to do in the future. The noble and learned Viscount very ably as usual, and
134
quickly and boldly, disposed of all the suggestions I brought forward, and then I eagerly cocked my ears with a view to listening to what was going to come from His Majesty's Government, and I heard nothing whatsoever. But in the course of the discussion my noble friend Lord Cecil produced a document. Now, this document, from what I can gather, is obviously some form of leakage, probably from abroad. At any rate, it has been referred to and commented on by the Government, and in order to explain it a series of documents has been referred to—a conversation on October 8 with the German Ambassador.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The 10th.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: This document is not improbably instructions given to the German Ambassador on that day. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, suggested that the Foreign Secretary on that day would in the ordinary course have made a report of that conversation and have sent it in the form of a Despatch to His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin. That is Document No. I that ought to be laid before the public. Then we were told that there was another—I think with the German Ambassador on October 10. That has been referred to, and I think the country ought to know what passed between the German Ambassador and the Foreign Secretary on that occasion, because these are the preliminaries to the document which has been quoted, which is Sir John Simon's speech at, the Disarmament Conference on October 14, which is the critical moment and turned out to be the excuse, anyhow, for Germany leaving the Disarmament Conference. So important is the sequence of events, so important is it for us to know exactly what transpired that I feel sure that His Majesty's Government will not refuse my Motion for Papers, but will lay a White Paper before us in which it will be interesting and important for us to know the sequence of events that led up to this rupture. I do not think it is an unreasonable request on my part. In the ordinary way I should have formally withdrawn my Motion for Papers, but in view of what has transpired, and the number of documents referred to, I think I am justified in pressing my Motion.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if I may, by leave of the House, answer the

135
noble Lord, he is of course fully entitled to press his Motion, but I very much beg him not to do so for this reason. I do not know whether it is possible to lay even the one document to which my noble friend Lord Cecil referred, if it exists as a record of a conversation between the Foreign Secretary and the representative of the German Government. Certainly I do not think it would be possible to lay documents referring to other conversations with the German Government without laying other records of conversations with other Governments, and at this moment, when, as I have said, we are anxiously trying to negotiate with a series of Governments in order to bring about, if we can, an agreed measure of procedure, I think that to publish records of all the conversations and discussions which have taken place would be very damaging to the cause which, I am sure, the noble Lord has at heart just as much as I have, that is, the cause of trying to bring the parties together on some common basis of procedure. I really think it would not be helpful to the cause of peace, and I therefore urge my noble friend not to exercise his undoubted right to press for Papers. I will certainly undertake to consult the Foreign Secretary, who has listened to the best part of the debate, and see whether there are any documents that could be usefully produced, but I should be very sorry to have to accept the Motion which would indicate that there were any Papers which could be produced.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: With the leave of the House I would just like to say I do feel the House is in very great difficulty in this matter. Undoubtedly, it is now established that it was not the Foreign Secretary's speech on October 14 that produced the crisis—it was something that occurred earlier—and we are told there was a communication to the German Government on October 10. It does seem at any rate a plausible conclusion that it was as a result of that communication that the crisis arose. I do not know, but I think it may be very generally felt in the country when people lead this debate that that probably is what happened, and I am sure it is much better, more in the interest of the Government and in the interest of the negotiations which are going on, that all these ambiguities should
136
be cleared up definitely and as early as possible. May I make a suggestion to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby? I see the difficulty of my noble friend Lind Hailsham in assenting to this Motion. It is the difficulty we are always up against. There is no direct representative of the Foreign Office in the House who knows the ins and outs of everything. Would it not he possible to adjourn this Motion now, not to reject it, not to pass it at this moment? I do not think we can pass it by the rules of the House, and if we divide it would really have the effect of adjourning, because I do not think there are thirty noble Lords present. Then we can raise the question again when the Leader of the House is in a position to give a decision on the matter.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I do not want to appear unreasonable or to press the Leader of the House unduly. I quite understand the delicacy of the situation, only I would ask him to consider this point. Unfortunately, a document has been read in this House. What it is, is not clear, but it is public property now. It may be taken as a garbled version of something that has occurred in the proceedings. Would it not be better to have the correct version, which can be checked by the Government and which the Government could be responsible for, rather than to set people guessing and thinking over something which may be quite without any sort of authenticity I would ask the Leader of the House to consider that point. I do not desire to press this Motion, and I should like to adopt the suggestion of the noble Viscount, which is designed to give the Government time to think the matter over, and to adjourn this Motion.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I would very much prefer that the noble Lord should withdraw his Motion instead of adjourning it. I shall communicate with the Foreign Secretary and ask him to give full consideration to the point raised. The only document read is of course a translation which my noble friend Lord Cecil has obtained from a French newspaper, and which will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I would rather have the matter disposed of now, and I hope my noble friend will accept my assurance that the Government will consider the

137
matter. I do not like the idea of an adjourned Motion which one might have to whip for and vote against. Even voting it down might be less satisfactory than an arrangement on the lines suggested.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am quite ready to accede to the suggestion of the Leader of the House on the understanding that he will put this matter quite fully to the Foreign Secretary and see whether a White Paper cannot, be issued.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I shall tell the noble Lord what the Foreign Secretary says. I will even ask
138
Sir John Simon to come and see him if he likes.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT, 1933 (BACON (IMPORT REGULA TION) ORDER, 1933).
Order dated 7th November, 1933, made by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Act:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.