Sitting of 12 July 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Lowestoft Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.

ORALL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    STATUTORY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of labour whether he can now state the name of the chairman and the names of the other members of the statutory comitee under Part I of the Unemployment Act; and what salary the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the other members of the committee are to receive?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr Oliver Stanley): I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce the constitution of the statutory committee, but I will make the announcement as soon as I can.

    NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE (GRANTS)
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the total amount of money vated by theis House for the National Council of Social Service; the amount spent by them; and where it was spent?
    Mr. STANLEY: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    following is the reply.
    The Estimates for the Ministry of Labour have loboured have included the following pro-
    500
    vision for grants to the National Council of Social Service:

    Financial Year.

    …

    …

    …

    £

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    10,000

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    25,000

    1934

    …

    …

    …

    40,000

    The Estimate for 1934 has not yet been voted by the House, though it was considered in Committee of Supply on 21st June, 1934.
    In 1932, expenditure was not incurred so rapidly as had been anticipated, and the grant made in that year only amounted to £1,694. The grant made in respect of 1933 was approximately equal to the provision in the Estimates for that year. The amount paid to the Council up to 2nd July, 1934, in respect of the Government grant for the current financial year is approximately £8,400. The grants to the council, which are subject to the condition that the money shall at least be equated by funds raised from voluntary sources, are for the purpose of (a) strengthening the central organisation of certain national bodies other than the National Council itself, and of certain regional bodies, and (b) assisting schemes of occupation for unemployed persons. The assistance normally is limited to schemes in areas suffering from severe and prolonged unemployment.
    Further details are given in the reports of the council, and with the permission of the hon. Member, I will send him a copy of the report for 1933, which will be available next week.

    CLAIMS AND APPEALS.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour the names of the organisations that are recognised by the court of referees and the umpires to select the person or persons to put the case for the workers before referees or the umpire?
    Mr. STANLEY: There is no list of recognised organisations for this purpose. A claimant for benefit may select any person, not being counsel or a solicitor, to represent him before the court of referees, and an association of employed persons, of which a claimant is a member, has a right of appearance before the court if the claim has been made in accordance with an arrangement made with that association under Section 17 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. An appeal to the umpire may be made by an association

    501
    of employed persons on behalf of a member, and it rests with the umpire to decide whether a particular organization is such as association.
    Mr. THORNE: Do I understand that all those who appear before the courts of referees or the umpire must be members of organisations recognised by the Minister?
    Mr. STANLEY: Oh no, Sir.
    Mr. THORNE: Then does it mean that anybody, whether he belongs to an organisation or not, can appear before the courts of referees and the umpire?

    Unemployed persons on the registers of the Wigan Employment
    Exchange (including Wigan Juvenile Employment Bureau).

    date.

    Men aged 18 and over.

    Boys aged 14 and under 18.

    Women aged 18 and over.

    Girls aged 14 and under 18.

    Total.

    24th March, 1930—

    Wholly unemployed

    4,475

    86

    2,080

    48

    6,689

    Temporarily stopped

    1,850

    117

    2,255

    187

    4,409

    Total

    6,325

    203

    4,335

    235

    11,098

    23rd March, 1931—

    Wholly unemployed

    6,616

    175

    2,146

    175

    9,112

    Temporarily stopped

    1,257

    78

    1,601

    120

    3,056

    Total

    7,873

    253

    3,747

    295

    12,168

    21st March, 1932—

    Wholly unemployed

    7,575

    145

    1,020

    108

    8,848

    Temporarily stopped

    1.261

    65

    478

    47

    1,851

    Total

    8,836

    210

    1,498

    155

    10,699

    20th March, 1934—

    Wholly unemployed—

    8,168

    227

    1,042

    119

    9,556

    Temporarily stopped

    2,383

    99

    2,003

    180

    4665

    Total

    10,551

    326

    3,045

    299

    14,221

    19th March, 1934—

    Wholly unemployed

    7,936

    165

    846

    115

    9,062

    Temporarily stopped

    1,499

    51

    929

    58

    2,537

    Total

    9,435

    216

    1,775

    173

    11,599

    UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE BOARD.
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the large number of women who will be affected by the working of the Unemployment Assistant Board, he will ensure that a due proportion of the higher con-
    Mr. STANLEY: Any individual not acting as a solicitor or counsel can appear before a court of referees and any individual can appear before the umpire if the applicant is himself entitled to appeal.

    WIGAN.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons totally unemployed and partially unemployed in Wigan for the years 1930, 193], 1932 and 1933, ending on 31st March, giving separate figures for men and women?
    Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    trolling and executive posts in the Department are filled by the appointment of women?
    Mr. STANLEY: The appointment of staff is a matter for the board. I have no doubt that they have this point fully in mind.

    EXCHANGE GROUPING SYSTEM (EBBW VALE).
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, under the scheme for grouping Employment Exchanges for the purpose of removing anomalies in connection with the discharge of temporary staffs, the exchange at Ebbw Vale has not been grouped with any other parent exchange, and that, as a consequence, junior staffs in neighbouring exchanges have been given greater opportunities of retention than senior staffs at Ebbw Vale; whether he is aware that the agreement made on the Whitley Council provided for grouping to take place having regard to local travelling facilities, and that certain of the staffs in the neighbouring exchanges actually reside at Ebbw Vale; and whether he is aware that the divisional arrangements to give effect to the agreement reached on the departmental Whitley Council in so far as they involve Ebbw Vale have not been the subject of any discussion with the staffs employed in that exchange, and that there is resentment at this particular arrangement; and whether he will give instructions that the position at this exchange in relation to the grouping system should be reviewed?
    Mr. STANLEY: The general principles of these arrangements were agreed upon by the Ministry's Departmental Whitley Council and the local details in Wales were discussed with representatives of the staff associations recognised by the Department as representing exchange staffs. I was not previously aware of any complaint regarding Ebbw Vale, but in view of the hon. Member's question, the position there will be further discussed with these associations.

    DISTRESSED AREAS (SURPLUS WORKERS).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Lord President of the Council whether he is now in a position to state the total number of surplus workers in the respective areas where investigations are being made by the four commissioners; the chief industries in which these workers were employed; and the total population affected?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. Any estimate of the surplus industrial population in any area must depend on so
    504
    many hypothetical factors that I should be loth to commit myself to any figure.
    Mr. LAWSON: Would the commissioners be able to get those figures? Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that one of the reasons of the Minister of Labour for sending out these commissioners was that the data as to surplus population were not up to date?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am quite familiar with that point, and I hope it may be possible, when we get the reports and study them, to get some idea, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, it can only be an idea. I hope we shall have data which will enable us to form an opinion, but to get actual figures is almost impossible.
    Mr. LAWSON: Will those data be available to the House?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I could not answer that question. The reports have not been received, and it is too early to commit myself as to the course we shall take.
    Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to this question, as it is very difficult for the House and the country to deal with the matter unless they get data upon which to work?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I quite see that, and when we come down to grapple with the subject, which hitherto has baffled all Governments, we shall have to get sufficient information to enable us to form an opinion.
    Mr. BATEY: Do we understand the Lord President to say that the Government have not yet made up their minds as to what they are going to do with the reports? May one ask whether the House is to be given the opportunity of seeing the reports?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been answered already.

    CARMARTHEN.
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS (for Dr. JOHN WILLIAMS)asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered unemployed in the County of Carmarthen on 30th June of each of the last three years; and the number representing the coal, steel, and tin-plate industries, respectively?
    Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, cir-

    Employment Exchanges in the County of Carmarthen.

    Date

    Number of unemployed persons on the registers.

    Numbers of insured persons recorded as unemployed in the under-mentioned industries.

    Coalmining.

    Iron and Steel.

    Tinplate.

    27th June, 1932

    …

    10,947

    1,776

    1,347

    3,961

    26th June, 1933

    …

    8,338

    1,733

    637

    1,986

    25th June, 1934

    …

    8,246

    2,386

    413

    1,578

    WALES.
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHS (for Dr. J. WILLIAMS)asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons receiving ordinary benefit and transitional benefit in the Wales division on the latest available date, as compared with June, 1932, and June, 1933?
    Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Wales Division.

    Numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges with claims admitted for unemployment benefit or transitional payments:

    Date.

    Unemployment Benefit.

    Transitional Payments.

    27th June, 1932

    99,846

    105,079

    26th June,1933

    69,947

    120,985

    25th June, 1934

    67,498

    115,457

    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Minister of Labour the number of young persons under 21 years of age in the Wales division; the numbers employed in the coal industry and the steel and tinplate industry, respectively; and the number who have been unemployed for a longer period than one year?
    Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    culate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Following is the statement:
    The statistics compiled by my Department regarding employment in particular industries relate only to persons, aged 16 to 64 years insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The estimated numbers of insured persons aged 16 and under 21 years in the Wales Division (which includes Monmouthshire) in all industries, and in coal mining, iron and steel and tinplate manufacture, at July, 1933 (the latest date for which figures are at present available) were as shown below:

    All Industries

    …

    …

    104,200

    Coal Mining

    …

    …

    30,310

    Iron and Steel

    …

    …

    2,730

    Tinplate

    …

    …

    5,280

    At 25th June, 1934, there were 1,705 young persons, under 21 years of age, applying for unemployment benefit or transitional payments in the Wales Division who had been on the registers of Employment Exchanges for 12 months or more. Some of these persons will probably have had one or more short spells of employment, lasting not more than three days each, during that period. Corresponding figures are not available for separate industries.

    POOR LAW (COMMISSIONERS, DURHAM).
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the cost of commissioners and their staff in the County of Durham from their appointment to the latest available date; and whether such cost has been sanctioned by this House?
    Mr. STANLEY: The cost of the commissioners and their staff in the County of Durham from their appointment in December, 1932, to 30th June, 1934, is approximately £82,000. Authority for this expenditure is given by Article 7 of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, together with the approval by Parliament of the annual estimates for the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. BATEY: Then were the Estimates Committee wrong when they said that this sum had not been voted by Parliament?
    Mr. STANLEY: No, that is not what the Estimates Committee said. They did not question any lack of statutory authority. What they did say was that an opportunity might have been taken to present the matter in a more formal way, and that point will be considered.
    Mr. BATEY: Does that mean that we can now have an opportunity of debating it?
    Mr. STANLEY: Oh, no, we are considering the future.
    Mr. TINKER: Can the Minister say whether the cost of the administration saved the amount which would have been paid if no commissioners had been appointed?
    Mr. STANLEY: That is another question.

    KING'S CORONATION (TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY).
    Colonel GOODMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the 25th anniversary of Their Majesties' coronation and of the desire of manufacturers to produce articles in commemoration of that event, it is his intention to issue regulations as to the use which can be made in this connection of reproductions of portrait heads of Their Majesties?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): It is not proposed to issue any regulations on the subject.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will there be an official recognition?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I should require notice of that question.

    FASCIST MEETING, RICHMOND, SURREY.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from the chief inspector of police for Richmond, Surrey, in connection with a meeting of the Richmond branch of the British Union of Fascists; and whether anyone was arrested and what was the charge and the outcome of the case?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has obtained a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who informs him that on the 7th instant a Fascist meeting was held in Heron Court, Richmond, and was followed after an interval of 15 minutes by a Communist meeting. A number of persons were standing in the footway at the corner of Heron Court causing obstruction to foot passengers. The police instructed them to disperse, and one person was arrested and charged with obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. He appeared before the justices on the 9th instant when the case was dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the magistrates in question dispute the evidence given by the police; and does it not seem rather strange that the Fascists get off every time and the others get convicted?

    STAINFORTH DEMOCRATIC WORKMEN'S CLUB.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary on whose authority a raid was made on the Stainforth Democratic Workmen's Club on 26th June; whether the documents and books have now been returned; and what action, if any, has been taken against the club?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: A report on this case has been received from the chief constable. of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The club was entered by the police on the authority of search warrants granted by a magistrate under the Gaming Act, 1845, and the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, and proceedings against the club under the latter Act are in contemplation. The documents which were seized, under the authority of the warrant, in the course of the raid, and which I am informed will

    509
    be required for the purposes of the proceedings, are still in the possession of the police.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand from the reply that the charge was one of having fruit machines, or similar machines?
    Captain CROOKSHANKI cannot say anything about the matter as it is sub judice

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    MATERNAL AND INFANT MORTALITY, WALES.
    Sir WILLIAM JENKINSasked the Minister of Health (1) whether

    Maternal Mortality, namely, Deaths of women classed to Pregnancy and Childbearing.

    —

    Wales

    Glamorganshire.(Administrative County)

    Per 1,000 Live Births.

    Per 1,000 Live and Still Births.

    Per 1,000 Live Births.

    Per 1,000 Live and Still Births.

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    4·92

    —

    5·21

    —

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    5·60

    5·30

    6·34

    5·99

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    5·43

    5·13

    4·41

    4·14

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    6·26

    5·91

    8·05

    7·58

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    6·09

    5·75

    6·86

    6·45

    NOTE.—As the basis of calculation was altered during the period covered by the Question, figures are given on both bases for the years after the change took place.

    DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON FOOD (RECOMMENDATIONS).
    Mr. TURTONasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce legislation in order to carry out the recommendations of the departmental committee on the composition and description of food?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The report of this committee is under consideration, and I
    he will give the figures of maternal mortality for Wales for the years 1926., 1930, 1931, 1932 And 1933, and separate figures for Glamorgan for the same period;
    (2) the figures of infant mortality for England and Wales for the years 1921, 1926, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933; the figures for Wales for the same period; and separate figures for Glamorganshire for the same years?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): As the answers involve tabular statements, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the statements:
    cannot at the present make any statement as to legislation on the subject.

    LOCAL AUTHORITY NURSES, WALES.
    Sir W. JENKINSasked the Minister of Health what number of nurses were employed by local authorities in Wales in 1926, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933; and the number for Glamorgan, separately, for each of the years?
    Sir H. YOUNG: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT tables containing the

    TABLE I

    Number of Nurses employed by Local Authorities in Wales and
    Glamorgan in each of the years specified.

    —

    1926.

    1930.

    1931.

    1932.

    1933.

    (a) Number of Health Visitors employed by Local Authorities in:

    Wales

    196

    189

    199

    201

    201

    Glamorgan

    67

    67

    67

    67

    67

    (b) Number of District Nurses utilized by Local Authorities for health visiting
    in:

    Wales

    279

    273

    265

    272

    270

    Glamorgan

    7

    7

    7

    7

    7

    (c) Number of Nurses employed in Poor Law
    Institutions and General Hospitals in:

    Wales

    *

    *

    633

    650

    743

    Glamorgan

    *

    *

    168

    174

    178

    * Figures not available

    No complete information is available as to the numbers of nurses employed in Infectious Diseases Hospitals, Mental Hospitals or Mental Deficiency Institutions.

    As regards school nurses, the only information which is readily available relates to the 31st March, 1934. The following table shows the position on that date:—

  EDUCATION.

    MEDICAL OFFICERS' REPORTS.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board's recommendation last year that the annual reports of school medical officers should be abridged as much as possible holds for the present year; and whether, in view of the valuable nature of these reports, the Department will reconsider its views on the question?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The Board have not recommended that the annual reports of school medical officers should be abridged as much as possible. In a memorandum which they issued to local education
    required particulars so far they are available.
    Following are the tables:
    authorities in January last, they stated that where any of the arrangements had been fully described in previous reports and remained unaltered, it would be sufficient to refer to the relevant sections of a previous report. It was pointed out that apart from economy in printing, this would enable fuller information to be given as to any new developments during the year, or as to matters which had been the subject of special investigation.

    PROVISION OF MEALS.
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can now give the names of the 10 local education authorities which are intending shortly to use their school meals powers under the Education Act, 1921?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Proposals made by the following seven local education authorities have been formally or conditionally approved by the Board: Cannock, Caernarvonshire, East Retford, Hereford (Borough), Llanelly, Loughborough, Staffordshire. A scheme of the Bedford Borough Authority was approved some time ago, but the authority have not yet put it into operation owing to the assistance received from voluntary funds. Two authorities (Chadderton and Worcestershire) were not included in the 190 authorities mentioned in my speech of the 30th May last on the Board's Estimates, as they were not at that time exercising their powers, although they had done so at an earlier date. Their arrangements have been approved.

    HOUSING (STATISTICS).
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Minister of Health what was the number of houses built and under construction at the last convenient date under the Housing Act, 1930; and what additional number of houses is added thereby to the total housing accommodation which the new houses replace?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The numbers of new houses completed and under construction under this Act at the 31st March last were 17,569 and 10,512 respectively. The number of houses which had been demolished under this Act at the same date was 19,840.

    HEALTH INSURANCE COMMITTEES (SALARIES).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Health which insurance committees have now applied for the abandonment of economy cuts in the salaries of their officials; and whether approval has been given to such applications?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Thirty-five insurance committees have applied for the complete restoration of the cuts made as an emergency economy in the salaries of their officials. In one case approval has been given. With permission, I will circulate a list of the names of these committees in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular issued to insurance committees following the decision of the Government that one-half
    514
    of the economy deduction made in 1931 shall be restored from 1st July. Replies to that circular are now being received, and consent is being given to the restoration of one-half the cuts originally imposed.
    Following is the list:

    LIST showing names of those Insurance Committees which have applied for the abandonment of economy cuts in salaries:

    Berkshire.

    Bristol.

    Devon.

    Burton-on-Trent.

    Gloucestershire.

    Dewsbury.

    Hertfordshire.

    Eastbourne.

    Huntingdonshire.

    Halifax.

    Isle of Ely.

    Leeds.

    London.

    Manchester.

    Middlesex.

    Oldham.

    Norfolk.

    Portsmouth.

    Salop.

    Reading.

    Suffolk East.

    Salford.

    Sussex East.

    Sheffield.

    Sussex West.

    Southend-on-Sea.

    *Yorkshire East

    Southport.

    Riding.

    South Shields.

    Yorkshire West

    Stockport.

    Riding.

    Worcester.

    Barnsley.

    York.

    Birmingham.

    *In this case approval has been given.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE (MEDICAL OFFICER).
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Health whether he has yet filled the post of medical officer for maternity and child welfare rendered vacant by the resignation of Dame Janet Campbell and, if not, when he proposes to do so?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have placed in charge of the maternity and child welfare work a most experienced woman medical officer, who previously acted as deputy to Dame Janet Campbell. She is directly responsible to the chief medical officer, and receives additional remuneration for her increased responsibilities. An additional woman medical officer will shortly be added to the staff engaged in this important branch of the work of the medical staff.
    Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Is it a fact that the successor to Dame Janet Campbell has not been given the same

    515
    rank as she had; and may I ask whether it is proposed that she shall have such rank?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir, the title of the office is subject to an alteration, which I shall be very glad to explain to my hon. Friend if he requires the information.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the number of temporary clerks in the employ of his Department, the number of clerks who have been employed by managers of local branch Employment Exchanges, and the number of temporary clerks who are to be established in the reorganisation which is due shortly to take place?
    Mr. STANLEY: On 1st July, 1934, 9,359 temporary clerks were employed by the Ministry of Labour, of whom about 2,000 have been engaged on a casual basis for the annual exchange of unemployment books. The branch managers affected by the reorganisation proposals to which the hon. Member presumably refers employ on the work of the Ministry 1,080 full-time clerks who are the private employés of the branch managers and are not included in the figure of 9,359. Subject to efficiency and to the requirements of the work at the date of reorganisation, these clerks will be taken over by the Ministry as temporary clerks.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Are any of these men likely to be immediately displaced by the new organisation?
    Mr. STANLEY: That will depend on their efficiency and the requirements of the work to be done.

    MARRIED WOMEN WAGE-EARNERS.
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Health (1) the percentage of married women wage-earners to all married women in England and Wales in 1911, 1921 and 1931;
    (2) in what town in England was the highest percentage of married women wage-earners to all married women; and what was that percentage in 1931?
    Sir H. YOUNG: With respect to the first question, the percentage of married women "employés" to all married
    516
    women in England and Wales was 7.76 in 1921 and 8.91 in 1931. Corresponding figures are not available for 1911. With respect to the second question, figures of married women "employés" are not available by local areas.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (CANADIAN MOTOR CARS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to make a statement on the methods adopted by Canadian motor-car manufacturers to fulfil the 50 per cent. content for preference purposes of entry into this country?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As promised on the 28th June, I have written to the hon. Member on this matter.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the manner in which the Canadian Government have carried out the arrangement in regard to the 50 per cent.?
    Sir PERCY HURD: As this is an allegation against the Canadian Government made upon the Floor of the House, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer not give the details equal publicity?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be very pleased to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the letter which I have written to the hon. Member.
    Following is the letter:
    "Treasury Chambers,
    Whitehall, S.W.
    10th July, 1934.
    Dear Rhys Davies,
    You will remember that in reply to the question which you put to me in the House on the 28th June, about preference on motor cars manufactured in Canada, I said that I was making certain inquiries, on the conclusion of which I would communicate with you.
    The position is that under the law motor cars consigned to this country from the British Empire are only admitted to preference if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Customs that not less than.50 per cent. of their value is derived from expenditure of a prescribed kind which has been incurred in the British Empire or the United Kingdom in respect of materials grown or produced or work clone in the British Empire or the United Kingdom. The pre-

    517
    scribed expenditure (i.e., the Empire content) is defined by the Board of Trade Regulations. Under these Regulations some of the items mentioned in the first part of your question may properly be included in the Empire content for preference purposes but others may not.
    I should explain that the percentage of "Empire content" necessary to qualify for preference in the case of motor cars was increased to its present figure of 50 from 25 as from 1st April, 1933, and whilst it was possible for motor cars which had undergone minor processes (e.g., assembly, upholdstering, etc.) in Canada to qualify under the old requirements, that is hardly possible now. In any case only three of the manufacturers mentioned by your correspondent are exporting Canadian motor cars to this country at the present time, and I may add that only in the case of one particular make, in respect of which the Customs are fully satisfied, is the claim to preference admitted at the time of importation. In all other cases the importer is required to deposit the full duty (or give equivalent bond) pending investigation by the Customs of the title to preference.
    You may also be interested to know that the Customs had two men over in Canada last summer looking into these preference claims and that these investigations on the spot are being continued this year.
    I return the correspondence which you sent to the Treasury on this subject.
    Yours sincerely,
    (Sgd.) N. Chamberlain.
    R. J. Davies, Esq., M.P."

    SILK DUTIES.
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the hardships inflicted on those carrying considerable stocks of artificial silk through the sudden reduction of the excise duty on that commodity; and whether he is prepared to make some concession in order to mitigate that hardship?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Representations have been made to me on this matter, but after careful consideration of the circumstances I do not feel able to make any concession.

    LITHUANIA.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Lord President of the Council whether he is prepared to give time for the Motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and other hon. Members on the subject of the trade agreement with Lithuania?—
    "That this House greatly regrets that the provisions of the trade agreement with Lithuania will, through the operation of
    518
    the most-favoured-nation clause, extend by a further six months the restrictions contained in the trade agreement with Denmark on our power to safeguard the British production of butter, bacon, hams, and eggs.
    Mr. BALDWIN: In view of the state of public business, I regret that I can hold out no hope of special facilities being granted for this discussion. I would remind my right hon. Friend that opportunities for raising this subject will occur in the normal course of business.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before ratifying the trade agreement with Lithuania, he is prepared to endeavour to arrange that in respect of butter, bacon, ham, and eggs its provisions shall terminate on the same date as the trade agreement with Denmark, namely, 20th June, 1936 instead of on 31st December, 1936?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): My right hon. Friend is unable to adopt this suggestion. I would remind my hon. Friend that the agreement with Finland, which contains similar provisions in regard to these commodities, is not due to expire until 23rd November, 1936.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does that mean that the subsidy in respect of milk products will have to be continued for some weeks longer than would otherwise be the case?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My hon. Friend is not quite correct on a technical point in regard to this question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not the 31st December later than the 23rd November in most countries?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot discuss the matter within the compass of question and answer, but I could clearly demonstrate to my hon. Friend where he is in error.

    CANADA.
    Sir P. HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade, what tariff and other commercial concessions have been made to Great Britain by Canada since the Anglo-Canadian Trade Agreement?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The import duty has been reduced, or the preference increased, on United Kingdom goods in the case of some 40 items or parts of items in the Canadian Customs Tariff. In addi-

    519
    tion, the Excise Tax of 3 per cent. on United Kingdom goods has been reduced to 1½ per cent., and a number of modifications have been made in Canadian Regulations with a view to facilitating the trade of this country with Canada.

    NEW ZEALAND.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement on the subject of the new tariff preferences being granted by New Zealand in favour of United Kingdom goods?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: A large number of modifications in the New Zealand Customs Tariff came into force on 10th July. I am not yet fully informed as to the effect of the changes, but I will have a complete statement of them published in the Board of Trade Journal at the earliest possible moment.

    GERMAN LOANS.
    Mr. DRUMMOND-WOLFFasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the position of foreign investors resident abroad under the German debt agreement signed on 4th July, 1934, which discriminates between bonds of the German International 5½ per cent. Loan, 1930 (the Young Loan), held by British nationals or foreigners domiciled in Great Britain on the one hand and bonds held by foreign nationals resident abroad on the other, in spite of the fact that these bonds have been publicly issued in London and officially quoted on the London Stock Exchange and nowhere else; and, in view of the adverse effect of such discrimination, what action he proposes to take to maintain the volume of investments from abroad on the London Stock Exchange and the revenue accruing therefrom to His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The position of bonds of the sterling issues of the Dawes and Young Loans, which were on 15th June, 1934, owned by foreigners resident abroad, was very fully considered during the course of the negotiations. I regret that the German Government were not willing to extend to these bonds the same treatment as that given to bonds owned by British holders, but I do not consider that any further action can usefully be taken by His Majesty's Government.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    IMPERIAL DEFENCE (COLONIAL CONTRIBUTIONS).
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is contributed annually to the British Exchequer by Bermuda, Cyprus, Ceylon, Mauritius, the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong and India in respect of payment for the establishment and upkeep of British forces in these Colonies; and what is he percentage of the total revenue of the respective Governments required to pay these contributions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    On the basis of the anticipated 1934 contributions and the estimated revenue as shown in the Dependencies' Estimates for 1934, the figures in the first six cases are as follow:

    Dependency

    contribution

    Percentage of contribution to revenue

    £

    Bermuda

    3,500

    1·0

    Cyprus

    10,000

    1·4

    Ceylon

    80,000

    1·2

    Mauritius

    37,000

    2·1

    Straits Settlements.

    467,000

    14·0

    Hong Kong

    363,000

    15·7

    The revenue figure used for the purpose of these calculations is the total revenue of the territory, and includes not only receipts froth taxation but also receipts from productive services, including, in some cases, railways. It should further be pointed out that the revenue figures relate to the colonial financial years, while the figures for contributions relate to the Imperial financial year. The two periods do not necessarily correspond. The voluntary contribution of £58,350 towards the defence of the Empire recently made by the Straits Settlements, has not been included in the above figures.
    The position of India is different from that of the Dependencies shown in the above statement, in that the cost of the British Army and Air Force in India is

    521
    not borne on Imperial Votes but is paid direct from Indian revenues, subject to a contribution of £1,500,000 a year from Imperial funds. The Government of India pays, in addition, contributions to the Imperial Exchequer in respect of training costs, maintenance of His Majesty's Ships in Indian waters, etc.

    FINANCIAL YEAR.
    Colonel GOODMANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the different dates upon which the year is presumed to end in respect of national finances and, in particular, to the provisions whereby the year is regarded as ending on 5th April in respect of Income Tax, on 24th March in respect of Land Tax, and on 31st March in respect of the revenue and expenditure figures as contained in the Financial Statement; and whether, with a view to simplification, he will consider the selection of one date for the ending of the financial year?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to this matter and the question of assimilating the ending date of the year of assessment to the ending date of the State's financial year has been considered; but as no real inconvenience arises from the present system, which is due to historical causes, and as any alteration would cause considerable complications, it has been decided that no action in the matter is necessary.

    FLOATING DEBT.
    Mr. MABANEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total interest cost of the floating debt for the financial year 1933–34, when the average rate of interest was 12s. 6d. per cent.?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total cost was £4,139,174.

    MOTOR FUEL (TAXATION).
    Mr. MALLALIEU (for Mr. HOLDSWORTH): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if alcohol distilled from molasses and used as motor fuel is subjected to taxation as such; and, if not, will he state the reason for such exemption?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on this subject to the hon. and gallant Mem-
    522
    ber for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) on 6th March, and to the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on 3rd May.

    CROWN LEASES, REGENT STREET(RENTS).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the highest ground rent charged in respect of the recent building leases in Regent Street to a sitting tenant; and what alternative was available to such tenant if he had refused to accept the terms offered by the Crown Lands Department?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The highest ground rent per square foot which was agreed with a sitting tenant was 36s. for an unusually valuable site in Lower Regent Street, extending into Piccadilly Circus. The remainder of the question is hypothetical and I am accordingly afraid I can express no opinion.
    Mr. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a tenant who occupied large ground floor and upper floor space in a Regent Street building was recently offered a tenancy direct from the Crown in the Haymarket at a rent lower than that which could economically be accepted in the Regent Street building, owing to the high ground rent charged by the Crown Lands Department; and whether he will assure the House that this practice will not be continued?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the case of a company who were sub-tenants of accommodation at Nos. 14–16, Regent Street. The tenancy in the Haymarket referred to was not offered direct from the Crown, but was a sub-tenancy granted by the Crown lessees of the Haymarket premises in question, and the commissioners are not aware of the rent charged under the subtenancy. The last part of the question does not arise.
    Mr. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a Crown lessee in Regent Street was recently obliged to let space to the Income Tax Commissioners at a rental of approximately 5s. a square foot; that this rental was determined by a valuation made by Government surveyors; that

    523
    such valuation is only half what would be necessary if the building were let at a figure sufficient to cover the ground rental charged by the Crown Lands Department and the cost of the building erected to the Crown's requirements; and whether he will make an inquiry into the circumstances of this case?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that a Crown lessee in Lower Regent Street recently granted a fourth-floor tenancy for the purpose of an Income Tax office at a rental of 5s. a square foot, exclusive of rates, taxes and cleaning, that being the rate offered by the lessee after negotiations between his agents and the Office of Works. The rental was not determined by a valuation made by Government surveyors. In the absence of full information as to the history of the premises since rebuilding, the amount of the expenditure incurred on building and equipment respectively, and the various lettings and the accommodation provided in each case, I can express no opinion on the calculations made in the third part of the question.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is it fair that a price should be offered which has been fixed by the Crown Surveyor, and which, if accepted, makes it utterly impossible to let such premises at an economic rent?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have stated that the rent was not determined by a valuation made by the Government Surveyor.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: I am informed that it was.

  AGRICULTURE.

    WHEAT QUOTA (SHIPS' BISCUITS).
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the serious position of the export trade in ships' biscuits, owing to the incidence of the wheat quota; and what steps he proposes to take to help this industry to regain this trade?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Representations have been made to me from time to time, by persons concerned with the export trade in ships' biscuits, in favour of refunding quota payments made under the Wheat Act, 1932, on flour used in the manufacture of ships' biscuits which are
    524
    subsequently exported. The matter has been given most careful consideration, but it has not so far been found possible to overcome the practical difficulties involved.
    Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman's mind finally closed on this matter, or is he prepared to give further consideration to it in order to arrive at some scheme of drawback?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I would be very ready to examine any scheme which my hon. Friend brought forward. I know the difficulties.
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is it beyond the wit of the Ministry of Agriculture to discover a formula which would define the contents of ships' biscuits?
    Mr. ELLIOT: We are very stupid people in Agriculture, and we hope to get some assistance from the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

    IMPORTED CHILLED MEAT.
    Mr. BROCKLEBANK (for Lieut.-Colonel TODD)asked the Minister of Agriculture how much chilled meat has been imported into this country from Uruguay and Brazil during April and May last; and whether he is aware that this meat competes to a greater extent with the home product than the frozen meat from the
    Dominions?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The following quantities of chilled beef were imported into the United Kingdom from Uruguay and Brazil in April and May last:

    April.

    May

    Tons.

    Tons.

    Uruguay

    …

    …

    2,544

    2,732

    Brazil

    …

    …

    3,393

    4,399

    In regard to the last part of the question, I regret that I am not in possession of sufficient data to justify me in expressing an opinion on this subject.

    MILK MARKETING BOARD ("HOME FARMER").
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the protests by representative associations of periodical and magazine publishers against the publication of the "Home Farmer" by the Milk Marketing Board and if in future his Department, or

    525
    organisations set up by it, will refrain from using public funds for the purpose of entering the competitive newspaper and periodical field?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I am not aware that public funds are being used in the way suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend in the second part of his question.

    SALMON FISHERIES, YORKSHIRE.
    Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURTasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the rivers of the Yorkshire Ouse watershed are potentially salmon-producing, but contain numerous obstructions to the passage of salmon; and whether he will exercise powers under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act of 1923, or will confer with the conservators of the Yorkshire fishery district to use some of the £3,500 now held by those conservators, to improve and develop the salmon fisheries in this district?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With reference to the second part, I have no powers, within the district of a Fishery Board, either to carry out works or to require them to be carried out.
    Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURT: Has the Minister any powers under Part II of the Act to watch these questions of salmon fisheries?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have not any powers to deal with works.

    ROMBALDS MOOR, YORKSHIRE (ACCESS).
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the application made to him to prevent access to Rombalds Moor, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, during the months of April, May, August and September in every year, he will say whether any and, if so, what representations in respect of such application have been made to him by local authorities concerned; and whether, before assenting to such application, he will give full consideration to the fact that the moor is subject to a statutory
    526
    right of the public to access for air and exercise which is of benefit to the thickly populated neighbouring districts?
    Mr. ELLIOT: An application has been made to me in accordance with Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, to impose certain restrictions on the public rights of access conferred by that Section to Rombalds Moor. I have received no representations of protest, but formal public notice of the application has yet to be given in the locality, and a period of three months is allowed for objections. If any objection of substance is put forward no decision will be reached until a public inquiry has been held at which all persons or authorities interested in the matter will be entitled to be heard. The hon. Member may rest assured that the fullest consideration will be given to all relevant circumstances.
    Mr. MALLALIEU: What would the right hon. Gentleman consider an objection of substance? For instance, would it be an objection of substance against closing the moor that the public of the neighbouring districts have a right of access to it, under the Law of Property Act, 1925?
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this district is a popular resort, particularly during these months, and will he give the matter further consideration in order that no unreasonable check may be imposed upon the tourists and visitors during that period?
    Mr. ELLIOT: My hon. Friends may rest assured that the fullest consideration will be given to all these varied circumstances.

    ORDNANCE SURVEY.
    Dr. McLEANasked the Minister of Agriculture how many revised plans the Ordnance Survey published in 1913 and 1933, respectively; and what number of revised plans it is hoped to publish this year
    Mr. ELLIOT: The only comparable figures are those in respect of the 25 inch plans, of which 2,448 were published in 1913 and 680 in 1933. I regret that I cannot say at present what number is likely to be published during the present year.

    REGENT'S PARK.
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the First Commissioner of Works why the general public are still deprived of part of the Botanical Gardens, Regent's Park, by tennis courts used only by relatively few persons; and will he, without depriving the tennis players of their enjoyment, transfer the courts elsewhere to enable a much larger number of the general public to enjoy the gardens as a quiet retreat during the summer months?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I would refer my hon. Friend to the last portion of the reply given on the 5th July to a similar question by the hon. Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir N. G rattan-Doyle).
    Sir P. GOFFasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the dissatisfaction expressed about the Regent's Park inner circle gardens and the St. John's Lodge scheme, he will take steps to transfer these national possessions to the Marylebone municipal authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I cannot agree that there is any widespread dissatisfaction with my management of these gardens, and I am unable to entertain my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion.
    Sir P. GOFF: Would my right hon. Friend allow the Parks Committee of the London County Council to supervise some of the Inner Circle Gardens?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, certainly not. We are extremely proud of the Royal Parks as they have been maintained in the past, and not only are there no complaints of the way in Which they are managed, but usually there is considerable envy on the part of other authorities.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to send a copy of his answer to the Home Secretary, who, upstairs this morning, thought that local government was better than national government?
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Is it not a fact that residents in the neighbourhood are very well satisfied with the general administration of the Park?

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS).
    Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendation contained in paragraph 5 of the Special Report from the Committee of Public Accounts relating to the amendment of Standing Order No. 74; and whether he intends to ask the House to implement that recommendation?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir. The Government accept the Committee's recommendation, and an amendment of Standing Order No. 74 will be put down for discussion as soon as opportunity offers.

    NATIONAL GALLERY.
    Sir P. GOFFasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, with regard to the fireguard strip at the west side of the National Gallery, his Department will divest the strip of the temporary structures and design an architectural screen to hide the present untidy appearance?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A scheme somewhat on the lines of that suggested by my hon. and learned Friend has been approved, and will be put in hand shortly. The existing trellis will be removed, and a high wood fence screened by an evergreen hedge will be substituted further back, so as to shut out the back view of the site. The front part of the site will be laid out as lawn.

    PALESTINE.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the demand for houses and business premises in Tel Aviv and Haifa is considerably in excess of the supply; what has been the consequent percentage rise in rents; and what steps are being taken to meet the demand for additional labour required in the building trade?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunfiffe-Lister): On the recommendation of a local committee, temporary legislation was enacted in Palestine last April in order to restrict the increase of rents of dwelling-houses in the larger towns. The committee estimated that in Tel-Aviv the average in-

    529
    crease demanded in 1934 in the rents of dwellings, as compared with the previous year, was between 40 and 50 per cent. In the case of Haifa the committee did not make an estimate of the increase, but they remarked that rents which had been rather low from the end of 1929 began to rise steeply last July. The Director of Immigration in Palestine is empowered by law to admit persons skilled in certain trades or crafts who possess capital of not less than £250, provided that he is satisfied that the economic capacity of Palestine is such as to allow such persons to be absorbed in the trade or craft which they propose to follow; and I understand that 500 such persons will be admitted in the near future.
    Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the Palestinian Government's total surplus on 30th April, 1934; and what was the surplus for the year ended 31st March, 1934?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The total surplus of Palestine on the 30th April, 1934, was £2,634,460. The surplus at the 31st March, 1934, was £2,510,932.
    Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the latest recorded number of men employed on public works in Palestine and how many of these were Jews?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The annual report on Palestine for the year 1933 shows that, during the period from the 1st April to the 31st December, employment in the Public Works Department amounted to 790,065 men days, of which Jewish labour accounted for 68,982 men days. The total spent in wages was £125,615, of which £26,993 was paid to Jewish labour.
    Mr. JANNER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any particulars as to the present position with regard to labour on public works?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; I have given the latest information that I possibly could.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this is one of the fortunate countries where there is no unemployment?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would not go quite so far as to say that, but I think it is very fortunate in comparison with many other countries.
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Have they ally Fascists in that country?

    SCOTLAND (MILK PRICES).
    Dr. McLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received the report of the Committee of Investigation for Scotland on the report of the Consumers' Committee with regard to the retail price of milk fixed by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board for the summer period; and, if so, what are their conclusions?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend has received the report in question. The finding of the Committee is in the following terms:
    "We do not find the action of the hoard in continuing during the summer months the retail price of 2s. per gallon fixed for the winter period to he unreasonable or against the public interest. On the contrary, we consider that in fixing that price the hoard have acted in a reasonable manner, in a genuine endeavour to reconcile the conflicting interests of the three parties involved—the producer, the distributor and the consumer."

    TRANSPORT (ROAD ACCIDENTS, EAST LONDON).
    Mr. JANNERasked the Minister of Transport how many accidents, fatal and non-fatal, took place in Whitechapel Road, Mile End Road, and Commercial Road, Stepney, respectively, during 1933; how many of the victims were pedestrians; and what steps are being taken to avoid future accidents there?
    Sir GEORGE PENNY (Comptroller of the Household): During the year 1933, there were 14 fatal accidents in White-chapel Road, Mile End Road and Commercial Road, Stepney, involving the death of 10 pedestrians. I am unable to state the number of non-fatal accidents. Light control signals are being installed at a number of junctions in these roads, and at 21 junctions crossing places have been marked on the roadway experimentally, with a view to concentrating pedestrians at the points where it is best for them to cross.
    Mr. JANNER: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether any further refuges are going to he provided, and whether the Minister will be prepared to do something with regard to assistance in the form of a grant?
    Sir G. PENNY: It is rather difficult to satisfy my hon. Friend, but he will see that the Minister is doing all that he possibly can to try experiments so as to reduce the number of accidents.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to be good enough to pay a personal visit to this spot, and see it with his own eyes?
    Sir G. PENNY: I rather imagine that he has already done so, but I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion to him.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mrs. Lilian Eliza Bennett, who in 1919 was granted a dependant's pension in respect of the loss of her son, Private Edwin Skidmore Bennett, Coldstream Guards, with a view to granting arrears of pension from 1922, from which date until quite recently the mother did not draw her pension because of severe mental illness; and, as this is a clear case where entitlement to pension has been established and neglect to draw the money has been entirely due to the ill-health of the parent brought about by the shock of the loss of her son, will he take steps to have the amount restored to her that she should have drawn?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Pension in this case has been put in issue from the date (5th April last) on which application was made to my Department. I regret that I should have no authority to ante-date payment for the 12 years since the original award ceased, during which no steps were taken by or on behalf of the pensioner either to satisfy the statutory requirements for payment of the pension or to secure its renewal.

    BRAZIL (CANTAREIRA COMPANY).
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign
    532
    Affairs whether he will not protest to the Brazilian Government against the continued ill-treatment of British subjects by the action of the interventor and consulting council of the State of Rio de Janeiro regarding the Cantareira Company over a period of 10 years; and will he take suitable steps to prevent the loss of British capital in this undertaking by means of a British import duty on Brazilian fruit landed at United Kingdom ports?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr.Eden): The present position in this matter was explained in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) on 9th July. The companies concerned are handling this matter direct and no action by His Majesty's Government is for the moment either called for or desired by the companies.

    CHINA (BRITISH MAGAZINE).
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding the seizure in the post by the Chinese Government of Oriental Affairs, a British magazine published in Shanghai?
    Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. Inquiries on the subject have been made of the Chinese Government who have stated that the principal reasons for the imposition of the ban are first, that the nature and tone as a whole of the articles published in "Oriental Affairs" have been consistently hostile and injurious to the Chinese Government, and secondly, that this magazine has actually been carrying on covert propaganda on behalf.of Manchukuo. Discussions are, however, continuing, and it is hoped that they will result in the achievement of a satisfactory settlement of this case.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will the right hon. Gentleman make strong representations to the Chinese Government on the unfortunate effect abroad of suppressing reasoned criticism?
    Mr. EDEN: I think friendly representations are probably the most likely way of settling this matter.
    Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask them to limit their activities to seizing magazines?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Lord President of the Council tell us what business will be taken next week and when the Cattle Industry Bill will be available. Has he any statement to make on the programme of business to the end of the Session, and what Orders is it proposed to take tonight in the event of his Motion being carried?
Mr. BALDWIN: On the matter that most exercises the House I am afraid I can give no information to-day, but hope that next week, if the hon. Gentleman will repeat his question, I shall be able to give him the information he desires as to when we hope to conclude the business of this part of the Session. The business for next week will be:
Monday: Committee stage of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) [Money] Resolution, and remaining stages of the Colonial Stock Bill.
Tuesday: Supply (17th Allotted Day), Committee, Department of Mines Vote and Board of Education Vote. Report stage of the Cattle Industry [Money] Resolution.
Wednesday: Supply (18th Allotted Day), Scottish Estimates, Departments of Education and Health.
Thursday: Second Reading of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
Friday: Supply (16th Allotted Day, Second Part).
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
The Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Bill will be in the Vote Office on Wednesday morning. It cannot, of course, be published until the Financial Resolution is approved. With regard to the Motion on the Paper to-day, we are anxious, if possible, to get on with some of the remaining business, and, although the list sounds formidable, there is really, I think, very little debatable matter in the Orders that I should like to take. They are the remaining stages of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, the Report of the Public Works Loans (Remission of Debt) Money Resolution, and we hope to make further progress with the Bill and the remaining stages of the Trustee Savings Banks (Special Investments)
534
Bill. The Motion on the Paper with regard to the Colonial Stock Bill is merely to rectify a slip that was made last night in not referring the Bill to Committee of the whole House. That is purely formal. There is the Motion relating to the Accounts of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation, and, if there is time without keeping the House unduly late, the Second Reading of the Whaling Industry (Regulation) Bill [Lords]
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: As the Bill dealing with meat cannot be printed until after the Money Resolution is passed, will any White Paper of explanatory memorandum be available, so that we can fully understand and appreciate the significance of the Bill?
Mr. BALDWIN: The Bill is a very short one dealing with one specific point. I fancy that the discussion on the Financial Resolution, for which ample time will be allowed, will give the hon. Member and his friends all the information that they can desire. If there be anything further that he wants and will communicate privately, I will gladly see what can be done, but I think he will find that he will have ample material, and there will be nothing in the Bill which will come as a surprise to him. There are only four Clauses.
Mr. TINKER: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is taking the Mines Vote and the Board of Education Vote on Tuesday? If so, how is the time to be divided?
Mr. BALDWIN: I think that that can be arranged through the usual channels. I assume that the Debates are desired, and I think that the question of time is a matter of arrangement.
Mr. MAXTON: Am I to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the statement about the Adjournment or Prorogation, or whatever it may be, will riot be made to Members of the House before next Thursday, or will he make it earlier in the week?
Mr. BALDWIN: I propose to give the information to the House as soon as I get it myself. I hope to be in a position to do it before Thursday, but I cannot state the day.
Motion made, and Question put,

535
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than Business of Supply may be considered before Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on Government Business
be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 41.

Division No. 334.]

AYES

[3.33 p.m.

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

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

Palmer, Francis Noel

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Goff, Sir Park

Patrick, Colin M.

Allen, Sir.J. Sandeman (Liverp'I, W.)

Goldie, Noel B.

Peake, Osbert

Allen, Lt.-Col. J.Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Pearson, William G.

Allen, William (Stoke on Trent)

Gower, Sir Robert

Petherick, M.

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

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

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

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

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

Grimston, R. V.

Potter, John

Aske, Slr Robert William

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Pybus, Sir Percy John

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Hales, Harold K.

Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Bainlel, Lord

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

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

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Hanbury, Cecil

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

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Harbord, Arthur

Ramsbotham, Herwald

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

Harris, Sir Percy

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

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

Hartington, Marquess of

Ratcliffe, Arthur

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Bernays, Robert

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

Ray, Sir William

Blindell, James

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Rea, Walter Russell

Bossom, A. C.

Hepworth, Joseph

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Boulton, W. W.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Remer, John R.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Rickards, George William

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

Hornby, Frank

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Rothschild, James A. de

Broadbent, Colonel John

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Runge, Norah Cecil

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

Hurd, Sir Percy

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Janner, Barnett

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

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

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Knight, Holford

Savery, Samuel Servington

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

Knox, Sir Alfred

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

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv.,Belfast)

Christle, James Archibald

Law, Sir Alfred

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Leckie, J. A.

Smith, Sir J. Walker. (Barrow-in-F.)

Colman. N. C. D.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)

Cook, Thomas A.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Sotheron-Estcourt. Captain T. E.

Cooke, Douglas

Levy, Thomas

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Cooper, A. Duff

Lewis, Oswald

Spencer, Cantain Richard A.

Copeland, Ida

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Stanley, Rt. Yon. Lord (Fylde)

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney. C.)

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

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

Stewart, William J.(Belfast. S.)

Crooke, J. Smedley

Mabane, William

Stones, James

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

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Crossley, A. C.

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.

Curry, A. C.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

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

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Davison, Sir William Henry

Magnay, Thomas

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Maitland, Adam

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Dickie, John P.

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Dixey, Arthur C. N.

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

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Donner, P. W.

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

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Drewe, Cedric

Marsden, Commander Arthur

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

Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

Martin, Thomas B.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

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

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Monsell. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

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

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

Everard, W. Lindsay

Morrison, William Shepherd

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Fox, Sir Gifford

Moss, Captain H.

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

Munro, Patrick

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Ganzonl, Sir John

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

White, Henry Graham

Gledhill, Gilbert

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

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Womersley, Sir Walter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Wise, Alfred M.

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

Sir George Penny and Captain Austin Hudson.

Withers, Sir John James

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

NOES

Attlee, Clement Richard

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Bonfield, John William

George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

Maxton, James.

Batey, Joseph

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Milner, Major James

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

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

Parkinson, John Allen

Buchanan, George

Groves, Thomas E.

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Cape, Thomas

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Thorne, William James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jenkins, Sir William

Tinker, John Joseph

Cove, William G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Lawson, John James

West, F. R.

Daggar, George

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lunn, William

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Dabble, William

McEntee, Valentine L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Edwards, Charles

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Mainwaring, William Henry

Question put, and agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HERRIARD AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SHEPPEY WATER) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LEEK) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WYCOMBE AND DIS-TRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STOKE-ON-TRENT) BILL [Lords],
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEY VALLEY WATER) BILL [Lords],
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SOUTH MIDDLESEX AND RICHMOND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords],
  Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  WANTAGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Marriages Provisional Orders Bill,
  Mexborough and Swinton Traction (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
  St. Helens Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
  Southend-on-Sea Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
  Nottingham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Colonel Crookshank, Major Harvey, and Sir Frank Sanderson; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Walter Greaves-Lord, Sir Gerald Hurst, and Mr. Thorp.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Administration of Justice (Appeals) Bill [Lords]): the Lord Advocate, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Janner, Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin, Mr. Milne, Major Milner, Mr. Albert Russell, the Solicitor-General, the Solicitor-General for Scot-and, and Mr. Stevenson.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1934.
  CLASS II.

    COLONIAL OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £99,519, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the De-State of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."—[Note: £49,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. DENMAN: On a point of Order. May I ask your Ruling in order to guide us in this discussion? The Vote before the Committee is Vote 8. Are we entitled on that Vote to raise questions relating, for example, to Palestine and other regions, for which there is a specific Vote?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. It is quite clear, and has been ruled over and over again, that when there is only one Vote down on the Order Paper matters which come under another specific Vote cannot he discussed. In this case there are two Colonial Office Votes 8 and 9 but only Vote 8 is down to-day, and only matters relating to that Vote can be discussed, and not matters coming under Vote 9.
    3.44 p.m.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): It will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a preliminary statement and later on deal with what I have no doubt will be the many and varied topics which will be raised during the Debate. I am sure that the Committee will wish to have at the outset some information about the financial position in the Colonies, which cannot be shown on the Vote and which appears in the Estimates of the Colonies. We are to-day able to record that on the financial side there is a marked improvement in the budgetary position of the great majority of the Colonies. For the year 1831–32 this House was asked to give as grants-in-aid to Colonies which could not pay their way, a sum of well over
    548
    £1,000,000. In the current year, and taking into account one or two items which are rather in the nature of bookkeeping entries, the grants-in-aid which the House is asked to vote have been reduced from £1,035,000 to £505,000. That is not anything like the full story. Those who are acquainted with Colonial administration will know that it has always been the practice in the Colonies to try and create a reserve fund, carrying forward a surplus from one year to the next, in order to build up a reserve upon which the Colony can draw and avoid asking for grants-in-aid from this House, a policy which, incidentally, was challenged by one right hon. Gentleman the other day. I was rather surprised to find it challenged. It is a fortunate thing for the taxpayers of this country that this practice has prevailed, as otherwise the grants-in-aid would have been incomparably greater than they have been.
    It is also worthy of note that a number of Colonies which a few years ago were drawing largely on their reserves in order to balance their budgets have produced, or are this year producing, a balanced budget: Uganda, Zanzibar, the Gold Coast, Mauritius, Gibraltar, Cyprus and Kenya. And the story does not end there, because there are other territories which, although they have not achieved a completely balanced budget, have made improvements in their finances which are at least as creditable as some of those Colonies which have balanced their budgets. Northern Rhodesia has reduced a deficit of £177,000 to an estimated deficit of £39,000. Nigeria, with an actual deficit of £1,330,000 in 1931–32, has reduced it to an estimated deficit of £335,000, a reduction of £1,000,000, and I hope that the end of the year will show a still better position. The Federated Malay States, with a deficit of nearly 11,000,000 dollars in 1932, has reduced it in the present Estimates to an estimate of under 3,000,000 dollars, and again I hope that the actual returns will show further improvement at the end of the year. This is a rather remarkable. achievement, and we must remember that is has been done in a period when some of the most important commodity prices were still falling. If you take the whole of the West Coast of Africa and, indeed, other Colonies which depend principally or to a large extent on oilseeds, ground-

    549
    nuts, palm kernels, copra, and on cocoa, you find that in the last two years there has been a continuous fall in prices from what was not even then a high level of prices, and when all this is borne in mind it is a very remarkable achievement that these Colonies can make such a good financial showing.
    This result has been achieved in two ways. In the first place, by the exercise of drastic economy in Estimates, in administration by cuts, and in some cases by the imposition of emergency taxation. The Committee, I am sure, would wish me to pay a tribute to the Colonial service for the way in which it has stood up to the difficulties, the cuts in salaries, and deprivations of one kind and another, and the way it has carried on the great services of the administration of health, agriculture And education, with hardly any reduction in efficiency as compared with the times when any amount of expenditure was made. I think we should bear that in mind. It is also due to the, economic policy which has been followed. If we had left a policy of laissez faire to operate in the economic field we should have been just as badly off as if we had not engaged in these drastic economies. We have taken that completely in hand.
    Our economic policy, which has helped to produce these results, may be said to be threefold: In the first place the establishment of a preferential market for the Colonies in the Empire and for the Empire in the Colonies; in the second place international agreements, where those could be obtained, which would bring about a balance between production and consumption and raise the deplorably low level of commodity prices; thirdly, efficient production And marketing so that the research which is going on all the time may be available to and applied by the producer, both in growing his crops and in the sale of them. I would add a corollary to that, the establishment of what I might call an intelligence system—to use an Army term—so that the experience which any one colony has got or is obtaining in research stations anywhere may be made available to all, so that information as to world conditions and world markets and the trend of world prices may be available. to Colonial Governments and producers all over the Empire, and they can gain the knowledge on which development can be founded.
    550
    For a moment or two let me develop each of those parts of our policy. Since Ottawa not only has a preference to the widest extent been given by this country, but the Dominions and India are according preference to the Colonial Empire as a whole and are receiving preference in Colonial markets. That has meant two things. It has meant, first, a wholly new sense of security for the Colonial producer in regard to his principal crops. Sugar, tea, cocoa, coffee, tobacco, and timber—all these commodities are now securing a firm and preferential market in this country and in most of the Empire. But everyone will admit that one of the dangers of a Colony dependent on a single crop is that, owing to climatic conditions, some natural disaster or even a temporary slump in world prices, that commodity may suffer and the Colony suffer in consequence. It has, therefore, been axiomatic that we should, in Colonies largely dependent on one principal crop, seek to establish an alternative crop. That is an extraordinarily easy thing to say, but a much more difficult thing to persuade people to do. If you are to persuade people to establish a crop you must give them some certainty that there will be a market for it. Crops which are principal crops in one territory may be subsidiary crops in another. Bananas, the great staple in Jamaica, are now developing as subsidiary in Trinidad, in British Honduras and in other parts of the West Indies. Citrus, the basic crop in Palestine, is developing as a very valuable crop in Cyprus.
    Then you get wholly new openings which flow from these developments, which make the merchant and dealer look for a source of supply equally good, without any duty upon it. Let me give two or three examples. Essential oils, geranium and sweet-smelling things like lavender; pyrethrum, which makes destructive things for bugs; and so on, were previously drawn almost entirely from foreign countries. Now that there is a preference you have encouraged the producer by encouraging admission into this country. I travelled to Kenya with the partner in a great chemical firm who was going out to East Africa to see whether it would not be good business for him to help to finance stills for essential oil production in East Africa and Zanzibar. Another thing is tanning extract. All over Kenya to-day

    551
    you find natives cutting wattle, which has suddenly become profitable to them. Something like £70,000 a year is made by the natives by cutting wattle, which manufacturers in this country have found makes just as good extract as is got from bark imported from foreign countries, now subject to duty.
    One more example. Everyone, not least the lady Members of the House, knows how important snake skins have become as an article of attire. Many shoes are made of this rather flamboyant material, and I sincerely hope that the fashion will last. We have been quick to seize upon that fashion. From Nigeria they are now going to adorn the elegant feet of women in this country with the skins of pythons. Indeed, so keen is now the trade in pythons that the Emir of Gwandu on his visit to England. informed me only the other day that he was about to issue an order for a close time to be observed for pythons in the breeding season. You may say that that is a small thing, but it is extraordinarily interesting and important just to think of the link between the industrial market in this country and a far distant province in Nigeria. Those are the kind of things that are really worth while in something more than a material sense. As time goes on in an uncertain world, with restrictions of one kind and another coming up against us, the importance to the Colonies of the United Kingdom market, and to the United Kingdom of the Colonies, will become greater and greater. So much for preference.
    Then there is the next factor, agreements in order to get a balanced production and supply and to improve prices. That is enormously important to those Colonies which are dependent upon a particular product. It is very important for this country too, because our whole trade depends on a reasonable price. It makes an enormous difference to the labour employed and to the wages paid, and consequently to the purchasing power of the people. Take one example. Take Ceylon. Even when prices were much lower than they are today, rubber and tea represented three-quarters in value of the exports of Ceylon. What an enormous advantage it is to that country to
    552
    have its two great exported products covered by effective schemes!
    There are three schemes which are in successful operation and to which I would like to refer. That for tin was first regarded with some scepticism in certain quarters, but, after the first three years, for which it was in force the scheme was unanimously readopted for a further period. Since it is very elastic, increased production can come along to meet increased demand. You have always got to consider the interest of the consumer, and, therefore, you must be able to make your production respond to any market demand. The scheme has put up the price of tin to a remunerative level, and it has kept the price steady, which is an enormously important thing for manufacturers. Any manufacturer in this House will agree that the last thing you want in raw material is for the price to be going up and down. You want a steady price level. The scheme has raised the price and kept it steady and constant.
    The tea scheme, which incidentally, we should never have got, I think, but for the restoration of preference, is now working admirably. No consumer has objected. Production has been curtailed, but not largely. It is now, I think, 87½ per cent. of the production in the basic year after having been fixed at 85 per cent. in the initial period, but the difference is that before the scheme came into operation there was cut-throat competition, and every company, even a well-managed company, found it impossible to make profits, that is not so now. Moreover the scheme has meant also, a revenue from Income Tax, it has given increased purchasing power by reason of this payment of dividends and it has helped enormously the people in Ceylon and India as well as the people in this country.
    I come to rubber. It has taken a very long time to get an effective scheme. Long negotiations took place first between representatives of the trade in different countries, and then between the Governments. It has taken a long time because we were determined upon two things: first, that we would not go into a scheme which we were not satisfied was comprehensive and covered every country where there were producers, or potential producers. We are satisfied that we have

    553
    a scheme administratively possible to work, and elastic in its readiness to respond to increased demand. We were also determined that we must have a, scheme so fully worked out that action could follow immediately upon a decision to take action. Nothing could have been more unfortunate than if it could have been said that we had agreed upon the outline of a scheme, but that we must have three or four months to get it into working order. It would have meant stocks piling up, and by the time the scheme came into operation, an entirely different situation would have arisen We got to the stage when, as the Committee knows, within a few weeks of the decision being announced, the scheme was able to be carried out in all the countries concerned. In that scheme, as the Committee also knows, we have made the interesting innovation of associating with the committee of control which operates the scheme representatives of the great consuming interests in different countries.
    If I may go from the larger to the small, I will mention another scheme. It relates to sea island cotton. There are certain industries in the islands of the West Indies, and this is one of them, to whom the existence or non-existence of a market makes an enormous difference. Those islands have got together and agreed upon what I may call a cartel scheme to limit the amount to be put on the market. Associated with them are enterprising firms in the textile trades here who are using this material. I wear it. It is most excellent; I commend it to everybody. It is cool, cheap and silk-like. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not show a sample?"] I might put one in the Library, though I do not know whether it would be in order. What has been done in this case on a small scale is a good example of an arrangement of this kind.
    We are proceeding on these lines. We are seeking to improve production and marketing, particularly by natives, in all these Colonies. Improvement in production and improvement in marketing have got to go together, applying the results of research and experience, the aim being to get your native, in the first place, to grow the best type of product, and, having grown it, to assist him to get the best price for it. That is going on everywhere all the time, and many Members
    554
    of the House who have toured different Colonies will testify to it. On the production side we have learnt that if you tell a man a thing, he is a little sceptical, but that if he sees it, he will believe it. The work which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) began is going on intensively to-day. He used to lay great stress on the principle that if you are to teach these people, you have to show them, and we now have demonstration farms for the men and what, I think, is equally valuable—the little school plot. Education and agriculture are linked together. It is absolutely fascinating to go about those Colonies and see the thing. Wherever you go you find this happy relationship of education and agriculture.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What about Cyprus?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Cyprus, I understand, is out of order.
    Captain PETER MACDONALD: Surely any British Colony is in order on this Vote?
    Mr. AMERY: On this point of Order, may I raise this question? I imagine that the actual affairs of any Colony that come under Vote 9 would not be in order, but the general administration policy of the Colonial Office, I take it, may be touched upon?
    Mr. LUNN: May I put this point? Are we not discussing the Colonial Office Estimates, and is not the Minister's salary likely to be under discussion Is it not possible, therefore, for someone to move a reduction, and does not that give the opportunity of raising the whole of the administration of the Colonial Empire by the Colonial Office?
    The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. R. J. Russell): It has been pointed out to me that we should keep strictly to Vote 8, the Colonial Office Vote, that is, the salaries and other expenses of the Colonial Office, and that that rules out automatically any references to Votes 9 and 10. That being so, any reference to Cyprus and the other Colonies would be out of order.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Would it not be right to say that I should be out of order if I referred to grants-in-aid of Cyprus? The only item in Vote 9 with regard to Cyprus is the grant-in-aid about

    555
    which I was going to say nothing. The administration of Cyprus, I think, comes on this Vote. I must admit that I think Palestine comes under a different head.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the position of Cyprus exactly the same? Under Vote 8 we are entitled to discuss the salary of the Secretary of State, but, as I understand from your Ruling, we are ruled out from discussing Nyasaland, Somaliland, British Honduras, Palestine, Trausjordan and other territories mentioned in Vote 9. I do not know why we should be ruled out from discussing Palestine apart from defence. I submit to you that your Ruling merely rules out the actual items in the Vote.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is right. On this Vote for salaries of the Colonial Office all questions of policy arise, whereas under Vote 9 grants-in-aid arise. It would, I think, be quite out of order, as Vote 9 is not on the Paper, to discuss whether there should or should not be this or that grant-in-aid, but I submit that it would not be out of order to discuss whether it is or is not a proper thing in Cyprus to engage in agricultural development.
    The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the Chairman has ruled that the discussion must take place on Vote 8. Where that Vote has reference to the other matters under Votes 9 and 10, then they would be in order, but not otherwise. Palestine, of course, would be out of order.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: But we should be in order, I submit, in discussing the general policy in relation to any territory excepting in so far as that policy involves grants-in-aid, whether military or otherwise, which figure in Vote 9.
    Mr. DENMAN: May I point out that in previous years we have been governed very strictly in this matter, and not allowed to raise on the general Vote subjects referred to in the special Vote. It arises more especially under the Home Office, where it has been frequently held to be impossible to raise any question of the police on the salary of the Secretary of State. This is precisely an analogous case. We cannot raise subjects relating to Palestine or Cyprus under the salary of the Secretary of State. The remedy
    556
    lies with the Opposition to put down whatever Vote they wish to discuss, and thereby concentrate the Debate wherever they want it.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Should we not test it in this way I Suppose Vote 8 had not been put down, but Vote 9 had been, the discussion would be limited to what is under Vote 9. If that were so the only thing we should be allowed to discuss on Vote 9 would be whether there should or should not be grants-in-aid and how they should be used. We should be quite out of order on Vote 9 in discussing matters not relating to grants-in-aid. If other matters relating to say, Cyprus, may not be discussed on this Vote, they may not be discussed at all. In that case I think I may make a reference to Cyprus.
    The real problem in Cyprus is the problem of agriculture. Incidentally I should like in passing to refer to the antiquities in the island which we are doing our best to preserve, and to pay a tribute to Lord Mersey and his colleagues and all those who are generously helping in the work of maintaining and restoring these antiquities which are among the most interesting to be found anywhere in the world. But in Cyprus as everywhere else the man we have to look after is the tiller of the soil. There has not been in the past, in Cyprus, for various reasons that decentralisation which was necessary, but we have now made a beginning and decentralisation is taking place. Demonstration farms are being established. Only a few weeks ago a Cypriot came to me and told me that our agricultural policy in Cyprus was the best thing which had been done there for years. The establishment of these demonstration farms in the island will enable the farmers to see the best kinds of crops to grow and the best methods of doing so.
    The same kind of thing, I am glad to say, is going on in Malta which again was singularly neglected under a so-called national ministry, in those matters which really concern the people. In Malta absolutely nothing had been done for agriculture, but there has been a change of circumstances and steps are now being taken to deal with the problem. The first thing I did was to get the agricultural adviser to the Colonial Office to go out to Malta and to get down to the agricultural prob-

    557
    lems of the island on the spot. He has presented several most excellent recommendations, and with the help of the Colonial Development Fund, and with the approval of the Treasury, we propose to take certain steps. We propose to have a trained Englishman as adviser in agricultural marketing and to establish a fund for the purpose of encouraging the marketing of products in the United Kingdom market. We also propose to establish a Government stock farm and experimental station, in order that the proper breeds of cattle, swine, poultry and so forth may be made available for the people in that island. We further propose to tackle on a larger scale a problem which up to now has only been dealt with by the generosity of an individual Maltese Professor, Sir Themistocles Zammit and some others, and that is the protection of goats against undulant fever infection. That is an enormously important thing in Malta, and when one becomes directly responsible for the government of Malta, one realises that it is vital to the future of the island. Every one is aware that the only way in which to settle it properly is on the lines of trying to find some method of inoculation of the goats. We are going to put that matter in hand at. once and I think that our administration of Malta on those lines will compare not unfavourably with the administration which preceded it.
    One finds the same kind of policy as that which I have outlined in reference to Cyprus and Malta going on throughout the whole Colonial Empire. I saw it everywhere in East Africa and it is going on in West Africa also. We see improvement both in the production and the marketing of cocoa, but its most useful development both there and elsewhere—and I allude particularly to West Africa—is in connection with timber. I mentioned this matter a year ago. We are now developing timber production in West Africa. The freedom of these timber imports from the 10 per cent. duty means that timber merchants in this country are extraordinarily keen on getting Empire timber wherever it is suitable. In the past we had the timber, but we did not know the proper methods of cutting it and marketing it. We have had our officers from the Colonies brought home for periods of training with British firms in the proper methods of dealing with timber. They are going hack now
    558
    and are already beginning to do admirable work. We are also teaching the native administrations how to use their timber to the best advantage—a lesson which will redound greatly to their financial advantage as well as to the general good.
    So it goes on throughout all these territories. The Sultan of Sokoto and the Emirs of Kano and Gwandu, who recently visited this country, told me how they appreciated keenly the value of the improved production and marketing of the very valuable morocco leather, the foundation for which, I understand, is obtained from the red goats of Nigeria. They told me that, acting entirely on their own initiative, they sent for every butcher in their territories and the butchers came up in relays and were taught how to deal with the skins from which the leather is manufactured. The markets are inspected, and if any skin comes into a market in an unsuitable condition, the butcher responsible for it is called up and given an unpleasant quarter of an hour.
    Let me take two examples out of many of the policy which we are pursuing, first of improved production and then of improved marketing. The first is the case of coffee in Uganda. I have seen for myself the great improvement which has taken place in production as a result of the natives having learned from our teachers the best methods of dealing with the crop. Incidentally, we have learned something from the natives in connection with the traditional use of elephant grass to prevent erosion. Science to-day has found this method to be most effective and thus we have an interesting example of modern science and an old custom working in together. With the improvement in production, steps have also been taken to organise the marketing through a single Government agency with the object of securing the best price.
    The second example which I would give is that of cloves in Zanzibar. That Protectorate is almost dependent upon the clove crop in connection with which there have been losses, almost undoubtedly due to inadequate marketing methods. The clove crop is in demand throughout the world for various purposes. The spice trade requires a very high quality. Java requires a second quality and America requires a lower grade but the tendency

    559
    has been for the whole crop to be lumped together and sold at a uniform price which has meant selling at the lowest price. We are now proposing through our Clove Association, to grade the cloves so as to ensure that the best price shall be obtained for the best kind of article, and a very great improvement ought to take place in the returns which the natives realise from this crop. That is our plain duty to the natives. It has been suggested that if we do this we are in some way impinging on the legitimate functions of Indian or native traders. In the first place, as I have said, it is our plain duty. In the second place, what is the function of a trader in that country if not that of a purveyor? He undoubtedly performs a valuable function as a seller of imported commodities and it is to his interest that the purchasing power of the people should be as high as possible. If they are getting an adequate price for their products their purchasing power will go up and therefore, so far from interfering with the proper functions or with the real interests of the trader by developing these marketing schemes, our policy will have a contrary result.
    In connection with these policies, I would refer to what I have called the subsidiary provision of intelligence. When I was working out a policy of preference in preparing for the Ottawa Conference, I found that it was absolutely essential to know what each Colony was producing, where it was selling its products, what it was buying and where it was buying, and then to get that information collated on what I may call a commodity basis, so that one could see at once where in the Colonial Empire we were producing any given commodity in greater or less quantity than this country, or the Empire or the world required. Without such information. it was quite impossible to decide upon the markets in which to expect expansion and those in which we would have to look for ultimate contraction. I therefore got out what at Ottawa we called our "Bible" in which all that information was available. I may say that the Dominion representatives found it exceedingly useful in their negotiations with us.
    Then it was said to me by Members in this House and by people outside:
    560
    "Having done this for your own purposes, would it not be useful to keep it up-to-date and thoroughly comprehensive so that it would be available throughout the Colonies and throughout the Empire, for those connected with administration, traders and others?" That suggestion we have carried out, and the result is this colossal volume which I have here. I have had very little part in its preparation myself. That has been the work of others and it is only the idea for which I can claim credit. But this volume gives for the first time a complete survey of the production of the Colonial Empire and a complete review of the markets in which that production is sold. It also gives full details as to the financial position and structure of the various parts of the Colonial Empire. Now that the work has been started, I propose to have it reviewed in each Colony each year, so that there may be available all the time a complete and up-to-date survey.
    I know that various questions will be raised by hon. Members in this Debate which I shall do my best to answer later on, but there is one matter which, I think, it well to refer to now, and that is the Kenya Land Report. We have taken the course of publishing the views of His Majesty's Government with that report which received very careful consideration from the Government here. My colleagues and I went into it with much attention and we thought it would be convenient to publish concurrently with the report the White Paper which is in the hands of hon. Members. That White Paper serves the double purpose of giving what is, I hope, a not inaccurate summary of the more important points in the report and also the decisions of the Government thereon. Everybody in this country and in Kenya owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to this commission. I knew that I was asking them to undertake a pretty large task. I had no idea of the enormous amount of time which the inquiry would occupy if it were to be done with the fullness with which they have done it. They examined no fewer than 736 witnesses, besides many papers and memoranda. Of those witnesses, nearly 500 were natives, and most of them were examined in Baraza so that other natives could hear their evidence and so that the commis-

    561
    sion could form an impression of how far the evidence was in conformity with general sentiment and opinion. The members of the commission were highly qualified for their task. The chairman had had high judicial experience, which was an important consideration, and he had also had the unique experience of presiding over a very complicated land inquiry in Southern Rhodesia. Everybody agreed that he was an ideal chairman. Mr. Hemsted was a very experienced provincial commissioner with a great knowledge of the country, and he had given years of his life to the public service. Captain Wilson was a farmer in Kenya, highly respected and a model employer of labour, a man of great ability, soundness of judgment, and kindness of heart.
    The commission have presented a unanimous report, and I hope that it is some recompense to them after their great labour to find with what a large measure of appreciation their report has been received in both Kenya and this country. The report divides itself broadly into two parts, the first dealing with the question of land, and the second dealing with all the details of the Native Lands Trust Ordinance. As will be seen from a study of the more than 300 pages of the report which deal with the question of the reserves, the commission examined with meticulous care every claim, historical, legal and equitable, which could be or was advanced and adjudicated upon them; and examined with extraordinary care what are and what are likely to be the economic requirements of the future.
    They make recommendations of very large additions to the reserves. They recommend that, to meet what I may call claims as of right, 1,474 square miles should be added. They also recommend that 1,155 square miles should be added to various reserves to meet present or future economic requirements of particular tribes. An interesting recommendation is that other great areas in different parts of Kenya, totalling 939 square miles, should be set aside for native use but should not be allocated to particular tribes. They lay down what I think everyone will admit is the very wise condition, that where land is added to meet future economic requirements, as distinct from the land which is given as compensation for claims as of right, it should be made subject to con-
    562
    ditions of economic user. Everybody who has seen the conditions or has read this report and similar reports, must be impressed by the great importance of the condition that where land is added it should be wisely and economically used. The Government approve of these large additions to the reserves. A number of exchanges of land are recommended, but no one here is competent to express an opinion on them, and it will be agreed that it is reasonable they should be gone into in detail by the district and Provincial Commissioners in order to make sure that the detailed exchanges are in every case the most convenient. In saying that this will be done, it must not be understood that I commit myself to all the additions by way of exchange that are recommended. They require detailed investigation on the spot.
    In making these great additions, there are two considerations which we must have in mind. In the first place, we could not have had a fairer or more exhaustive inquiry than that which was made by the commissioners who have drawn up this report. In the second place, these recommendations for great additions of land stand as a whole. It would be impracticable in a great settlement of this kind, after the recommendations made by these impartial men, for anyone here, however competent, to say, "I disagree with this or that bit; you ought to have added a little more here or a little less there." Everyone has his own predelictions and there will be plenty of people who will advance criticism of one kind and another about this or that area. The whole object of this inquiry was to get finality and certainty in this matter. I am sure nobody in this Committee would attempt to go into detail and venture to say that he knew better than the Commission. If criticism of that kind be made, it will reopen the whole inquiry and undo the enormous benefit that has been gained from this tremendous piece of work.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the land which is to be added to the reserves have to be bought; if so, how will it be bought?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that a great deal of the land is in the Government's own hands. The Commission recommend that certain pur-

    563
    chases should be made. It will be out of order for me to go into those on this Vote, but they are in the White Paper, and the Government will ask the House at some future time to sanction a contribution towards the Carrying out of this report. I did not refer to this point, as I thought I should be out of order on this Vote because a Supplementary Estimate will be required. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may take it that we propose to implement the findings of the Commission and to make these great additions to the reserves, and, where this involves the purchase of land, it will be carried out.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it be carried out at our expense, or will there be a loan for which the colony will be responsible?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Part of the expense will fall on the colony. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has no doubt read the White Paper—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have not.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was discussing this with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the assumption that he had made himself acquainted with the White Paper. I thought he was touching on a matter which has been in the knowledge of the House for many weeks, but I was wrong. I certainly shall not transgress the Rules of the Committee if I suggest that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should first read the report and then read the White Paper, from which he will gather the financial proposals.
    The Commission make what I think is another wise recommendation. It is that the boundaries of the reserves as expanded by these great additions and the boundaries of the European Highlands shall be laid down by Order-in-Council. Frequent anxiety has been expressed that once land is put into a reserve people shall feel certain about it and it shall not be the subject of change. That is fair, and the Government accept wholeheartedly the recommendation made by the Commission that the boundaries as extended in this way shall be confirmed by Order-in-Council, which will give permanent security for the boundaries. I do not want to be committed at this moment to all the details of the amalgamation
    564
    of reserves which the Commission recommend. I am sure the Commission are sound in the general principle that the reserves are in compartments which have been too watertight in the past. The boundaries between reserves were laid down in an arbitary manner, and. it is sometimes difficult to find out why they were put where they are. Anyone who reads this report and sees what the Commission says about interpenetration as between one tribe and another—a most desirable thing to encourage—and the development of individual ownership within these tribes, will agree that it is desirable that infiltration and development should not be held up by having these watertight compartments, which do not conform to native desire and development or to the realities on the spot.
    I pass to the second part of the Commission's report. They examined with the greatest care the Native Lands Trust. Ordinance and made one fundamental criticism on which is based all their recommendations. It is that the Ordinance fails sufficiently to distinguish between the function of protection and the function of management. The function of protection is the function of the board, but the day-to-day function of management is the work of the district commissioners and Government officials on the spot. There is nothing really new in that recommendation which they make. In a letter appended to the Report of the Hilton Young Commission, three men who knew the subject well, Sir Reginald Mant, Sir George Schuster and Mr. J. H. Oldham, laid it down that:
    "The first and principal need, which may be prescribed as the protective need, is to fix the areas to be set aside, and provide secure protection for the preservation of the beneficial rights over such areas to the natives. The second and almost equally important need, which we will call the constructive need, is to provide for the actual use of land in such a manner as will be of the greatest benefit to the natives..…
    It is not sufficient merely to reserve the land under the dead hand of a rigid and unalienable legal restriction, and it is a necessary consequence of these considerations that a measure which aims at preserving the beneficial use of the land to the natives must include regulation for handling it."
    I think everybody will agree that those two functions were not adequately provided for in the old Land Trust

    565
    Ordinance. The result has been a lack of elasticity which is administratively very inconvenient and has worked to the detriment of the natives. It tended to ignore what is becoming increasingly important, namely, individual rights, and it saddled this unfortunate board with a mass of administrative details that it was wholly incompetent and unable to discharge, and which in fact it did not attempt to discharge. If it had attempted to discharge the whole of these functions the whole business would have broken down.
    The Commission say, in the first place, as regards the division of responsibility, "Let us divide the question into major and minor. Let the board be responsible for the larger matters, the bigger questions of policy, the larger leases, the terms on which licences will be given, the bigger questions of water rights, and so on." My catalogue is not exhaustive. Moreover, if they think that the reserves are not being developed to the best advantage of the natives, they are to have the right to make representation to the Governor or Secretary of State, but the hundred and one detailed matters should be the function of the people who are there to do it, namely, the officers of the Government, and it will be generally accepted that that is a very sound and practical division of functions.
    Now I come to one matter on which a recommendation was made by the Commission with which the Government here are not in agreement. They recommended that there should be substituted for a local board a London board. We have given consideration to this matter, and the Cabinet have arrived at a very definite conclusion, and that is that that proposal would be constitutionally unsound and practically unworkable. It must have been considered by my hon. friends opposite when they were forming the Native Lands Trust Board, and I have no doubt they felt, as we in this Government have felt. On the constitutional side this recommendation was made under a complete misapprehension of the functions of the Privy Council. The suggestion is that the board in London should be responsible to the
    Privy Council. Such a thing is not possible, but is it not obviously right that the ultimate responsibility must rest with the Secretary of State responsible
    566
    to this House It is quite inconceivable that this House should deprive either the Secretary of State or itself, which is much more important, of the power to exercise that responsibility. It is essential that on any question of administration or policy this House should have the right to hold the Secretary of State responsible. If that is once laid down, then the idea that a board should be established in London, independent of the Secretary of State or the House of Commons, is obviously unconstitutional and impracticable.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: This matter is of very great importance.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is indeed.
    Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the procedure set forth in the recommendation would ultimately differ from the existing arrangement?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it would differ entirely, because a board responsible to the Privy Council would seem to have no sort of relation to the Secretary of State or to this House at all. But let me come to the practical side of this matter. How on earth could a board in London do the job which the Commission recommend that this board should do? It has got to approve of leases of land of more than 10 acres, subject to a power to delegate it to the Chief Native Commissioner up to 50 acres; it has got to be responsible for approving the setting aside of areas of more than 100 acres; it has got to be responsible for or to be consulted on all major questions affecting water rights; it has got to approve or to be consulted on the general principles on which licences are granted from time to time; and it has got generally to supervise and to be able to make representations to the Governor, and if necessary to the Secretary of State, on the whole broad policy of development. How on earth could a board sitting here in London do that? Frankly, I do not understand it. It has got to be in constant touch with the officers and the Government and the Chief Native Commissioner, it has got to be able to consult with the local native councils and so on, and I simply do not understand how the board could possibly function.

    567
    I know that one of two things would happen. Either it would be absolutely impotent, or you would have the most interminable delays. If it attempted to discharge its functions as it should do, it would find within a very few weeks that it was no good sitting in London and it would have to transfer its sittings to Kenya. Therefore, I think it is of the greatest importance, and we have given to it the most careful consideration. I discussed this matter with the Government in Kenya before I came home, and I think it is indeed a very important question, but I am bound to say—and I am stating here the carefully considered judgment of the Government—that we believe that no only would such a proposal be constitutionally inconvenient in regard to this House, but that it would be practically quite impossible, and we are satisfied that the board should be a board in Kenya. I would observe on the question of security, on which some stress was laid, that we must not overlook the fact that the great element of security is going to be provided by the boundaries of the reserves being defined by the Order in Council, which the Board cannot touch at all. All the recommendations as regards the Native Lands Trust Ordinance will take a great deal of drafting, and much time will have to he occupied in preparing the amended Ordinance, but we thought there was no doubt that first of all the people should know at once that these additions were going to be made to the reserves so that there would be no doubt as to the broad line of policy to be adopted.
    In one matter immediate local legislation was required. The Committee will see that the Commission recommend an alternative method for the granting of mining leases. I need not go into this now but they give very full reasons, and very convincing reasons, I think, that that procedure is likely to be not only in itself more convenient but much more consonant with native sentiment and native wishes. We accept that, and have given instructions that an ordinance shall be introduced forthwith in order to enable mining leases to be granted in the way recommended by the Commission. I may say that I have had the advantage of being able to submit a draft of that legislation to Sir Morris Carter, in order
    568
    to make sure that with the drafting of what must be a technical measure he was in complete accord. That legislation will be carried through as rapidly as possible, in order that the natives may have the benefit of the more convenient method, if they wish to use it.
    Let me add a word about the mining areas. I add it now from first-hand experience, and I should like to say that every single word which I have said in this House on information received is, as hon. Members who have visited Kenya will know, absolutely accurate. If I may respectfully say so, I have never heard more nonsense talked about any subject than about what is going on in the mining areas. I have heard accounts given—Members in this House will recollect them —by people who certainly had not been to Kenya, or who if they had been must have an extraordinary imagination, of how we were going to create a second Rand, and great areas of desolation from which natives were going to be evicted. Not a single native has been disturbed in one of them, and what surprised me about the whole matter is not the amount of the disturbance, but the smallness of it. The greatest anxiety among the natives was in the early stages, when a very large number of prospectors were staking out claims. That is the kind of thing that causes anxiety. That fact was not overlooked by the Government officers on the spot and they set themselves to explain exactly what was happening or likely to take place, with the result that there is a relationship between the prospectors and the mining representatives and the natives which affords an absolute protection.
    There has been extraordinarily little disturbance, and, where it has taken place, there has been the most generous compensation. I can tell the House of one rather amusing incident that I saw myself. It will indicate that compensation is paid on a scale which, I have said more than once in this House, landowners in this country would probably be glad to receive. With all the generous treatment of the British farmer, there is nothing to compare with the scale of native compensation. On one occasion I saw some rather sickly looking banana trees on one of the mining locations. I said, "They are not looking very well." The reply was, "They are not. It was known that we were going to dig a

    569
    trench, so these were removed from the native garden last night and put where the trench is to go, but, as we did not see them put here we shall have to pay compensation."
    It has been said that nothing will grow; that the land is a sort, of Sodom and Gomorrah. What nonsense. I saw maize growing on filled in trenches better than where the land had not been cut up. The roads have been enormously improved, and a valuable market is being created, and employment which is readily accepted. The Church has taken an interest in this matter. I am sure the House will accept from me that what I am giving is a true account. But lest I should be thought to be a blind or prejudiced witness let me read to the House the opinion of a bishop. Some bishops express opinions on Kenya without knowing it, but this bishop, the Bishop of Croydon, saw Kenya before he expressed an opinion. At the end of his letter to the "Times," dated 16th May, he says:
    "I would like, if I may, to make two further observations based on my own experience on the spot. One is that up to the present time no single native has been forcibly displaced on account of the gold-mining operations. He and his hut, and at any rate part of his plantation, have remained in the midst of the trenches and the pits. The other and more general observation I would venture to make is that if it is right at all, as I personally am convinced that it is, to get gold out of the earth, even though the surface is native owned, then everything that can be done is being done both to ensure justice to the original African owners and to see that native interests in the whole area shall not suffer."
    I commend that statement, written by a man who spent days on the spot investigating it, to some of those who are ready to attack the Government and myself on this subject. Looking to the future as far as one can tell (I am not going to advise as to whether there is or is not going to be a valuable goldfield), further developments are not likely to be very different from the preliminary operations. You have not here a territory with a vast area of gold running continuously. You have a series of narrow seams at a considerable distance from one another, some apparently very rich. It is most probable that in the development you will have what I predicted more than a year ago may be one of the most fortunate developments in mining that have ever taken place, a development
    570
    which will not displace the local natives but will afford employment on the spot, creating remunerative employment and increasing the market for what they produce. That it seems to me will be a very happy outcome. Kenya has its fair share of problems and has come in for a fair share of criticism in the past. So long as the criticism is constructive and based on knowledge nobody objects to it. It will always be welcome. But criticism which, if I may respectfully say so, is bred by prejudice out of ignorance, is not criticism to which anybody need pay an endue regard. I would appeal to all those who are interested in this matter to realise that above all what the people in that country are anxious to obtain is the certainty that breeds a sense of security, confidence and co-operation.
    5.9 p.m.
    Mr. LUNN: May I, first of all congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his recovery from the dangerous illness which he had in East Africa. Not long ago we were receiving alarming bulletins about his condition, but from the speech which he has delivered to-day I think we may say that no traces of the illness are left now. It must have been a disappointment that he was unable to complete the programme he set out to perform. I want to say that I have been slightly surprised at his speech and especially at the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to think that when he speaks to the Committee he should be so dogmatic that the last word has been said when he has spoken, and that there are not two sides to any question. That is how I interpret much of what he has said during the last quarter of an hour of his Speech.
    This is a very important Debate, and it is perhaps the most placid Debate that we get on any estimates that we have to discuss. It is a very good thing that the Committee has been able to overcome what threatened to be a restriction upon the Debate at the beginning. When we take the Colonial Estimates each year we imagine that it will be possible to discuss any part of the Colonial Empire. That is what we have done in previous years, and the Colonial Secretary has made it possible to-day, as I understand it, for hon. Members to refer to any part of the Empire they wish. As I said, this is a placid Debate. We rarely get a

    571
    division on this occasion, and it does not give an opportunity for the bitter expressions that occur when home policy is discussed in this House.
    Mr. HANNON: Is that not a great tribute to the successful administration of the Colonial Office?
    Mr. LUNN: It does not apply simply to the present Government. It was equally true under the previous Governments, but it does not follow that we must accept everything. I do not expect the Government to accept the Socialist policy in regard to the Colonies that I should wish to put forward if it were in order, hut, as we are trustees of the people who inhabit the Colonies and rave accepted the paramountcy of native Interest in the Colonies, it ought to be possible for the Secretary of State or the Colonial administration to accept many of the suggestions that are made from all parts of the House at all times to see that the interests of the Colonies and the residents there are made better than they are. I take that view in regard to the Debate that we have to-day on the Estimates for the Colonial Office. I believe a generous-minded Secretary of State could make a good deal of use of the suggestions that are made which are not destructive and which, though critical, may be constructive.
    It happened three years ago that Kenya was the main feature of the Debate on the Colonial Estimates. Then we had the report of the committee which dealt with closer union with East Africa. Two years ago it was Lord Moyne's report on the financial state of Kenya, and last year it was a repudiation by the Secretary of State of the recommendation of Lord Moyne that an Income Tax should be started in Kenya and the illegal violation of what had been understood to be the position with regard to natives and their land and the gold mining that has been started there. This year the greater part of the speech has been made on the Morris Carter report which deals with land questions in Kenya, and I suppose it will occupy the premier position in the Debate to-day. It is a large volume, and it is difficult for Members of Parliament to follow these things and to become closely acquainted with them, but I should like to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the volume the Colonial Office
    572
    have published on the economic survey of the Colonial Empire. It is a very valuable one which will be very interesting to everyone concerned about the Colonies and will be a valuable book of reference. It deals not only with the agricultural position, with the area and population, but with all the possibilities of development of the natural resources and gives to us a knowledge of the Empire out there that we have not had provided in any volume before. Great credit is due to those who have produced this volume, and not least to the hon. Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean), who is an enthusiast on this subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that we shall have this information sooner in future, because the information in this volume only goes up to the end of 1932.
    Before I come to the Morris Carter report I would like to mention a Debate in this House which took place during the absence of the right hon. Gentleman in East Africa. A Motion was before the House calling for a Parliamentary inquiry into the Constitution of Ceylon. Most of us knew that that was not the purpose of those who raised that Debate, knew that Ceylon was not necessarily the centre of the picture, and that it was another aspect of the Government's policy which was being attacked. I said then, as I say now, that the Constitution of Ceylon is a new and a novel one and that we should gain longer experience of its working before holding an inquiry. I was pleased that the Under-Secretary for the Dominions took that view, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman shares it. I have since read a very long speech by the Leader of the House in the State Council of Ceylon, Sir Dom B. Jayatilaka, who, I think, gave a very able reply to the Opposition; and in the "Times" a few days ago I read an article by a correspondent lately in Ceylon in which it was said:
    "In spite of much ill-informed criticism of government by committee in Ceylon the State Council, modelled more or less on the London County Council"—
    And that is a very good model just now, when the London County Council have a Labour majority—
    "is by the general consent of those who are in a position to judge working effectively. What friction has occurred has, in large measure, been due to the desire for more self-control in the only departments which interest a large number of the elected members."

    573
    It is a very righteous desire that people should seek for powers under which they can accomplish more for those whom they represent. I do not say that inquiry into the Constitution of Ceylon may not be necessary at some time, because it may be possible to extend that form of Constitution to some other part of the Colonial Empire, seeing that it is working to the advantage of the people in Ceylon, but when we do inquire into the Constitution of Ceylon, do not let us do so with the veiled object of attacking some other and disconnected subject. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the Morris Carter Commission's report and if one heeded what he said one would feel that it was almost impossible for anybody to hold any other opinion than that which he expressed. The commission was appointed in April, 1932, and its report has been in the hands of the Government for eight months—seven months before it was published. It was in their hands in September, and was not published until May, an unusually long interval.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Do not let us have any mystery about this. It is perfectly true that one copy was available, that which had been signed by the commissioners, and I think there was one other, on which the printer was working. The report was printed in Kenya, where printing takes longer than in this country. There was no delay in making it public, both in Kenya and here, as soon as it was ready; but it took an enormous time.
    Mr. LUNN: It might have been printed here. It does not take long to print a report in this country.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If it was a mistake not to print it here, that is my responsibility, but it was a Kenya document and normally would be printed there. Further, I do not think it would have been practicable to print it in this country, because it includes an enormous number of maps, and it was absolutely essential to have it printed where there was a secretary on the spot who could correct the maps and so on, and there was nobody in this country who could do that.
    Mr. LUNN: There would have been no difficulty in a secretary coming over here to see to the printing; but I do not raise
    574
    this as a matter of importance. I am only drawing attention to the fact that the report could have been printed here as well as in Kenya, and to the fact that it was seven months before the report was published, and that is an unusually long time. To say that Members have had it in their hands for many weeks is not quite the fact, because it is not long since it was published and distributed. Before the commission began its work we made it very clear that, by reason of the constitution of the commission, we could not be bound to accept its findings. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say about this being the end of the matter as regards the land question in Kenya, he must remember that we made it clear at the beginning, and that we say the same to-day, that we do not take the view that the report is final, nor can we accept the whole of the conclusions at which the commission has arrived.
    When the right hon. Gentleman allowed the illegal occupation by European miners of parts of the Kavirondo Reserve we made it clear to him and the Government that we reserved our right to repudiate that decision at any time, and we cannot accept the view of this commission that this is the final volume, that this is the final inquiry and the end of this matter. Moreover, our final decisions cannot be reached at the present time. They must be held up for some time, because the right hon. Gentleman has given an assurance, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) on 6th June this year, that every opportunity will be given to those who are concerned with the recommendations to consider these matters before a final decision is arrived at. We welcome that declaration and we hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is carried out.
    I can associate myself quite clearly with the right hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the work of the Commission. It is one of the features of the Colonial Office Debate that there are so many opportunities to express appreciation and to pronounce congratulation such as do not arise on other Debates. Personally, I am not so very anxious to offer congratulations to the present Government, because if there were anything I could do to bring about its downfall I should certainly do it, in any part of the Empire or any part of the world; but, all the same, this is

    575
    the Debate in which one gets an opportunity to offer congratulations, and I can do that quite sincerely, even in the case of a commission of this sort, because I realise that they have endeavoured to secure all the information possible. They have taken steps to ascertain the opinion of representatives of every section of the community in Kenya, and in listening to nearly 500 native witnesses they showed extreme patience. In their report they acknowledge that the native reserves are inadequate and recommend that 1,500 square miles should be added to the reserves, and I see by the White Paper that the Government here accept that recommendation. They advise, and this Government agree, that those areas should be secured to the tribes by Order in Council, which means that they cannot be altered by the local government. That shows, what has been often said in this House, that the Government have no faith in the local government of Kenya carrying out even a declaration of this sort.
    I do not intend to go into the details of this matter, or to read long passages from this report, although there are many excellent texts in it, from my point of view, which could be applied to the land question in Kenya or to the land question in this country. Although 1,500 square miles are to be added to the reserves it is disappointing to find that very little of the land which was taken away from the natives before is to be restored to them. Only a small amount of all that has been taken from the native inhabitants of that Colony is to go back to them. I see that it is only 1,500 acres, and not 1,500 square miles, which are to be added to the Kavirondo Reserves. That is all that is to be taken away from those who have taken the land from the natives during the last35 years. Further, is it not a fact that much of the land to be added to the reserves is malarial? The commission recommend that the boundaries of the Highlands which have been collared by Europeans and are in their occupation should be established for them by Order in Council.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: When the hon. Gentleman says that they have been collared by the white man is he now, on behalf of the Labour party, repudiating Lord Passfield's declaration?
    Mr. LUNN: I am not in any way repudiating Lord Passfield's declaration,
    576
    which was made in 1930, but I think it is an historical fact that this happened even before Lord Passfield's declaration. I would like to ask whether the Commission are not recommending that not only shall they be retained in their present ownership, but that the major forests of Kenya, which are some of the best lands, shall for the first time become part of the European-owned Highlands. We are pleased to see certain things in this Report. Before the Debate ends I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us an undertaking as to whether there will be equal opportunities for all races in regard to mining.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will give that undertaking now. Mining legislation in Kenya makes no distinction, and never has, between one race and another.
    Mr. LUNN: I am very pleased to hear that. The conditions under which mining is carried on place a tremendous limitation upon those who live there. Another point in the report is that land trust boards are to be set up, and the representatives upon them are to be Africans, plus the district commissioners. I am now dealing with the good points in the report, and the one I have just mentioned is a step in the right direction. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Land Board sitting in London. The Morris Carter Commission had no faith whatever that the people in Kenya knew how to be fair. They had no confidence in Kenya's impartiality. I suggest that the Governor and the legal adviser should he members of the Central Land Board.
    I have no intention of dealing with the details of the report, but there is another side to it. We should have liked to see some of the hundreds of miles of the best land in respect of soil, water and climate restored to the Africans. I have not been to East Africa, but I am speaking on instructions from people who are very well acquainted with it. I understand that on some of the white estates, not 15 per cent, of the land is cultivated, and yet less than 10 per cent, of the land to be added to the reserves is to be taken from the Europeans. With what the right hon. Gentleman said arid with what the report of the Commission says about the cultivation of the land,

    577
    I entirely agree. The land ought to be cultivated if possible, and steps ought to be taken to see that the best use is made of the land, either in the Colonies or in this country. We know that Africans cannot obtain land by purchase or by any other means in the Highlands. I believe that there are only 1,500 acres which are being added to the Kavirondo.
    Mr. WISE: For the sake of fairness, will the hon. Gentleman allow me to give the exact figures as to land that has been added to the Kavirondo reserves; the figure is 66 square miles.
    Mr. LUNN: At the moment my information is that it is 1,500 acres, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman used that figure. I do not even say that they have been added, but that they have been taken from European occupation in order to be added to the reserves.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There are two separate additions to the Kavirondo reserves. There is 66 square miles which It is recommended should be added to the reserves to supplement native territory. Apart from that, there is a recommendation as to 1,500 acres, taken out of the old forest reserves, and to be made available in the very unlikely event of some substitute land being required with regard to mining.
    Mr. LUNN: I was not dealing with land that was to be added to each reserve. I have left out all the tribes to whose land additions were to be made separately. The only point I was putting was that 1,500 acres were to be added to the Kavirondo reserves and would be taken from the Europeans. There is no information about land which has been offered to the Kikuyu tribe for economic development and to relieve congestion. If mining is to continue, will the Secretary of State take into consideration the waste of land caused by drainage or reef mining? He knows that there is a good deal of wastefulness involved in that. The people have no doubt suffered great losses from that form of mining, which might continue in the future more than it has done in the past.
    The Labour Government's native charter in 1930 laid down that the natives' occupation of this land was for ever, but that has been violated. We believe that a lesson can be taken in regard to
    578
    this matter from the Petroleum Bill which has just passed this House, and in which petroleum was declared to be the property of the Crown. It could also be laid down that gold in Kenya should be the property of the nation. There may be other minerals there, such as copper or radium, and they should be worked by the Government. We are opposed to private ownership in land, and we do not see the necessity for giving up land to private ownership in any colony. If we were in power we should be opposed to that part of the business, as it is carried on at the present time. We object to the very long leases which are made in Kenya, and which are practically equal to private ownership of the land. Leases made for 999 years are practically for ever. No lease ought to be granted beyond the lifetime of the present occupier. I know that the Government do not agree with me in that, but that would be the attitude which I should take up. I need say very little more about the report except that I hope that no tribe or section of the African community will be rushed into accepting it before they have considered it. During the last day or two I have received a telegram, as follows:
    "We representatives Kikuyu tribe convey our sincere thanks for land commission recording lengthy evidence patiently, but strongly protest against your accepting report without giving us enough time study and lodge objection. Respectfully beg no action be taken immediately."
    This is signed by Koinange, who is well known and can I think speak for that tribe. He met the Commission when it was out there.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: May I say, in order to clear my own mind, that we have had an inquiry by an official tribunal, before which everybody has given evidence. The native to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred was among the 487 natives who gave evidence. Is it suggested that the Commission's report, which adds to the thousands of square miles of the reserves, should not be carried out until we have consulted, or had an opportunity of consulting, every native in the whole of Kenya?
    Mr. LUNN: There is no need to put the matter in that way. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on 6th June on this matter. He

    579
    asked to be assured that the native community of Kenya had the fullest rights of conference and public meeting, in order that they could have this report discussed and understood. The right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance. He said:
    "I am sure the Government in Kenya can be relied on to permit all proper facilities for the discussion of the report."
    In answer to a supplementary question by myself later, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "We have very able district officers in Kenya who, I am sure, will give all information on all Matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1934; col. 921, Vol. 290.]
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose—
    Mr. COVE: We do not interrupt the Minister.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Is it in order, when I desire to ask a question of the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), who with perfect courtesy is always ready to give way, for some hon. Member to complain that I am interrupting?
    Mr. LUNN: I am not complaining of the right hon. Gentleman. The unfortunate part of such interruptions arises from the knowledge which may be in possession of those who have lived or spent a good deal of their time in the Colony. That circumstance makes their interruptions not always as welcome as they might be, if one had an intimate knowledge such as the interrupters possess. The natives should have genuine and sympathetic assistance so that they may understand all that is involved in the recommendations of the report. We do not regard as final the report on the subject of the Kenya land question. We shall reserve our right when we are in power—as we shall be, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as most hon. Members know who have intimated that they want to get out and not fight in the next General Election—to alter what may be done as a result of this report. We are satisfied that in many ways the report is not in the interests of the native. There are no civil liberties in Kenya for the native, and no equal rights with others. When the time comes to which I have referred, and perhaps before that, there will have to be a change in the method of the Government.
    580
    I will leave the report now to other hon. Gentlemen who want to discuss it. We shall have to return to the report and its recommendations before anything of a final nature can be accepted with regard to it.
    It is rather remarkable that although we have scores of territories, only a few of them are discussed when the Colonial Office Vote is before the Committee. Matters concerning other individual Colonies may be raised, but there is one thing that I want to raise with regard to all Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman, towards the commencement of his speech, said that all the services—education, health and other social services—in the Colonies were being carried on almost without reduction, but I would like him to give us further assurances that that is the fact, because my information is that, while the administration is kept on with very little reduction, services of vital importance, like those of the health, education and labour departments in these Colonies, have suffered considerably. We fear that it is in those services that the economies have been imposed, and, if so, they are in a very wrong direction. We want, for instance, to see more educational facilities provided than exist to-day, so that the people may have educational opportunities which will fit them for taking over the government of their own country when occasion offers in the future. It is also vital that the health of the people should be maintained.
    I notice from the Estimates that many of the grants which were made to the Empire Marketing Fund for scientific research are now being made through the Colonial Office, and I do not complain of that, because scientific research will not only mean an improvement in the health of the people, but it will mean that their economic status will be raised. It is the natives who do the work in these Colonies, some of which have had excellent labour departments, but I am informed that many of those labour departments have been seriously depleted of officers, and I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter and see that, in the interests of the people, everything is done to strengthen those departments and make them more competent than they are at present.
    In conclusion, I would repeat what I said at the end of my speech last year—

    581
    that the question of paramount importance to our people at home are their own domestic questions. This question of the Colonies, important as it is, has not much electoral value in the constituencies of this country, but it is a vital question to the House of Commons. To the people of our country the vital question is that of their own domestic conditions, which in hundreds of thousands of homes are not what they ought to be to-day; but, so long as we have a Colonial Empire, we have a duty and a great responsibility as trustees for the welfare of the peoples of that Empire. We have accepted the policy of the paramountcy of native interests in the Colonies, and we should all seek to do what we can to cultivate their confidence in everything that we undertake. The criticisms that I have made are not made merely for the sake of criticism, but for the purpose of helping to get to the point that I want to reach, when the natives will have every right that we ourselves have or desire. Until that end has been achieved, I shall not be satisfied that we have done our duty towards the different parts of our Colonial Empire.
    5.50 p.m.
    Mr. WHITE: Like the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend on his complete recovery from his illness. It has been a source of anxiety to his friends, and it must have been a personal disappointment to him that he was unable to complete all his investigations, of some of which he has given us such an interesting account this afternoon. The Committee must have heard with much satisfaction of the greatly improved economic and financial situation of the Colonies. The recovery is remarkable, and is entirely satisfactory. In these times it is impossible to take a very long view, but, having regard to the present improved outlook for tropical agriculture generally, it is not too much to hope that that improvement may continue, and that perhaps, in the Federated Malay States in particular, when my right hon. Friend comes to review the situation in 12 months' time, he may be able to record a further considerable improvement,
    I was quite fascinated by my right hon. Friend's interesting account of the
    582
    multitude of agricultural, educational and other activities which are carried on by his Department, and it is pleasing to know that they are producing satisfactory results. To mention one perhaps rather small matter to which he referred, I am very pleased to learn that some experimental farms have been established in Cyprus. I think that that will be extremely useful, but I am afraid it is not quite enough. I do not know what the conditions there have been during the last few years, since I had the opportunity of seeing them myself, but in those days, as in other parts of the Middle and Far East, the real trouble of the agriculturists was that they were in the hands of usurers. One way of extracting them from those difficulties, which will remain however efficient their agriculture, might be the development, such as has already been started, of agricultural co-operative societies, who might make financial arrangements with the Loan Board, or Agricultural Bank, whereby they might be free in the marketing of their goods. Another essential thing is that the agriculturists should be protected from being swindled, as they appeared to be, in the weights of everything that they brought into the market, by the establishment of public weighing machines or some public central market where fair prices were to be obtained, where the market prices could be known, and where the actual weighing could be carried out under fair conditions.
    I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend's commendation of the efforts to do something with regard to the ancient monuments of Cyprus. I hope that those in this country who are interested will give such support as they can in connection with this matter, which has now become urgent if anything is to be achieved. It is not merely a question of the making of chance discoveries, or the rifling of tombs which have been opened up the course of agricultural operations, but of preserving these wonderful monuments, which are not only of great historic importance, but are unique in their architectural and other features, and which are crumbling to dust at the present moment. If action be not taken without delay, it may well be too late to do any useful work in this direction at all.

    583
    I rose really to make one or two observations with regard to the Morris Carter Report and the position in Kenya. In this connection I regret very much the enforced absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), who has special knowledge of many of these problems, and who, indeed, from time to time has had special responsibility in connection with them. He has the advantage of knowing the background against which all these troubles and difficulties stand, and, had he been here, his advice and comments would have been valuable and interesting to the Committee.
    I desire to associate myself to the full with what my right hon. Friend said about the enormous amount of work which the Commission had to perform, and the fair-minded and just way in which they have sought to carry it out. It is impossible for any Member of the House of Commons, or, indeed, for anyone at all who is not actually connected in some way with the work of the commission, fully to realise the immense work of the examination of witnesses and the difficulties of deciding between shadowy claims wrapped in the mysteries of the past, which in that country are very numerous indeed, and claims of substance, but the Report bears evidence throughout of a definite attempt to hold the balance equally between the different interests concerned. Further, and this I think really goes to the root of the business, it is extremely difficult, having regard both to the state of development of the native settlements and to the conditions of the Europeans, to forecast the future but I think that the commission, in drawing up the principles upon which the land should be divided, have succeeded in making as sound proposals as could be made, in this stage of development, for the best use and development of the land having regard to the future requirements of the native and also of the European population.
    The report deals with many matters of immense importance, to one of which in particular I should like to draw attention, as my right hon. Friend did not do so. That is the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the over-stocking which is already taking place in some parts of the Colony. It is not too much to say that this diffi-
    584
    culty is comparable with that of the actual delimitation of the country itself. Experience in other parts of the world clearly shows that neglect in this matter may result in reasonably good land being converted into a desert, and, if the position were allowed to drift, there would be nothing to prevent a situation such as has happened in various parts of Africa, and even in parts of Europe, which would make the Commission's work in regard to the delimitation of lands almost futile in the course of time. The report of the Commission is in some parts almost alarming. They describe the situation in one section of the country as being one of unrelieved gloom, and I want to suggest that whatever steps may be necessary to deal with this matter should be taken. It is comforting to see that one important tribe are themselves recognising the evils arising from over-stocking, and are taking some steps to combat it of their own accord.
    It seems to me that, as the Commission say, the only final solution is to persuade the native to co-operate in his own salvation. I have in mind the seriousness of the position in regard to those parts of the Colony which the Commission speak of in such gloomy terms. There, it seems to me, the processes of education may be very difficult, if not impossible but whatever steps may be necessary it is clear the Government must act. I recognise in every way the value of the report, but at the same time I believe that it is not above criticism. Neither are the recommendations of the Government. If they were, they would be the only two human institutions within the range of my knowledge which are above criticism. I intend to avail myself of the right hon. Gentleman's in vitation when he said he welcomed criticism which was not born of prejudice and ignorance. With regard to prejudice. I deny that I have the slightest association with it at all. With regard to the other, it would ill become me if I made any reference to it. I have at least read the White Paper, and I think all the material sections of the report, and I have also had access to opinions on these matters which I must admit are more valuable than my own.
    A long series of investigations have taken place. There was the report of the Commission presided over by the First Commissioner of Works, then there

    585
    was the Hilton Young Report, and the Select Committee. I have also in mind the important Debates that took place in this House and in another place last year, and in particular the very strong appeal made by the Archbishop of Canterbury that before a final decision on these matters was reached there should be opportunity for full consideration. This White Paper presents the matter to the House not intend as a fait accompli, but as a chose jugee. There is, of course, a difference between the two. But it is a precedent which I hope will not be adopted generally. I can imagine in some cases that it might have very serious consequences. For example it would be far from helpful if this course were adopted when the Indian Joint Select Committee makes its report.
    Speaking generally of the report, I see no reason why it should not be the basis of a permanent settlement of these difficulties which have been a source of anxiety to previous Secretaries of State and to the local government and have also been a source of much uneasiness from time to time to the people of this country. We have not had very much time in which to consider and to deal with these very difficult questions. The Government have had access to the report for seven months, but those who are deeply interested in the matter have only been able to give little more than a preliminary consideration to this voluminous report. The hon. Member for Rothwell referred to the position of the Kikuyu tribe. The commissioners devoted an immense amount of care and time to the whole matter, which is one of extreme complexity. I associate myself to the full with the words used by the Colonial Secretary when he deprecated criticism of these detailed local matters. It could serve no useful purpose and would be mischievous in so far as it tended to destroy respect for the local government in Kenya or other parts of the Empire if—
    Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

    ROYAL ASSENT.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
    The House went; and, having re-turned—
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

    1. Finance Act, 1934.

    2. Palestine Loan Act, 1934.

    3. Adoption of Children (Workmen's Compensation) Act, 1934.

    4. Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1934.

    5. Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934.

    6. Renfrewshire County Council (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Order Confirmation Act, 1934.

    7. Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1934.

    8. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morley) Act, 1934.

    9. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Steyning and District Water) Act, 1934.

    10. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Milford Haven) Act, 1934.

    11. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Burnham and District Water) Act, 1934.

    12. Provisional Orders (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1934.

    13. Mexborough and Swinton Traction (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1934.

    14. St. Helens Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1934.

    15. Southend-on-Sea Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1934.

    16. Nottingham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1934.

    17. Prince of Wales's Hospital, Plymouth, Act, 1934.

    18. Walth.amstow Corporation Act, 1934.

    19. Maidstone Waterworks Act, 1934.

    20. Stockport Corporation Act, 1934.

    21. Stockport Extension Act, 1934.

    22. Newport Extension Act, 1934.

    23. London County Council (Money) Act, 1934.

    24. London Passenger Transport (Interim Financial Arrangements) Act, 1934.

    25. Newport Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1934.

    SUPPLY.
    Again considered in Committee. [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
    Question again proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £99,519, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
    Mr. WHITE: When Black Rod summoned us to another place I was questioning the recommendation of the commission with regard to the Kikuyu Land Reserves. I was on the point of saying that, looking broadly at the reports of the commission, one cannot help but feel doubtful whether the proposed allocation of land for the tribe, having regard to the character of the land and the fact that so much is already in occupation, and the tendency of the tribe to increase in numbers, will really suffice for more than a temporary settlement—possibly for not more than a. few years—of this very difficult question. The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) asked whether the Kikuyu had been consulted. It would be of great interest to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman could say what were the reactions of the people to these proposals. Perhaps it is possible to give some indication of the feeling. Another matter upon which there appears to be room for two opinions is that of the European Highlands.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The immediate issue is that,, the commission have recommended that certain additions should be made. We propose to adopt the recommendations of the commission and to make these Additions to the reserves. It does not follow, and I do not think anyone would presume to say, that, in the fulness of time, as things develop —there is a great deal of other land which is called D land—the reserves, even with these large additions, will be sufficient for ever and ever. That is not the issue at present. That would be an issue if one said that no one is ever to have any part in the D land. That is not said at the moment. Here and now we are making additions to reserves which the commission recommended, And upon that, I think, we are all agreed.
    Mr. WHITE: I do not think that that meets my point. It was on the actual recommendations of the Commission as they stand at the moment, and I doubt whether they will suffice for more than a comparatively short space of time. If I understand the point of the B land, and that if the case arises there may be a further addition to the reserves, it would appear to safeguard the future, as far as one can possibly see it. On the subject of the European Highlands, it seems to me that the foundation of the Commission's report is not quite historically sound. The establishment of a privileged position for the Europeans in the Highlands, as I understand the position, has been defined from the earliest times. It was defined by Lord Elgin in his despatch, and in the well-known despatch of the Duke of Devonshire in 1923. Lord Passfield, before the Committee on Closer Union, made it clear that the privileged position of the Europeans in the Higlands was vis-à-vis the Asiatics and not vis-à-vis the natives of Kenya itself. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and as this is a matter of opinion one can only agree or disagree. I think that that is the historical basis of the whole thing. I certainly agree that the only sensible and desirable course is that the boundary should be fixed as clearly and definitely as possible, but this inevitably raises the question whether the allocation of 17,600 square miles is the right proportion in respect of the 16,800 Europeans now in the country, and whether it preserves the proper balance between the future requirements of Europeans and the probable requirements of the natives living on this populated land.
    In order to form a clear judgment upon that point, one would require to know how much of the land has been alienated already and what proportion is already in occupation. I addressed an inquiry to the right hon. Gentleman for some information and he has been good enough to give me some figures, and it appears that roughly one-third of the total area of the Highlands as recommended by the Commission is already alienated. There is something like one-sixth which is forest area, the user of which, presumably, will not change, and the remainder is some 10,000,000 acres or nearly two-thirds of the whole. That raises the question as

    589
    to whether there are not available plots of land in the unalienated portion which might be suitable for natives and which could be held in suspense and not ear- marked in advance, and made available for future use by the natives as the need arises. There are two opinions upon this matter. The Hilton Young Report dealing with this subject definitely advocates that certain further areas should again be mapped out—that has been done as a result of the recommendation of the Commission—definitely and immediately for alienation to non-natives, leaving the balance to be retained by the Government for disposal to native reserves, and, if necessary, for further alienation to non-natives or sale to natives. I quote that to show that there is room for two opinions on this matter.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Com-mission were asked to define the boundaries of the European Highlands having regard to all the pledges given in the past. They were not asked to express an opinion as to whether the pledges themselves were right or wrong, and it is relevant to observe that if you compare the map in the evidence which shows the differgrit proposals put forward from time to tine as what was a proper area, of the Highlands, having regard to the pledges given in the past, with the map in the body of the report, in which the land delimited by the Commission is shown, you will find that the actual delimitation shown by the Commission is a smaller area than any of the previous proposals.
    Mr. WHITE: I am much obliged for the explanation. There is the further point as to the compensation to the natives who are now living on the land within the area. Money compensation is really no compensation at all to the native for land, and the question I wish to ask is whether the sum of money, a small one, £2,000, is really adequate to meet these claims. The whole object of the Commission was to try to get good will and allay unrest. I question whether the procedure in paragraph 13 of the White Paper is the best way to set about it. The natives are our fellow-subjects, and the question arises whether procedure by Order in Council is the best way to deal with the matter.
    I now come to the most important matter in the report. The whole object was to allay the suspicion which has been
    590
    aroused, to remove the fears of the natives, and give them as good a title to the land as they can get, short of the legal title prohibited by the Courts enjoyed by Europeans. If we fail in that we fail in everything in Kenya. The Commission were wise in dividing its functions in the way they did. I am sure it will meet with the unanimous approval of anyone who gives the scantiest attention to the matter. Government must deal with development and details and the Lands Trust Board will be left with the function of protecting native rights in the area. That, of course, raises at once the question whether the board should be situate in London or in Kenya. I have read with great care the portion of the report dealing with that matter, and I am convinced by the statements and opinions of the Commission which led them to the conclusion that the board should be situate in London. Let me quote one or two of the points they make. They point out that the work of the board was not arduous and that occasions will be rare on which practical issues will arise; that the chief requirements in any board appointed as trustees for this purpose are that it should be independent and just, should command confidence, and they conclude their observations by saying that they see nothing in the list of duties which demands that the board should have a close local knowledge, or should of necessity be resident in the Colony.
    The hon. Member for Rothwell suggested that the Governor should be a member of the board, and I think he also said the legal adviser. On that point the Secretary of State did not express any opinion, but I think it is most unsuitable that the Governor should be a member of the board. In the discharge of his duties he might make some proposal which would conflict with the duties of the board in protecting the interests of the natives, and in that case the matter would have to come to the
    Secretary of State for his decision. It is, of course, of the first importance that it should be independent and just, and that the, members of the board should be entirely free from contact with local interests and local politics, and, indeed, that, so far as the natives are concerned, they should be free even from a suspicion of such contact. If the board

    591
    were situate in London, the native would say that it was entirely independent, he would have complete reliance on its justice. He would say, "The King is looking after our affairs." The right hon. Gentleman has decided otherwise, and proposes to deal with the matter in another way. I am not impressed with the difficulty of keeping in touch with the Colony, particularly in these days of rapid communication, when these difficulties are becoming less every day. I think, on the whole, that the balance of advantage is in having the board in London, the Commission themselves decided in its favour, and one member, Mr. Hemsted, went so far as to make it a definite recommendation. I have ventured to bring before the Committee some matters on which there is obviously room for two opinions, and, having regard to the history of the matter, I hope the Secretary of State will be prepared to receive memoranda from those who are particularly interested in this question and give it his serious consideration.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Lunn) wished to move to reduce the Vote by £100. Unfortunately, I was not aware of the fact, and I will ask him formally to move the reduction now.
    Mr. LUNN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    6.38 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: We have just been reminded of the fact that we are discussing an Amendment for a reduction; in other words, a Vote of Censure. An atmosphere palpitating with excitement, these crowded benches, are the measure of the danger which the Secretary of State is running this afternoon. All the same, I rather wish that no reduction had been moved. After the wide measure of agreement arrived at by members of all parties on the Joint Select Committee three years ago, and after this report which has been discussed to-day, a report so careful, so exhaustive and so fair-minded, I should have hoped that Kenya, after many years, might be allowed for a space of time, at any rate, to be left outside the sphere of party controversy. I do not propose to follow that question any further, but rather to say one or two words about the general problem of the development of our Colonial Empire, on
    592
    which my right hon. Friend touched so interestingly and so encouragingly in the earlier part of his statement.
    In the present condition of the world we have to consider what are our assets and our opportunities. As the sphere of international trade, on which we relied in the last century, is steadily narrowing down, it is worth while remembering that we have open, existing, and within our power to create, a market which will compensate—perhaps more than compensate—for anything we may lose. Our Colonial Empire is even to-day an immensely important asset from the point of view of the trade of this country. Its total trade before the present depression set in was approaching a figure of £500,000,000 a year. In 1929, before any preferences had been begun, the trade of this country with the Colonial Empire amounted to something like £133,000,000 a year, and though with the general fall in prices that figure has dropped heavily, yet it is bound to recover, and, relatively to our trade with the rest of the world, has already shown a most remarkable advance. To-day, if we treat our Colonial Empire as a single market, it is definitely the biggest market for British goods in the world. In the first quarter of this year our exports to the Colonial Empire amounted to just under £9,250,000—more than our exports to India, our other largest single market, which amounted to £8,700,000. It was almost as large as our exports to Canada and Australia together, which were £9,500,000. That market and the Colonial Empire market in each case take three times as much from this country as the Argentine.
    Those are interesting figures. What is also important is the character of the trade. The Colonial Empire produces raw materials and foodstuffs which are not produced in this country. As far as I can see, it will be a long time before the Colonial Empire to any appreciable extent will be interested in protecting domestic industries against British competition. It is essentially a complementary trade which it is in our power to develop. It is a long-distance trade which is already of great value to our shipping and can be made of even greater value to it. We are only at the very beginning of the development of our colonial resources. That is particularly true on the Continent of Africa, where a territory of 1,500,000 square miles, not

    593
    including the Sudan, possesses immense undeveloped resources, with a population of something like 50,000,000 whose innate resources, in numbers, in ability and in purchasing power, are also capable of immense development.
    We are undertaking there one of the most important and most hopeful and also one of the most humanly interesting tasks which any nation ever undertook. We are offered a wonderful field both for our industries at home and for the men who are prepared to go out there from this country, to throw themselves into that work and to continue the splendid tradition of the Colonial service, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already paid tribute. That task of development can only be carried out by the utilisation of many factors. One basic factor is accurate, full and up-to-date information. I congratulate my right hon. Friend most heartily on the production of a monumental piece of statistical information which must be the foundation of all reasoned planning of development in the Colonial Empire. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for the Tradeston Division (Dr. McLean) for his most helpful and useful part in working out the statistics. I also suggest, without in any way being critical of what is clone in other parts of the Empire, that my right hon. Friend might draw the attention of the Dominion Governments and of the Government of India, and even the attention of some of our Departments here at home, to the advantage that it would be at an Imperial Conference if every part of the Empire were as adequately documented as the Colonial Empire now is. That is one essential task.
    The other is the whole task of development that falls upon the administration. For the purposes of the Colonial Empire the Colonial Office is in some measure a Ministry of Health, a Ministry of Transport, a Ministry of Agriculture and a Ministry of Education, and, as my right lion. Friend has pointed out, matters of health and agriculture and education are very largely one and the same problem. It is only when you teach the natives how to attend to the problem of health and how to make the best use of their soil, that you get proper development, and at the same time you are giving them a form of education that most helps
    594
    the development of their minds at their present stage of progress.
    Behind your administrative work you must have a general economic policy. That policy now must be effective mutual preference. My right hon. Friend has pointed out how valuable the preferences we are giving have been to the Colonial Empire, and the difference that preference has made between the depth of depression which they were passing through years ago and the very substantial measure of recovery which they have already achieved when all the world is still in the depths. I do not believe it is possible to get effective development without substantial preference. It is only if there is security of market for the products of the Colonies that the people in this country are going to take a personal interest in the development of those Colonies. They will go out to see for themselves what the opportunities are and to prepare for capital to go out. On the other hand I doubt whether in the long run you will get this country finding the capital, private and public, that is required for development, unless there is same mutuality about it, unless there is a corresponding direct advantage to our development from the development of the Colonies.
    That brings me to a moral issue which we are bound to face as trustees for the population of our Colonies. Are we entitled to use our control over these populations in order to establish a system of preference in the Colonies? There was a time when we believed Free Trade to be the ideal system for any country, and naturally wherever we were responsible as trustees we applied it. There was a time also when there was such a thing as a world market for primary products. No one could produce a primary product who could not sell it. All that has passed away. To-day the position of a primary producer in a world of quotas and restrictions is the worst position of all, especially for small Colonies that have no large home market of their own. In the case of Colonies that are mainly dependent upon producing one particular article, the only chance of success and development is that someone with a great market will make that market secure to them.
    Therefore to-day, from the point of view of our own outlook as well as from the

    595
    point of view of the direct interest of the populations that are dependent on us, it seems to me obvious that it is not only our right but our duty to establish an effective system of preference between themselves and us. After all, if we believe that mutual preference is a good thing in the relations between ourselves and any Colony or Dominion that has the power to decide its destiny, it must also be a good thing where the responsibility for deciding that destiny still rests with us. Or are we to assume that we are so incapable of governing fairly that we must continue to enforce a disastrous system upon dependent populations because we have not that confidence in our own ability to give them a fair and equal share in the advantages which would accrue from any mutual arrangement? From what I know of the traditions of the Colonial Office, from what I know of the intense local patriotism of every colonial administration, I am not afraid that local interests will be overlooked or forgotten in any mutual arrangements made between this country and the dependent Empire.
    Our task is not only to promote trade between this country and the Colonies, but to help the development of the Colonies by any other trade that we can promote for them. First and foremost with the Dominions. I would congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very valuable work he did at Ottawa in seeing that inter-Empire preference included Colonial preference in the Dominions as well as preference in this country. It is very satisfactory to know that several of our recent trade treaties have made special provision for the interests of Colonial products. I have put down a Motion critical, in one aspect, of the recent Treaty with Lithuania, but I was delighted to see that, no doubt tat the instigation of my right hon. Friend, the Treaty provides special terms for bananas, limejuice, cocoa, tea and spices, all likely to be of real value to one part or another of the Colonial Empire.
    If, therefore, we believe that it is our right and our duty to develop a system of preferences in the Colonial Empire, it is surely our task to get rid of those obstacles to the extension of preference which at present restrict our action over almost the whole of Africa. Those obstacles come under three
    596
    heads. There is, first of all, the Anglo-French Treaty covering the greater part of the West African possessions; secondly, there is the Convention of St. Germain-en-Laye, superimposed on the old Brussels and Berlin Acts, covering the Congo Basin conventional zone, most of French Equatorial Africa, the Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, and a corner of Northern Rhodesia; and lastly there are the economic stipulations in the various mandates which we have pledged ourselves to fulfil. Of these the easiest to get rid of are the provisions in the Anglo-French Convention. We could denounce them at a year's notice, and it is only France and ourselves who are concerned. As far as the trade position goes, as between France and ourselves, the arrangement is one that has not worked in our disfavour. The imports in our West African territories from France are undoubtedly less than the imports to that part of French West Africa which is affected by the treaty. It is difficult to quote exact figures, because our figures only give the exports to the whole of French West Equatorial Africa, which are about six or seven times as large as our West African imports from France. But undoubtedly the area covered by the treaty takes more British exports than the corresponding area of British territory takes of French exports.
    That, however, leaves out of account the working of the most-favoured-nation clause, under which we import from other countries vastly more than we import from France or France imports from us. In British West Africa in 1932 we imported only £150,000 worth of French goods, but we imported £3,750,000 worth from other foreign countries. There are two ways in which we can meet that difficulty. One is to follow up what we have done in the case of Japan and denounce the most-favoured-nation clause in respect of our West African Colonies. The other alternative is to denounce the treaty itself, which we can do at 12 months' notice. I am not prepared to dogmatise as to which is the better way, or which would better promote the general policy of developing effective preference not only between this country and West Africa, but between West Africa and Canada, which some day may become an even larger importer of tropical produce than ourselves. But I do hope that my right hon. Friend will take into con-

    597
    sideration the need of immediate action on this matter.
    A much more difficult problem is presented by the Berlin and Brussels Acts. They were part of a whole scheme for internationalising tropical Africa, in the days when people believed in internationalism and international Free Trade. A great part of the area was set up as an international free State. We all know that the international State became an international scandal, and in the interests of humanity, of the native inhabitants of the Congo, and of the good government of the world as a whole, that territory was taken over by Belgium as a Colony. The whole international system broke down in 1914. It was to be a system of international neutrality, but no one thought of that when the War broke out. To-day the economic restrictions on the full development of those territories are, from the point of view not only of the responsible Governments but of the native populations as well, a real hindrance. These restrictions lapsed after, in respect of the enemy Powers, but the end of the War they were renewed by the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye as far as Belgium, France, Portugal and Japan were concerned. Italy and the United States, though they signed the treaty, did not ratify it. Belgium, France and Portugal are no less interested than ourselves in getting rid of the economic restrictions imposed by this treaty, and the only question is of the way in which Japan may be met in order to induce her to waive her rights in that area.
    There are certain other countries who were not participants in the War or in the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye but who, it may be presumed, still retain their old rights under the Berlin and Brussels Acts, namely, the three Scandinavian countries, Holland and Spain. Considering our close trade relations with those Scandinavian countries and the smallness of their trade with tropical Africa, I should have thought that it was not impossible at the first favourable opportunity to snake some trade bargain with them to waive their rights in this respect. The same thing could also be done with Holland and Spain; it is simply a matter of facing the fact that certain countries have rights which have their value, which cannot be simply brushed aside, but which can afford scope
    598
    for reasonable bargaining, where we can give concessions, whether they be economic or of any other kind.
    The same reasoning applies to the restrictions imposed upon us in Tanganyika, Togoland and the Cameroons under the Mandates. Here, if I may digress for one moment, I should like to clear up a misunderstanding which, in spite of the clear facts of the situation, continually crops up in speeches and in writing: that is the idea that we hold of these territories in some way as tenants of the League of Nations. These territories were surrendered by Germany irrevocably, just as they surrendered any other territory, at the close of the War as the price of their defeat. Those territories were surrendered to the Allied and Associated Powers, who proceeded to partition them. They did so on the understanding among themselves that these territories were to be taken over not for exploitation but for fair development in the interests of their inhabitants themselves. In order 1,o give greater security and a safer guarantee for their pledge, the pledge was to be not merely one among the Allied and Associated Powers, but one given to, the League of Nations, which was to be satisfi,ed that the undertaking was one which in the fullest sense protected the interest, welfare and future development of the inhabitants of the territories. At the same time the pledge taken differs in no essential particular from any other pledge concluded with or guaranteed by the League of Nations. It in no case created a tenure. It is open to he modified with the consent of all who have rights under it, just like any other treaty or, let me say particularly, the St. Germain-en-Laye Convention. What we have to do, with the help of the other Powers interested and of those interested on behalf of the countries themselves, is to see whether they cannot be brought into closer and more fruitful union with the countries responsible for their administration. I am quite clear that, from the point of view of the interests of the territories themselves, it is essential that this particular restriction against preference in the Mandates should be waived.
    There is also another condition—the question of the rights of other members of the League of Nations. There are certain members, Japan and Germany,

    599
    who by leaving the League of Nations are, presumably, held to be willing to relinquish their rights without compensation. Others will undoubtedly have to be dealt with fairly and reasonably from the point of view of finding for them some corresponding advantage in trade or otherwise that will make up for anything that they lose. I do not believe that there is any insuperable obstacle to getting rid of the present restrictions on the development of our African territories when once we definitely make up our minds that to do so is a major part of our economic and foreign policy. That is the point which I rose in order to put before my hon. Friend. In more than one direction—for instance, in recent clauses in foreign treaties, which include mandates among territories which stand outside the most-favoured-nation clause, paving the way, my right hon. Friend opposite and myself hope, to the possibility of giving effectual preference to Palestine—he has shown that he is all in favour of a liberation of our Colonial Empire from some of the out-of-date obligations which still restrict its development. All I am suggesting is that he should go on with the good work with greater vigour and with more despatch and enlist the support of all his colleagues in seeing that that work is effectively carried out. We are entering, I believe, upon a wonderful new era of development of our Colonial Empire, an era which will mean prosperity and well-being to those populations for whom we are trustees, but which can also, and without a shadow of detriment to our primary task, result in immense benefit to British shipping and British trade.
    7.10 p.m.
    Dr. McLEAN: I am fortunate in having to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). I should like to make just a few remarks upon the economic situation, and I also desire to add my congratulations to the Secretary of State for his very comprehensive survey of progress in the Colonial Empire. He described the economic measures he has taken which have made this progress possible. He also described the sound economic principles on which the future development of the Colonial Empire is being planned. Great interest is taken to-day in the
    600
    development of this Empire as a means of carrying out our obligation as trustees for the native races. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Lunn) that this is of great importance. Moreover, one who reads the speech of the Secretary of State will find that the measures he has adopted also take account of the fact that the welfare of the natives is of primary concern. Another point of view, also an important one, is that this Empire provides a market for our exports.
    I should like to make a few further observations on the principles now being adopted, which the Secretary of State referred to in his speech. It will be found that there has been, as my right hon. Friend said, a revolutionary change in the economic situation of the Colonial Empire owing to the measures adopted by the Government. The crisis in 1931 showed the weakness of the economic position of the Colonial Empire. Since then markets have been assured by preferences and other arrangements and in addition, as we have seen, an economic survey of the Colonial Empire has been made which will facilitate trade development. It is only by the expansion of trade that we can provide the means for raising the standard of life for the native races, and only by the measures adopted by the Government can their standard be maintained and protected from the violent fluctuations and consequent distress of past experience. Owing to the absence of assured markets and of sufficient economic information in the past, development was necessarily haphazard, and it often proved to be uneconomic, because, under the conditions which existed, there could be no coordination of production throughout the Colonial Empire. As the Secretary of State pointed out, without such information at command there could be no encouragement to grow what would profit them most, or, on the other hand, discouragement of a particular Colony from growing commodities which could not be profitable, owing to ignorance of the market conditions. In order to be in a position to give advice and guidance in these matters the Secretary of State has prepared the necessary information and taken the necessary measures.
    The Survey is obviously of use to business men not only in this country but also in the Colonies, and to the Government

    601
    here as well as to the various Colonial administrations. It shows, briefly, the economic situation in each Colony and the possibilities of its trade development. The production, actual and potential, is dealt with and the question of markets is examined, as well as the labour available and the other miscellaneous factors which in the aggregate affect development. Again, as we have heard, a study of the commodities produced in various Colonies is included. It is to be noted in the first place that this Survey supplies information which the Colonial administrations could not easily obtain for themselves, and that each Colony is now enabled to see how it stands with regard to the rest of the Colonial Empire. It can ascertain, for example, what commodities it is most suited to produce and what might pay it best. It is also shown how it can select secondary products and so widen the basis of production in relation to markets available.
    Again, the Survey provides information which enables Colonial administrations to prepare or revise plans and programmes of general development, coordinating all Departments. Being an annual publication it will indicate the trend in any trade development which it is essential to know, especially in what may be called long-term planning. Such plans and programmes of general development in the Colonies must be related, I think, to the possibilities of trade development and to the markets for Colonial produce. Those markets, as we have seen, have recently been assured as far as possible and trade development is thus put on a more secure basis. Further, business arrangements are assisted such as the co-operation in marketing which is now taking place in many Colonies—a most encouraging development. It might be of interest to examine briefly the nature of these colony-wide development plans. It is already recognised that there is need on the part of Colonial administrations to prepare such plans as will co-ordinate the development programmes of all departments. For example the report of the Kenya Expenditure Advisory Committee of 1933, paragraph 121, contains the following recommendation:
    "We have been struck by the absence of any province-wide or colony-wide plan of development activities embracing all departments. This we regard as a serious deter-
    602
    rent to organised progress which should be remedied at the earliest possible date."
    This recommendation is, I believe, being carried out. In such plans the policies and programmes of development in agriculture, transport, public works, education and public health should be related to each other and all should be based upon trade and available markets, that is on the possibilities of trade development in the Colony. It has, for example, been. found by the Advisory Committee on Education in the Colonies, in considering questions of educational development in a colony, that the educational programme was limited by, and had to be related to, the potentialities and possibilities of development in other directions. For instance, the nature of the education given and the numbers trained had to be related to the requirements of the colony and to the nature and extent of its probable development.
    I could go into details to show how it is necessary that the nature of a technical school, for instance, should correspond to the industrial needs, and the nature of an agricultural school should correspond to the agricultural needs, of a particular colony. It will also be found that there are simiar economic conditions which determine the programmes of agricultural development, communications, public works construction, and public health work. I submit that a balanced programme of development in a colony is necessary to avoid too much expenditure in one direction while other essential work is starved. That, within my own experience, has happened in more than one country. Unbalanced development generally results in waste. The recent report on the financial and economic position of British Honduras discloses an example of development based upon an insufficient foundation of trade. The report in paragraph 233 states that there has been "failure to plan ahead," and again that the policy of development works
    "has resembled a succession of impulses inadequately thought out."
    Until now, the Colonies have not been, in possession of information which would provide an economic basis for planning development. It will be seen that now they are not only enabled to prepare colony-wide plans but—and I would like to call the attention of the Committee specially to this important fact—that a

    603
    definite approach has been made by the Government towards a development plan for the Colonial Empire as An economic unit. The measures taken have put the development of that Empire on a solid economic foundation and the advancement of all its peoples has thus been made more secure. It must be remembered, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook has said, that Colonial trade with us is complementary, that is, they supply us with raw materials in exchange for our manufactured Articles. That there is much progress in this direction is evidenced by the improved position throughout the Colonies, and by the orders placed in this country as a result of development due to the recent trade arrangements of the Government. My own constituency, happily, has had a share of these orders And much-needed employment has thus been provided.
    7.22 p.m.
    Major MILNER: I am sure the hon. Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean) will forgive me if I do not follow him on the subject of the economic survey about which so much has already been said. There are two general observations which I wish to make. First, I must express surprise and regret that so few Members on the Government side have thought it necessary or desirable to attend this Debate on our Colonial Empire to which they so frequently and so glibly refer on other occasions. During the greater part of to-day's proceedings, not more than a dozen Members on the Government side have been in their places.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member whether he does not know, as a result of his legal experience, that when a shareholders' meeting is called and only a few shareholders attend, it shows that they are completely satisfied with the management?
    Major MILNER: I am obliged for the hon. and learned Member's explanation, but I doubt whether his constituents or the constituents of other hon. Members opposite would accept it in this case. The second general observation which I was about to make concerns the great difficulty of deciding on the matters to be raised in a Debate like this, on the Colonial Office or Dominion Office Vote involving such a vast number of questions affecting territories so numerous and
    604
    populations so large. Those questions are highly technical and require an amount of detailed knowledge which few of us possess. I should have liked to refer at some length to the Kenya Report, but as a great deal has been said about it already, I only mention one point. I wish to ask whether we are to understand that the lands set apart for Europeans, and the reserves set apart for the natives in Kenya, are to remain for all time as they are settled at present. Is the native African for ever to be prevented from poking his nose into the highlands, which, we understand, represent the better part of that country and which have been allocated to the Europeans.
    I want, further, to ask a question concerning an Ordinance recently promulgated in the. Gold Coast Colony relating to seditious offences. It is a curious thing, and one which requires explanation, that not only in this country but throughout a large portion of the Empire so much interest is being taken in the subject of so-called sedition and so many steps appear to be considered necessary by the Government to alter and strengthen the law on the subject. I understand that the recent ordinance in the Gold Coast Colony is founded on a similar ordinance in Kenya. I wish to know whether alterations have been made, are being made or are likely to be made in the law regarding sedition in any of the other territories coming under the Colonial Office administration. I submit that the Gold Coast ordinance is an intolerable piece of legislation for these so-called enlightened days. In many respects it resembles the Incitement to Disaffection Bill now before a Committee of the House of Commons, but it contains a preliminary paragraph prohibiting the importation into the Colony of any newspaper, book or document, which in the opinion of the Government contains seditious works or writings. That provision does not appear in the Bill now before Parliament. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman when he replies will tell us what has made this ordinance necessary. Many people both in the Colony and in this country take a serious objection to it on the ground that it constitutes a grave menace to public liberty and that it is unnecessary and some explanation is due to this Committee.

    605
    The second section of the ordinance is drafted in terms resembling one of the Clauses of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take the same steps as the Attorney-General has thought it right to take on behalf of the Government in connection with the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. The ordinance, as drafted, provides that it shall be an offence to be in possession of seditious documents and puts the onus on the accused person of proving to the satisfaction of the court that at the time when the documents were found in his possession, he did not know the nature of the contents. We all know that the onus in all these matters should be on the prosecution and not on the defence, and I suggest that this ordinance should be altered in the same way as the Incitement to Disaffection Bill has been altered in Committee upstairs so that the onus shall be placed upon the prosecution of proving seditious intent. Under Section 3 an innocent receiver of alleged seditious documents can be found guilty and be made subject to the penalties under the ordinance if, although the documents may have been sent to him without his knowledge and consent, he does not on receipt of them forthwith hand them over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station. Such an ordinance ought not to be brought into force in any British Colony. The ordinance is an extremely bad testimonial to the conduct of affairs in the Colonies for which Parliament and the right hon. Gentleman in particular are responsible. I know of no reason for such ordinances. I do not know what the Government anticipate may happen, but the right hon. Gentleman ought to have them looked into.
    Another question to which I desire to refer, which was raised in another place a little time ago without, I am afraid, a great deal of satisfaction, is the "Discovery" Expedition Committee and the Research Fund which was set up 12 or 14 years ago to provide money for research in Antarctic regions with a view to preventing the extermination of certain species of whales from which valuable oil is obtained. That committee has done excellent work since it was set up. It is composed of a number of scientific gentlemen who have devoted a great deal of time and effort to it. The funds have been obtained by the taxation of vessels
    606
    engaged in whaling operations, some belonging to other nations, and I am told that a little over a year ago between £300,000 and £400,000 was still in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose of carrying on these researches. We on this side try to be long-sighted in these matters. We think that research is a valuable thing and that every effort should be made in the Antarctic and elsewhere to carry out research into everything that may advance the welfare of the human race. The right hon. Gentleman apparently, does not take that view, because in the early part of last year he decided to suspend the operations of the committee and not to engage in a further expedition.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I never decided to suspend the operations of the committee, which has sat throughout, and I decided very long ago that the "Discovery" was to go on.
    Major MILNER: The right hon. Gentleman is very fond of getting up and making interruptions, but I put it to him whether in January, 1933, as was stated in another place and was not denied, the right hon. Gentleman did not decide for the time being that no further expedition should be undertaken and that the operations of the committee should be wholly or in part suspended?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No.
    Major MILNER: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is true that some months later he decided that a further expedition might go out, and I believe that it is now in the Antarctic regions. According to my information, the right hon. Gentleman, for reasons best known to himself, had previously thought it wise to limit the work of that committee. However, I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions on this matter. Has he any intention of suspending the operations of the committee? The whaling industry is worth something like £4,000,000 a year to this country, and there is still to be done a great deal of research which would be of value to the industry and to this country. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do with the money which has come from taxation for this purpose, and which amounts to £300,000 or £400,000? In looking at the ordinance which originally set up the fund, it is clear

    607
    to me that it was set up on taxation levied primarily for the purpose of research. The right hon, Gentleman on at least one occasion has used money from the fund for some other expedition not having relation to whaling research. I am further told that sums are paid year by year from this money to the Falkland Islands. That amounted in 1922 to £5,000, and the contribution has now been increased to £9,000. I am informed that that money is paid to the Falkland Islands to recoup them for their expenses of administering the dependencies of the Islands. As these dependencies spend in the ordinary way only £5,000 a year, it is surprising that the Falkland Islands should be paid £9,000 in respect of them. How long is that drain upon this fund, which was established for a particular purpose, to continue at the same rate, and has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of using the money in the fund for any other purposes?
    There is also the question of the late Chairman of the Committee. I understand that the gentleman who originated the Committee because of his experiences during the War was Mr. Darnley, who presided with great success since the Committee was set up in 1922 until a few months ago when, for some reason, the right hon. Gentleman summarily dismissed him without consultation or previous discussion. At the time no reason was given. An explanation was vouchsafed a little time ago in another place to the effect that this gentleman, who had rendered such valuable service, who was not time-expired and who had the confidence of all concerned in the industry and of the Committee over which he presided, had then left the ordinary Colonial Office service, and it was desirable that someone who was in closer touch with the work should preside over the Committee. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether the real reason was not that the right hon. Gentleman had decided to use for other purposes the funds contributed for a particular purpose, and that he not unnaturally anticipated some objection from this gentleman who had presided for so long and with such success over the work of the Committee. If that were the reason, the right hon. Gentleman might have dealt with the matter in some other way. It does not seem to be in accord-
    608
    ance with custom in these matters for an officer who has served for so many years with complete success to receive a letter which practically amounted to dismissal at comparatively short notice, no reason being stated for many months afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman behaved generously in regard to some financial recompense for a period, but beyond that he treated Mr. Darnley with somewhat scant courtesy.
    I now desire to refer to the representation of the people of Gibraltar on their local council. I understand that the Governor has an executive council, which is nominated, and that there is a city council, set up in 1922, when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) laid it down that an endeavour should be made to bring the social conditions of Gibraltar up to something like the social conditions in this country. The city council was set up with that end in view, five members being nominated and four elected. It seems to me that the time has come to make some alteration in that council. It is not right that there should be a city council running the affairs of Gibraltar upon which the people through their elected representatives have no power. The only people who have power are the Governor and his executive council, which is wholly nominated, and the majority of the city council, which is nominated by the Governor. One way in which the matter could be dealt with would be for the Governor to include representatives of the working people among his nominations to the city council. There were at one time a number of elected Labour representatives, but at all times elected representatives have been in a minority. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give his consideration to that problem and to give the people of Gibraltar the right to elect their own representatives and to govern their own city.
    The only remaining matter to which I desire to refer is one which I have some diffidence in putting before the Committee, but I think it my duty to do so. I noted in the "Times" in December last that the right hon. Gentleman had been so fortunate as to be presented with a portrait of himself painted by an eminent painter, Mr. Oswald Birley. It was presented to him by the inhabitants of

    609
    Mauritius. The spokesman of Mauritius is reported as having said that the right hon. Gentleman was the great champion for the Crown Colonies at the Ottawa Conference, and that Mauritius had occasion to be grateful to him for bringing them within the orbit of Imperial unity and co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said:
    "If the new sugar preferences which had been given them put new life and hope into Mauritius and other great sugar colonies, they had not been slow to reciprocate,"
    Evidently the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that his portrait has been presented to him by the inhabitants of Mauritius by reason of the services he rendered to them—
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This is a personal point. Is the hon. and gallant Member, after all these months, making a personal charge against me, that I did a corrupt deal with the people of Mauritius and that the presentation portrait, which I did not know anything about beforehand, was done as part of a, plan to corrupt me?
    Major MILNER: I gave the right hon. Gentleman notice that I was going to raise this point and precisely what I was going to say, and he will do me the justice to admit that I have not indicated privately or publicly any such suggestion, and he has no business to put it forward here. He knows quite well that no such suggestion either has been made or was in my mind to make. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a Regulation, No. 59, of the Colonial Office which forbids the receipt of gifts from Colonies or inhabitants thereof by Colonial Governors or Colonial officers, and when put a question to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday he informed me that that regulation was strictly enforced, and that he would not permit Governors or Colonial officers to receive such gifts. How does it come about that he is less scrupulous in that matter—and I do not say it offensively—than he permits his officers to be? I make no allegation against the right hon. Gentleman—quite the contrary—in regard to his personal honour, but I do suggest that he was a little lacking in discretion or wisdom to accept this portrait in those circumstances. Is every Colony to be permitted to make a gift to the Secretary of State for the time, being, whether the right hon. Gentleman or another
    610
    Secretary of State, and are Governors and others meanwhile to be forbidden to accept such gifts? The regulation to which I have referred is a perfectly proper one and one which, if I may be allowed to say so, the right hon. Gentleman is right in seeing strictly enforced, but I submit that he ought to be the first to set an example in that regard. He may say, "I should offend the people of Mauritius if I refused ungraciously to accept the gift which they desired to make to me." But all that the right hon. Gentleman had to say was, "I am very sorry, and I much appreciate it, but Regulation 59, which we strictly enforce, does not permit those who serve under me to accept such gifts, and I must not accept them, though I appreciate the thought underlying the offer." I repeat that I make no allegation against the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Oh.
    Major MILNER: The right hon. Gentleman may say say "Oh," but there is no one more touchy than he is—
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am when the hon. and gallant Gentleman is attacking my honour.
    Major MILNER: I am not attacking the right hon. Gentleman's honour in any sense of the word. I am giving him the opportunity to give an explanation of a matter which has caused some little comment, and I give this to the right hon. Gentleman also, that if he can give an explanation which is reasonable, and which the good sense of the House accepts, no one will be more pleased than I, but the matter is one obviously which ought to be raised and on which the right hon. Gentleman ought to welcome an opportunity of making a statement.
    7.50 p.m.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: With regard to the last point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), there is all the difference in the world between a public servant and a Member of His Majesty's Government, and it is impossible to imagine that a whole country should be restricted from recording its appreciation, in the person of a Minister, of the policy of the Home Government by making him a presentation portrait.

    611
    My only reason for addressing the Committee is that it so happens that just over three weeks ago I was present at the Baraza or native Parliament of the Kavirondo when this self-same Charter report, which has been so much discussed to-day, was explained to the native chiefs. The natives were extremely anxious that their point of view should be heard by this House, and I am going to put as faithfully as I can that which I heard. The Baraza was presided over by the District Commissioner, assisted by the Provincial Commissioner, and immense pains were taken to explain the main lines of the report to the assembled chiefs. I must say that I was both disappointed and surprised by the way in which it was received by the chiefs at first. By common consent this report is extremely favourable to native interests, but what I heard, if it did not show immediate appreciation of the report by the natives, proved at least that they are perfectly free in their expressions of opinion and do not hesitate to say exactly what they think. There were quite a number of speeches, but the burden of a good many of them was this: "Once upon a time there was plenty of room in this country, but now it is quite full. What shall we do if a lot of whites come in as well?" I thought to myself that the reason why there was so much space in the Kavirondo country a few years ago was because in those days famine and pestilence alternated if indeed they did not come together. The Kavirondo were the natural prey of blood-spearing expeditions by neighbouring warlike tribes such as the Nandi and the Massai, and they themselves waged war among each other from hill top to hill top; and I thought to myself that it was a great pity that the assembled natives were not taught to realise more that if the land is now full and there is plenty, it is thanks to the Pax Britannica which has been established there and to the magnificent administration which Kenya now enjoys.
    The Committee has been made aware by previous speeches that this Kavirondo district includes the goldfield of Kakemega. It would be too much to expect the natives to appreciate at once the immense potential benefit of the goldfield to the Colony as a whole, but some of the speeches made at the Baraza really
    612
    took my breath away. It was actually suggested by some of the speakers that all the whites employed in the goldfield should be compelled to reside in the township of Kakemega, that all the valuable machinery should be abandoned at night, and that under native supervision the whites should all go back to Kakemega to sleep, to be let out to their work, 10, 20, or 30 miles away in the morning. It would perhaps, as I said before, be too much to expect that the natives should appreciate—
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: When I was interrupted, I was saying that it seemed to me that it was too much to expect that the natives should appreciate the potential benefits of the goldfield of Kakemega to the Colony, but the actual benefits are evident enough. Large sums are flowing into the country, and the compensation given is, as my right hon. Friend said, on the most generous scale. Ten pounds per annum per acre for fallow land is actually paid in compensation, and I wonder where in England farmers could obtain that amount for their land. The utmost care has been taken not to disturb the natives. It has been stated, and it is perfectly true, that not a single native has been disturbed, and you see on the field—I saw myself—important buildings, permanent European buildings, crowded together, against the dictates of both common sense and hygiene, so as not to interfere with a couple of reed huts which would, in the ordinary course of events, be abandoned by the natives within a couple of years.
    I would like to warn my right hon. Friend that conditions are perhaps being made if anything too difficult for the workers on the goldfields. A year ago there were over 1,000 whites in the township of Kakemega. To-day there are only 300. The programme of works imposed on the companies is 19 times heavier than it was a year ago. The result is that the companies simply cannot afford to carry out the prospection of the field except under the most
    favourable possible conditions. The Baraza went on for some time and then the whites all withdrew and a chief took over the chairmanship. When the sitting

    613
    was resumed under the chairmanship of the district commissioner, the commissioners set about with the utmost care and tact to find out what was at the back of the native mind to find out where the shoe really pinched, and presently they got it. They found that what the natives really apprehended was that when a white man lived in the place and built himself a house that land must inevitably belong to him. That is what happens in their own case, and it was seeing buildings going up that made them fear that the land was going to be lost to them for ever. As soon as that point was made clear, it became very easy sailing indeed, and it was possible to explain to them, and they very readily understood, that the new leases which it is proposed to give to some of the companies would in fact be a charter to the natives, a proof that the land did in fact belong to them. When they found that they could actually obtain copies of these leases, there was real jubilation, and they were completely and absolutely satisfied. There was a great demand by the chiefs to buy the Morris Carter Report and other large volumes lying on the table, the buyers no doubt anticipating a sensational return with a volume on the head of each one of a. long string of wives.
    But as I left and drove through a country teeming with people—there were some districts with a population of over 1,000 per square mile, which is something like the population of Belgium, the most thickly-populated country in Europe—I could not help thinking of my own constituents. There they were, these natives, every man well fed, every man secure, in fact all of them possessing those very things which so many of our people at home would like. Yet, when all is said and done, this security, this prosperity enjoyed by the natives, is entirely due to the protection afforded them by the British people, so many of whom are on the dole to-day. I thought to myself: What do our Colonies give us for all we give them? The Colonial Secretary described, and it was most interesting to listen to him, the way in which he is increasing and developing the links between the Colonies and ourselves, but I do submit that these Crown Colonies can do something for us that they are not doing to any extent, and that is to take more of our own people. Take,
    614
    for instance, Uganda. It is a magnificent territory, and yet I do not believe that there are more than 50 or 60 white farmers in the whole country. That is absurd. It is a country in which white people can perfectly well live. Take, again, Tanganyika. English people do not settle in Tanganyika because there is no sense of security about it. There is a sort of idea about that the country may be handed back to Germany one day. I do not believe for a moment that we have any such thought in our minds, but it ought to be asserted that we have not, and, if the Colonial Secretary will do so, it will do a very great deal to encourage English settlers there.
    I would like the Colonial Secretary to answer a specific question about Tanganyika. I was told on very good authority that the German Government are subsidising very heavily German settlers who are going there. Is that so or is it not? Personally, it strikes me that it would be a very good idea if some of these powerful societies which look after German-Jewish refugees were told that there is plenty of room in Tanganyika for some of these German citizens who have been so unfairly thrown out of their own country. I think there would be a certain poetic justice in that, and I should like to see a colony of German Jewish refugees in an ex-German Colony. But there is plenty of room for more white settlers in Kenya as well. It is perfectly true that some of the white estates are perhaps too big and would have to be broken up. I think also the question of native reserves ought to be gone into. The Morris Carter Report generously gives additional thousands of square miles to the natives. A right hon. Gentleman, speaking from the Liberal benches, pointed out that probably in a few years that land will not suffice. If it will not suffice, it will be because of the overstocking of the land by the natives. That is absolutely a major question in Kenya to-day. The wealthier the natives, and they are becoming very wealthy, the bigger their herds. They have enormous quantities of cattle, which are quite useless from the point of view of meat, and very bad milk producers, and the country is full of these enormous herds which put nothing back into the land, and all that will happen, unless the natives are taught husbandry, is that

    615
    they will waste more land and yet more land. Then there is the question of the extent to which forests are being destroyed. When a. native wants honey he sets fire to a tree and often causes serious forest fires, so that much destruction is done.
    I do not think it is the fault of the Colonies that they do not take more of our people. I think it is our own fault. We have given the Colonies a superb administration. Anybody going out to these countries will realise how good it is, but to them and to the white settlers it does seem a little as if England were full of people with soft hearts and also soft heads, a sort of Archdeacon Owens endlessly multiplied. The building of an African Colony is a, question of cooperation between whites and blacks. Both have their part to play, and we may be very proud indeed of the protection we have afforded to the natives in our Colonies. Anybody going there will see that the Europeans and the natives live in perfect amity together. We should not forget that if the Colonies are to play a proper part in the Empire they can only do it if they have a strong white backing. I do not wish to go into the economic question which has been so ably dealt with by others, but I thought, in particular, that the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) was extremely interesting. We have to do something because the fact is that Japanese imports to Kenya, for instance, for last year were up on the year before by 51 per cent. I venture to submit, in conclusion, that the line pursued by the Colonial Secretary should be vigorously endorsed by this House and, above all things, that an effort should be made to find room for more of our own people in our Colonies. There is room for them there, there is a place for people who could make a modest livelihood over there who to-day are eating out their hearts hopelessly on the dole.
    8.13 p.m.
    Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: I do not propose to take up the time of this Committee by dealing at any length with the speeches we have just heard. I would like to say in answer to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) that so far as Uganda is concerned he
    616
    must abandon the idea of populating it with white people. It is essentially a plantation country. There is reasonable room in Kenya and Tanganyika, and I would entirely agree with him to the extent that there is still a certain amount of hesitation among British people as to the continuity of British authority in Tanganyika. The sooner they disabuse themselves of this foolish idea the better for all concerned. It has been the subject of pronouncements by several Secretaries of State, and has been pointed out to them on various other occasions. I myself, though I do not say that I can speak with authority, yet speaking with knowledge, have pointed out that this mandate was an irremovable mandate from outside, and that the King exercised sovereignty over Tanganyika as much as over any of the possessions of the Crown. The mandate is subject to certain restrictions, we have to make a report and give certain undertakings, but the authority of His Majesty the King stands supreme. One has only to look at the postage stamp to see His Majesty's head on it, and that ought to be enough to let people know that we do not change about in these matters. I hope the Secretary of State may at some time see fit to make another and perhaps even more definite statement on that subject, as it would perhaps relieve the minds of some, although I think people are beginning to realise that no British Government, whatever its political complexion, would be so foolish as to hand over this country to another nation which has not proved itself in any way so well qualified as we are to govern these countries. I am sure that all in this House are agreed upon that.
    Some of us listened with great pain to the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) in connection with the portrait presented by the people of Mauritius to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He suggested that he wanted to speak delicately, but I do not think he measured delicately what he had to say, because although we knew the point he was trying to make I am afraid it was made in a very unfortunate way. As a matter of fact, hardly anybody has heard of this presentation, and in any case, when a body of people in a country offer to present a gentleman with

    617
    his portrait, it is a complete stretch of the imagination to call it a gift in the ordinary sense of the word. It is merely an appreciation of services rendered. After all, all that he said in his speech was that at Ottawa we had been able to arrange a good deal for the Colonies and that there was no doubt the Colonies were going to respond. I think it is very regrettable that a personal matter of that kind should have been dragged in front of the House, and that the way in which it was done—however unintentional, because I do not believe it was intentionally meant to be hurtful—should hurt. I am certain that my hon. Friends on the Opposition benches know that the right hon. Gentleman is a man of high honour and with a high sense of duty, and that he would never allow himself to become involved improperly in a matter of this kind.
    We have listened to an extraordinarily interesting survey of what has been going on throughout the Colonial Empire. I have had the privilege of spending three months in East African territory, after having worked some nine years here with the Joint East African Board which advises the Colonial Office on economic matters, and I can assure the Committee that it was an interesting experience to see how remarkably well government is carried on in those distant parts of the Empire and the type of men who are responsible. There may be a black sheep among them here and there—even in Parliament there may be one or two—but anyone who has been out there cannot fail to have been struck with admiration at the devoted service rendered by the servants of the Crown in the various Colonies where they are working. We ought to make them realise that even though criticism is at times levelled against them there is no suggestion of lack of confidence in them. The loyalty and devotion of those who are risking their lives and their health in this great service, is fully recognised, whatever party may be in power here at home.
    It is of vital importance to have a real survey of the whole economic position of the Empire such as is given us in the wonderful book which has been produced. With the facts concentrated as they are there one begins to realise how one colony can work in with another and how knowledge acquired in one corner of the tropics is invaluable in another. I do
    618
    not know whether it would be in order to talk about it, but I visited the Amani research station out there, and was interested in the information that had been gleaned as to how best to combat plant disease. For instance, an insect pest which was attacking the coffee plant. They chloroformed a number of insects and then injected a certain virus into them, and those which survived the operation were later let loose on the coffee plants, and it was found that they no longer injured the plants. As a result of the knowledge thus gained a preparation has been made which will serve as a protection for the plant. That is one instance to show the immense value of study on the spot. Again to-day we are beginning to look at industries as not purely individual and separate industries but with a feeling that all those connected with one industry should work cooperatively together. If those engaged in the production of coffee, tea, sisal, wattle, or whatever it may be, work and cooperate together and get in touch with their opposite numbers in other territories, and they co-operate together one has a very different story from that which has to be told when they are all pulling each other to pieces. We get combined operations such as have already proved of immense value in this country.
    Another fact which is gradually dawning on the East African territories is that they are one economic unit. The visitor there never knows which particular territory he is in, because there is no marked boundaries between them, and no distinctive features in the different countries. They are one economic unit and they work into each other, and the more we help them to work together as one unit the better it is going to be. What they need is political rest and economic progress. It is said by some that we are always piling political troubles on them, though it might also be said they sometimes seek them themselves, but what they need is political rest, and that is why I think the Morris Carter Report is so very valuable, I will not say as a soporific, because it is more than that, in dealing with so many of the causes of anxiety. The hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle spoke of having attended a gathering of natives.
    I was in Kakamega last year and before I left England I had the duty of speaking in support of the attitude of the

    619
    Government in regard to some unfounded statements that had been made. As a Member of this House I went out to make an inquiry on the spot into the position, and what struck me was how well the colonial officers responded. They arranged a meeting with the tribes, and the Commissioner said to me, "I am going to sit beside you, but I am going to say nothing. I have arranged that you shall be correctly interpreted right through." I had an hour and a half's talk with the chiefs. They certainly have a way of doing things out there. They put me in a big chair and the Commissioner sat in a smaller one. The chiefs sat in still smaller chairs, and the natives stood all round.
    The question of the goldfields came up. It was a matter of simple question and answer and I was impressed with how satisfied they were at having a market for their produce and with all that was going on, with the exception of one question; they were rather doubtful about the leases. I did my best to explain that to them. We have heard from an hon. Member to-day that afterwards it was more fully explained. It was a point which they wished to have explained to them. They were glad to have people there. They were not worrying about the disturbance of their shambas. I was standing in one of the gold-mining districts and I looked round and I said, "What are the peculiarly fertile spots that I see there?" The reply was, "That is a part that has been dug up by prospectors. It has been filled in again. It never had such a digging before, and the result is that it is much more fertile than the rest." We must not forget that compensation of something like £10 per acre was paid in respect of that land. The native is quite a simple person; as they say in Yorkshire, "There is a deal of human nature about folk." If a hole is dug in the ground, it is always the worst goat of the flock you find get in there with its legs broken in the morning and having to be paid for.
    The natives are thoroughly satisfied with what is going on, and what we have to do is to help them in the matter. The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) referred to paramountcy. I thought that matter was settled, and I daresay he thought it was, too. I would like to read from the report of the Joint Select Com-
    620
    mittee a few words which settled that question. They were drawn up by a Member of the party now on the Opposition side of the House. The recommendation was very simple. It said:
    "The whole position may be summed up briefly by saying that the interest of the overwhelming majority of the indigenous population should not be subordinated to those of a minority belonging to another race however important in itself."
    I hope that is a final settlement of the matter on those terms. They were accepted all round at the time, and everyone who has looked into it realises that it puts a perfectly fair position.
    As regards the Morris Carter Report. I said a week or two ago that it has been a very good thing to have a report of that kind. I have heard some criticisms. It is rather difficult for people to adjust their minds, because of what they have said before. They do not like to give in. Everyone who has met the three commissioners and has talked to them, as well as having read that wonderful product of theirs, must realise that they are very able, fair-minded and just men. If they had not had experience they would never have been able to frame a report that is of such infinite value as is this report. Everyone must join in expressing appreciation of the very able way in which that report has been produced. I do not speak as one who has studied it word for word, but I have done my best to learn the main points, particularly with the help of the White Paper. There is only one thing on which I feel I must say a word. There has been criticism of the view of His Majesty's Government in connection with the board. Almost everybody agrees that the functions of the board are one and the functions of the Government are another, as laid out in the report. The one difference is that it is considered that the Government have made a mistake in objecting to having the board set up in London. I am satisfied they are right. It is the height of folly for us to attempt to administer a question of this kind from London. You cannot possibly do it. You do not know the circumstances, and you are not in touch with the people. You must be in touch to be able to do a thing of that kind. I have seen the working of the board, and I have myself been chairman of an advisory board. I have seen how misunderstandings may arise. However well reports are brought

    621
    home, you cannot grasp the thing in the same way. I know what will be felt out there; the foundations of confidence will be shaken among the white settlers in respect of the people at home, and the confidence of the natives will be shaken in anything that is proposed. They will say, "You cannot trust your own Government."
    I was sorry to hear the casual remarks about the Government of Kenya, which is a Government of His Majesty's officials assisted and advised by local people. It is not an independent Government, any more than that of Uganda or Tanganyika. The unofficial element is rather stronger, but that is all. It is a Government upon which we can rely, because it is composed of the soundest and most experienced men in our Civil Service under the direction of the Colonial Office. People talk of the Colonial Office as though. it were something curious. It is a most wonderful product, and the further we get away from these shores the prouder we become of it. It is most important that we should realise what splendid men the Governors and the Commissioners are. Let me add that neither this Committee nor the public of England realise what a fine set of people the great majority of the white settlers in Kenya are. I have stayed in their houses and have seen much of their self-denial during the terrible crises through which they have passed. The women have faced those crises with the men, with the same British spirit with which our people of every class always face their difficulties.
    In praising the officials out there, one cannot refrain from giving a meed of praise to the settlers, whether they are planters, farmers or commercial men, and also to the fine set of natives. I was never more impressed with natives than I was when I went through East Africa and saw the fine and noble bearing of the native African. There is a great deal of material there to be used, among the loyal natives, the loyal settlers, and, above all, the local Government officials. We can be proud that we have such a fine body of men. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) referred to a point upon which I have been working for years, namely, what is known as the Congo Basin Treaties. There is no doubt East Africa wants to have them modified, but we
    622
    have yet to learn how the business world at home views the proposed change. We have to be careful to realise the difficulties and obligations of those treaties. We do not know how far they are going to benefit East Africa, or what exactly the reactions will be on the trade of the Empire, but I hope very much that the way will be clear to deal with these matters. I am afraid I have detained the Committee rather longer than I intended, but, having been to East Africa, I felt that I should like to say a few words on that subject.
    8.36 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: I desire to ask your permission, Sir Dennis, to raise a point of Order with respect to the matters with which we are dealing, or are entitled to deal, under this Vote. There is a desire on the part of a number of Members to introduce in this Debate the question of Palestine, and I am wondering whether you would be good enough to reconsider the Ruling which you gave some little time ago with regard to that matter. The important point with which it is desired to deal is the question of immigration into the country and the extension el the possibilities in that direction; and I would submit, with the greatest respect, that those Members who desire to speak on that subject would be in order under the Vote which is at present being discussed. It is not a question of defence, and it is not a question relating to any of the other matters which are contained in Vote 9, for Colonial and Middle Eastern services. In these circumstances, I would respectfully ask whether you could see your way to permit a debate to take place on that and kindred subjects relating to Palestine.
    The CHAIRMAN: Since I gave my previous Ruling, 1 have taken some trouble to look up the precedents on this matter, and I am quite clear on the position to-night with regard to a, debate on Palestine, and particularly on the question of immigration, to which the hon. Member refers. The view seems to be taken by some hon. Members that, on the Vote containing the salary of the Secretary of State, anything under his Department can be discussed if it is not something for which a specific sum of money is set down in another Vote; but that is not the whole rule, nor is it a correct statement of the rule. On the

    623
    salary of the Secretary of State, we cannot discuss a particular sub-department of his Department if that sub-department is a sub-department to itself, all expenditure in connection with which would come under a separate Vote. In this case there is in the Colonial Office a Department known as the Middle Eastern Department, the expenditure of which comes under a separate Vote for Middle Eastern Services, and it is under that Vote that all expenditure would come in connection with Palestine or Transjordania. In these circumstances, I think it is quite clear that no debate on any matters connected with Palestine generally can take place on the Vote which is now under discussion.
    8.40 p.m.
    Sir JOHN WITHERS: My name appears on the Order Paper to-day attached to a Motion to reduce the Vote by £5 in respect of the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is not to be inferred from that that I accuse my right hon. Friend of any misfeasance or impropriety in his position, nor is it intended in any way to raise any serious criticism. It is merely intended to give me a locus standi for the purpose of drawing attention to a matter which in itself is of small compass, but which I think is one of serious principle. I understand that, in my temporary absence for the purpose of obtaining nutrition after sitting here for four hours, the matter has been touched upon by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), but I understand that he has not gone into any details regarding it, and, therefore, I propose to say what I have to say de novo. What I wanted to do was to elicit information from the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to the present position of the "Discovery" Expedition Committee Fund, the proposed application of the fund, and the future programme of the committee.
    The matter was raised by two Noble Lords in another place on the 2nd May, 1934, and it was gone into at considerable length. I do not think it is necessary to go over the whole of the ground again, but, as I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds has not gone into the history of the matter, it is rather important that it
    624
    should be understood. The "Discovery" Expedition Committee was set up after the War to undertake what was necessary to prevent the extinction of whales. Apparently, during the War, there was a great run on whales for the purpose of obtaining oil and so on. A great number were killed, and there was a grave danger of their being exterminated. A committee was formed of very distinguished scientific people, with the object of ascertaining what could be done to investigate the matter and find out how the whales could be preserved.
    The committee, on being set up after the War, required money, and money was raised by imposing licences on whaling ships, whether foreign or British, which were doing business in British waters, particularly in the neighbourhood of the Falkland Islands or their dependencies. A large sum of money was raised, and a definite undertaking was given by the Colonial Office that the funds would be credited to a special fund for research and development. It must be understood that the ships licensed were not only British ships, but to a large extent foreign ships, particularly Norwegian ships, and, therefore, foreign countries are very much interested in the formation of the fund, and, naturally, have raised questions as to what was going to be done with the large amount obtained from these licences. They were told quite definitely by the Colonial Office that this money would be set aside and put to a special fund for research and development. Details of the written communications were given in the House of Lords. When the money had been raised, the ship "Discovery" was acquired, an expedition VMS sent out, and very valuable investigations were made. In 1933 the fund, even after the expenditure on the first "Discovery" expedition, stood at £350,000—a very considerable sum. Another expedition is in progress; I understand that its operations will not be finished until June, 1935; but, even after that expense has been incurred, there will be, it is estimated, about £300,000 in hand.
    So far the payments which have been made out of the fund are entirely right and proper, but we now come to a matter which is more questionable. I understand that £9,000 has been paid to the general administration of the Falkland Islands,

    625
    which seems to me to be extraordinary, and £10,000 towards the expense of the British expedition to Graham Land under Mr. Rymill. These two payments seem to me to be outside the original scope of the fund and not in accordance with the terms governing its formation. It would be bad if it concerned only British subjects, but a number of foreigners are concerned, and I think the credit of the British Government is involved. There is a feeling of anxiety and uncertainty. I do not know whether the original object of the fund is exhausted. I hardly think it can be, because I see there is a new Whaling Industry Bill coming down from another place. It may well be that money can be properly expended in that direction. But even if it be exhausted, I certainly think we ought to adopt the practice which is adopted in the case of charities. If an original charity fails, another scheme is drawn up which is called a cy pres scheme, as near to the original intention of the donor as may be, and the Attorney-General puts it into operation. I certainly think, if the original object of the fund has failed, it ought to be earmarked for some similar scientific purpose and not dissipated on ordinary expenditure like the general expenditure of the Falkland Islands.
    Simultaneously with this change of policy has come the successor of Mr. Darnley, a Colonial Office official, who was chairman of the fund for some considerable time. I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds has dealt with that. I certainly should not have raised this question as a personal matter, and I do not wish to do so, but it has been suggested that in some way the two are connected. I cannot think it is so, because I am sure the Colonial Secretary would have kept his eyes on the matter and seen that it was carried out. I hope he will let us have some time to-night an answer to the questions that I have put.
    8.48 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am sorry to intrude in the Debate at this hour, but it seems to me that the speeches that we have heard from the Secretary of State and the ex-Secretary of State were frankly deplorable. There was an ancient distich which seems rather applicable to
    626
    this subject written originally by a famous historian:
    "While ladling butter from alternate tubs,
    Stubbs butters Freeman, Freeman butters Stubbs."
    Certainly they were very appreciative of each other, but the parallel is not quite exact. I do not think I at all like the views that were expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. The duty of the Colonial Secretary and of the Colonial Office—the end all their existence—is not to promote British trade, not to promote even trade with the Colonies. They are not judged by that standard. They should be judged by the standard of administration in the Colonies and whether that administration is directed towards the welfare of the inhabitants of those Colonies, and not to the fostering of British or any other trade. Moreover, at a time when there is no unemployment in the Colonial Empire but a great deal of unemployment at home, I think it ought not to be the object of British statesmen to increase the development of the Colonies and to increase the work that is to be thrown upon the inhabitants of those Colonies.
    It is not useful to use British money, which could be spent in the mother country, in the Colonies in providing more work for people who already have more than they can manage. I know that is a very unpopular point of view. I remember raising it long ago in connection with the bridge over the Zambesi, which was to cost £1,500,000, or it may be more—it was our money that was being spent, and we should never see it back—making the nigger in Northern Rhodesia work under particularly bad conditions in the Zambesi valley and, far from being a triumph for British statesmanship, it was an admirable example of what the Colonial Secretary should not do.
    But the real test goes much further than that. Our aim and object in all Colonial territories is to use our power and our experience for the development of the native races, and I just hate to hear year after year speeches from the Secretary of State directed solely to this one point of the development of trade with the Colonies. It is not our principal business, and I should like to get on future occasions from Secretaries of State for the Colonies views on certain other points of more vital importance to

    627
    the natives and, in the long run, to our reputation. Let me deal with one or two of these.
    I think the question of representative Government in the various Colonies is a matter of enormous importance about which the Colonial Office ought to have a consistent policy, perhaps a secondary matter to education, but representation and education are intimately linked. My fear is that, so far as education goes, throughout the whole of the Colonal Empire it is hampered first and foremost by a sort of passionate desire to keep the native everywhere as he is to-day, to keep him, in fact, an admirable servant. I sometimes think if we could go back 60 years to the time when compulsory universal education was being advocated in this country, if the House of Commons which passed that Measure in 1870 could have seen the development of the intelligence and the power of the working-class, if they could have seen this Labour party in the House of Commons, they would have been more insistent than they were in keeping the working-class uneducated. Exactly the same is being felt about India. We have been told over and over again, if only Macaulay had not been such a fool as to teach the natives English, how much easier a proposition we should have had in governing India. There is that difficulty with all sorts of education. Directly you educate people you get them capable of thinking, and, worse still, capable of criticism.
    We had from the right hon. Gentleman to-day an admirable example of the natural objections of bureaucracy and particularly of the Secretary of State a criticism exactly like that of Dr. Goebbels, who said, "Welcome to sensible sound, constructive criticism but—." Naturally every administration hates criticism as it does the devil. If you are going to educate the blacks in Africa and the natives in Palestine and anybody anywhere, you will only store up trouble for yourself. If you put, first Land foremost, the avoidance of trouble, do not educate. If, on the other hand, you realise that the whole of British history has been educating first yourselves and then other people into being civilised, reasonable beings, you have to put up with the increased trouble which comes from education.
    628
    So far the Colonial Secretary has not taken the trouble to attend to my speech, but possibly I may have his attention when I now come to the question of representative government. This question is connected with education. If you are to have representation, and ultimately a people taking some part in governing themselves, it is a question, first of all, of educating them to think connectedly, to read a newspaper, and to organise even in their trade unions. It is no use thinking that you can start representative government unless you have, first of all, elementary education in reading, thinking, and organising. I do not want the Colonial Office to carry on the policy which they have carried on in the past of granting representative Parliamentary government to peoples who are not ready for it and then taking it away again directly they make a mess of it. There should be a much more definite line of progress, and I would put to the Colonial Secretary and to the Committee the point of view that you should never give representative or responsible government to any Dominion or Colony so long as they are not sufficiently educated to make proper use of it. You should judge that by considering whether there is in that Dominion or Colony a minority which does not welcome those institutions.
    I will take Cyprus as an example. In Cyprus away back in 1878, in a wave of Victorian enthusiasm, we gave representative institutions. Cyprus, unfortunately, has a minority of Moslems, and to avoid the tyranny of one section of the inhabitants over the other, they provided under a responsible Governor, a system of communal representation whereby the Mohammedans voted only for Mohammedans and the orthodox Christians voted only for orthodox Christians. The result was that you got a Parliament which had more powers than this Parliament intended that it should have and government was carried on by the casting vote of the Governor. The two races always voted against each other, and the British Governor managed to carry on. That was a thoroughly bad system, and it ended up with a burst up in Cyprus and the burning of the Governor's house, and the Colonial Secretary of that day, quite rightly, took away those institutions and governed independently of any system of representation. If the principle had been laid

    629
    down that we would not have representative institutions unless we could have one general roll of electors, so that everybody represented those electors, in whatever assembly it might be, they would have considered the views of both parties, instead of having to consider the views of the extreme partisans. Here we all represent everybody. I represent people who even share the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, with the natural result that I have to modify my views even of this Government. At least, I try to modify them. Hon. Members opposite are alive to the fact that there are many working men who vote for them, and therefore they all have to moderate their views. It is impossible to be an extremist when you remember that by every form of extremity you are alienating some of the people who might vote for you, though they never do. That is the admirable system we have in this country.
    If you go anywhere, to Cyprus or to Palestine, and build up an entirely alienised system of representation whereby each caste can only vote for that caste, antagonisms are fostered and a natural and responsible electorate does not exist, you run all these risks of having tyranny by the majority and terror among the minority. You have the danger even now of starting in your new Province of Sind a system of terrorism comparable with what goes on in Germany to-day. Those truths ought to be thought out by the Colonial Office. When you talk of giving representative government to Palestine there ought to be a clear idea that by so doing the Government do not set up a dangerous system of antagonism and terrorism over the minority. I am too much afraid that in many of these cases you have the man on the spot, whether in India or elsewhere, anxious not so much for the native inhabitants of the territory as to get rid of control by Parliament and even of the control of the Secretary of State.
    I was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman kicked to-day at the idea of a local board in London administering native affairs in East Africa responsible only to a Privy Council which does not really exist. There is a tendency all over the world to get tired of, and angry with, criticism, and therefore they recommend those institutions as a sort of shelter behind which they can take cover.
    630
    That is the danger you have to observe, and it is all the more important that some sort of general rule should be evolved in the Colonial Office. They did admirably in Ceylon, because there they invented a form of representation and a degree of responsibility of which, I believe, Ceylon was capable of taking advantage. They did away with the silly system of communal representation. They gave there one general list of electors, and the result is that the inter-communal bitterness which used to be excessive has gone down, while the bitterness in India has gone up. Some sort of general principle about what you are to do when you give self government would be of enormous advantage all over the world, and particularly in such places as Malta, Cyprus and Palestine.
    Then there is the question of education. Does the Colonial Office want to see the natives capable of thinking for themselves. The speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) was to the effect that the only way in which the native is fit to be educated is to become a better producer of goods, of which we have too much already. We do not want to educate the working classes in order to be a better instrument for employment by other people, and we do not want to educate the natives in Africa in order that they may be admirable beasts of burden and carry on generation after generation exactly the same activities which they have carried on in the past. The very meaning of the word "education" is to draw people up. I remember the Minister for Education in Palestine, a long time ago, saying to me that the real difficulty was that the native of that country wanted to get away from his present condition. That is the aim and object of all education. If you educate a native of Nazareth his one desire is to get to America, perhaps that is also true of Bethlehem. They all want to cease to be tillers of the soil and to become petty shopkeepers and, above all, Government servants, and there are plenty of openings for them in Palestine.
    The real object of education is not to preserve things as they are but to make a change. I do not know whether the Colonial Office has made up its mind as to which way they intend to go, and I hope that when the Secretary of State makes a speech on Colonial Estimates

    631
    again we may have some general indication as to the intentions of the Colonial Office with regard to people who want to be educated; whether they want the natives of Africa or of the West Indies or of Palestine to become as much like us as they can. If they do are they prepared to face the fact that they will want to criticise even supreme Ministers of State. Let me now come to what is perhaps a more important matter than even education and representation—the land question. The right hon. Gentleman discovered to-day that I have not read a certain book. There is no reason why I should read it. I have never criticised the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Kenya, I am about the only person in the House who has not, although you would have thought from his speech that I was the worst villain of the piece. I do not intend to read it, life is not long enough. The right hon. Gentleman is paid to read it; he has to read it.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have read your book.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Oh, have you? Then go up one.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have not.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The real question that matters in regard to the Morris Carter Report is: what are the natives going to do with the land when they get it, and how are they going to get the land? I am sorry that we have to buy the land. I do not believe in the nationalisation of land. My chief objection to nationalisation is that when the State goes into the market to buy land it has to pay twice as much for it as it is worth. That invariably happens. Are you going into this business of restoring the land to the people in Kenya by paying fabulous sums to people who got in on the ground floor, or are you going to be content with paying them what they paid for it? I remember that when Mr. Lulu Harcourt was Colonial Secretary, a long time ago, he prevented people who settled in Kenya from having an absolute title in their land, but allowed them to have it on lease for 33, 66 or 99 years at an increasing rent. There was Liberalism in the world in those days. Land in Kenya was granted in some cases to settlers on what is called an improving basis; they did not get their title until
    632
    they had put in a certain amount of capital into the property. I should like to know whether these people are being compensated as they would be in England when the State goes into the market to buy land, or whether they are going to be compensated on the basis of the amount they paid for the land and what they have spent on it since?
    It was a shock to me to notice that the Morris Carter Report has been received with great approval in East Africa and I fear that approval coming as it does from an old friend, Major Grogan. The real question is: when the natives get this land have the Colonial Office any idea what they are going to do with it? The tendency of the natives is to say: "Let the chief decide what use is to be made of it"; to preserve for all time and at all costs what is called the primitive form of cultivation, that is, cultivation in common, that nobody has any individual title in the land, and to shift the cultivation when one patch is worked out to another patch elsewhere. The alternative to that is to give the native a patch of land, with security of tenure. You have an illustration of both methods all over the British Empire, and absolutely the best system is in Northern Nigeria, where the land is held by the peasant from the State at a rent which varies according to the value of the land. His payment of taxes, or the rent, gives him his title to the land, and they are anxious to pay because a receipt of the tax money is their title to the land. There you have individual ownership of land coupled with State ownership, an admirable combination in my opinion.
    The same system was introduced some years ago into Tanganyika, but I am afraid it has met with more difficulties. If it is right for Northern Nigeria, if natives in almost exactly a similar state of civilisation would profit by it elsewhere, the Colonial Office must make up its mind as to whether they are going to continue collective ownership, faith in the head man, a sort of Lord of the Manor idea, that the chief has sole territorial rights in the land, or to introduce the system which has worked so well in Northern Nigeria. If you are going to develop on the one line you cannot develop on the other, they are alternatives, and I cannot see why in exactly the same circumstances the method which has been

    633
    adopted in one Colony cannot be adopted m another. There is no co-ordination in things of this sort. If it is a question of an agricultural college, or agricultural education, or of trade between two Colonies and trade between the mother country, organisation and co-ordination is always brought in, but when it is a question as to how the natives are to get hold of the land and make use of it then every sort of difference and difficulty arises.
    There is another little question which is analogous—the question of local taxation. I do not suppose that any Secretary of State in the last 25 years has ever considered for one moment how local taxation ought to be raised. I once for my sins went into the matter with every Colony. Every single one differed. Some did it as we do it here, some as in Australia or New Zealand, some adopted the German system or the French system, octrois round the town and taxes on every particular trade. Some must be better than others. There never has been the slightest regard paid to any sort of uniformity. What happens is that some Governor finds the streets of his capital congested with motor-cars or with garbage, and he thinks it is time to set up a local government ordinance. The Attorney-General is instructed to draft the ordinance. He has never drafted one in his life, but as he is living in Jerusalem he remembers what they did in Jamaica and he scribbles out his ordinance. Eventually it comes home to the Colonial Office for approval. The Colonial Office looks at it with some amazement, but remembers that it was planned by the man on the spot who knows what ought to be done in Jerusalem.
    So you get that amazing ordinance that you have in Jerusalem to-day, a local government ordinance which combines the vices of every form of local taxation in the Empire. It also has one enormous benefit. It seems that they read my book on Palestine, and the communal representation which used to be part of their local government has been wiped out, and you get a system of gerrymandered constituencies so that the minority can have a majority on the municipal council. They jumped from the frying pan into the fire, and when the ordinance came to the Colonial Office it was not noticed. The Colonial Office said, "This comes from the man on the spot," and it went through without comment, and without
    634
    comprehension. But that is a particular instance. In general you do not have any sort of co-ordination.
    A few words on a subject which is very dear to my heart, although it always arouses jeers. Why not adopt a method of local taxation which is universal in the intelligent parts of the British Empire, in Canada, in Australia, New Zealand and even in South Africa. It raises money from local taxation sometimes exclusively on land value and sometimes on land value plus building value, that is to say on the capital value and not on the annual value. Land has to pay the full tax whether used or not. That system was adopted in one wild moment in Kenya, in Nairobi and in Mombasa, where the South African system prevails. There was a man, I think his name was Fiddes, who made a report on local taxation in Kenya, in which he described that form of taxation. It is also to be found in the Fijis, but nowhere else. When you get to Ceylon, or Lagos, you find the most awful congestion in the slums and the most awful speculation in land values outside. At the moment the worst speculation in the world is in the Secretary of State's pet Colony of Palestine, where prices have risen beyond the dreams of avarice in the City of London. The right hon. Gentleman knows that they have in their new ordinance taken from Tel Aviv the power which was possessed before to levy rates on land value.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is quite definite that the right hon. Gentleman cannot deal with Palestine on this Vote. I gave that Ruling some time since.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was not present when you said that, Mr. Chairman, but your predecessor said the other thing.
    The CHAIRMAN: I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Ruling now.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The only thing under Vote 8—
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. I ruled quite definitely that nothing connected with Palestine and nothing which would come under the heading of the Middle Eastern Department of the Colonial Office can be discussed on Vote 8.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: You were not present earlier when your predecessor was in the Chair, but perhaps you will refresh your memory by looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT to see what took place earlier. I was hopeful that when I found the Secretary of State and myself in agreement for once on the defence of Palestine, we might have an opportunity of discussing it. But may I deal with Cyprus, and will the Committee imagine that Cyprus is Palestine?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. I cannot allow that. I think I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to observe the decencies of Debate.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: There was a discussion, Mr. Chairman, when your Deputy was in the Chair, during which the Secretary of State pressed that the question of Palestine might be discussed, not as regards those matters which we are voting now, but as regards his salary and the general administration of Palestine, and the Ruling was then given that matters not coming specifically within Vote 9, but dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's general administration of Palestine, we might discuss. I believe the Secretary of State asked that that Ruling might be given, and it was given.
    The CHAIRMAN: The point was raised specially, and I gave a definite Ruling on the subject. I have gone into the matter very carefully, and from numerous precedents it is quite clear that where there is a special sub-department of the Secretary of State's Department that sub-department and matters coming under it cannot be discussed on a Vote which includes the Secretary of State's salary, but only on the particular Vote which deals with that sub-department.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: For our guidance will you state, if in future a general discussion is required upon the administration of the Colonial Office, whether it will be necessary to ask to have all the different Votes put down in order that the discussion may take place?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not called upon to answer that question now, but there is a Ruling which I looked up to-night, and which refers to a somewhat different state of affairs, on the first night on which the Secretary of State's salary was discussed, when a number of Votes were put on the Order Paper. It is quite clear
    636
    that there is only one Vote down to-night, and the discussion must be defined to that one.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is rather a far-reaching Ruling. In Vote 9 there are references to grants-in-aid of local revenue, including Cyprus and Nyasaland and Somaliland, St. Helena, British Guiana, etc. Does the Ruling mean that we may not discuss anything connected with Cyprus or Nyasaland? It is rather a dangerous Ruling if it is meant to apply, to everything. Hong Kong University comes under other grants.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss a particular matter which I have ruled is out of order. I have tried to make clear what the Rule is. If it is a subject of a separate Department, and that Department is not under this Vote, it cannot be discussed. Obviously, nothing which is specially mentioned in Vote 9 can be discussed on Vote 8.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not know which are separate Departments. I take it that the Western Pacific High Commission is not a separate Department I will not proceed with that question, because I am certain that it is not for me to bother about Rulings. I want to deal with certain general principles in the Colonial Office Vote. I have mentioned the question of representative government and the question of education, and whether we want people to be educated to be better servants or to be their own masters. I have dealt with the question of local taxation and of co-ordination in the minor laws affecting various Colonies. The main question to which I would revert, however, is this. While I hold that it is not the duty of the Colonial Secretary to be a bagman, I think that it is his business to look after, first and foremost, the supreme interests of justice. Directly you go into all this question of tariffs, protection and quotas for this and that industry, finding markets for so-and-so, protecting some industries and not others; directly you are guided not by the interest of the native but by the interest of the British exporter or manufacturer, then your policy is diametrically opposed to the interests of the natives of the Colonies.
    Take these tariffs which we have been putting on. The natives are extra-

    637
    ordinarily poor. If you have a tariff for the prohibition of Japanese goods—on anything of the very few things that the native uses—you are acting in the interests of some manufacturer in this country. If you want, as I want, to see British rule endure in these countries: if you want to see a government, unlike the exploiting governments of Europe. really devoted to the interests of the native, then you must always keep an eye upon the native interest first. Take the question of the native exports from the West Coast. If you lay down that they must export their palm kernels or palm oil to Great Britain, if you confine their market to a smaller market, then they will obviously get a smaller price. If, on the other hand, you restrict their buying of goods to goods that come from Great Britain, you restrict their liberty. If you purport to do that in the interests of the natives themselves you may be mistaken, but you have your justification. If. however, you do it in the interests of the home taxpayer and not of the native, then you are breaking with a fine Colonial Office tradition and going into a rut that will lead you into the exploitation that we have seen in the Congo, certainly in German East Africa, and to a certain extent in the French Colonial Empire. One of our finest traditions is that in the past we have governed all these subject peoples in their own interests. Do not let it be said that, now that we have become more economically and nationally conscious, we have forgotten the principles of the Colonial Office in the past and adopted the attitude of the bagman.
    9.29 p.m.
    Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: We have listened to a very long lecture by my right hon. and gallant Friend, and I agree with him in one respect—that we should leave it to the man on the spot.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I never said that. I said "Never leave it to the man on the spot."
    Sir E. CAMPBELL: The right hon. and gallant Member had evidently been talking so long that he had forgotten where he started. Some of us who were waiting to speak after him have not yet forgotten. I wish to travel a good distance and to talk on another topic, and that is the question of the Far East and rubber. Some few years ago I was
    638
    one of those—I think, perhaps, the principal Member of the Conservative party as it then was—who favoured the removal of the Stevenson restriction scheme, of which I had disapproved from its inception and even when it was suggested, because I disapproved of our starting in our Colonies a scheme which was not to be adopted at the same time by our great competitors the Dutch. The Stevenson restriction scheme, in fact, eventually proved of benefit to the Dutch and a detriment to ourselves, and I was therefore very pleased when it came to a conclusion.
    Not so very long ago we had rubber of about 2d. a pound; shortly after it was as high as 4s. a pound, and it was certain that, although some of the estates and some of the natives were carrying on, there was no idea of rubber ever being profitable at anything like that price. Restriction, therefore, if it could be brought in with all parties taking a hand, was the only hope for an improvement in the situation. Fortunately, those interested in rubber, the British, the Dutch and the native planters, got together and formulated a scheme. They then came to the governments of their respective countries, inviting them to give their agreements legal form. I am glad to say that that legal form was given both in this country and in the Dutch East Indies.
    We have now a scheme which, from what I can see, is likely to be of great benefit to all concerned—the planters, whether European or native, the merchants and those who want a good, steady investment. Up to a few years ago it was nothing but speculation. One day it was high and one day it was low, and anybody who has been in business, as I have, or a planter, as also I have, knows that that is very bad business indeed. A great deal of the scheme and a great deal of its success is due to my right hon. Friend. Even when he was away on his recent tour and was ill, he was still keeping in touch with affairs in this country, and I believe he kept a special eye on the suggested rubber scheme. I understand from my friends in the City that they are very pleased indeed with the scheme, and that they think that, with good will on all sides, it may prove very beneficial to all concerned.
    In conclusion, may I say that we are very fortunate in having a Colonial

    639
    Secretary who has the respect of people in all our overseas Colonies, in whatever position they may be, both in the high and in the low ranks. I am sure that we appreciate the work he is doing for us. In this House especially we are all very keen on our Colonies and our Dominions. Never mind on what side of the House we sit, we all feel that they are part and parcel of ourselves, and that we shall do, and intend to do, the best we can for them. As I said when I started, I am a great believer in leaving as much as possible to those on the spot. During the 21 years that I was out in the East, I used to object to getting letters from the Foreign Office laying down policy on things about which they knew nothing whatever. I am glad to say, however, that in these days Colonial Secretaries move about the world and into our Colonies and Dominions get in touch with the men on the spot, and are therefore better able to know what is going on.
    9.35 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: It will be agreed that the discussion this afternoon has been stimulating and beneficial to all who are interested in Colonial problems. It is sometimes argued that the Labour party have no interest in Empire problems, but I think that in recent years we have succeeded in showing that, whether our views be orthodox or unorthodox and probably they are regarded as the latter by hon. Members opposite, we have at any rate definite views upon these problems. Unfortunately, when we advance arguments in support of our views, we discern traces of resentment on the part of hon. Members opposite at certain of the criticisms which we feel called upon to offer in connection with these matters. I want on this occasion to make clear our view that the more remote a governed area is from London, the more vigilant are we called upon to be in regard to its affairs.
    A personal reference has been made in the course of this discussion to one whom I hold in the highest respect and since he cannot speak for himself here I propose to say something on his behalf. What I regarded as a very slighting reference was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) to Archdeacon Owen. If I remember aright, the right hon.
    640
    Gentleman himself on a previous occasion also made some reference to Archdeacon Owen. If my recollection is at fault in that respect I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman in advance. Certainly someone speaking from the benches opposite said that it was the primary duty of those who belonged to the Church to attend to church matters. But I noticed to-day that when the right hon. Gentleman desired some support with regard to what is happening at Kakemega, he did not hesitate to quote the words of a bishop. I do not complain of the right hon. Gentleman having done so, and perhaps an archdeacon is regarded as being "below the salt" as compared with a bishop. But if the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to call in evidence a bishop who has paid a fleeting visit to this area surely we are entitled to call in evidence an archdeacon who lives in the area and is closely acquainted with the daily life of its inhabitants. I say this because of what I look upon as the particularly offensive reference made to Archdeacon Owen by the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle, to whom I gave notice that I was going to make these remarks. I consider that Archdeacon Owen is doing his Christian duty in pleading for what he regards as the rights of the natives of that area. If he failed to bear testimony to the elementary rights of those people, then I should regard him as failing in his duty. I do not regard Archdeacon Owen as requiring any special defence in reference to the work which he has done in the past.
    I turn now to the subject of land in Kenya. My hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) has already spoken on this subject and we are wholly in accord with the views expressed by him. On more than one occasion previously, we called attention to the appointment of the Morris Carter Commission and we then said definitely that we were not going to be committed in advance to anything which that Commission might recommend. That was not to say that we were rejecting in advance and in toto all their findings. We were guarding ourselves against being committed in advance to recommendations without a full and free opportunity of considering those recommendations. I call the attention of the Committee to the argument, as they

    641
    term it, Which the Commission lays down as the basis of its report:
    "It is a proper function of Government to secure the development of land to the best advantage. While private rights are recognised, a power of intervention is commonly preserved to the Crown by means of land acquisition acts and similar legislation in order that the power of Government to secure a proper development should not be impaired."
    Having laid down that proposition, the Commission proceeded to state:
    "If therefore the possession of large undeveloped tracts of land by any tribe, person or class is prejudicial to the welfare and development of a country, it would be a proper exercise of the function of Government, when it has armed itself with the necessary powers, to intervene and adjust else matter. The just compensation is for the extent of the true loss sustained and it would defeat the whole purpose of the action if it were held that for every piece of land taken an equal piece must be added."
    I am not prepared to subscribe to that opening chapter of the Commission's report and certainly not to the second paragraph which I have quoted. But if that principle is to be applied even as they have stated it, I want to say that Government equally has the right to withdraw from white settlers land which is occupied by them, if the claim is to be made that land ought to he withdrawn from native settlers. Paragraph 485 of the report states:
    "It is of the utmost importance that the settlement with the Kikuyu should be definite and final and that when these recommendations have been carried out, the matter of their post grievances should never again he reopened. If finality is not secured, our labour and those of many officers who have been working at the problem for many Years will have been in vain. It is absolutely essential for the peaceful administration of the Kikuyu that these grievances should be finally put to rest. Unless we are sure that this will be done, we shall regret having set our signatures to this report."
    I say, frankly, and I think I am speaking for all my colleagues, that we refuse to accept the suggestion contained in this report as the final word on this question. It is far from being the final word and I wish the right hon. Gentleman to under-stand that we are not committed to the full implications of the report. It is not final or irrevocable and we are not committed to the Government's suggestions in the matter.
    I turn from that subject to the question of the Kakamega goldfield. I am
    642
    not sure that it would not be possible to argue that the amendment of the Native Lands Ordinance is a breach of faith with the people. I do not dwell upon that question, though I entertain that view myself. May I say in passing, that if the right hon. Gentleman is able to assure us that the situation in this goldfield is not as bad as it was originally represented to be no one will be more delighted than those who sit on these benches. We shall be glad to learn, if it be the case, that the situation is not as bad as we were led to believe.
    However good may be the condition of affairs, even now I would like to put the proposition that the removal of natives from the areas they occupy should be accompanied by the provision of land equal in area, value and suitability. It is easy to give them land elsewhere, but the alternative land offered may not be of the same productivity nor of the same suitability. There may not be an adequate water supply it may be fly infested or there may be mosquitoes. Therefore, although the land may be equal in area, it may be for practical purposes either useless and poor compensation or no compensation at all. So far as gold is discovered and extracted from these areas, I should suggest, and I think my colleagues would agree with me, that there ought to be a levy on it and the proceeds made available for purposes of native welfare. If there is to be cornpensation—I am speaking for myself on this point—£10 an acre would be regarded as fairly generous, but I am not sure that monetary compensation is the right form of compensation to give. We know what happens when these people get sums of money which they are not very well able to control; it is soon gone, and, having lost their wealth, they are driven into the mines and so on to work almost for nothing. It would be much better if compensation were given in land and kind rather than in money. Better money compensation, however, than no compensation at all.
    My hon. Friend made the third point that we are not at all satisfied that the vital services of labour, education, and health are stimulated as adequately as they ought to be. I have a feeling, although it is hard to bring it home in a sense, that in these days of economy

    643
    the effect of the economies that are being imposed has been to depreciate the status of those in charge of labour services as compared with the others. If that be not the case, I shall be glad to hear it. I think the right hon. Gentleman will not disagree that in the speech he made this afternoon, in which I found many points which were arresting in their interest, his review was a review of his economic policy only. Naturally, knowing the history of the right hon. Gentleman in politics, I could not expect him to do other than speak very buoyantly of quotas and preferences, which are his special hobby horse. He spoke of his economic policy, but he said nothing of his political policy. I want to speak now of the political policy which governs his Department. We take our stand, and I think we should still want to take it, on the declaration made by the Duke of Devonshire some years ago that in the relations between ourselves and these areas our paramount interest must be the well-being of the natives. Hon. Members opposite take a different view of Empire from my view, but I think I should be justified in laying down as a proposition that we have no right to demand and exercise dominion over the lives of other people in other parts of the world unless, as a consequence, we can guarantee to them an adequate opportunity to march to the same measure of freedom as we ourselves enjoy. That is a fair proposition to lay down. It certainly embodies the faith I entertain and the attitude of mind I adopt towards native problems. Freedom which is good for us ought to be equally good for the native peoples. I know that they cannot get it as quickly as many of us would like, but we ought to have an assurance that they are marching towards it.
    I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is going in the right direction. I will take two subjects bearing upon the right hon. Gentleman's political policy within the Empire and will refer first to Malta. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman go out of his way unnecessarily this afternoon to make a rather offensive reference to, the suppressed Government of Malta. I did not regard it as necessary to his argument, but obviously it is very present in his mind still. I may, therefore, perhaps be permitted to refer to the point. The right
    644
    hon. Gentleman took certain action in regard to Malta on the 2nd November, 1933, and on 3rd November he thought it necessary—I do not complain of it—to communicate to the "Times" the reasons for the action which he had taken. He cited in support of.his action six or seven examples of what he regarded as examples of bad or irresponsible government in Malta. I take it that I am justified in making the deduction that the right hon. Gentleman took the seven examples that suited him best and that illustrated his point. I will take the seven examples seriatim to see how far he is justified in his action. I will quote from the "Times":
    "The following examples are cited as an illustration of the nature and extent of the acts to which His Majesty's Government take exception: (1) The provisions of the Constitution confining to Maltese and English the languages taught in elementary schools have been evaded by the establishment at the public expense of special classes in secondary schools for children of elementary school status."
    I am told that, in point of fact, these special classes were held in secondary schools largely because of increasing congestion in the Lyceum. These children were sent to special classes in the secondary schools in order to meet the increasing demands upon the. Lyceum. The second point was this:
    "A knowledge. of Italian had been made a compulsory qualification for admission to various classes and courses of technical instruction in Malta; and has even been insisted on in the.case of students who are being sent for training to the United Kingdom."
    Let me take the first point. As a matter of fact, that is strictly in accord with the Malta Constitution. There is no violation of the Constitution in that. There was a limitation, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman himself, by Letters Patent issued in April, 1932, but that limitation only referred to children in elementary schools. It had nothing at all to do with technical instruction, and so, if it be true that these courses were being arranged in respect of technical classes, they were still acting not outside the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's own action officially taken in April, 1932, yet the right hon. Gentleman cites that as evidence of a refractory nature on the part of the Government of Malta. The third point is this:
    "Elementary school teachers are being sent in increasing numbers to Italy for training."

    645
    That is strictly true, but I am told that only 10 teachers were sent, and those 10 teachers who were sent to Italy to learn Italian had already been in England for two years for training here. Granting that they have been sent to Italy—that is not denied—there were only 10 of them, and they had already been to England for two years' training, so that presumably they had already acquired their English qualification. What else is relevant in this matter? Teachers, after all, must not vegetate. They are entitled to entertain ambitions, and if a teacher wants to teach in a secondary school or a university in Malta, he will find there that Italian is an obligatory subject. If, therefore, a teacher wants to become a teacher at a secondary school or a university, and to be a proficient teacher, it is natural for him to desire to acquire proficiency in one of the languages which is compulsory there. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot argue that that is an offence. I will now take No. 4, which says:
    "The Minister for Public Instruction has declared in the Legislature that he is considering amending the law regarding compulsory attendance in the schools with the object of nullifying the policy of His Majesty's Government."
    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman implies that those last words —"with the object of nullifying the policy of His Majesty's Government"—are quoted words, or whether they are words used by himself to interpret the policy of the Minister. It is very important. For instance, I might say that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to implement the Morris Carter Report, so as to serve the interests of the landlords of Kenya. He is prepared to implement that report, but the later words are mine, not his. It is, therefore, important that we should know whether the Minister used these very words which are used in item No. 4 of the right hon. Gentleman's letter. But suppose it is true. Not one Bill was introduced into the Malta Assembly to give effect to it. The Minister may have said he intended to deal with the matter, but not a Bill was introduced, and so, however much he may have entertained the intention of doing it, no effect was given to it by the introduction of a Bill. Point No. 5 was this:
    "Italian has been introduced as a compulsory subject of examination for minor Government posts, generally filled by persons possessing only elementary educa-
    646
    tion, thus closing this avenue of employment to Maltese who do not know Italian."
    No. 6 is as follows:
    "Maltese has been removed as a subject of examination for a number of posts in the Government service."
    As I understand it, the position is this, that a knowledge of Italian is essential if you are going to do anything at all in the courts, because I believe the language of the courts is Italian. English may be increasingly used, but Italian is used in the Maltese courts, and, therefore, giving, if you like, the fullest possible benefit to the alleged claims of the right hon. Gentleman, I say that what I have said in defence of the Maltese is such as to show that their offence does not justify this tremendous action on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Let me take this last point, which is interesting because of the obvious reference which the right hon. Gentleman made to-night to the last Maltese Government, when he said that they had done nothing in regard to agriculture and so on, that they had not done what he is now starting to do in Malta. Let us grant that. In how many other parts under the right hon. Gentleman's Department has that particular action with regard to agriculture not been taken? There may be plenty of parts in the Empire where this experiment may be in its initial stages, but grant that it has not been done before, and that the right hon. Gentleman has started it. I give him all credit for it, but the absence of that action is no adequate reason for withholding self-government from these people. Take the question of reckless expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman has never replied, so far as I know, to the very damaging statement of Sir Ugo Mifsud, an ex-Prime Minister, in the "Times" of the 23rd November, when he said:
    "As regards the charge of recklessness and improvident expenditure brought against my Ministry, an impartial examination of the facts will prove that charge to be entirely unsupported. The official figures compiled by the Malta Treasurer show an excess balance of £161,301 on 30th September, 1933, and this figure is larger than any of the balances left over in the previous two years for which the Provincial Government was responsible, which were respectively £61,773 on 30th September, 1931, and £117,868 on 30th September, 1932. The excess of expenditure referred to in the Colonial Office statement represented in part

    647
    a sum of £40,000 consisting of 're-votes' or commitments undertaken by the past Administration which fell due this year. The remainder was spent in works of public utility and for the relief of unemployment. Thus £250,000 was spent on the new telephone installation, £18,000 for the purchase of a new turbo-alternator for the electric works, £13,000 in road improvements, £7,000 in agricultural development, and the remaining £72,000 in extraordinary non-recurrent works for the relief of unemployment, and so on."
    After all, we are dealing with a population living in an area not larger than the Isle of Wight, a population, I think, of 230,000, which is dealing with a problem of crisis as we have had to do in this country. The right hon. Gentleman, I submit in all sincerity, is not entitled to take this strenuous and stringent action in regard to these people because they failed to balance their budget.
    May I take one last point? The right hon. Gentleman will controvert me if what I say is not correct. There has never been since 1921 any evidence at all of what the right hon. Gentleman can fairly call disloyalty. These people have worked together in an orderly way, they have worked patiently, and if I wanted proof of that, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to a speech made, not by a friend of mine, but by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) in 1930 or 1931 in which the right hon. Gentleman paid a glowing tribute to the effectiveness with which these people had conducted their government themselves. Really, the right hon. Gentleman has to prove what it was that made him take that action. His case does not rest on these seven charges. I am told that, having accused this Government of reckless expenditure, when he took over, one of the first things done was to increase the salaries of the people in charge of the place.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to take the action he has taken? I am no lawyer, and I do not pretend to be one, but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he will read page 201 of the Letters Patent passed under the Great Seal in 1921, and read down on that page in the report of the Malta Royal Commission he will find that in taking this action he had to prove that there were grave emergency and danger to the Government. Has he proved it? He has not proved his seven points. He
    648
    cannot justify his case on the basis of the seven points. But, even if he could, that is not a proof of emergency or that he was called upon to subordinate the proper Government. This is a part, I fear, of the general policy that has actuated the right hon. Gentleman. I am not attributing the Newfoundland business to him, but it is an incident in government which, side by side with this, is of some importance rind significance. The right hon. Gentleman has issued ordinances dealing with the question of sedition on the Gold Coast. I have seen a report from Sir Samuel Wilson, who has recently returned from Malaya, laying down propositions which he regards as axiomatic, but which I would speedily repudiate.
    These things raise a simple issue. What is the policy behind the right hon. Gentleman's work at the Colonial Office? I say quite categorically to him that he may desire keenly to improve trade conditions, but I am bound to say that in that matter there was very little mention of the natives this afternoon. He was mainly concerned with Britain's wellbeing and people. Of course, improving trade relations between us and them has a consequential effect on them, but it is not our business—and here I agree with the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood)—however much we may want to improve relations in trade, to divert trade from other areas to us if thereby it involves some ill to the people of those areas. The paramount interest for us must be the welfare of the natives. I look with mistrust on this policy; I do not like it. I consider it is deliberately and of set purpose reactionary in terms of political action, and I submit that the same thing is to be found in the Morris Carter report as is found in Malta, in Malaya, in Fiji and on the Gold Coast. The right hon. Gentleman speaks in terms of preference here. There is one preference that he will not entertain, and that is a preference for right and liberty for the people of the areas he governs.
    10.13 p.m.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: After the very extraordinary speech to -which we have just listened, I am glad indeed that my policy does not commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I should feel that there was much

    649
    wrong with it if it did. He asks what is my policy for the Colonial Empire. I appreciate that it is diametrically opposed to all for which he is arguing, because my aim is to keep the British Empire British, and that if any such desire were present in his mind he could not have made the amazing statements he did about Malta, with which I will deal before I sit down. He said there was nothing in my speech about the natives and that all that I was interested in was what could be done for this country. I have never heard a more gross misrepresentation. I spoke of the efforts which had been made to get better sales for the crops—grown by whom? Grown by the natives. The Labour party, with the happy knack they have of disclosing a policy in advance, have explained to an expectant Colonial Empire that if ever they are returned to power against the first thing they will do will be to abolish the whole system of preferences. No doubt that will be very popular indeed with the millions of natives throughout the Colonial Empire who to-day are dependent for their markets on the security given to them by this policy as it is operating in this country, in the Dominions and in India.
    Take all the great basic crops—cocoa, copra, ground nuts and so on. Who does he suppose are the producers of those crops? Not the millionaires in this country, but the natives out there. I frankly admit that I take the keenest interest in the development of native production and marketing. The whole of the Colonial Service is frightfully keen about it, because they know that upon the success of native production and native marketing depends not only the livelihood of the natives but all the social services. All this development of marketing and of production in every Colony of the British Empire is done entirely in the interest of the natives. Yet the hon. Gentleman said there was not a word about natives or the interests of natives in my speech from start to finish. I shall be fairly content, when the time comes, to take the verdict on the issue of whether the economic policy which we have embarked upon, and which has for the first time given a chance to these native producers throughout the Empire is likely to be more to their benefit than a policy which would sacrifice them to world competition.
    650
    The rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech was on a similar level. He raised two particular points abort the natives in the mining areas. An area of 1,500 acres has been added in Kavirondo not because any question is likely to arise of removing natives, since it is extremely improbable that any will have to be removed, but because it was thought wise that this extra land should be added in case that very improbable event should take place. Then the hon. Gentleman did not like the idea of the native getting compensation in cash for his land. I would point out that the native has not been turned off the land. This is a cash compensation for a native who is still on his land and working his land but who suffers some deprivation of his crops. It is no good giving such a mail more land miles and miles away. He has plenty of land and what he wants is compensation for any disturbance to his crops. He is given compensation on a generous scale and would be the very first person to object forcibly if we said that instead of paying compensation in cash we would provide extra land 50 miles away, which would not be of the faintest use to him. That would not be my idea of fair compensation.
    Next I come to the much more considered and weighed arguments which were advanced by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) and the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). In the first place, let me give the hon. Member for Rothwell an assurance about the Kikuyu. He said he hoped they would get compensation for mining damage. I think he is under a misapprehension there, because no mining goes on in Kikuyu country. It is confined to the Kavirondo and Masai areas and therefore there is no question of compensation in the Kikuyu area. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) said that action ought not to be taken on the report until this House had had an opportunity of discussion. That is quite reasonable and we have discussed it today, but I do not follow him in his suggestion that the Government did something wrong in stating in a White Paper their considered view on this subject. I should have thought that that was enormously for the convenience of the House; indeed everybody who has discussed this subject to-day has not had to wait for my

    651
    speech but has known for a good many weeks the Government's view of the report. There has been a great measure of agreement in regard to the report.
    The immediate action which is being taken is with regard to mining leases in order that, before any leases are granted, it may be possible for the Government of Kenya to frame them in what the Morris Carter Commission thought to be the fairest and most convenient form. That step ought to be taken at once. Another step which is being taken at once is a declaration that we accept those additions to the Reserves. I do not think that either natives or Europeans should be in doubt that we propose to make those additions. It will be a very complicated business when we come to the details of making amendments on the lines suggested by the commission, and of dividing the work as between the Land Trust Board and the Government, in the way which I indicated in my speech. I was glad to note that the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition was in complete accord with the course which the commission laid down as to the functions of the Land Trust Board and the Government. Being in agreement on that, what we have now to do is merely a question of drafting, to get the ordinance into the form which we desire.
    Another question of principle which has been raised in the Debate is whether the board should sit in London or not. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead put one view, while everybody else who spoke took another. It does not take very long for one to make up one's mind on this matter, because the arguments can be stated in a comparatively narrow compass. I stated in my opening speech the grounds on which the argument for a London board were, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, constitutionally and practically unacceptable. I do not want to repeat the argument, but it carried weight with everybody who has spoken during the Debate. It is a view which we formed after very careful consideration. A further question which was independently raised by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Rothwell, is quite new.
    652
    It was whether we should reopen all the old pledges of 30 years standing as regards the White Highlands. The Commission, in making their recommendations to satisfy native requirements, whether they be the requirements of claims as of right, or whether they be the requirements for future economic development, have not been in the least fettered by the question of the Highlands. It was not a question of their possibly being inclined to make further recommendations if more land were available. The question of the Highlands did not come in; there is ample land, as the Commission have indicated, for making the additions which they think are necessary, both from a legal and equitable point of view and from the point of view of economic development, and they have proceeded, as they were directed to do, to define the Highlands in their proper area, having regard to all the pledges which have been given in the past.
    The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is that we shoul4 do something quite different—that we should say we were going to reopen the whole policy with regard to the Highlands. We say that this particular area in Kenya should now be delimited, and delimited, as I have explained to the House, with a smaller area than those which have previously been put forward for consideration from time to time by different committees and other bodies. At any rate, I think that no one would say that the Commission have laid down an unduly liberal boundary for the Highlands. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that we should reopen the whole policy. That. is an entirely novel and, I think, really an amazing suggestion. What is the history of this matter? Right back in 1905, or earlier—in the very earliest days in Kenya —this area of the Highlands was set aside for white settlement. That was affirmed in the despatches which have been quoted, and it has never been called in question. Above all, it was never called in question by the Labour Government. The Pass-field Declaration—Lord Passfield's Memorandum on Native Policy in East Africa (Command No. 3573 of 1930), the Magna Charta of native policy to which the hon. Gentleman referred—made it clear that there was no question of going back on the decision come to by Lord Elgin in 1908, and confirmed by the White.

    653
    Paper of 1923, with regard to the restriction of agricultural land sales in the so-called Highlands of Kenya to persons of European descent. That has never been called in question. What is now suggested is that we should reopen this policy of 30 years, and throw into the melting pot again the whole question of the Highlands. Do hon. Members who make that suggestion visualise the implications which would follow from its adoption? His Majesty's Government could not countenance the idea for a moment; they would regard it as being as much a breach of faith as the taking of a tract away from the reserves; but that suggestion is made at the moment when these enormous tracts are being added to the native reserves, and when an attempt is being made to bring about certainty of tenure. I cannot conceive of any action that would be more unfortunate.
    The question about the "Discovery" Committee was raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) and another hon. Member. The position can be very shortly stated. This fund was raised by taxation. It is talked about by some as if it was a kind of trust fund founded by voluntary subscription. It is nothing of the kind. It is the proceeds of taxation levied in a British Colony by means of export duties and to a small extent by means of licences. It has always been devoted to two purposes. It has been devoted towards defraying the cost of the Falklands Dependencies. In respect of Dependency expenditure, my hon. Friend explained to me afterwards that he was under a complete misapprehension. He thought that this defraying of the cost of these Dependencies out of the fund was something new. It has always been done. The figure of £9,000 to which he referred is not a new figure, but is the figure which was assessed in 1926 and earlier and which has been paid ever since. Of course, the cost of these Dependencies ought to come out of the proceeds of the local taxation from which the fund was formed. It is proper that in the future, as in the past, we should ensure that that cost is so met.
    Major MILNER: Was that permissible under the original Ordinance?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes.
    Major MILNER: If the right hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory I think he will find that he is wrong.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman expresses a very firm opinion. I do not express an opinion in this House without verification. I was once a lawyer, though I do not profess to have the slightest legal knowledge. I am advised that it is perfectly proper. It has been done all along. It was done by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Government and it has never been questioned at all. The fund is also being applied for sending out the "Discovery" upon another voyage. There is no reason why the "Discovery" should not go out on a second voyage. We cannot decide until the "Discovery" returns and we see what progress has been made and what remains to be done whether further money out of that fund should go on being spent on this particular kind of research, or whether, as my hon. Friend says, if it be thought by those most competent to decide that this form of research has really exhausted its utility, we ought, not to use some of it in another kind of research. That will have to be decided some time in the future when we know further what has happened. I do not think it would be justifiable to go on spending a research fund on research which most people thought had exhausted its utility, but that question does not arise now.
    A suggestion about Mr. Darnley has been raised and I must answer it. Mr. Darnley ceased to be a member of the Colonial Office. A certain post became redundant and it had to be decided which member of the staff in the Colonial Office was the person who was, I will not say, least competent—all Government Departments are competent—but one has to decide that one must keep the most able people and the person who is not as competent as others is the person who has to retire. In those circumstances Mr. Darnley retired when the post became redundant. It has always been the practice that a member of the Colonial Office should be the Chairman of this Committee. When Mr. Darnley's services at the Colonial Office came to an end, I had to appoint another chairman of the fund. It was an important duty, and I thought that the proper thing to do was to

    655
    appoint the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who is the chairman of some of the largest committees in the Colonial Office. It has been suggested that Mr. Darnley ought still to be on the committee. Again, I am sorry that this point has been raised. It is a matter of complete indifference to me whether Mr. Darnley is on the committee or not. As the question was raised, I asked the Under-Secretary of State to make inquiries as to whether it would be acceptable to other members of the committee that Mr. Darnley should be added again to the committee as a member. He reported to me that he had sounded the committee and that he would not be acceptable. I have had to say that because the hon. Gentleman has raised the question, and I always want to be perfectly frank with the Committee. I am rather sorry that it was raised.
    Major MILNER: I have not raised any question about his continued membership of the committee. That was raised in another place.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: At any rate, that is the whole story about it.
    I come, finally, to the amazing part of the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) dealing with Malta. I am absolutely unrepentant as regards the action which His Majesty's Government took in Malta. It was a little surprising that this diatribe about suspending the Constitution in Malta should come from Members of the late Government which suspended the Constitution of Malta for two years. Doubtless the hon. Member has forgotten that incident in his past career. The Constitution of Malta was suspended because it was perfectly plain that Ministers, in every way they could, were defying the policy which Parliament unanimously laid down should be followed in Malta. They were deliberately, in every way they could, trying to suppress not only the English language, but the Maltese language as well—a most scandalous performance in a British colony and a great fortress. Of course, being ingenious people, they tried where they could, to keep within the letter of the law, but I am not quite sure that they always succeeded. As a matter of fact, they boasted that it was their ambition to question, by every means in their power, the orders of this House
    656
    and the policy which this House and Parliament generally had unanimously endorsed. They sent elementary school teachers to be trained in Italy. Why should they go to be trained in Italy? Italian is not taught in the elementary schools in Malta. They were never going to teach Italian. They were not sent there to learn anything of use to them in their training. We all know the reasons why they were sent.
    The hon. Gentleman asked a question with regard to the words which he quoted and which, he said, were. not in inverted commas. I have not the paper before me, but the words in substance were an endeavour to get round the policy of the Government. As a matter of fact, I have refreshed my memory by referring for the information, and I find that those words, although not in inverted commas, were actually the words used by the Minister in his speech. Italian was to be made compulsory for every post. The man who was to be employed in scavenging the town, those who filled the cheapest jobs in the town were to be told that they would have to learn Italian. Really, that is most absurd in a British Colony, and I am amazed that the hon. Member should defend action of that kind. As for their financial policy, I am not concerned with what has been said, but they were busily engaged in dissipating a surplus which had been sedulously accumulated in the past. and were committing themselves to an expenditure on a scale which I have no doubt would be sympathetically regarded by the hon. Member in view of the course which he pursued up to the crisis in 1931, but which certainly would not be of any great benefit to Malta. I stand absolutely by what I have said about that.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: What about your conservative predecessor?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: He is not present, but I have every reason to know that he is in complete agreement with the policy which has been pursued, and if we had not taken the steps we took in Malta, a British colony and a British fortress, we should have been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty. That is all I desire to say except one other thing. The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) has thought it desirable to charge me not with mis-

    657
    conduct but with some indelicacy because a Colony presented me with my portrait.I do not wish to say anything in my defence. I am fairly well known in this House, and I am perfectly content to leave my honour and reputation with them.
    10.43 p.m.
    Major PROCTER: I have sat here all through the Debate and listened to most of the speeches, and I hope hon. Members will bear with me for a few moments while I put a matter before the Committee which greatly concerns my constituency and Lancashire as a whole. It is the position of West Africa. The trade of West Africa has seriously declined and the natives there are unable to buy our textile and other products largely because the trade in palm kernel oil has been destroyed, first by the removal of the 10 per cent. duty on whale oil in the agreement we made with Norway, and, secondly, by the imposition of a fax of 29s. on palm kernels, which is equivalent to a tax of £3 per ton export tax on palm kernel oil, which has to compete with the whale oil from Norway. The result is that the West African native is unable to buy Lancashire cotton goods. I ask the Colonial Secretary if he can see his way to find some other method of raising revenue instead of putting an export duty upon the product of the West African native which has to compete with Norwegian whale oil. May I remind him that in my native city, Liverpool, 14 firms which were largely engaged in the West African trade has gone into bankruptcy? Will my right hon. Friend not consider, therefore, that it is of paramount importance to raise the purchasing power of the native, and to look into the operations of the great combines, or their methods, in West Africa? If he would do that I am sure that Lancashire would be grateful. We are grateful to the Government for the tax on Japanese exports into the Colonial Empire. This indicates a change of policy on the part of the Government. It has always been the aim of Britain to regard the Colonial Empire as a trusteeship. Our rule is solely in the interests of the native. As Kipling said:
    "If we have bound the cannibal it was only that we might feed him with better food. If we have bound the fathers it was only that we might raise their children to a higher seat."
    Those sentiments were very good in the palmy days of our prosperity, but surely
    658
    the time has come when the whole of the Empire should work for the advancement of the native and at the same time work for the advancement of this country. Such a policy would aid employment here and in the Colonies. The Colonies are our greatest export market. If the Government would put into operation the great vision of a great and well-known son of the Empire and adopt a Customs union of the whole of the Colonial Empire, I am sure that we would find a great deal more trade. America has discovered that. The Customs union between America and Porto Rico has resulted in a great advance in that American colony. America gets 31,000,000 dollars, or 91 per cent. of the trade, whereas our Colonial policy in the past has been like that of Doctor Barnardo's Homes—the ever-open door for every country's peoples. The time has come to bring more of the Empire's trade to the British people throughout the whole of the countries under the British flag.
    10.47 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I too have had a long day here. I heard the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) complaining somewhat bitterly that there were very few Members supporting the Government in the House when he began his speech. I took the trouble to count them, and I found that there were 25 per cent, more supporters of the Government than there were of the Opposition. [HON. Members: "No!"] I counted the numbers at the time. There were 10 of us and eight of you. What did happen, I am sorry to say, is that a good many of our side left. I do not say that they missed a very great and informative speech, along with some peculiar ideas. I must say that I shared the indignation at the attack made on the Colonial Secretary because someone had given him his picture. I thought the attack was a very shabby business. If they had given my right hon. Friend an illuminated address would hon. Members opposite have had the same objection. I was in Mauritius not long ago. The people there are all French, and they were full of praise of the Colonial Secretary and the work that has been done for them in the island. The one thing that they fear is that they might lose the British connection. It would have been a most impolite thing to these enthusiastic

    659
    people, who desired to offer this token. of their esteem, if it had not been accepted. I am proud to think that we have a man in our ranks who is recognised in that way.
    I want to speak on the question of rubber and tin, and the rubber control. The old Stevenson scheme was a mistake. I think it fixed the price much too high. I am very doubtful about the tin control. There has been litigation in one of the great mines. In some of the mines they have to keep pumping continuously at vast expense, and if the revenue is cut down the place is ruined. That matter also should be looked into.
    With regard to the treatment of natives, anyone who knows anything about mining in South Africa knows that the first thing you have to do is to be good and kind to your boys. If you do not treat them as you treat your children you will lose them. The black boy has an advantage which the British working man does not possess: if he is not treated well, he will go back to his kraal and you lose your labour corps. You have to treat him tenderly, almost make a pet of him, and he will be perfect. I have had the treatment of thousands; you get them coming down rather poorly fed from the kraals, and after three months' good feeding they are thoroughly well and vigorous, and are wonderful workers. The late Sir William Raeburn told me of something he had never expected to see in his life which he saw at the building of the harbour at Durban—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of Durban, if it arises at all, will come under the Dominions Office.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am speaking, then, of something which he saw at a certain place: powerful black boys running with barrows and singing as they ran about who could carry the most. I have never seen such a thing among British workers. Another point about mining is that it, should be done near the black boy's home, because this adds greatly to his comfort and welfare, and it is a great disadvantage to a native to be carried away to a far distance. Gold mining is a clean and fine job, not like coal mining, and a very remunerative job. It is work which enormously improves the boys and raises their status. An hon. Member said that the mining conditions
    660
    were severe, and that not the least of the work is the protective work which the boys have to do. It is a great mistake to have too much of this, for it gets done in a hurry, unscientifically and at a loss. This question must be very seriously considered. One thing about which I was more delighted than about anything which I have heard was the experimental farm schools. It pleased me to think that out in those Colonial parts we have the right type of school in which the child gets trained for something along with his eductation. If we could have the same kind of thing in Uganda, the farmers would be more useful colonists and we should have a much larger number of settlers. At present the cost to the Government of Uganda relative to the population is extremely high.
    Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £99,419, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to. —[Captain Margessom]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
    Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment: read the Third time, and passed.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBT].
    Resolution reported,
    "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour."

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Grants for public works.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a simple but important question relative to local authorities. The question of the interest paid by local authorities on loans, since loans were advanced by the Public Works Loans Board, about 1921 or 1922, has been a thorny one. The hon. Gentleman will remember that during that period local authorities, for water purposes or gas or electricity development, or for other public services that are so essential to the well-being of the community, who had no access to public trustee funds were obliged to pay anywhere about 7 per cent. for loans that were advanced to them. Many of these loans were dated for a number of years and under no conditions could they be liquidated prior to the expiration of the date determined. As a result, local authorities to-day are paying anything between 5 and 7 per cent. on loans that were advanced for public services of some kind.
    In reply to a question on Thursday, the hon. Gentleman intimated that not less than £89,000,000 was still owing by local authorities for money borrowed at rates in excess of 5 per cent. It is true that a goodly proportion of that sum was advanced for the purpose of housing under the 1919 Housing Act, and that to the extent that the sums were borrowed for housing purposes, all the repayments in excess of la penny rate have to be met by the Government; but many local authorities are still burdened with these huge rates of interest, which we think ought to be reduced as early us possible. It is true that within recent history the Public Works Loan Board has found ways and means of reducing the rate of interest on current and future loans, but old dated loans still current have to be met by local authorities. There was a Conversion Loan some time ago when War Loan was converted from 5, 4¾ and 4½ per cent. to 3½ per cent. Considerable sums of money were saved to the Exchequer. I have heard the Chancellor on many occasions claim a good deal of credit for that Conversion Loan. While we do not expect the Treasury to meet any deficit that may accrue between the rate of interest paid by the Public Works Loan Board and any concessions granted to local authorities, we do feel that if it
    662
    were expedient and fair to issue and carry through the conversion of War Loan, it would be equally fair to insist upon a conversion of those loans borrowed by the Public Works Loan Board for the purpose of advancing money to local authorities.
    The hon. Gentleman on the spur of the moment may not be in a position to reply now. We appeal to him, however, when this further £18,000,000 is borrowed, not only to borrow it at the least possible rate of interest consistent with helping the local authorities, but to let the people who are in the habit of advancing loans to the Public Works Loan Board know that there will be a conversion of past loans, and to that extent a mitigation of the burden of the local authorities. The question is a very simple one, but it has been before the Treasury on previous occasions, and we think that it is high time that the local authorities, which were obliged to borrow money at 6, 6½ and 7 per cent., should be relieved of some of their burdens. If a compulsory conversion be the only means whereby local authorities can be relieved, we think it is high time that a compulsory conversion ought to take place. We do not want to hold up this Measure, and we only submit this to the hon. Gentleman in the hope that he will take it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, if it be possible consistently with the financial dignity of the country to insist upon a conversion, that the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary may think it worth while to carry it through.
    The CHAIRMAN: I did not realise what the hon. Gentleman was doing. I noticed that he said towards the end that he did not expect the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to be able to answer his question right off, and I am inclined to think that if he attempted to do so, I should have to rule him out of order. I do not see that the question really can be raised on this Bill at all, and I could not allow a. Debate on it.
    11.6 p.m.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): With your permission, Sir Dennis, I will say briefly that we have looked very carefully into this question, and we can see no possibility of meeting the hon. Member in this matter, for the simple reason that the money lent at that time at that

    663
    high rate of interest, which was the current rate at the time, we were compelled to borrow in order to have the wherewithal to lend it. In order to alleviate the burden on the local authorities, we should be compelled to bear the whole of the loss. Conversion would not be possible for those loans still outstanding, and there is no possibility of raising the money in any way except at the expense of the taxpayers. It is unfortunate for the local authorities that raised money at that time, but the greater part of it was borrowed to meet the plans under the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1919, and the greater part of that burden is now borne on the Exchequer, which would be the principal beneficiary from any relief obtained. I do not think anything was raised at 7 per cent. I think 6½ per cent. was the highest rate, and only very small sums were raised at so high a rate as that.
    Clause 2 (Certain debts not to be reckoned as assets of local loans fund,) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Remission of arrears of principal and interest in respect of Eyemouth Harbour loan.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    11.8 p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think the hon. Gentleman may feel disposed to make some reference, not to the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees question, where only £500 is involved, but to the losses incurred through the harbour having gone into liquidation and these various loans not being repaid, but perhaps it would be better to raise the question on the Schedule.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is too late and that the question should have been raised on Clause 2.
    Clause 4 short title,) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule (Loan by the Public Works Loan Commissioners under the Harbours and Passing Tolls, etc., Act, 1861), agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

    TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (SPECIAL INVESTMENTS) BILL [Lords].
    Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

    COLONIAL STOCK BILL.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Order [11th July] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee be read and discharged."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I understand that this is really a blunder, and I do not think the House ought to be asked to pass something of this sort without an explanation. I understand we are being asked to discharge an Order made as recently as last night and apparently during the night the Government have changed their mind. We ought to have some information.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): Nobody could be more willing than I am to take part in this little jest. Quite frankly, it is not a blunder, but a small tiny slip. We did not change our minds during the night, but at the last minute before the House rose. That is why it is on the Paper.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow."—[Captain Margesson.]

    WHALING INDUSTRY (REGULATION) BILL [Lords],
    Order for Second Reading read.
    11.12 p.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    Very few words are needed on this Bill, which is to ratify an international convention for the preservation of whales in the high seas, and preventing the indiscriminate slaughter now going on. As it deals with the high seas, protection can only be secured by each nation which has gone into the convention taking precautions in regard to its own nationals. Therefore, we are making the necessary proposals in regard to our

    665
    whales and taking steps to impose the necessary penalties on those who break them. Opportunity is also taken to deal with the smaller matter of the protection of whalers inside our own coastal waters. In future the taking of whales will be permitted only under licence, and the convention lays down what are the conditions under which licences can be obtained. Provision is made not only for the number of whales taken and the method of capture but for the full and efficient utilisation of the products of the whale. These provisions are desired not only to protect the whales by reducing the numbers of those captured but to make more useful those that are captured.
    11.15 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Though this Bill deals with mammals, it is a little bit fishy to bring it on at a quarter-past Eleven o'Clock. Still, as it refers to an international convention to which, obviously, the country has agreed, we shall take no objection to the Second Reading being considered now.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Captain Margesson.]

    GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hos-
    666
    pital and Travers' Foundation for the year 1934 be approved."—[Captain. Euan Wallace.]
    11.16 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Hon. Members will know that at this time of the year the Public Accounts Committee present their report to the House. In the ordinary course of proceedings we present a report in respect of last year's accounts, and in that report there is a reference to this particular point, though not in regard to these accounts; and, if I and my colleagues do not take objection or say anything about them, it is not because we feel that there is nothing to be said, but because, in a way, the accounts are still sub judice, because they have to come before the Public Accounts Committee for consideration.
    Resolved,
    "That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year 1934 be approved."
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

AGRICULTURE.
  POULTRY (REORGANISATION COMMISSION'S REPORT).
  POULTRY (REORGANISATION COMMISSION'S REPORT).
  SPITTALFIILL FARM, FINTRY.
  SPITTALFIILL FARM, FINTRY.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  RUSSIAN AND JAPANESE COTTON CLOTH.
  RUSSIAN AND JAPANESE COTTON CLOTH.
  COTTON PIECE GOODS.
  COTTON PIECE GOODS.
  PRISON SERVICE, SCOTLAND.
  PRISON SERVICE, SCOTLAND.
  STREET ACCIDENTS (POLICE REPORTS).
  STREET ACCIDENTS (POLICE REPORTS).
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  COAL INDUSTRY (QUOTA RESTRICTIONS, YORKSHIRE).
  COAL INDUSTRY (QUOTA RESTRICTIONS, YORKSHIRE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

DINDINGS AGREEMENT (APPROVAL) BILL, [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to approve an Agreement made on behalf of His Majesty with the Sultan of Perak, and move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

SHOPS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (CLACTON-ON-SEA AND SAINT MAWES) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVI- SIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been reported from the Committee.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ST. HELEN'S CORPORATION (TROL- LEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVI- SIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVI- SIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, in view of the past history of the subject this is a comparatively simple Bill and a short Bill. It is to provide for the continuance of the subsidy on beet sugar on the existing basis. Your Lordships will remember that in 1924 when the scheme was first started the subsidy total was equal to 21s. 9d. per cwt. It came down four years later to 14s. 6d. and now it is down to 7s. 3d. If the price of sugar rises above 6s. per cwt. the subsidy will actually go lower—to 6s. 6d. This Bill operates for only eleven months. We have chosen that curious period of eleven months in order to bring the accounting year into line with factory working. Some noble Lords may ask why this subsidy is wanted for the beet, sugar industry at the moment, when it has made such remarkable progress. In 1924, when this scheme was
506
started, the price of raw sugar was 21s. 9d. In 1933 it touched 4s. 3d. The total amount of assistance—the figure I gave before was only subsidy—was 23s. 8d., including duty preference. It is now down to 12s. While it is perfectly true that efficiency of growing amongst the producers has increased enormously, so that last year the yield went up to an average of nine tons per acre, which compares favourably with most Continental countries, and while increased factory efficiency is very considerable, the sugar extraction having increased very largely, still there is no likelihood of getting over that tremendous gap created by the fall in prices.
There has been some complaint of delay in announcing our general policy with regard to this industry. Your Lordships will appreciate that we were held up by the possibility of there being discussions on this subject at Ottawa, which made it impossible for us to commit ourselves. Shortly after that the present Minister of Agriculture came into office and naturally he desired time in which to make up his mind as to his line of future policy. When we came into office, and felt that in devising any future policy it was essential to obtain some unity and some organisation in the industry, we found the most bitter state of warfare between refiners and factories; Now, thanks to giving them time for negotiations—and I would like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the very real statesmanship shown on both sides in those negotiations—we are in the position of being able to say that the refiners and the factories have submitted a scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act. At the same time we can state that the growers also have formulated a scheme.
The position in the industry is that there has been a public inquiry into the scheme submitted by the sugar interests, and that there is an inquiry going on at the behest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, presided over by Mr. Wilfrid Greene, to advise the Government on its future general policy. Those two inquiries are quite separate. The public inquiry was into the merits of a particular marketing scheme, and the inquiry set on foot by the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerns the future conduct of the industry, the future amount of State aid and the manner in which that State aid, if any, is to be

507
granted. This Bill does not commit your Lordships further than eleven months. Before anything more can be done the scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act will have to be submitted to your Lordships for approval, and with regard to the organisation of the industry and the amount of State aid that is to be given, legislation will have to be introduced next year before this Bill runs out. I beg to move therefore that this Bill be read a second time.
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, before the noble Earl concludes, will he tell us what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer for the eleven months?
EARL DE LA WARR: The cost will be approximately £3,250,000.
LORD RHAYADER: That is without the remission of duty?
EARL DE LA WARR: That is what is included in the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Be La Warr.)
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I have listened with a great deal of sympathy, and I think your Lordships will also feel a great amount of consideration, for the noble Earl who has had to move this Bill, because he is bringing forward a Bill which everybody who has studied the subject knows ought not to have been brought in at this time at all, but ought to have been brought in a year ago and more. The position is that more than two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer solemnly promised that before any question of renewing the subsidy was raised there should be a proper inquiry into the whole circumstances of the industry. All of us who had been interested in the sugar industry, as I have been for forty years, were very glad of that because we did hope that the result of that inquiry would be to bring our sugar policy, not only for England, but for the whole of the Empire, under one systematic principle. We may be approaching that, although the noble Earl told us just now that we have two different Committees sitting considering two different sides of the matter, which does not look very hopeful. He tells us that before anything further is done the results of those Committees will be submitted to us, and I suppose we shall be
508
asked, on account of the impossibility of coming to a decision, to prolong this subsidy again for another twelve months for precisely the same reasons as those for which it is proposed to prolong it to-day.
I was not at all impressed—I do not know whether any of your Lordships can have been—with the reasons which the noble Lord gave for the failure of the Government to make good their promise that they would have an inquiry before this matter was again submitted to your Lordships. So far as I can make out, the only substantial reason was that the Minister of Agriculture had found it very hard indeed to reconcile the competing interests of the enormous refining monopoly of Tate and Lyle, Limited, in this country with the interests of their competitors. Undoubtedly Tate and Lyle, Limited, are an extremely strong corporation and very difficult to deal with. However, they seem now to have come to some sort of agreement with their competitors in the refining industry, although they have not altogether come to agreement yet with the producers outside of England. In fact, as I say, this Bill ought to have been cleared away twelve months ago, and we ought to have been in a position now to deal thoroughly with the whole sugar question. This Bill is now brought in with really no argument to support it except that the Government have got into a mess, that they have not been able to carry out their programme, and that by way of a stop-gap they must carry on the system which they had it in their power to remedy more than twelve months ago—a perfect demonstration of an indefensible situation. I think that anybody who has gone into the sugar situation with any care knows perfectly well—and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will admit this—that the present system of subsidy is quite unjustifiable as a policy. It gives an enormous subsidy to the sugar-producing industry at home, which, as I have again and again urged in this House, cannot be regarded as an economical industry.
I very much wish that we had had an opportunity of getting from the noble Earl his views and opinions upon certain particular points which remain, I think, at issue in connection with that. He said en passant that the British agricultural production now had risen to nine tons an acre, which compared very favourably

509
with Continental production. That is not my information. My information from persons well acquainted with Czecho-Slovakian and German production is that their average is from thirteen to fifteen tons per acre. I pass that by; but there can be no question whatever that as regards glucose content, the production of sugar per acre is very much higher on the Continent and in all the cane sugar producing countries than it is, or can be made, in England. That is the economic basis. On the other hand, we have again and again been told that the value of the beet sugar crop to the farmer in England is very great. I wish the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary would give us an analysis of what is the actual advantage to the British farmer in that respect. Of course, the noble Earl will say that that is being gone into by the Greene Committee. I suppose it is being gone into and we must wait until the Greene Committee can give us their Report.
I do feel that this Bill is a somewhat base-born Bill, and that it has no business to be here at all. It reminds me of the story of a certain grass widow; she was a grass widow in the sense that her husband was in prison serving a sentence of seven years imprisonment. This lady did not desire to relinquish her family duties and she produced every year a child. She said: "No one can cast a stone at me; I am a married woman and these children are born in wedlock"—just as the subsidy, although it was regarded with great suspicion by many of us on this side, has been paid for the last six years entirely under the sanction of the law. In process of time the husband's term approached expiration and his time for coming out of prison was at hand. The lady's spiritual adviser said to her: "Now, really you must regulate your household matters. I think you have given reason for considerable suspicion of your conduct, and you must promise me to lead a regular and decent life in future." She said: "I solemnly promise that I will have a proper inquiry into my relations with my friends, and I promise that nothing suspicious and nothing illegitimate shall occur in future." The husband came out of prison, and the first thing that he did was to divorce his wife. Nevertheless, a year after there appeared another contribution of illegitimate origin, precisely as, after the expiration
510
of legal authority, you have this extraordinary Bill without any justification whatever, carrying on a system which has been demonstrated again and again to be economically thoroughly unsound and thoroughly undesirable.
I say that confidently. I am quite confident that the result of the Greene Committee will be to show that. Therefore I say that we protest entirely against this Bill being brought in, not on the ground that the Government, being in that fix owing to their own negligence, did not have to bring something in, but because we think that it is an outrage upon Parliament that the Government should have got into this difficulty. They say they have had great difficulty in studying this matter. I say, with forty years knowledge of the sugar industry, that there is almost no industry in the world in which the statistics and the facts are better documented and in which it would have been easier to come to a rapid conclusion as to what really was the economic basis of a proper subsidy for sugar. Therefore we on this side protest most strongly against this Bill, as other noble Lords on other Benches will no doubt protest as the result of a general economic analysis of the situation.
However, passing from that, I want to express my great regret that the Government are now dealing with this matter in so absolutely piecemeal and disjointed a fashion. As we have been told, we have the Greene Committee and we have a public Commission enquiring into the sugar marketing scheme. We have also a whole system of very energetic negotiations being carried on by the Colonial Office and the Dominions Office with respect to the position of our Colonial and Dominion producers. As a man interested in the Colonies of the West Indies I feel the very greatest gratitude to the Secretary of State for the Còlonies for all he has done and attempted to do for the sugar industry of the Colonies, but those who have followed the matter know what tormented and unhappy arrangements he has to make, with preference upon preference, quota divided by quota, preference diminished when sugar goes up to a certain point and diminished more when it goes to a certain other point—a frightfully complicated arrangement which must be extremely difficult for the sugar pro-

511
ducers in our Dominions. The whole question of the sugar production of the Empire ought to be dealt with as an industry for production to satisfy the needs of our consumers, and on a single basis, and it ought to be dealt with on the lines which in their agricultural policy at home this Government have been gradually approaching; that is to say, on the lines which I myself advocated four years ago of coming to a fixed minimum price for the producers founded on the economic cost of production. I hope that the Greene Committee will advocate those lines.
The Minister of Agriculture has gradually persuaded the country to accept what my West Indian friends and myself have been urging for the last forty years. My only expression of dissatisfaction is that what is being done is being done piecemeal, and I hope that the Government will tell us shortly that they are prepared to take up Imperial sugar production on a single basis, not regarding our Colonies as competitors who have to be rationed with preferences and quotas, but taking the British sugar producing industry as a whole, giving it economic prices, and the sugar to be bought and handled by the Government on behalf of the nation as it was during the War. We are coming to that, and I gladly acknowledge that this Government and the Ministry of Agriculture and others have gone further in that direction than any previous Government. I am well aware, too, that they have done it in the face of my friends on my right, against whom I have maintained the case of the Colonies for many years.
This Bill, however, ought not to have been necessary. It is a Bill which is discreditable to the Government because of their procrastination and delay in dealing with this matter. It is also discreditable to them because it is a piecemeal, haphazard measure, already with two heads to it, and cannot by any possibility give us a promise that the sugar situation will be settled, as the noble Earl suggested, by the time that the next question of subsidy must arise. It is not many months before the contracts for next year must be made. The contracts will have to be made this autumn for the sowings next spring. Does the noble Earl think that we are going to have a settlement of the sugar policy of the
512
Government before the contracts are made for next year? And will he say that we are not going to be let in again next year as we were last year? We cannot oppose this Bill—it has been passed by another place—but we do on this side of the House protest most strongly against the ineptitude with which the Government have handled the matter, and the false pretences under which the Bill is now being brought in.
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord who spoke last in opposing this Bill, although for slightly different reasons. I almost think that the noble Earl must have felt a little embarrassed under the compliments of the noble Lord, who told him that he was carrying out the policy which he (Lord Olivier) advocated four years ago, in the different schemes he has presented to us. That, I believe, to be true. The Government are carrying out a Socialist policy, which ought to receive the wholehearted support of noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, but they certainly are not carrying out the Liberal policy. We have consistently advocated opposition to this subsidy. The noble Earl should, of course, be a happy man to-day. His schemes are ripening fast.
EARL DE LA WARR: Hear, hear.
LORD RHAYADER: Last week we had the Hops Scheme, and in another place beef arrived on the scene yesterday.
EARL DE LA WARR: Hear, hear.
LORD RHAYADER: To-day the noble Earl, whose appetite grows with what it feeds upon, produces beet and milk. He is advancing faster in his rake's progress than I ventured to foretell a short time ago. But I thought he was not entirely happy, to-day, in dealing with the beet sugar subsidy, and the reason for that is clear enough. I agree most emphatically with Lord Olivier in saying that this Bill ought not to be here to-day. This matter should have been dealt with twelve months ago, and we ought not to be having a Bill to prolong the beet sugar subsidy for another year. The Government should have come here to-day to admit that the effort which was made, not on their responsibility alone, to establish beet sugar growing in this country as a profitable industry, had, after ten years full experiment, failed. It has

513
been the most costly, and I venture to say the most futile, of all the experiments which have been made in connection with agriculture since the War. The right attitude would, have been to say that the experiment, having been entered upon in good faith more than ten years ago, had been tried out, and that now they had come to the conclusion it was useless to prolong the experiment further.
The scheme first appeared in Mr. Philip Snowden's Budget in 1924. I heard the Budget speech, and I am happy to think that I offered the same opposition even at that time to this proposal, which I foresaw was going to be very costly, and which I was convinced must be a failure. The Conservative Party supported the Socialist Party, and although Mr. Snowden, for other reasons, ceased to be Chancellor of the Exchequer in the following year, in 1925 the scheme was entered upon, the ten years guarantee was given, and the experiment has gone on from that time. We opposed it at the time, and I venture to recall this because we have been blamed for various things we have done, and I want some credit where we have done well. We pointed out that there was no world-shortage of sugar which would justify a large experiment to set up sugar growing in this country, where sugar growing had never been profitable. We declared that in our judgment it could not possibly be made to be a profitable industry in this country, that it could never flourish here without much Government help in the shape of Votes by Parliament. We declared that we thought that the cost of the experiment would be enormous, and we held that the gain to agriculture would be small, and that for the nation it must mean a net loss. Well, that has all come true. It is, I know, a very ungracious position for one to take up to say: "I told you so," but as we are taunted to-day by the present Minister of Agriculture with our consistency in this matter—indeed, he has gone so far as to say in another place that the only reason for the continuance in existence of the Liberal Party is that they might repeal the beet sugar subsidy—I think I may be allowed to defend myself. Consistency is, after all, not a bad virtue, though I can well understand that it is not one that appeals much to members
514
of the present Government. Even insistence, on rigid economy in the expenditure of public money is not a disgraceful thing for a great Party to have in its programme.
Now let me take the objections which we made to the scheme one by one. We declared that the subsidy would not achieve the object of establishing the industry on a paying basis in this country, and that without Government support it would collapse. We were out-voted. For ten years the subsidy has been paid and in March last the Minister of Agriculture said in the House of Commons:
"In no country in the world can the beet sugar industry be maintained on a profitable basis unless supported by substantial artificial aid."
Well, our case is proved. Ten years have passed, and at the end of it the Minister of Agriculture confesses that they have not been able to achieve the very end which ten years ago was intended—namely, the placing of the sugar beet industry in this country on a profitable paying basis. And the logical position to-day would have been for the Government to come here to say that, having tried for ten years to do this thing they find it cannot be done, and they should have given up the attempt. Ten years is a long period.
The cost to the Government during the nine years that have already passed is admittedly close upon £40,000,000—some say a little less, but we may take £40,000,000 as the cost to the Exchequer. And you are where you started—no further forward. You grow your beets a little better, you have your factories established—that is true enough; but you are not on a paying basis, and you are not within sight of being on a paying basis. I am sure the noble Earl will not get up and say that he sees any means by which this industry can be put on a paying basis. The Minister of Agriculture has admitted it. And how should it be? I have here particulars of the production of sugar in various countries. In Great Britain the production of sugar per acre is 22 cwts.—it is quite a good figure; it is not as good as the Continent, but still it is reasonably good—in Jamaica it is 27 cwts.; in Trinidad, 54 cwts.; in Java, 119 cwts. What is the use of pouring out millions to grow sugar in this country with that small possible production per acre against this vast pro-

515
duction in other parts of the world? But, instead of coming and confessing failure—not their failure; they did not initiate the scheme—they are to blame to-day for continuing it. They had no choice until now, but they should have come to-day and said: "We have tried out the experiment and failed."
And incidentally may I remind the noble Earl what happened in connection with the debate about hops last week? He very kindly tried to reassure me. I felt a good deal hurt.
"When sorrows come they come not single spies,
But in battalions"
and the noble Earl's measures are arriving so fast that I am frequently wounded. He tried to console me. He said that the Hops Scheme is only for five years; at the end of five years it can all be re-examined and the subsidy can cease. We heard all that in 1924 and 1925 about the beet sugar subsidy. We have heard it all about the dye-stuffs. I do hope that the members of the Government will give up the pretence that any of these schemes which they are setting up are temporary schemes. Once you enter upon this road of allowing interests to build up behind Government subsidies it takes long and hard work and a growing sense of their futility—which is not decernible in the nation at present—to get rid of the burdens so created.
We said the scheme would not only not achieve its purpose of making the production of sugar beet a profitable industry, but that the cost would be far too great, even if it succeeded. We were told that as an outside estimate the cost might reach £20,000,000. They did not expect that, of course; they expected the subsidy to diminish every year, and that it would have disappeared long before ten years, were over. But at any rate £20,000,000 was an outside estimate of what the scheme would cost. It has cost £40,000,000, and the prolongation will cost £3,500,000 in direct subsidy, and I suppose another £2,500,000 in the rebate—probably about £6,000,000 in all. The amount of sugar produced in the ten years has been less than 40 million cwts. The subsidy therefore has amounted to £1 per cwt. of sugar, and the price of sugar is round about 5s. or 6s. a cwt. This country is paying a subsidy of between three and four times the value of the sugar in order to grow that sugar in this country.
516
I have here a very interesting quotation from a speech made by the President of the Board of Trade—a few years ago, it is true, but still full of sound sense, as many of his speeches are. This is what Mr. Runciman said on December 14, 1927:
"From the general point of view it would actually pay us to use this money to buy our sugar in Rotterdam, to ship it across from Rotterdam, distribute it in this country free of cost, give everyone of these men who would be thrown out of work £3 a week for the period they were out of work, and then there would be £1,500,000 in one year left to distribute among the farmers of the country.… This is the worst example I have seen of crazy finance."
My Lords, those were the measured words of the present President of the Board of Trade. It is quite true that he is, I presume—though I cannot penetrate Government secrets—a party to this Bill which is brought in to-day. But I am afraid that the fact that he has submitted does not, unfortunately, lessen the craziness of the finance. I have other quotations here, of which I will quote this one from a speech by Sir Herbert Samuel:
"The Government could pay all the farm workers £2 a week, all the factory workers £3 a week, all the farmers £3 per acre to grow something else than beet; the beet sugar companies' dividends might be guaranteed at 8 per cent., and the same amount of sugar might be bought and distributed free to the nation, charging only the Customs Duty on the amount of sugar."
Is it not crazy finance to be carrying on an experiment of this kind?
I appeal to noble Lords to think this matter over. Forty million pounds is a large sum of money, and you are going to go1 on pouring it out for this useless purpose. My noble friend Lord Olivier was speaking to you about the West Indies, which he knows well. I wonder he did not tell us of the effect of the growth of sugar in this country on the West Indies. It has not helped the West Indian sugar trade that you have set up this rival industry here. It was hardly playing the Imperial game. It was not one of those industries which have been long established in this country, but the setting up of a new industry to rival the West Indies, who live almost exclusively by their sugar. And that is not the end. We had a shipping subsidy promised a few days ago. The sugar policy has, according to the Chamber of Shipping Report of last November, lost the ship-

517
ping industry between £300,000 and £400,000. Is it sense first to subsidise the growing of sugar in this country in order to prevent the carriage of sugar from the West Indies and thereby deprive the shipping industry of the freights they get by carrying sugar, and then to subsidise in turn the shipping industry? It seems to me indeed crazy finance, and that is what the President of the Board of Trade called it.
I leave the financial side. Is it a benefit to agriculture? The Minister of Agriculture is quite frank:
"It is a plain issue. It is not as cheap to produce sugar in Britain as to buy it from abroad"—
with that we all agree—
"but it is the price which you are paying in order to help agriculture in this country."
If you had £40,000,000 to spend you could have helped agriculture a good deal more than by trying to grow an unsuitable crop in this country. There are plenty of suitable crops. If you had subsidised them, I might have objected on other grounds but not on the ground that you were not helping agriculture. In this case you have spent your money, and you have done little or nothing to help agriculture. This beet sugar growing has not appreciably increased the agricultural output of the country. The beets are grown as a substitute for other roots, and there is a diminishing production of those other roots with the increased production of sugar beet.
I have here a rather interesting quotation from a man who is a farmer in the sugar beet area of Norfolk, Mr. William Borthwick, who used these words:
"Sugar beet gives additional employment in harvesting in October, November and December, and outside labour is employed in those three months. But by the end of the year beet has disappeared from the fields, whereas the work of cutting up swedes and mangolds and feeding them to live stock goes on until May. The result is that since the introduction of sugar beet many regular workers, who have never known unemployment in their lives before, have had to go on poor relief from January to April."
It is by no means an additional crop and it is not additional labour. It is the substitution of one root crop for another, and the substitution of one set of labourers for another. The whole number employed is almost negligible. A few
518
extra men perhaps in the factories—what are they? Five thousand on part time and about 2,000 on full time, and that is the total in the factories. On the farms it means nothing. The farmers have got their subsidy—I hope it has done them some good—but it is the only thing they have got out of it. The Government have declined to face these facts. I have tried to state them hastily and perhaps too dogmatically—not intentionally, but because I do not want to take up time in justifying all of them as I go along; but we are continuing this policy for another year, and I view it with apprehension.
Then we are to have the marketing scheme, which came trippingly off the noble Earl's tongue. He has got the hop growers and the brewers together, and now he is getting the refiners and the sugar beet growers together, and these strong monopolists will wield great power. They will settle their internal differences; but what about the public outside and the National Exchequer? It is high time—I want to appeal to the noble Earl particularly on this—we had a full inquiry into the whole history of these ten years and into the present position of sugar, and it might be wise, as the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, suggested, to cover the whole sugar position in the world. The inquiry that is taking place is not enough. I have not seen the terms of reference of that inquiry. It is an inquiry with a lawyer-chairman—I have nothing to say against that, no doubt it is a very good thing—but we want a full and complete inquiry into all the circumstances of the last ten years and into the present position of sugar. The present inquiry is more in the nature of a Departmental inquiry than anything else. We want the fullest investigation of all the circumstances in all parts of the world, and we want to know whether really there is any hope left. I have said there is not. I may be wrong, but we ought at any rate to have some emphatic statement.
We have had the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that there is no hope of making beet sugar growing in this country pay, and that there never has been any hope of that. But we ought to have an authoritative declaration on the matter after a full inquiry into the whole thing. It should be made under the direction of some impartial

519
person who will devote the necessary time to it, and, though it would add a little to the expense, that would be trifling compared with what we are pouring out on this sugar subsidy. The Government were returned on a programme of economy. I was at the time a member of the House of Commons and helped to create this Government. At first they did well enough. Sacrifices were demanded and made, salaries were cut down, heavy taxes were laid on—we are still paying them—but it was not for this purpose that I helped to put the Government in power. It was not in order that they might squander money on the, hopeless experiment of growing sugar at a profit in this country. How can you allow this wasteful drain to go on?
Yesterday I was here in the House listening to the President of the Board of Education, Viscount Halifax, speaking on his Department. It was a most interesting speech. He told us of half-a-dozen important reforms for the children which he wished to give effect to as opportunity offered; but he could not raise the school age from fourteen to fifteen, he could not give nursery schools, he could not meet the demands for the health services which are required by the children, because there was no money in the Exchequer and the Government were bound to be careful in spending what they had got. Surely here is an opportunity for a real economy? There is no money for the children, but there is money for this foolish experiment in growing a crop for which our climate is unsuited. The expenditure—I close on this—is crazy finance, and the Government, pledged to economy, stand condemned for continuing it beyond the appointed period. Ten years were promised, the ten years have passed, the experiment has failed and the Government should not prolong its life for a single day.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I do not think any of us would quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, for speaking with such feeling on a topic on which we know his Party has always been completely consistent. From the very beginning they have opposed the beet sugar subsidy, and he expressed surprise, a surprise, indeed, which I myself share, at the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord
520
Olivier. I seem to remember that this scheme was prepared for us by the Labour Government in 1924 through Mr. William Graham, and I also seem to remember that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, was a very notable figure in that Government.
LORD OLIVIER: It was to expire after nine years.
EARL DE LA WARR: If the noble Lord is really complaining that it is being continued for one year I think he could have told us that at rather shorter length than the time which he occupied in his speech to-day when he questioned the whole principle. His only quarrel on the point of time was that we had not brought forward another permanent policy a year or two ago.
LORD OLIVIER: I did not question the whole principle. The principle was that it was to be an experiment for nine years, and that experiment had worked itself out well before the nine years.
EARL DE LA WARR: We are discussing a particular Bill, and that Bill is to prolong this work by eleven months. That is all that is before the House today. The noble Lord gave us a long speech on the whole principle of the scheme. But I do not think we should be surprised at the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Olivier. The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, has told us that this is a Socialist scheme. I think to some extent it is. If your Lordships had had the pleasure of working as closely with noble Lords opposite for as long >as I have you would know that there is nothing like the Labour Party for putting up a good and healthy opposition to any scheme of Socialism when it actually comes down to putting it into force. The main quarrel of the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, with us is on the question of time and he says that we should have been bringing forward our permanent policy a year ago. At the same time he congratulated us, and we thank him for his congratulations, on having adopted what was virtually his policy. I am not prepared to say with great exactitude whether we have done so or not, but the noble Lord tells us he has been urging this policy for no less than thirty years with extraordinarily little effect, and the Government are now being accused of putting it into effect in a period of two years.

521
The fact of the matter is, in putting through this scheme, it is very much better to work with the approval and agreement of an industry than to come down with full governmental powers to force that industry into reorganisation. I think it is worth the while of the State to wait for a year or two in order to get an industry reorganised in a way that is acceptable to the great multitude of interests within that industry rather than to hurry forward with ill-conceived schemes. There is also the point of the comparison of efficiency between the beet industry of this country and that of the Continent. The noble Lord, Lord Olivier, questioned the figures to which I referred. I have them here exactly, and they are as follows. In the United Kingdom our average is nine tons per acre; in Germany it is 9.9, in the United States 9.6, and in France 9.1. I think, therefore, I am amply justified in claiming that our figures compare very favourably with those of other countries.
I now come to the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader's main contention that we should confess failure and give up the whole experiment. I wonder what the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, would suggest doing with the 40,000 growers of beet in this country who, at the present moment, are very largely dependent upon this industry, and with all the men who are dependent upon it and who, if it were abandoned, would be thrown on the "dole." I think he implied that that would be very much better than what we are doing. We can afford, to disagree on the point as to whether it is better to have men working and earning their living in full possession of their self-respect than that they should be thrown on to the street with nothing whatever. The noble Lord said: "Let farmers cultivate other crops," but, if we brought forward schemes to assist the growing of other crops I think the noble Lord would find other reasons for opposing them. There is no general scheme for assisting agriculture which has been brought forward during this Parliament which he has not found some very good reason for opposing.
LORD RHAYADER: I am not opposed to helping agriculture. I have never opposed giving help to agriculture. I have always tried to help it, but I do not think
522
ladling out Government money is necessarily the best way of helping agriculture.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord, I know, is very sympathetic to agriculture, but he is most anxious not to do anything that anybody else suggests to assist agriculture. I think that is really very much what it comes to. He asked, why not grow more roots for bullocks? What are bullocks fetching? At the present moment something between 36s. and 38s. per cwt., and no doubt in a few days we will have the noble Lord criticising the decision of the Government to give some assistance to the beef industry.
LORD RHAYADER: I would rather you gave the beef industry these millions than spend them on the growing of beet sugar.
EARL DE LA WARR: In a few minutes we are to have the pleasure of discussing the milk policy of the Government. I do not know if the noble Lord intends to oppose that form of assistance. Would the noble Lord suggest that some of these 400,000 acres which are now under beet cultivation should be handed over in order to increase milk production and bring about a yet further increase in the number of milk sellers in the country? It is all very well to say, with a sweep of the hand, that you should grow other crops. I remember myself at one time in your Lordships' House saying that, but to-day I should not like to have to mention those other crops which can be grown at an economic price at the present time.
LORD RHAYADER: That is exactly what was said to the farmers of the country twenty years ago—grow new crops. My complaint is in regard to the continuing of this subsidy to the end of the ten years.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord is of opinion that we should take the tremendous step of throwing all this land out of cultivation and all these men out of work on the ground that the industry is uneconomic. I would like the noble Lord to tell me what industry in the world is working at the present time on strictly economic lines. How many industries in the world to-day are operating without some form of exchange assistance, some form of tariff, or some form of quota behind them? Even the

523
shipping industry, so beloved of the Liberal Party, has now had to seek State assistance. Therefore I make no apology for asking that your Lordships should allow this Bill to go through in order to continue the carrying on of the beet sugar industry.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MILK BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I venture to think that His Majesty's Government can feel that in this Bill they are putting before your Lordships a really balanced policy for the milk industry. It can be divided into three parts. The first is an attempt to save the industry and to stave off ruin by putting a bottom into the market. That scheme we reckon will cost something over £1,500,000 per annum. That payment will operate over a period of two years and after that period, if prices have risen to a certain height which I will mention later, these payments will have to be repaid to the Exchequer. The second and third parts of the policy constitute an attempt to increase the consumption of milk in this country. The first method of doing that is by cleaning up the herds from the fell disease of tuberculosis which is unfortunately so common among our cow population. The second method is a scheme of milk publicity, of spending £500,000 a year for the next two years very largely on increasing the supply of milk in schools for school children.
If your Lordships turn to the Bill you will find that Clauses 1 to 8 deal with the first part of our policy. There you will find provision is made, as I have said, for putting a bottom into the market. There is to be a guaranteed price to the Milk Board for all milk sold for manufacturing purposes of 5d. per gallon in summer and of 6d, in winter. That will mean that, whereas at the present moment the Milk Board are receiving something between 3d. and 3½d. per gallon for milk which is to be manufactured into cheese, henceforward that sum will he made up to 5d. in summer and 6d. in winter by a grant from the Exchequer. That position will continue for two years.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would the noble Earl make it clear who gets that? He said it went to the Milk Board.
EARL DE LA WARR: It goes into the general funds of the Milk Board and the Milk Board are responsible to the farmer.
LORD STRABOLGI: They pass it on without charge?
EARL DE LA WARR: They pass it on. Provision is made for repayment in the event of prices rising to such an extent that the Board is receiving 6d. for manufacturing milk in summer and 7d. in winter. If that occurs repayments will be made to the Exchequer through the Board. This advance makes provision not only for all the milk that normally goes to the Board but for all milk manufactured into cheese by farm cheese makers. The quantity of milk in the second category is something over 50,000,000 gallons per annum. This policy has been criticised as being a policy of subsidies just for that type of milk which is least required—namely, manufacturing milk, the milk which is, in fact, responsible for pulling down the price of liquid milk. But this advance is just as much an assistance to the liquid milk market as it is to manufacturing milk, because as your Lordships are aware the milk is paid for at the moment on the basis of there being regional pools. Each region has its pool price settled and then provision is made for certain inter-regional compensation to level up the various regions. Within the pool what is responsible at the moment for pulling down the price of liquid milk is the low price "received for manufacturing milk. Large deductions have had to be made from those who are selling their milk to the liquid market in order to help the price paid to those selling for manufacturing processes. Under this scheme the amount of the deductions would be limited by virtue of the fact that the price of manufacturing milk cannot go below 5d. in the summer and 6d. in the winter.
Now I come to the second part of the Bill which is contained in Clauses 9 and 10. There we find provision made for the cleaning up of the herds. We put the reasons for the need of this step under three headings. The first is public health, the second is the saving of the wastage of the dairy herds that goes on at the present moment to an appalling

525
extent, and the third is salesmanship. It must be clear to all of us that so long as there is in the minds of the buyers distrust of the product put on the market we are not going to sell as much milk as we should sell. Therefore, from the public health point of view and the farming point of view, it is essential that the Government and the farmers between them should co-operate in a campaign for the cleaning up of our herds from the scourge of tuberculosis. For that purpose there is to be a grant of £750,000 from the Exchequer over a period of four years. The details of the scheme have still to be prepared, but it is proposed to give assistance to what we call attested herds. These will be herds completely free from tuberculosis. It will be necessary for a producer who wishes to enter that scheme to have two successful tests of his herd with a six months interval to show his herd to be completely free. As soon as he has done that he can apply to the Ministry for an official test, which of course will be at the expense of His Majesty's Government, and if that test is satisfactory he will be able to enter the scheme for the attested herds. He will receive what will probably amount to a premium on his milk of a penny a gallon. That will account for something over £400,000 of the £750,000 which we have provided for this scheme.
Then, my Lords, there is the position of the certified producers and the Grade A (T.T.) producers, and the question of whether they should come into the scheme. I must ask your Lordships not to press me upon that point at the moment, because discussions are actually in progress. I can only say that I think those discussions are going very satisfactorily, and on behalf of those at the Ministry who are carrying on the negotiations, I would like to express their thanks to the certified and Grade A (T.T.) producers for the manner in which they are endeavouring to meet them. After the attested herd we have another grade of herd—another scheme which will be administered by the Milk Marketing Board, a scheme for accredited herds. Those herds will have to submit twice a year to full clinical examination and their production will have? to attain to the Grade A standard. There will be a premium again of a penny per gallon from the funds of the Milk Marketing Board. I may say in that connection that again
526
there are details of this scheme to be settled and therefore the exact figures must not be taken too definitely.
There is one point which I think is bound to come up in discussion and may come up at a later stage in Committee on this Bill. That point is that complaint is being made in certain quarters of the provision that when this period of four years has expired the Minister is to have the right to ask for the scheme to be continued by the Milk Marketing Board. Some complaint, as I say, is being made of that provision, but it has not been made by the Milk Marketing Board. The Board have fully accepted the conditions of the scheme. They must feel, as certainly we feel, that a very large sum of public money is being made over to the milk producers in order to enable them to do things in the production of their commodity which will assist them very considerably to increase its consumption, and we feel that as a condition of that very large grant they should be prepared to carry on the work at the end of the period and not just let it run to waste.
Now we come to the last section of the, policy, which is provided for in Clause 11 of the Bill—a grant for what we call publicity. Actually it is not intended that very much of that amount of £500,000 a year for two years shall be spent on what we ordinarily understand by advertisement. Rather we would like to see this money spent by giving the best publicity of all to milk, and that is by cheapening it in the schools. At the present moment there are over 800,000 children who are buying their milk in the schools for a penny per day—a third of a pint. We are endeavouring to work out a scheme, and I think I can say that we have very nearly completed it, whereby those children will be able to obtain their milk for a halfpenny a day. I think your Lordships will admit that that is a tremendous advance. There may be some of your Lordships who would like to see it given for nothing. Well, perhaps one day we will come to that, but at the present moment, I think your Lordships will admit that a very big step forward has been taken.
We have in the past been criticised by some of your Lordships for adopting a policy of restriction of production, and I think those of your Lordships who have

527
made that charge against us will be the first who will want to congratulate us on here pursuing a policy of increased consumption. I am really not quite sure that sufficient attention has been drawn to the very important departure in national policy which is here envisaged. Up to now we have felt inclined to spend a very considerable number of millions of pounds a year on public health, and on the other hand, we have spent a great deal of money quite separately on the assistance of agriculture. Here, for the first time, we are bringing the two policies together: we are assisting the farmer in the very best way possible—namely, by getting more milk into the stomach of the child who needs that milk. Again I say that I look forward with very great pleasure to the congratulations that we must receive on this from noble Lords opposite, from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and from others who quite rightly feel that wherever possible we should pursue a policy of increase of consumption rather than one of restriction of production.
In moving that this Bill be read a second time, I am quite aware that I have perhaps dealt with it rather shortly, but I felt that your Lordships have had the details of it before you for some time. If there are any further questions that arise in your Lordships' minds, of course I shall be here to endeavour to answer them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, this Bill is a great evidence of the extraordinary energy of the Ministry of Agriculture. The noble Earl has, of course, played a number of tricks on your Lordships' House with this Bill, and very cleverly. He has made virtues of a whole lot of necessities, the details of which he has carefully kept from your Lordships' House. Of course he realises that what we are suffering from in the matter of milk—and he has said so—is under-consumption and not over-production. He then said that there is a change of policy and that the Government are going in for increasing the consumption of milk. Of course he does not tell you why they are doing that—that we are tied by the leg to the Dominions by the Ottawa Agreements, and that he dare not attempt in any way to limit the imports of milk pro-
528
ducts from the Dominions because of the Ottawa decisions, and therefore his only way out is to attempt to increase consumption in this country.
He did not tell you that we take the whole of the milk products—the whole of the cheese and butter—which New Zealand produces; 100 per cent. of them comes to this country. He did not tell you that we take 90 per cent, of the Australian butter and cheese, and so on. He did not mention that that is the reason why he is attempting this change of policy on the part of the Government. And the reason that he did not mention it is that he knows perfectly well—and if I am wrong upon this I hope he will assure your Lordships' House—that the Dominions have given no guarantee that they will not increase their production and therefore increase their exports to this country when they get the better price which will result from the guaranteed minimum price for manufacturing milk. There is no guarantee of that, and the Dominions are perfectly free to increase their production and spoil the whole of the Ministry's scheme at any time they like, as far as I can understand it.
Then the noble Earl says that we have got to improve quality and increase consumption, and he proposes to spend money on doing those two things simultaneously. Now let us have this perfectly clear: Is he going to vise our money to advertise immediately by an increased consumption of the rotten milk which is now being distributed, or is he going to wait until the milk is really good before he advertises by an increase in its consumption by school children? You can not have it both ways. If the milk is bad, and he has told us it is—
SEVERAL NOBLE LOEDS: No.
LORD MARLEY: If he has not he ought to have done so. I will give quotations which will prove my facts up to the hilt. If the milk is bad, and the noble Earl should have said that the quality of milk in this country is probably less good than that in any modern civilised country—
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope the noble Lord will make it quite clear that that is what he says, and not what I said.
LORD MARLEY: I am saying what I say he should have said. He should have

529
given these facts, because they have been given by other members of this House, and have not been controverted, and I am going to make them perfectly clear. First with regard to this question of quality. The noble Earl told us something about the quality of the herds in this country. If your Lordships will read the Report of the Committee on Cattle Diseases you will see that Great Britain has the highest percentage in the world of tuberculosis infected herds. I know perfectly well that the Report tries to gloss over that by saying that it is not believed that it is higher than in other countries, but certainly not lower, or words to that effect, but it says that
"the generally accepted conclusion is that at least 40 per cent. of cows in dairy herds are infected with tuberculosis"
adding that that is a statement "which does not appear exaggerated." The Report continues:
" This percentage of infection may be compared with a percentage of something over four in the United States"—
ten times as high in Great Britain as in the United States!—
"and approximately twelve in Canada.… We have no evidence to show whether the disease is increasing or diminishing in Great Britain, but the widespread neglect of adequate precautions against its increase makes the latter improbable."
They do not like to say which it is, but the inference is that as it is improbable that it is diminishing, the probability is that it is increasing.
A member of your Lordships' House, Lord Moynihan, speaking at a meeting at the Mansion House nearly two years ago on the subject of milk, and the results from the 40 per cent. tubercle infected herds, used these words. He said:
"It is also true that a very large amount of surgical tuberculosis is caused by the drinking of contaminated milk. I have some figures here which show that 59 per cent, of cases of glandular enlargement and 35 per cent, of bone and joint disease in England and Wales are due to the drinking of contaminated milk. In Scotland things are far worse;"—
we ought to have had a Scottish debate on this—
"there, over 90 per cent, of glandular enlargements and over 60 per cent, of diseases of bones and joints were found to be due to the drinking of such milk. What we are accustomed to call 'surgical tuberculosis,' that is tuberculosis of the glands, bones, joints, skin, intestines and so forth, is due in large measure to impure milk."
530
This is the milk which the noble Earl is now going to advertise should be increasingly consumed in this country. Then:
"It has also become quite clear that a certain proportion of that form of tuberculosis which was supposed to be due to the contact of an individual with an already contaminated individual—that is to say, human tuberculosis—is also due to the drinking of milk. Therefore, against milk a heavy indictment may be brought: that it is the cause of a large proportion of surgical tuberculosis and of a certain proportion of medical tuberculosis."
What is the noble Earl going to say to all this? Is he going to advertise to bring about an increase in the consumption of liquid milk by the children of the workers in this country when he knows that the effect of an increase in the consumption of liquid milk from existing herds must mean an increase in the percentage of the distributed milk which is not pure and free from tuberculosis? I think some of the measures which the Minister proposes for cleaning up the herds are good. There is for example the matter of the changed methods of nomenclature. What a fatuous decision it must have been to term Grade A, milk which is the lowest graded milk in this country. It is the worst of the graded milks; and when you take the next grade up, Grade A (T.T.) ordinary people think it is Grade A but somehow lessened in quality; and when it comes to "certified" milk they think it is milk on which there is a certificate which is not as bad as it might have been. The change which is being made was overdue and the old grades were allowed to exist because the producers did not want to be labelled as producing anything but the best milk. We welcome the change which is being made and which is long overdue.
Then there is going to be a campaign, which the Minister has stated in another place will take a long time and towards which he is contributing £750,000, to ensure the proper inspection of tuberculous herds. I want to ask whether he will agree to give to the country a statement at regular intervals as to the progress of the emergence of clean herds, as a result of our expenditure. Could we have a report every six months of the progress of the scheme, showing us the lowering, month by month, in the percentage of infected cattle from which British milk is produced? If we could know that by spending £750,000 we have

531
reduced the percentage from, say, 45 per cent. of infected cows to 43 per cent. in six months, we will willingly double and treble that expenditure, if thereby we can get a proportionate decrease in infected herds, and finally reach the pastoral heaven which was outlined by the noble Earl, when all our cattle will be completely free from tuberculosis.
Then there is a proposal to pay premiums for pure milk. I know that members of my Party have not supported that scheme in another place, but I believe it to be a very good preliminary measure. I happen to have seen this scheme carried into effect in the great Midland dairying combine, which has its centre in Birmingham. There there was a premium paid for each gallon of milk which came below a certain bacterial count test and had more than a certain percentage of fat content, I remember visiting that scheme and seeing the figures of the thirty best farmers who were entitled to the premium because their milk had, as a result of a count of the number of bacilli to each cubic centimetre, got a premium. When I visited the same place two years later the very farmers who had got a premium for the cleanliness of their milk at the beginning were now out of the running altogether because milk of that type of cleanliness would not have been clean enough to earn a premium. In other words, the result of the premium had been enormously to reduce the number of bacteria per cubic centimetre and to improve the fat content.
The scheme provided for the giving of advice by skilled scientists to those farmers who found themselves falling back in the race, and who wanted to secure that they would come up again on to a premium-receiving basis. It was an admirable scheme. At first they did not like it, but afterwards they willingly accepted and applied for the services of the scientific expert, and learnt that, by adequate and rapid cooling, by the use of special milking cans with the orifice at the side, by the washing of the udder and cleaning the coats of the cows and so on, they were able to quality for premiums and get back again on the list. I am very-much in favour of that scheme, and I hope that that will be one of the means by which the Ministry will get to work during the cleaning up period.
532
Now, with regard to the consumption of milk. It is true that consumption of milk is very low indeed in this country. But I am not surprised, when we know that our herds are ten times as contaminated as they are in the United States, where the consumption of milk is twice as much per head as in this country. Similarly, in Canada the consumption of milk is three times as much per head as in this country, and in Scandinavia, where some of the best milk in the world is produced, the consumption of milk is six times as much as here. And I am not unaware of the immense value of the drinking of raw liquid milk, and even of skimmed milk, to school children. The benefit has been proved again and again by tests and experiments, where children's height and weight and reaction to teaching have been affected. These are good things, but the milk must be pure. How is the Minister proposing to deal with the increase of the consumption of milk1? By spending £1,000,000, mainly, apparently, on advertisements in the newspapers. There may be other ways—I do not know, he has not told us how he proposes to advertise the milk service of the country.
EARL DE LA WARR: I could tell the noble Lord; I will do so later.
LORD MARLEY: I am glad of that. But of course the indication is that a great deal of it will be by advertising in the newspapers. But the best way of advertising milk is by the children whose health is improved by getting free or very cheap milk in the schools. That I believe to be the best way, and that is to be done when the milk is really good enough for those children. The Minister has told us that he hopes to found the whole scheme on improving the price of manufacturing milk, and that that must be done before the other two aspects of the scheme can be carried through. He has not told us whether he expects that it is going to lower the price of liquid milk. Perhaps that is another point on which the noble Earl will enlighten your Lordships. Does he expect, and can he guarantee, that as a result of the expenditure of this money there will be a lower price of liquid milk to the consumers?—a, very important point.
I said at the beginning that this was a sort of trick Bill. It is a trick Bill.

533
The noble Earl has tried to "get away with it" by bribing mass groups of people to let this measure go through. He buys the support of the producers by guaranteeing a minimum price of manufacturing milk. He buys the support of the Dominions by promising that he is not going to interfere in any way with the imports of milk products in this country. He buys the support of the Press by promising them a share of £1,000,000—£500,000 a year—on advertising matter. He buys the support of the ordinary citizens by promising healthy herds, and he buys the support of what I think I might call the good people, the kind-hearted people, the charitable people, by promising free milk for school children. Well, the whole thing is a trick, and you cannot get away from it. And I might say that the one group that he never deals with at all, with all this expenditure of our money, consists of the agricultural workers. What are the agricultural workers going to get out of it? There is no sign that they are going to get any benefit out of this scheme.
It is a trick, a sort of jig-saw puzzle, from which certain people will get something. The producers of manufacturing milk will get something, the newspapers will get a bit, I suppose we shall do a little towards improving herds, but very little according to the Minister himself. I hope the noble Earl will be a little more clear than the Minister was in another place as to how long he supposes it will take before we get tuborcule-free cattle. I do not think that this sort of trick measure is really going to do what the nation wants. I believe the nation wants, first of all, a prosperous agriculture, with the workers sharing in that prosperity. There is no sign of that in this measure. Then, I believe that we ought to have only really good milk, absolutely guaranteed, supplied to school children. There is no sign of that in this measure. There is no sign that it is only going to be T.T. milk which is supplied to the school children according to his proposals. I think if we are to have these things we have to control also milk imports by quality and quantity.
I think the only way in which we shall ever get a move on in getting pure milk in adequate quantities for the nation is by preventing the sale of non-tested milk by any retailers at all. There ought to be notices put up in every retailer's shop,
534
compelling him to say: "I am selling non-tested milk, I am selling milk which might very well be contaminated." I remember reading the report of one of the medical officers of health of a county close to this Metropolis, in which he said that during the summer the whole of the supply of milk to one of our best known southern watering places was—I quote his own words—"in a state of incipient decomposition." That is the medical officer's report—not a mere idle utterance, but the printed annual report of a medical officer of health. That means that these people were selling milk which they knew to be contaminated. Can the Minister give us any promise that we are going seriously to deal with this problem and force retailers, if they are not selling T.T. milk to put up a notice: "I am selling milk which may be, and very probably is, contaminated, and therefore I warn people who buy from me that they are risking the infection which Lord Moynihan has pointed out may result from buying milk which is not tested"? That is the only way we can deal adequately and basically with these problems, and this Bill contains nothing which deals with them.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, may I remind your Lordships that there is a Royal Commission at six o'clock, and it would perhaps be convenient for us now to adjourn during pleasure.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Finance,

Palestine Loan,

Adoption of Children (Workmen's Compensation),

Land Settlement (Scotland),

Petroleum (Production),

Renfrewshire County Council (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Order Confirmation,

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morley),

535

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Steyning and District Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Milford Haven),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Burnham and District Water),

Provisional Orders (Marriages) Confirmation,

Mexborough and Swinton Traction (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

St. Helen's Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Southend-on-Sea Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Nottingham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Prince of Wales's Hospital, Plymouth,

Walthamstow Corporation,

Maidstone Waterworks,

Stockport Corporation,

Stockport Extension,

Newport Extension,

London County Council (Money),

London Passenger Transport (Interim Financial Arrangements),

Newport Corporation (General Powers).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

MILK BILL.
Debate resumed on the Motion for the Second Reading.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I rise to express a hope that your Lordships will, as you doubtless will, give a Second Reading to this Bill, and also to utter a note of warning. The first of the three parts of this Bill has been described, and I think not unjustly, as "Paddy the next best thing." The best thing, anyway from the point of view of those who introduce the Bill, is that we should so regulate our imports that the people who produce the milk of this country should, at a moderate profit and with a fair and satisfactory rate of wages, supply the demands for milk in so far as they adequately can. It is impossible to do that, as the noble Lord has said, on account of our Agreements with the Dominions
536
and our pacts with foreign countries. I think your Lordships will in all probability agree that our Dominions owe a certain consideration to us in this matter. Many of us do not like such tests as are imposed, but in some cases they seem to be almost the only alternative, and I venture to think that not only ought the industry to be grateful for the help that is being given, but it most undoubtedly is grateful.
When you come to the second part—the question of cleaning up the herds of this country—I wish to offer a note of warning. We have all noticed from time to time that the medical profession urge on us the duty of cleaning up our milk supply and they point to the impurities that exist in a certain, I believe a very small, section of the milk produced. I think that we must, and do, all admire the zeal with which they pursue this admirable course. But I have a criticism, or even two criticisms, to make with regard to that. In the first place I should be happier if when they criticised the uncleanly methods of British farmers they also turned attention occasionally to the people overseas as well. I do not believe, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Marley, says, that the production of milk overseas is any better than it is here. I should like to call attention to the fact, of which doubtless the noble Lord is aware, that in Switzerland and Denmark cows go into buildings in the early autumn and never come out again until the spring, whereas cows in this country come out nearly every day and the steadings are thoroughly cleaned.
Some of your Lordships may recall that two or three years ago—or it may be three or four years—my noble friend Lord Hastings and I drew attention to the import of skimmed sweetened and unsweetened milk into this country. We drew attention to the analysis of one of the big brands. The analysis was not in dispute. It showed that practically the whole value of that compound lay in the sugar in the skimmed milk. Have we ever had help from the medical profession there? I do not think we have. I do not recollect getting any help from the noble Lord, Lord Marley. But in the case of hundreds and thousands of children in the poorer classes that is the only form of milk they ever get. In all probability the harm done to those children by drink-

537
ing that condensed sweetened milk is far greater than if they drank the dirtiest milk produced on any farm in this country. When you hear some people talk you would think—I was inclined to think it when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Marley—that it is as safe to drink a cup of prussic acid as it is to drink in this country a glass of milk. Yet I venture to suggest that there is probably no commodity in this country which it is safer to drink than a glass of any milk whatever.
Let us get to the facts. The noble Lord mentioned—it is quite true, it is in the Blue-book—that there are somewhere possibly in the region of 40 per cent. of reactors among cows in this country. That Is a disability which they share, I am told, with the majority of your Lordships, and in all probability with the noble Lord, Lord Marley, himself. He is in all probability a reactor just as some cows are reactors. On the same evidence there is said to be one cow in three, or possibly one in four, that is a giver of tubercular and dangerous milk. Probably 80 per cent, of those reactors can be discovered by careful and regular clinical examinations. In a year or two those reactors and dangerous cows will become fewer and fewer until in all probability they become almost non-existent. I think the scheme now being considered for accredited herds is an eminently desirable one, for the herds to be accredited will have to pass through a minimum number of clinical examinations a year, but I think it is a still more important recommendation of the Animal Diseases Committee that all herds should be subject to periodical clinical examination. Accredited herds, at all events at first, will consist of those herds the owners of which are pretty sure that they are clean at the start and that they will not lose many on clinical examination. If there are any cows about which they feel doubtful they will probably pass them on to neighbours before clinical examination takes place.
There are other points in regard to which I would ask for the very careful consideration of the Government. The first is as to the expense of the scheme. We have heard about the success of the United States, who in ten years have reduced the number of reactors in their country—it is only in fact, I believe, in certain parts of the country—by about
538
60 per cent. The cost of that was over 150,000,000 dollars. We heard about economy at an earlier stage and we ought to consider the cost. The second point is with regard to the reliability of the test. The method now in vogue is a double intradermal test. It is said that a good man can tell by the size of the wound and by its appearance up to about 98 per cent, of the reactors, a bad veterinary surgeon very much less, and a novice a comparatively small proportion. Any of your Lordships who have herds will know from personal experience how desperately unreliable these tests are at the present moment; how an animal will one day prove to be a reactor and a week later not, and so on. If you are going to increase very largely your veterinary staff, it is hardly likely that the standard of veterinary skill will increase in the way in which it ought to increase to make this test as reliable as it should be.
But the third reason is to my mind very much the strongest, and that is the strides made by scientific knowledge. In the case of bovine tuberculosis science has made just as great strides as it has in other branches of medicine. I do not know how many of your Lordships have read this book which has just been published. It is called "Spahlinger contra Tuberculosis." It contains a host of reliable names throughout, giving evidence, lay, medical and veterinary. It describes the course of Spahlinger's experiments in Switzerland and in Norfolk, which were successful. Finally the Government of Northern Ireland were so impressed by these tests that they decided to hold a Government inquiry into them. They held that inquiry, and on December 17, 1932, they published a Report of an official demonstration made in Belfast, which showed that 100 per cent, of the calves immunized by Spahlinger's vaccine had triumphantly resisted an infection of tuberculosis which proved fatal to non-vaccinated calves in a few weeks.
This has been very carefully gone into. To the medical man there may very well be reasons which prove that all that is stated in this book is not true, but as I say it is full of names of the very highest repute that there can be, and if one quarter of what is said is true, it is obvious that this is a thing which is not to be lightly set aside in a sentence or

539
two, as was done in the Report of that Committee, but deserves the attention not only of the Minister of Agriculture, but also of the Minister of Health, because if it were proved to be true, vast expense would be saved in money and a very much better cure would be effected. I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to consider these three points which I have mentioned, and I ask him to proceed with caution. If he does not proceed with caution he may put out of business thousands and tens of thousands of men who are carrying on their business admirably and cleanly, and in return he may not get a better supply of milk for the nation at large.
There is only one other object of the Bill upon which I wish to say a word, and that is that of increasing the demand for milk. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, seemed to think that the £1,000,000 to be spent was going to be spent in newspaper advertisement. As a matter of fact that £1,000,000 is going to be spent in providing milk for schoolchildren at half the price at which they get it now. I thought that there was probably not one amongst your Lordships—not one in this House—who would not consider it a desirable thing to take the surplus milk of this nation and give it to the schoolchildren who wanted it. I have heard people say that that is Socialism. All I can say is that if it is Socialism, it is the sort of Socialism that I like. I very much regret—and I think it was due only to a misunderstanding—that the noble Lord, Lord Marley, said that he objected to any such thing.
LORD MARLEY: I should like if I may to make this perfectly clear. I said that I objected to this money being spent on newspaper advertising, and I said that the best form of advertising would be the health which would result to the children who got the cheap milk. Those were my words. I am within the recollection of the House.
LORD CRANWORTH: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that he was mistaken, and that if this money is in fact going to provide milk for the children and is not to be spent on newspaper advertising, he will be in favour of it?
LORD MARLEY: I should be entirely in favour of it provided the milk is clean milk and not infected milk.
LORD CRANWORTH: With that note of caution, which I am sure the noble Earl will bear in mind during the four years that are to come, I sincerely hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a. Second Reading.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, although in one sense I welcome this Bill yet there are certain parts of it for which I cannot say I care very much. I do not much like this continual giving of subsidies. Here we get more subsidies, and before the discussion on this Bill commenced we were hearing of other subsidies for the sugar industry. Then again only yesterday an announcement was made in another place that there was to be a subsidy of £3,000,000 for beef. Why is it that we are always having subsidies instead of having straightforward protection of our industries against foreign competition of an unfair nature? Apparently the reason is that which was given in The Times this morning in its leading article, that it was because of Ottawa and of Argentina—that it was perfectly impossible for the Government to raise the price of beef so as to make it profitable, simply because the Government had committed us to the Ottawa Agreements, and therefore, as The Times pointed out, the only alternative was to throw the charge upon the British taxpayer. I think that is very unfortunate. I think we ought to do nothing to make the British taxpayer feel that he is paying expensively for the benefit of agriculture by this direct taxation for subsidies.
Then I cannot help thinking that it is unfortunate that for the first time for a great many years the Ministry of Agriculture in framing this Bill have omitted the clause usually inserted in such Bills by which it is provided that all Orders made under the Bill should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. That has been the practice of the Ministry for a good many years up to now, and one is rather surprised that the practice is not followed on this occasion, all the more so as the noble Earl told us in moving the Second Reading that he would not go into the details of a good deal of the Bill because those details would be carried out by Orders made by the Minister. If that is so, it is all the more reason why this House and another place should have some control over those Orders before they come into force.

541
I regret to see that by Clause 3 it is evidently intended, though it is not said directly as was done previously under the Milk Marketing Order, that those who are to get the cheese subsidy are to be only those with twelve cows or more. That will completely exclude all the smallholders under county councils, and I think that it is regrettable that the small men should not have an opportunity to get the subsidy as well as the larger men. It may be said that those men do not make cheese. That is quite contrary to my own personal knowledge, because as an active member of the British Dairy Farmers' Association I can say that at the exhibitions of that association we always have exhibits for smallholders who make cheeses not exceeding eight pounds, showing that the smallholders do make cheese and are anxious to compete—and very good cheese they very often make, too.
As regards Clause 9, the object of which is to secure pure milk, the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, has dealt with that to a great extent. As I have mentioned Lord Cranworth, perhaps I may take this opportunity of saying how much we as landowners in this House ought to congratulate ourselves that the noble Lord is now a member of the Milk Board. That will no doubt be of the greatest advantage to us, but I go further and say that it will be of greater advantage to the owner-occupier, who has got very few people to look after him. If anything goes wrong as regards the marketing of milk in this country, he is the man who is going to suffer first, because he has not got his landlord to go to as the ordinary tenant-farmer has. As regards the question of pure milk, I would only say that I listened to the statement made by that eminent surgeon of Leeds attributing all sorts of diseases to the drinking of milk, though I con Id not see that he brought forward any evidence to prove that that was the case, and I was very glad at that time that the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, made a most effective answer to the speech of that noble surgeon in this House.
As regards the manner in which that money for securing pure milk is going to be distributed, on a previous occasion, as I received no definite pledge from the Government upon this matter, I suggested that it would be very de-
542
sirable that the people who have to find the money should say how it should be distributed in order to arrange for the procuring of a supply of pure milk in this country—that is, by clearing up our flocks and herds where there is disease. It could be done by the county councils and the big county boroughs, as being the people who are in touch, through the agricultural committees, with the question of diseases such as tuberculosis.
Then there is one point as to which I am not very clear, and that is that under certain conditions money is to be repaid to the Government by the Milk Board—money which they spend. I suppose it will come out of the accumulations of the Milk Board. It is stated, sometimes, that they already have large accumulations, but at the same time if it is to be paid by the Milk Board indirectly it is going to affect the farmers. Generally, I may say that I think it is very fortunate that the noble Earl has brought in this Milk Bill. It is very good as far as it goes though I cannot agree with certain details, but I do not suppose any one in this House will wish to oppose the Second Reading.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, during the course of the debate we have touched upon a variety of subjects, such as publicity, increased distribution of milk in schools, the quality of the milk, and so on. I only want to touch very briefly on one or two points. Before coming down here I refreshed my memory by looking through the debates in another place some twenty years ago, and in those debates I urged the Government, I regret to say without success, to bring forward legislation entirely on the lines of Clause 10 of this Bill. Not unnaturally I heartily support that clause, and I only regret that it has taken twenty years before that very sound legislation found its way on to the Statute Book.
EARL PEEL: You have done very well.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Clause 10 deals in the main with the question of clean milk. I want to add a word about diseases and milk. It is obvious there is general agreement that a certain amount of milk is unsatisfactory, and even dangerous, but it is very easy to emphasise the danger to children by over-emphasising that particular point. It is probable that of the

543
percentage of cows who react to the tuberculin test only 2 per cent, give tuberculous milk, and that of the whole tuberculous population only 5 per cent, suffer from bovine tuberculosis. Only the other day I ran across figures which show that the danger, so far as there is danger, appears to be diminishing very rapidly. The deaths from non-pulmonary tuberculosis, and on the whole that is the infantile death rate, in 1911 was 14,600. Last year the deaths had dropped to 5,400, or about one-third of what it had been. That is a very remarkable improvement, and it does indicate a very decided improvement in the quality of the milk available for children.
There has been a considerable amount of controversy in the Press as to how this tuberculous milk should be dealt with. There is one school which advocates pasteurisation, and another school which advocates cleaning up the herds, and I want this afternoon to put a point before the noble Earl. For some time there have been tuberculin-tested herds. People who receive an official licence are entitled to sell graded milk because they have tuberculin-tested herds. Cows which react to the tuberculin test have to be sold or sent out of the herds. Similarly, any cows before being admitted to a tested herd have to pass the test. It is obvious that if you are to get a herd tubercle free, and increase the number of tubercle-free cows, it is absolutely vital that you should have a reliable test. If you do not have a reliable test you get re-infection in your herds. You may pass over a cow, and she is passed as tubercle free, and then you may find at the next test that you have not only one animal but two or three animals which do not pass the test. We want reliable methods by veterinary surgeons in conducting the test, and also reliable tuberculin. Unless you have skilled veterinary surgeons of qualified experience to carry out this very difficult and delicate test, you will not get similar results.
It is, however, about the tuberculin that I want to say a few words. There are two essentials where tuberculin is concerned. You want the potency or strength to be adequate, and the strength of all tuberculin used for this test to be the same. I hold in my hand a memorandum by the Tuberculin Committee of the Medical Research Council,
544
and in two places it is emphasised in the memorandum how important it is to have satisfactory tuberculin. Let me read two extracts. The first is this:
"It is obvious that any attempt to improve our methods for the detection of tuberculosis in cattle is useless unless we can be quite certain that the tuberculin employed for the purpose is sufficiently potent."
And over the page is said this:
"It cannot be too clearly realised that a guarantee of potency is essential if any real progress is to be made in our endeavour to control bovine tuberculosis."
The fact that this very efficient and important Council found it necessary to emphasise that showed what those who are concerned in the matter know quite well, that every tuberculin on the market is not of equal potency. It is obvious that if you test cows with different tuberculin you get entirely different results. You will not establish confidence in the minds of the public or of the farmers unless you secure reliability in the tuberculin used.
There are two suggestions which I would put before the noble Earl. Either he should standardise tuberculin, or if, owing to administrative difficulties, that is impossible, then the Government should restrict the use of tuberculin for licensed herds to specified brands of known and adequate potency. If they do that I am certain that the process of cleaning up our herds would be accelerated, and we should get more farmers to test their herds and also greater confidence on the part of the public. There is one other point. Somebody in the debate to-day referred to the fact of tubercle-free herds being tested twice a year. I venture to suggest that the noble Earl should consult his technical experts to find out whether it would not be desirable to have more frequent testing. My impression is that it would be an advantage if you had a shorter period than six months—I do not speak as a technical expert, I am merely putting it before the noble Earl as a suggestion—more particularly where a cow is brought into the herd even if she has passed the test. One of the difficulties in dealing with this has been that there are two Departments concerned—the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture. I have been on numerous deputations and had any amount of correspondence with both of them. They

545
always ride off by saying that if we can get unanimous agreement between all the parties they will do the thing, and the result is that nothing is done.
The noble Earl hoped that I would congratulate him on this Bill, which was aimed at stimulating the production of milk.
EARL DE LA WARR: Consumption.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I thought he meant production. I think, as a matter of fact, the Government's, policy is likely to stimulate production, and I am not sure that in effect the Government are not going to have a more serious difficulty a year hence by an increased glut. The noble Earl and his distinguished colleague are extraordinarily fortunate in the fact that this year we have had a drought in summer. Grass produces milk and rain produces grass. This year we have not had rain, the pastures are parched up, and I know that in many counties—I was consulting the farmers in my own county the other day—the production of milk has quite recently dropped by something like 25 per cent., thereby diminishing the glut. There again you have a conflict of interests between the Department represented by the noble Earl and the Ministry of Health. The Minister of Health is going round praying for more rain. Whatever the Minister of Agriculture is doing in public I have no doubt that in private he is praying hard for a drought in order to reduce the production of milk. It is quite evident that where praying is concerned the Minister of Agriculture has his prayers answered more effectively than the Minister of Health.
The Government have had to act because of what is called the milk glut. What is a glut? A glut is a supply which is greater than the demand that the market can absorb, and, when a market cannot absorb the supplies put upon it, usually one attempts to deal with it by reducing the supplies. It might have been possible, I think, to reduce the supply of milk coming on the market, to try to remove the more expensive producers of milk. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that endless inquiries have indicated that the cost of production varies by more than 100 per rent. It might also have been possible to eliminate rather more rapidly the producers of diseased or dirty milk, and that would have tended to reduce the amount of milk
546
coming on the market. But the Government have not done either. As I understand it, the effect of what the Government are proposing to do is to make the surplus milk profitable—this milk which goes for manufacturing purposes. As soon as you tell a farmer that he is going to get a profit on any commodity that farmer will increase his output, and other farmers will come into that particular branch of the industry. My fear is that in 1935, as the result of this policy, there may actually be a greater glut—quite apart from any effect of the drought—than there was in 1934. I have already heard of certain landowners who have been more or less compelled by their tenants to spend money in putting up cow-houses where no cow-houses existed before, because their tenants were going to produce milk. They had not done it before, but they were going to produce milk because of the attraction of the money which is behind this Bill.
I am not going to say anything about control. It was my privilege to give evidence before the Grigg Commission, and such views as I had I put before them. I am not one of those who are opposed to all schemes of control, but I am not sure that, so far as milk is concerned, the Government, acting on the advice of the Commission, went quite far enough. I think it is possible that still the Government of the day, whatever its complexion may be, may be driven to nationalising the wholesale distribution of milk, possibly through some public utility society. I do not know whether that is going to be so or not. But I am not going to-day to raise that very interesting point, except to say that when you embark on measures of control it is very difficult to know where you are going to. I hope very much that the noble Earl will look into the question of the reliability of the tuberculin tests, because I think it is most important.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships this afternoon I crave the consideration which your Lordships' House is accustomed to extend to those who do so for the first time. I was very glad to hear the noble Viscount who has just sat down talking about the reliability of tubeculin. The standardisation of tuberculin is a goal which has been before the veterinary profession for many years. I hope that the noble Earl

547
in charge of the Bill will do something to ensure the standardisation of the potency of tuberculin. But I would go further than that. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, spoke of the difficulty of obtaining the services of veterinary surgeons who were thoroughly conversant with the administration of this test. I should like to see the use of tuberculin for official purposes confined to those who hold a post-graduate diploma showing a practical knowledge of this delicate test. I feel quite sure that if any large scheme of free testing is introduced in this country it will take many years before you can overcome the ill-effects that will result. The inevitable consequence will be that, with the large numbers of people, who will go in for the tests for the first time, there will not be a sufficient number of experienced veterinary officers to carry out the tests, so that you will get anomalous results, and the same men who start out full of enthusiasm will have their ardour damped. Thus the position will be more difficult than it is now because the confidence which many farmers have at the present time will be lost.
In my own County of Ayrshire we are very fortunate in having a county veterinary officer who has the confidence of every farmer in Ayrshire. One result is that we have no fewer than seventy-one farmers who hold licences for the production of tuberculin-tested milk, and sixty-four of those farmers are men who are entirely dependent on their dairies for their livelihood. It is not a rich man's hobby in the West of Scotland or the whole of the South-West of Scotland. It is a practical proposition from the farmers' point of view, because they know that there is a demand, a premium on the market for tuberculin-tested animals: and although they may not receive an adequate return for their milk in the liquid milk market, particularly the special destination market, they reap their reward in the premium on tested stock. Anything that can be introduced which would discourage those farmers' efforts would be a disaster to them.
I hope that the noble Earl will use his influence with the Minister of Health to try to prevent too high a standard being put on agricultural buildings which are necessary for the production of accredited or attested milk. At the present time in Ayrshire there are at least
548
seventy, and possibly 100, farmers whose herds are free from tuberculous disease, and have been free for many years, but who are discouraged from taking out a licence partly by the lack of a remunerative market for their milk, and partly by the fact that they would have to go to Very considerable expenditure on their farm buildings in order to put them into a condition in which they would receive the imprimatur of the local sanitary authorities. I shall give you one instance, not in my own county but in a neighbouring county, to show that buildings are a help but not an essential. For something like thirty years a farmer whom I know very well, a personal friend of mine, had had no tuberculosis or abortion on his place. His buildings were possibly the most backward in the whole of Scotland. Some two or three years ago the buildings were condemned and a completely new byre, to conform to the higher standards, was put up. Some eighteen months ago he had his first case of tuberculosis and contagious abortion also appeared in the herd. Buildings are a great help to the production of clean milk, but they are not essential, and I hope that in anything that is done to bring up the conditions for accredited certificates too much stress will not be laid on buildings.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Marley, talk about the experiment of the Midland dairies in giving a premium for clean milk. I have had the same experience at a creamery which was started by my family, and which I took in hand after hearing Mr. Edwin White read his most interesting paper at the World Dairy Conference in 1925. I found that the creamery was getting 30,000 gallons a month, of which 6,000 gallons were manufactured into cheese. Gradually by means of clean milk tests, paying a bonus to 25 per cent, of the farmers at the top and making a deduction in the case of 25 per cent, of farmers at the bottom, and publishing the results regularly so that all could see, we attained an average turnover of 145,000 gallons a month, of which only 5,000 gallons were manufactured into cheese. That was built up through the confidence we were able to inspire in small retailers in the City of Glasgow and in neighbouring towns. We had a practical monopoly of the small retailers, who knew they could rely on the quality of milk sent out from this creamery.

549
I hope something may be done to persuade milk marketing boards to institute a series of laboratories for the testing for bacterial content as well as butter fat content of all the milk in their areas. It would not cost an outrageous sum, and it would do something to remedy the defects of the position created by putting a bottom to the milk market, as referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, if a sliding scale were introduced before the pool price was struck by which the men who were not doing their duty in providing the higher quality of milk from the bacterial standpoint were substantially penalised. Lord Cranworth talked about Dr. Spahlinger's experiments. I should like to know whether it is possible to detect by the ordinary means the presence of tuberculosis after injection. I think it is common knowledge that a great deal of the use of the bacillus Calmette Guerin in inoculation in this country was discredited because, after inoculation, the animal was a permanent reactor to the tuberculin test and consequently, if by some chance the efficacy of the inoculation failed, there was no further means of detecting which were reacting animals and possible carriers and which were not. I am not sure whether Dr. Spahlinger's treatment and inoculation will not prevent the testing of the inoculated animal at a later date by the normal means of the tuberculin test.
There is one point I should like also to mention in Lord Marley's remarks, and that is his statement that Scotland is very backward in the cleanliness of its milk. I challenge Lord Marley to produce any area in this country which has a bigger proportion of tuberculosis-free milk produced in it than the South-West and Western counties of Scotland. I believe I am making no exaggerated claim when I say we are far ahead in Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, Dumfriesshire, Dumbartonshire, and Stirlingshire of any county in Great Britain and of most countries overseas. I believe that in the treatment of our milk in the South-West of Scotland, at the creameries, we are years ahead of Denmark or any Continental country. I could bring figures to prove that from remarks made by the principal of the West of Scotland Agricultural College and others who have experience of Continental methods and West of Scotland methods.
550
Lord Marley also said it was unfair to ask children to drink more milk while we could not rely on the cleanliness of the supply. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to an experiment carried out not long ago to test the efficacy of raw as against pasteurised milk in the West of Scotland. Milk from known reacting cows was divided, and one half was pasteurised and one half was fed raw. The calves were given their mothers' milk for the first five days, after which they were put on pasteurised. The raw group were kept on raw milk all the time. At the end of one year every one of the calves which had been fed on pasteurised milk after five days reacted to tuberculosis, and not one of those which had been fed on raw milk. There is no short road to health, but I believe the shortest is by drinking raw the milk produced by the cleanest methods from healthy cows. I hope these few points I have brought up this afternoon will receive the consideration both of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure I am expressing the unanimous opinion of your Lordships, when I say we have had a most interesting maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, packed with facts and information and, if I may say so, also of a very lively and flashing description. He defended his native shires in Scotland against my noble friend Lord Marley, but, without detracting in any way from the high opinion which I share with the whole House of his performance, I would point out that he should not attack Lord Marley but should attack the authors of the Report on Cattle Diseases, and the witnesses, because my noble friend only quoted from them.
I do not want to detain your Lordships for more than a very brief time, and I rise really to make only two points and ask one question. If I may ask the question first, it is this: Would the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, elaborate a little more what is really proposed to be done with regard to the subsidy or the assistance for the cheap milk for the children in schools? I do not ask him to say what has been decided, but what the Government are aiming at, what it is they propose to do. The noble Earl stated it was proposed to provide milk at such a price that children would

551
get it at one half-penny per day. Taking it at a third of a pint per child a day I work that out at about 1s. a gallon. I do not know what the Ministry are going to allow for the cost of distribution. This is really a most important point. I think it is necessary to have some figures on that matter so that we can see what is going to be paid for this milk for school children to the farmers or the Milk Board.
That brings me to the first point I want to make and it is this. We really are tackling this matter, if I may most respectfully say so to your Lordships, from the wrong end. The noble Viscount on the Cross Benches (Lord Astor) also referred to this aspect of the matter. We are attempting to meet a glut caused by under-consumption of milk, and one of the proposals of my noble friends on this side of the House, and one which our Party as a whole make, is that the Government ought to go a little further and should distribute milk free to school children. It is really not fair for the Government to say that that would be a terribly expensive business. It would cost nothing like £9,000,000, as the Minister of Agriculture, the noble Earl's colleague, suggested in another place. If we pay the 5d. a gallon over all the year—I am not talking about 6d. in winter and 5d. in summer—and take a penny per gallon for distribution we could give a free supply of 90,000,000 gallons of milk, which is the amount involved, to the school children of the elementary schools of the country for £2,250,000—that is 5d. a gallon passed on to the farmers and one penny for distribution. If we take it at 2d. a gallon for distribution then the amount is £2,625,000 in a year. That is the price of a modern cruiser of the County class. Such a cruiser would in fact cost a little more than that as first cost, and the Board of Admiralty are asking, according to report which is not denied, for another twenty cruisers to be put into commission. For the cost of one cruiser a year we could give a free distribution of milk to all the children in the elementary schools of the country, and we should get a better strategical result. I make a present of this to the militarist school. I believe the effect would be not only to improve the health of the people generally but also to improve the physique of the future soldiers if ever we had to call upon them.
552
The other point I want to make is this. The noble Earl talks about this as Socialism. I think he believes this is a measure of Socialism. If I may use such an expression in your Lordships' House, it is a bastard form of Socialism. As Lord Marley has pointed out in another way, certain limited numbers of people get the benefit, but not the whole community. We are going to spend eventually very large sums on improving the value of herds; we are going to improve the value of land; we are going to benefit certain fortunate dairy farmers who are well capitalised and well organised, but we are not passing this benefit on to the community as a whole except that we hope to get purer milk and some cheapening of milk for school children. That is all, and that is really not Socialism. I do not know whether the noble Earl or I have been longest in the Socialist Party, or which of us has made the most profound study of it. I am prepared to say he has, but on this point I would ask him to pursue his researches a little further.
It is really a problem of poverty with which we are faced—and this is my last point. Your Lordships may have seen the remarkable investigations made by two well known Professors of the University of Aberystwyth into the conditions in Cardiff, which were quoted by Mr. Williams, the Member for Don Valley, in another place. The figures are so striking and they drive home such a very apposite lesson that I ask your Lordships' pardon for quoting a few facts very briefly. They divided up the milk users of this great City of Cardiff, which may be taken, as a typical city for this purpose, into good middle-class; comfortably-off people, good working-class people—that is, regularly employed well-paid artisans—thirdly, the people living in the new housing estates who have to pay so much in rent or hire purchase for their houses that they have to reduce their expenditure in other directions; and fourthly, the poor working class, not slum dwellers. Those are the four groups of families in regard to which statistics were obtained, and it was found that the good middle-class people took of liquid milk every day 3.88 pints per person; the good working-class took 1.87 pints; those in the new housing estates took 1.32 pints, and the poor working-class took 1.10

553
pints. That means that the good middle-class homes took about three and a-half times as much milk per person as the poor working-class, and the poor working-class homes either did without milk altogether or took the wretched skim milk in tins which is imported from abroad. The most awful thing about this terrible problem is that the statistics show—and there are many others which could be quoted and which are unchallengeable—that the more children there are in the poor families the less milk they get. It is a terrible problem. How are you to cure it? Only by improved wages and standard of living, thereby increasing the spending power of the people. I am not going into how you could do that, but that is the answer to your problem.
I apologise for intervening at this late hour, but I have been as brief as I could. I must say that this matter needs far more careful examination than has yet been given to it by the Government. I know the difficulties of the Government. They have to compromise; they are a mixture of different Parties, with different points of view, and they have to meet their friends. You have a neo-Socialist at the head of the Ministry, and a full Socialist as his assistant, the noble Earl, and you have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is anything but a Socialist, and so you get a bastard Socialism which satisfies no one, and which at the end of two years may have done more harm than good.
THE EARL OF IVEAGH: My Lords, I feel that I should say a word on this question as the noble Earl in charge of the Bill mentioned the negotiations going on between the certified Grade A (T.T.) producers. Your Lordships probably realise that at present the English certified Grade A (T.T.) producers are not under the Milk Board. I think it is obvious to everyone that it would be very incongruous if we were left out of the scheme that is adumbrated by this Bill. At the same time we are out, and it is essential, I think, for us to see that in coming in we do not betray ourselves either financially or under regulations. It might very easily be that the regulations set up under this Bill might take away the possibility of carrying on our trade. After all we have no produce our milk day by day, and if we were to be de-
554
prived of our licence suddenly because of some new regulation that did not quite suit our circumstances, it would be rather a disaster—I should say a complete disaster—just at the moment when you want to increase the volume of this milk. I am convinced that if you can make this kind of milk more profitable than the other kinds of milk, you are likely to see a greater increase in that way than in any other way. I think, too, we are only acting in the public interest when we are in negotiation with the Ministry.
I would like to say only one other word and it is this. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who talked about the various strengths of tuberculin and the possibilities of the test, and some other noble Lords have represented that the test is not infallible or had had some doubts cast upon it. I would like to appeal to the Government in their administration of this Bill to see that research is adequately supported. I am quite convinced that many of our troubles arise from trying to put into operation theories which are almost but not thoroughly established. The fact is that there is an enormous amount of un-established theory about tuberculosis, about the various forms of tuberculosis, how cattle pick up the disease, and about how it is transmitted to human beings. All that ought to be searched out scientifically before we make any drastic alterations. I do not want to delay your Lordships any longer, but I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture will consider what I have said and give support to research, and that the result will be the production of the sort of milk that we all require.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I make no sort of apology for being late in this debate. This Bill was given very little consideration in the other House and I think that your Lordships may well afford a little time for the discussion of it. There are certain aspects of the subject which have not been discussed. The only information I gathered from the noble Earl about the application of the £750,000 which he mentioned was that there would be two classes of people who would benefit. First, there, would be those with tuberculin-tested cows, with herds completely free from tuberculosis, who, I understood him to say, would get a subsidy of a penny a gallon. Secondly,

555
there would be accredited herds subject to clinical inspection and a standard of cleanliness similar to that involved in the production of Grade A milk. The owners of those herds also would get a penny a gallon subsidy. If I understood him aright the man who has to pay the far greater cost of tuberculin testing and of ridding his herd of bad reactors will get no larger subsidy per gallon than the man who has to pay only the cost of clinical inspection, a far lesser cost, and who has to come up to a certain standard of cleanliness which I do not gather will be as high as in the first case. I urge upon the noble Earl that before this Bill goes to Committee he should put all his money on rewarding those who have herds which really produce clean, tubercule-free milk, in so far as we know how to produce it to-day, and not to dissipate the small sum at his disposal in producing for us a milk which will have a designation necessarily rather deceitful in that it will not be as good milk as could be obtained.
Another question which I wish to ask is, who is going to administer this Bill in the counties? We have not heard a word about that. Are the county authorities going to be charged with the administration of the Bill or with parts of it? Are the county authorities to receive grants in aid, and are they to add to those grants in aid? Are certain duties to be laid on the county authorities of providing for clinical inspection of the herds of all the farmers in their county who ask for it? If so, will the subsidy be regulated county by county according to the number of herds, or the number of the population, or in what way? None of these rather difficult problems have been dealt with at all in the debate so far. In my county, which is rather a poor one, we see a very considerable expenditure before us, amounting perhaps to a penny or twopenny rate—or more, for all we know—and we have not the foggiest idea whether the Government intend to meet the whole of that expenditure or part of it. I hope that in his reply the noble Earl will deal with those points quite specifically.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, a great number of points have been raised in this debate and it is getting late, but I think it would be the desire of your Lordships that I should endeavour to
556
answer as many as possible. Before doing so I am quite sure that your Lordships would wish me to reiterate the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, as to the value of the contribution to the debate made by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. He speaks as one who really knows the subject right through. Not only is he able to talk about it very thoroughly but it is clear that he knows as well. I am sure I shall be expressing the view of your Lordships when I say that we hope that he will intervene frequently in future in our agricultural debates. He mentioned, in common with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, the question of tuberculin tests. I should like to say at once that for the purpose of the final test of herds only standardised tuberculin will be used. I will go further and say that it is hoped that in future, when legislation makes possible the control of certain therapeutic substances, tuberculin will be one of the first substances to be dealt with.
Coining now to rather more general questions, I could not help being a little surprised at hearing the noble Lord, Lord Marley, criticise the Government, as I understood, for not controlling imports from the Dominions. I can quite understand that criticism being levelled at our heads, but when it came from that side of the House I did hear it with some slight surprise. The actual position in regard to the Dominions has been perfectly clearly explained. At one time we did offer to the Dominions on provisional lines a scheme which would have made it possible to raise the prices of dairy produce brought into this country. They did not feel that it would be to their general interest to adopt that scheme and therefore we have adopted our scheme of isolating the market. I should like to correct the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Marley, gave, that the Dominions are going to benefit from this scheme. I am afraid that they will not do so. Any price improvement that may take place as the result of the scheme will be limited entirely to those participating in the milk pools of the various milk marketing boards in this country.
With regard to the scheme for milk in schools which was mentioned both by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, first of all the milk which is to be sold in the schools

557
will be milk approved by the medical officer of health, and where the medical officer of health in not the same man as the school medical officer, then it will also have to be approved by the school medical officer. I am quite sure, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Marley, will regret having thrown such an unfounded charge at the head of the Government as that we are going to force dirty milk into the schools.
LORD MARLEY: I do not, and I am very glad that you are not doing so.
EARL DE LA WARR: The charge was made without any inquiry whatsoever into the actual facts of the case, and I think the noble Lord might at least have put that remark into the form of a question rather than in the form of an attack upon the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked some further questions on the subject of milk in schools, and in one he asked exactly how the scheme was to be worked. He is quite right in assuming that the intention is that the milk shall get to the children at a halfpenny for one-third of a pint; one-third of a pint is the amount which is at present being handed out for a penny. As to the distributive margin, that is a matter which is at present under negotiation between the Milk Board and the distributors. The total price of the milk, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, will come out at a shilling per gallon. I am afraid he is rather optimistic in hoping to get the distributive charges down to a penny or twopence per gallon. I think if he realised what is entailed in distributing milk in the necessarily very small quantities per head, he would realise that not even twopence would cover the cost.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is there a calculation of what it would cost? It is a very interesting point.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think I shall have to say that it would really vary very much according to the number of children there were actually in the school. I should be very unwilling to commit myself to a figure. We come finally to the main part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marley, which, as far as I could see, was an attempt to discredit-totally the beverage of milk in this country. If I were mainly a Party politician I should myself very much like to have
558
that speech printed and distributed in all the rural constituencies which I understand the Party of the noble Lord, Lord Marley, is hoping to win at the next General Election. But apart from chaffing in the course of Party politics, there are men living out in the countryside working day in and day out, attempting by the sweat of their brow to scratch a living out of the land. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, has set himself up to abuse those men and their product. I am quite prepared to admit—I think every noble Lord on this side of the House is prepared to admit—that the milk produced in many areas and from many farms can be improved. Of course it can; the very existence of this scheme is an admission of the fact. But it is quite unnecessary to go on from there to libel the commodity of milk in the way that the noble Lord has done.
LORD MARLEY: I protest entirely against this point of view. I am within the recollection of noble Lords. What I said was that bad milk and tainted milk is a bad and dangerous drink, and I maintain that unless the milk is properly looked after, and is produced under clean conditions from herds which are properly tuburculin-tested, it may be an actual danger. I am not a medical man, but certainly I have heard it said by a medical man—possibly in this House by Lord Moynihan—that he would rather put a barrel of gunpowder in his nursery than a glass of milk. I think that is a ridiculous exaggeration, but nevertheless it does give a point of view, not mine.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am quite content to wait until to-morrow to read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marley. I think we shall find that he went very much further than at the present moment he says he did. The fact of the matter is that really not one of us would be here to-day if milk were anything like what the noble Lord, Lord Marley, has described. Certainly the experiments which have been carried out in the schools in Lanarkshire and all over the country would not have given anything like the results which they have given if there were the slightest foundation for the charges of the noble Lord. If I say that, I do not want to be understood as saying that I do not think that it can be improved. We all recognise that it can, and this Government scheme is an ad-

559
mission of that fact and an expression of the determination of this Government—which mark you, is the first Government which has ever taken action of this drastic character—to effect an improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Marley, in speaking of these schemes, both the scheme for cleaning up the herds and the scheme for cheapening milk in schools, was really talking as though someone else before us had gone very much further than we, and we were modifying the scheme. Actually we are pioneers in this, and the National Government is the first Government ever to have taken a step in this direction. I am perfectly prepared to admit that we could go further; I am perfectly prepared to admit that it may be desirable to develop this scheme of supplying milk in schools yet further. It might be very desirable eventually to work out a scheme of supplying completely free milk in schools.
LORD MAULEY: Hear, hear.
EARL DE LA WARR: Why not? But that is no reason for failing to give credit to this Government for bringing forward a very useful pioneer scheme, the first scheme which has ever been brought forward to deal at all with the problem which is facing us in this direction. My Lords, I hope you will agree to the Motion that this Bill be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I need detain your Lordships for only a minute or two. This is a pure Consolidation Bill, and I need not describe its provisions in any detail at all. It does not seek to make any changes of substance in the existing law, but a much-needed improvement in its arrangement. The Acts relating to County Courts have not been consolidated since 1888, when a County Courts Act was passed which has 188 sections. During the last fifty years that Act has been drastically amended by the County Courts Acts of 1903, 1919,
560
1924 and 1934, and by several other Acts as well; and the time has come when its provisions as amended ought to be embodied in a single Act. To achieve that result is the primary object of this Bill.
The law as to County Courts is at the moment scattered over some twenty Acts of Parliament. Altogether this Bill enables eight Acts to be completely repealed and twelve others to be repealed so far as they relate to County Courts. But the importance of the consolidation lies not so much in the number of Acts to be repealed as in the complexity of the existing provisions relating to County Courts and the enormous number of persons who are obliged to thread their way among them in order to discover their legal rights. In the Bill these provisions are collected together and re-arranged as simply and clearly as the subject matter allows. I commend the Bill to your Lordships as a piece of consolidation which will be a great reform of the law and of real use to a great number of our fellow countrymen. If your Lordships give it a Second Reading, as I ask you to do, I shall move that it be referred to the Joint Select Committee of both Houses which has been set up to deal with Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that this Bill be referred to the Joint Select Committee of both Houses already set up to deal with Consolidation Bills.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, at this late hour I will endeavour not to detain you longer than is necessary, but the Bill is of great importance to Scotland, and it would be improper were I not to draw your attention to some of its very important provisions. In 1921 a temporary Poor Law Act made it legal for the first time in Scotland to give relief to the able-bodied

561
unemployed. That Act and a number of subsequent enactments which amended it still remain as temporary provisions. The new Unemployment Act makes provision on a permanent basis for the assistance of the great mass of the unemployed by the Unemployment Assistance Board, but some of the unemployed will remain with the local authorities. The time has thus arrived for incorporating the present temporary law relating to the able-bodied unemployed in the permanent structure of the Poor Law. This is done by Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
In making that law permanent it is proposed, firstly, to give to the able-bodied poor who have been refused all relief the right of appeal to the Sheriff which the ordinary or disabled poor have, a right that was denied the able-bodied poor in the temporary Act of 1921. This is done in Clause 2 (1). Secondly, it is proposed to give the able-bodied poor the advantage of receiving training to fit him to enter or to return to employment in the same way as the unemployed dealt with by the Unemployment Assistance Board under Part II of the new Unemployment Act. Thirdly, local authorities are empowered under Clause 7 (2) to require, in particular cases, a person to perform work, as a condition of receiving outdoor relief. The work will be at a work centre provided by the authority or at a Poor Law institution. At present local authorities have only two alternatives: to grant unconditional relief, or to send the applicant to the poorhouse. The Scottish poor relief system is mainly an outdoor system and it is often not a satisfactory solution to send a man to a poorhouse. The new proposal offers a middle course which we think is in the interests of the men themselves. Training and performance of work are to be subject to regulations made by the Central Department and laid before Parliament. An important part of the Bill—Clauses 4, 5 and 6—is concerned with protecting the interests of poor persons and strengthening their present rights to appeal against decisions of a local authority. These rights at present are (a) appeal to the Sheriff when all relief is refused, and (b) complaint to the Central Department when insufficient or unsuitable relief is given.
The clauses may now be referred to briefly. The purposes of Clauses 1 and 2 have already been dealt with. An
562
important change is proposed in Clause 3. In the present law the amount of relief afforded rests with the authority of the settlement area. The authorities may take different views as to the amount of relief necessary, with the result that persons in the same locality and in exactly similar circumstances may receive different amounts of relief merely because their settlements are in different areas. It is proposed to remove that anomaly by placing the whole duty of relieving a case, including the fixing of the amount of relief to be given, upon the authority of the area of residence. But the settlement authority could not be expected to repay whatever sum the residence authority might think fit to grant without the settlement authority having any control over the expenditure for which they might be liable. It is accordingly proposed that the residence authority will be able to recover not more than the settlement authority would have paid if the applicant had been relieved in the area of settlement. If authorities cannot agree as to the amount to be recovered the dispute will be decided by the Department. It is a natural corollary to this arrangement that the power of the local authority to remove a poor person to a settlement area should be restricted. Otherwise an authority could escape the implication of the clause by removing persons in respect of whom they are able to recover only part of the cost of relief.
I have already dealt with Clauses 4, 5 and 6. Clause 7 is an essential part of the Bill in its relation to the Unemployment Act. The object of subsection (1) is to enable the local authority to take constructive action towards making unemployed persons fit to enter or return to regular employment. The Poor Law authority need not itself establish courses. They may contribute towards the cost of courses provided by another local authority or by any other body. This provision would enable the authority to co-operate with the Ministry of Labour, the Unemployment Assistance Board and education authorities, and so on. The purpose of subsection (2) is to enable local authorities to deal with special cases of difficulty, for example, persons suspended from Part II of the Unemployment Act for contravention of conditions attached to unemployment

563
assistance and analogous cases amongst those who do not come within the scope of Part II of the Unemployment Act. At present the only alternative to the granting of unconditional outdoor relief is admission to the poorhouse. The subsection would give authorities a middle course between those offers. It should be emphasised that the provision will apply to exceptional cases only. The work to be provided will be at a work centre or a Poor Law institution. Men cannot be called upon to undertake the normal work of other departments of the authority.
Clause 8 aims at the break-up of the present general or mixed poorhouse where many types of inmates requiring different methods of treatment are found. Among the classes for whom separate accommodation is desired may be mentioned the sick, the children, the aged and infirm. With regard to Clause 9 it is well known that in every poorhouse inmates at present perform work in the institutions and it will be generally agreed that suitable work is a necessary part of the life of inmates who are fit to perform it. Performance of work is an important matter, and should have statutory authority. It is proposed therefore that the provisions for work by inmates should be governed, not by rules made by local authorities, but by regulations made by the Department and laid before Parliament.
Clause 10 contains an important provision dealing with the boarding-out of children. The system of boarding-out with private persons children who have come under the control of authorities has long been a feature of poor law administration in Scotland, and it is generally recognised that the system has been amply justified by results. The system has developed without specific statutory authority. This clause is intended to give that authority and to secure that boarding-out will in all cases be under the best possible conditions. To that end it is proposed that all arrangements for boarding-out shall be made subject to regulations made by the Department of Health.
Clause 11 deals with exceptions to the general principle of Scottish Poor Law administration—that local authorities are required to have regard to all resources available to the applicant for his support.
564
That principle is already qualified by certain statutory exceptions in the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, and in the Determination of Needs Act, 1932. Under the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, local authorities are required to disregard the first 7s. 6d. of Health Insurance benefit. Certain authorities have, however, been disinclined to observe that provision. The argument was used that as the statutory provision was in a Health Insurance Act and not in a Poor Law Act, it was not part of the Scottish Poor Law. Such an argument was highly fallacious, and to remove any possibility of misapprehension it is proposed to incorporate the provision regarding the disregard of the first 7s. 6d. of health insurance benefit in the present Bill.
It is further proposed to require that the first 5s. of sick pay from a friendly society or trade union shall be disregarded. A similar provision regarding sick pay from a friendly society has been in the English Statutes for a long period and the object is to place the recipients of poor relief in Scotland in a similar position to that of recipients in England. A new provision is introduced regarding the treatment of wounds and disability pensions. The first £1 of pension will be wholly disregarded and its observance will be compulsory upon the local authority. At present local authorities have a discretion under the Determination of Needs Act, 1932, to disregard one-half of the wounds and disability pension, and the exercise of discretion has resulted in unequal treatment of pensioners in the different areas.
In regard to Clause 12, that merely deals with the duties of inspectors of the poor and other officers. Clause 13 makes regulations whereby the Department would administer the Bill. The other clauses are not, I think, of any great importance, and are more or less self-explanatory. It would be untrue to say that this Bill was an agreed measure: it is safe to say that in the form in which it arrives at your Lordships' House its value is generally recognised and generally accepted; and I think it is universally recognised that it is a great step forward in the public provision for the poor of Scotland.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona, and Mount Royal.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, there are certain aspects of this Bill, which I con-

565
fess I have only barely studied, which are good, particularly those which deal with the right of appeal by poor persons, now extended to grades other than those which previously enjoyed that right. But I must put in a formal protest and objection to Clause 7, which includes under the Poor Law persons similar to those who come under unemployment insurance, and particularly subsection (2) under which able-bodied persons may be compelled to go to work centres and do work. I put forward a purely formal protest along lines similar to the protest that I made on behalf of my Party in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE CHACO ARMS EMBARGO.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state what is the exact position with regard to the embargo on arms for the Chaco war and whether it is the fact that it is the attitude of the Italian Government which is hindering the completeness of the embargo; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I would not have troubled your Lordships at this hour with this new Question if I could have seen any prospect of being able to raise it on another and more suitable occasion, but it is very near the end of the Session, and I think it is important that something should be said here on this subject before we separate for the holidays. The question arises in reference to the unhappy war in South America over the Chaco. It came first before the League in 1928, when, by the action of the League, I think under the leadership of M. Briand, peace was restored for a short time, but the war broke out again in 1932. Some day perhaps we shall know what was the secret history of that renewal of the fighting, but at present we can only have our suspicions. At any rate, it did break out again in the spring of 1932, and became very acute.
The League decided to intervene in 1933, and appointed a Commission to investigate the subject which, after some delays—caused again by influences which I am not in a position to describe because we really do not know all of what they
566
were—at last in November of last year did proceed to South America, did draw up terms of peace, or at any rate terms for the cessation of hostilities, after hearing all that the parties had to say, and urged them upon the parties. The matter came before the Council immediately afterwards and was debated there. I need not describe the nature of the terms proposed by the Commission, but I propose to read a few lines of their Report, though they are fairly well known, describing the nature of this unhappy struggle. They say:
"The conflict may find no definite military issue, but it has already produced one result—suffering and impoverishment for both peoples, which cannot but increase as the war goes on.
"The struggle in the Chaco is a singularly pitiless and horrible one. The soldiers are fighting in the bush, far from centres of population, and in an exceedingly trying climate. The sick and wounded frequently receive inadequate attention, owing to the difficulty of improvising, with limited resources, a medical service proportionate to large effectives. Moreover, behind the lines, while the struggle goes on, both countries are growing poorer, and their future seems darker and darker."
I think that that, from a perfectly impartial source, is a terrible condemnation of the kind of thing that is going on, and one does wonder, even allowing for the folly and madness, of people engaged in war, why it should go on.
In connection with that I am anxious to draw your Lordships' attention to one other passage in the Report, because it throws a light on the whole thing:
"The armies engaged are using up-to-date material—aeroplanes, armoured-cars, flame-projectors, quick-firing guns, machine-guns and automatic rifles; the automatic weapons are available in great quantities, but the other arms are few. The arms and material of every kind are not manufactured locally, but are supplied to the belligerents by American and European countries."
That seems to me an exceedingly ominous sentence, and it indicates one of the great evils of the present time, the immense pecuniary benefit that may arise to private individuals from the progress of horrible events such as those which are now going on in the Chaco. I think that is a very serious state of things.
When the matter came before the Council of the League we were represented, most admirably if I may say so without impertinence, by the present

567
Lord Privy Seal, Mr. Eden, who renewed what had been already proposed by the British Government, and urged very strongly the proposal that all the countries should at any rate cut off as far as they could cut off, this element of the warfare, by cutting off the supply of all arms to both belligerents. He urged that a telegram should be sent to all the Governments concerned, urging them to cut off the supply, to impose an arms embargo. He put it very strongly indeed, and he concluded as follows:
"The senseless loss of life, the utterly unjustifiable imposition of human suffering, and the meaningless destruction of the best resources in men and material of those two countries have endured already far too long. I do most whole-heartedly urge upon the Council to seize this opportunity of bringing them to an end. It is at once our privilege and our responsibility to do so. Let us therefore determine to take this first step, and take it to-day."
That, if I may say so, is the kind of language which we like to hear from our representative at Geneva, and I am glad to say that it had a very immediate response from the other members of the Council.
They all approved and, as I understand it, though the proceedings are a little obscure, there was universal agreement, that something of that kind should be done, but I think the actual proposal was not dealt with till the next day. At any rate, in a very short time telegrams were sent to all the Governments concerned. Broadly speaking, the response was favourable. America, though she had to pass legislation, or obtain legislative authority, to do so, agreed, and immediately imposed an embargo. This country, I am glad to say, promised to impose a complete embargo, and in the meantime suspended the licence on the export of any arms to these countries. Other countries agreed also, most of them promising to agree, or undertaking to agree, as soon as other countries had signified their intentions to do the same. This is the point on which I am really anxious to receive information from His Majesty's Government. There was one country which did disturb the harmony of the proceedings—I may be misinformed, and my noble friend will correct me if I am misinformed—by sending a reply stating that they reserved the right, in the first place, to name the States which they would insist upon agreeing when
568
the matter came up for adoption and, in the second place, they put in this very remarkable and terrible condition, that all current contracts should be respected—that is to say, they should be allowed, in spite of the embargo, to fulfil any contracts that had been made and continue to supply those armaments under the conditions I have described.
Ultimately, on June 2, nearly three weeks after the matter had first been raised, this country—it is perfectly well known which country I am referring to, it is the country of Italy—added to the list of States which others had asked should assent, the States of Russia and Japan, knowing quite well, I should have thought, that in the case of these two additional States there was more difficulty in obtaining assent than in the case of the others. That is the position, unless I am misinformed—I hope I am misinformed—but at present it does look, and one is bound to say so plainly, as if this great attempt to discourage the war and prevent its worst features is being held up by the policy of one country and one country only. I hope my noble friend will be able to explain that that is not so, but if he does not I can only hope that there has been some misunderstanding in this country (Italy) for which we all have the highest respect.
LORD MARLEY: Would the noble Viscount explain what he said about Russia? I understood Russia at once agreed.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I quite agree. Russia entirely agreed. I only meant there was supposed to be more difficulty at that time in getting the assent of these two countries. I was not thinking of Russia at the moment, I was thinking of Japan, and I am much obliged to my noble friend for drawing attention to the point.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Can the noble Viscount say whether Russia and Japan have, in fact, suspended any export of arms?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I cannot tell you. No doubt my noble friend can tell you. What Japan has said is that she has never exported arms and so the question does not arise with regard to her. One would hope, if everyone else agreed, some arrangement with regard to Japanese possible export could be arrived at. But the country that is at present

569
raising the difficulty with regard to existing contracts is Italy. That is the fact, unless I am misinformed. It really does amount to this, if this is true, that in respect, to these contracts the Italian Government is not prepared to come into line with all the other countries concerned—that is to say, she is not prepared to recommend or insist on her subjects foregoing the profit which would arise from these contracts in order to achieve this great international purpose. I earnestly hope that that is an entire misunderstanding of the Italian position, and I hope by raising the matter to-night I shall have given my noble friend the opportunity, if he can, of explaining that that is not so and that there is every reason to hope the Italian Government will come into line with the other Governments.
I hope His Majesty's Government will feel able to pursue the policy they have initiated in this matter. I am quite sure, as far as my knowledge of the country goes, they have the warmest support for what they have done and are doing in this matter. They may feel well assured, whatever other countries do, this country is resolved, as I believe it is, not to have any share or part in a trade of this kind, which is really a trade in human suffering and human blood, without which we should be certainly better and I believe more prosperous in the end. I hope in this matter we shall follow the precedent we set up 100 years ago in the matter of the slave trade, and that we shall definitely and altogether separate ourselves from a trade of this kind, which is fraught with human suffering and human blood.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has asked me to give whole-hearted support to the Motion of the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches and to the point of view put by him. Particularly my noble friends on this side of the House, and our Party, believe that even if this embargo breaks down through the action of Italy—I believe since then the Chileans are beginning to follow the example of the Italian Government—we, Great Britain, should continue to prohibit altogether the export of arms to Bolivia and Paraguay. We are very definite about that point. We believe there is no excuse, simply for the sake of profits out
570
of slaughter, to allow our nationals to engage in this traffic. This is the particular case of Paraguay and Bolivia. People may say: "Why should we lose money and throw workmen out of employment? I emphatically answer "Yes, let other people reap the harvest of death if they wish, but let us keep our hands and consciences clean."
At one moment Sir John Simon, the present Foreign Secretary, appeared to have an inspiration of courage and imposed an embargo on the shipment of armaments to China and Japan. I always regret that he withdrew from that position when other countries said they could not agree. Let us in this matter do what we think is right, irrespective of other countries. That is real patriotism. I want to see my country standing up alone, if necessary, in this matter. Surely in time we will prevail, as we prevailed in the case of the slave trade, as the noble Viscount reminded us. On behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, I wish to say we support the noble Viscount, whole-heartedly.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, your Lordships will not wish me at this hour of the evening to go into the history of this whole question. I agree generally with what my noble friend on the Cross Benches has said on the matter, but I would emphasise that this country has twice given a lead in regard to this question. It came before the League in 1932, and it was on our initiative that the countries were then invited, and once again when it came up when the Commission of Three who went out to the countries to investigate had returned. The situation, I am afraid, is very largely what has been described by my noble friend. Thirty-two countries were asked to participate in the embargo, and in addition Japan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Latvia were also asked to come in at a later date. Most of these countries have agreed. We ourselves agreed by telegram on the 26th of May, saying that once again we proposed to uphold the embargo by our own action, but we stipulated that twenty-one countries should also come in whom we considered were essential if the embargo was to be effective.
LORD MARLEY: Twenty-one named countries?
EARL STANHOPE: Twenty-one named countries. We have issued no licences ourselves for the export of war materials to Bolivia and Paraguay since the 9th of May last. There have been a good many offers made to armament firms in this country, but the licences have been held up. In principle the whole of the thirty-two countries invited by the League have agreed to impose the embargo, and so also have the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Latvia. Some of them only agreed subject to other countries coming in, which is a natural procedure on their part because, like ourselves, they feel that, the embargo, if it is to be made effective, must be supported by the big producing countries.
Japan was in a different position. Japan refused, saying verbally through her Consul-General at Geneva that she had decided in principle to abstain from any participation in League enterprises of a political nature. Therefore she regretted that she could not depart from this principle. But, as my noble friend stated, she has, in fact, not sent any arms to Bolivia or Paraguay and, therefore, I share with, him the hope that as she has not done so in the past she will not do so in the future. But merely on the question of principle, having left the League of Nations, she does not feel prepared to act with other countries on matters put forward by the League. Germany, on the other hand, agreed to stand by the embargo. Italy agreed provided Russia and Japan did so. As I have already stated, Russia has, but Japan, for the reasons I have given, has not. But Italy went somewhat further. She made a second condition, which my noble friend referred to, which was that current contracts should not be interfered with. In some cases, I think in the case of the United States, current contracts which had been made for a particular article before the actual legislation was introduced were allowed to proceed, but in every case, I think, except that of Italy, no further contracts and no running contracts could be allowed to go on. As we understand it, Italy has said not merely current contracts but re-current contracts should be allowed to proceed, which, of course, is a very different matter. We have made representations
572
through our Ambassadors at Rome and also at Tokyo, but I am afraid at neither place at present with any great success.
There was a difficulty in the United States. The President was particularly anxious to put the embargo into effect, but there were difficulties, I understand, of a constitutional character. These were, however, overcome by the President making a Proclamation that the sale of arms and munitions in the United States to Paraguay and Bolivia should be forbidden. I understand that under their Constitution they had difficulty in preventing the export of arms, but, of course, if they stopped the sale of arms it comes to exactly the same thing, and I understand it has been quite effective. The President made his Proclamation on the 28th of May—in fact as soon as he was appealed to by this country on behalf of the League. There are also two other countries which are to some extent affected. Belgium has made her acceptance conditional on acceptance by all the States who were invited, of which Japan was one. Chile has done the same, and specifically mentioned Japan. Peru has said she will abide by the same conditions as regards re-exportation as Chile. Those are all difficulties of a minor character, and, if only Italy will come into line with the other countries, we have every hope that these difficulties will be overcome.
I may say that the Chairman of the League Committee of Three, M. Najera, has sent a letter round to all the countries who were invited to impose the embargo. So far the replies from a good many countries have not come in. We still have hopes that Italy may agree in the end to come into the embargo with us, and in that case we have real hopes of making it effective. As I say, at the present moment that is not the case, and we can only hope that Italy will shortly agree, as the rest of us have.
In regard to the future, it is not quite true, as the noble Lord opposite said, that this is merely a question of making money out of arms. It is more than that, because in regard to Bolivia at any rate, she makes a claim that this is contrary to the Anglo-Bolivian Agreement of 1911, by which both we and the Bolivians agreed not to impose an embargo on any article which is imported from one country to the other. We, of course, dispute that, and say that the Agreement

573
quite obviously only referred to commercial matters and, therefore, we are fully justified in stopping arms, which are not in our view commercial. But she threatens that if we go on with the movement that we are endeavouring to bring into force she will impose the extra war taxation on British companies in Bolivia which so far they have escaped under the Agreement to which I have referred. It is obvious that to carry on with an embargo which is not effective and which is not bringing the war to an end would be a futile proceeding, and, indeed, harmful to interests that are perfectly innocent in the shape of British companies in Bolivia. Therefore, supposing, as I hope will not be the case, that we fail to get the embargo accepted by other Powers and put into effect, we shall then have to reconsider with other countries whether we are going to continue to impose an embargo ourselves. I may say that, although this large number of countries have approved the embargo, actually only Denmark, Switzerland, Holland, the United States and ourselves have taken steps to put it into effect. It is, therefore, only those five countries who have actually started the embargo.
LORD MARLEY: You mean by legislation?
EARL STANHOPE: By legislation or by action such as the refusal of a licence, as has been done in our own case. The others are merely standing by saying that when other countries agree they themselves will at once impose the embargo. As far as action is concerned to stop armaments, five countries only have taken any steps. Therefore your Lordships will see that, failing the acceptance of the embargo by Italy, the matter may have to be reconsidered, although I hope very much that may not prove to be necessary.
LORD MARLEY: Could the noble Earl say whether other Ambassadors have taken action similar to that of the Ambassadors of Great Britain in Rome and Tokyo, and whether all the twenty-one countries involved in the application of the embargo actually accepted?
EARL STANHOPE: I am afraid I cannot answer as regards the Ambassadors of other countries.
LORD MARLEY: There was no concerted action?
EARL STANHOPE: There was no concerted action. We took action at once on our own initiative in order to save time. The noble Lord will realise that speed was the essence of the matter in order to try and bring about the embargo as soon as possible. Therefore we took action immediately through our Ambassador, and I rather think I am right in saying other Ambassadors did the same, but of that I cannot speak with any real knowledge. As regards the other countries, as I said, everyone which was invited accepted in principle, with the exception of Japan.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am much obliged to my noble friend, and of course I shall not proceed with the Motion for Papers. I share Lord Marley's suggestion that it would be a very good thing for other countries to make representations at Rome as well as ourselves.
EARL STANHOPE: They may have done so.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I know. I entirely agree that the British Government were right in acting for themselves and immediately, and in getting other countries to come in as they could. That was obviously the right course for them to take. I personally share the hope of my noble friend Lord Stanhope that the Italian Government will co-operate with other countries. I feel sure that that is really the better mind of the Italian Government, and I cannot help thinking there must have been some misapprehension in the matter which induced them to fail to take the action which is desired. I can only say this in addition, that I trust my noble friend will be very slow to agree to sending arms whatever other countries do, or to allow arms to be sent from this country, whatever other countries do. I am satisfied that, though it may cause inconvenience or even loss or hardship for a time, in the end we shall much more than recoup ourselves by the position that we shall have acquired in the world by action of that kind just as we did in the case of the slave trade. We did have to suffer very severely in the slave trade, but on the whole, even on the lowest calculation, it paid us over and over again to have done so.

575
There is only one other suggestion that I would like to make to my noble friend. That is, that when the Assembly meets—and I imagine this is a matter which may easily be discussed in the Assembly—I hope that my noble friend or our representatives will be able to sustain the position they have taken up until now and be able among the 56 nations which form the Assembly to state what the real position is and what difficulties there have been up to that time. I desire to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I should like to ask whether there is any statement that can be made as to the business for next week.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, all the business for next week, so far as I know, is already on the Paper. I would, however, like to give notice that we propose to ask your Lordships to meet at three o'clock on Tuesday and at three o'clock on Wednesday.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past eight o'clock.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the present Session do meet the Lords' Committee in Committee Room C, House of Lords, on Wednesday next at ten o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

DOLGELLEY ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Dolgelley in the County of Merioneth:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

PRESTON CORPORATION ELEC- TRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1934.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Preesall in the County Palatine of Lancaster:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (EASTWOOD LANDS) ORDER, 1934.
KING'S LYNN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1934.
SELBY GAS ORDER, 1934.
NEWMARKET ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
MILFORD HAVEN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1934.
MID SOUTHERN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1934.
SALE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1934.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE.
Report by the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made; to be printed, and to be considered on Thursday next.