Sitting of 23 July 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
North Wales Electric Power Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered; an Amendment made.
Motion made, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
King's Consent signified; Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Sutton Road Bridge) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Penicuik Water) Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    EAST INDIA STATE RAILWAY (CLERK'S DISMISSAL).
    Mr. DOBBIEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a clerk named B. K. Mukerjee, employed in the locomotive workshop of the East Indian State Railway at Lucknow, was discharged on the 30th April, 1934, within a fortnight of organising a conference of the East Indian Railway Workers' Union, which is recognised by the railway administration; and, having regard to the appearance of victimisation in this case, will he cause inquiries to be made into the matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I will ask the Government of India to furnish me with any information they may have on the matter.

    AGA KHAN.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: asked the Secretary of State for India what reply the Government has given to the notification of the Aga Khan to the Government of India of his desire to possess an estate in India?
    Sir S. HOARE: My hon. and gallant Friend is presumably referring to a question asked in the Indian Legislative Assembly, which has been reported in the Press. I have nothing to add to the reply which was given, which was that a confidential communication was received from His Highness the Aga Khan but Government was not in a position to disclose its nature.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is there any other prominent supporter of the White Paper policy who has asked for an estate in India?
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not see the relevance of that supplementary question. If it is meant to cast an aspersion on the motives of the Aga Khan, I am sure the whole House will say that it is entirely misplaced.

    FOREST SERVICE.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary of State for India if he has approved the recent acquiesence of the Government of India in the sale of the Imperial Forest College and Research Institute at Debra Dun; if so., what provision now exists for training men, British or Indians, for the All-India Forest Service, and what provision for forestry research in British-India on scientific and up-to-date lines?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have asked the Government of India for a report on this matter. Such information as I have on the subject seems to imply that the buildings to be diverted from Forestry purposes are those of the old College and Research Institute, and I have no reasons to suppose that the present facilities for research will in any way be affected.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that expert opinion is strongly in favour of a uniform

    1511
    system of training for Indian forestry officers, that the Government of India have spent nearly £900,000 on this Forestry Institute, which has been described by experts as the best in the world, and that it has also been held by experts that it is impossible to carry on forestry research successfully in isolation?
    Sir S. HOARE: I shall certainly take note of what my Noble Friend has said, but I think her observations would be more relevant on a discussion of the Joint Select Committee's report than in a supplementary question.

    TRANSFERRED TERRITORY.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the past the principle has been accepted by the Government of India that, in view of the reluctance shown by many Indian citizens of British India to be transferred to the jurisdiction of various Indian states, no such transfer should be made without their consent, even when an equivalent in area and population was offered in exchange; and why this principle is departed from in the case of the thousands of British Anglo-Indian and Indian subjects in the civil and military station of Bangalore, whom it is proposed to transfer to the jurisdiction of Mysore, without any equivalent exchange, and in spite of the memorandum of the Bangalore Trades Association of February last, expressing grave anxiety in regard to the effects of retrocession on education, hospitals, municipal administration, the value of property, and the general fabric of trade in the station?
    Sir S. HOARE: The principle stated is generally recognised as applying when it is a question of transferring British territory with its inhabitants to an Indian State. As regards the second part of the question, no definite decision has yet been taken as to whether any portion of the Assigned Tract of Bangalore shall be retroceded to Mysore. But I would remind the Noble Lady that in any case the territory in question is not British, but is a part of the State of Mysore.

    MEETING, CALCUTTA (ARRESTS).
    Mr. BUCHANAN
    (for Mr. MAXTON): asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a
    1512
    meeting arranged by the League against Gandhism at the Albert Hall, Calcutta, on 14th July was declared unlawful; that on 18th July 15 persons were arrested in Calcutta, including the general secretary of the East India Railway Workers' Union; and whether he will state the reason for declaring the meeting unlawful and the nature of the offence with which the persons arrested have been charged?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I regret that I have no information.

    TEXTILE MILLS, BOMBAY (DISPUTE).
    Mr. BUCHANAN (forMr. MAXTON): asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement regarding the present position of the textile workers in India; whether the millowners of Bombay have agreed to the demands of the workers; what arrangements are proposed regarding the payment of dear-food allowance; whether there is now a general resumption of work in all the mills in Bombay; what is the position in other textile towns; the number of trade union leaders arrested in connection with the strike in Bombay and in other towns; and whether he is satisfied that economic grievances rather than Communist propaganda were at the bottom of the general strike?
    Mr. BUTLER: Work has been resumed in all the towns in which disputes recently occurred in textile mills except in Nagpur, where no settlement has been reported in respect of the Empress Mills. The workers' list of demands, which are of a very far reaching kind, has not been agreed to. But in Bombay, the Mill-Owners Association are reported to be working on a scheme for a uniform dear-food allowance and have also been considering the question of standardising wages. The Government of Bombay have received and are now considering the report of the Bombay Labour Office on wages and unemployment in the Bombay textile industry. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's question, 28 leaders were arrested and detained during the strike in Bombay and five in Nagpur. While not denying that economic grievances exist among the workers, at any rate in Bombay, I think it is fully established that Communist leadership was largely responsible for what has happened.

    ANGLO-SPANISH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LIMITED.
    Captain CAZALETasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received from the Spanish Government to the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid, on 19th April, 1933, with regard to the sums, equivalent to over £1,500,000, due in respect of construction work financed by a British company, the Anglo-Spanish Construction Company, Limited; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes to take any further steps in this matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS
    (Sir John Simon): His Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid has called the attention of the Spanish Government on more than one occasion to the interest of the Anglo-Spanish Construction Company in the sums due from that Government to the Santander Mediterraneo Railway Company. In the meantime I am informed that judgments have been obtained by the railway company in the competent Spanish courts confirming the validity of their claims. In view of the fact that the Anglo-Spanish Construction Company hold 98 per cent. of the entire share issue of the railway company, add, by reason of the retention of the amounts due to the.latter, have incurred serious financial difficulties, further representations have been made to the Spanish Government and His Majesty's Government intend to press the matter.
    Captain CAZALET: Is it not a fact that this debt was acknowledged and the money promised by the Spanish Government two or three years ago, and that they have not taken any active steps to pay it up to date?
    Sir J. SIMON: It is certainly the case that the money has not been paid. I have already informed my hon. and gallant Friend that I understand a competent Spanish court has confirmed the validity of the claim

    TURKEY (FIRING ON BRITISH NAVAL BOAT).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to
    1514
    make a full statement of the circumstances in which British officers were fired on by Turkish soldiers and a British officer killed?
    Sir J. SIMON: The further information which has been received since I replied to my hon. Friend's question on the 17th July indicates that this tragic occurrence was the result of a lamentable misunderstanding. The skiff in which the officers approached close to the Turkish coast was flying no flag and the officers were not in uniform. According to the statement of the Turkish Government, the Turkish coastal patrols have strict orders to summon any suspect craft to be questioned, and in the present case beckoned to the boat to approach.
    There is reason to think that the signal was misunderstood; at any rate, when the skiff moved away the Turkish guard repeatedly fired with the lamentable result that Surgeon-Lieutenant Robinson was killed and fell into the water. Lieutenant Maunsell was slightly wounded. Surgeon-Lieutenant Robinson's body has not yet been recovered.
    The Turkish Ambassador, on instructions from his Government, has expressed his Government's very sincere regret that this tragic misunderstanding should have occurred, and the Turkish Government have informed His Majesty's Ambassador that they are deeply distressed at the occurrence. A funeral ceremony was held on Saturday in Turkish territorial waters, at which there were present His Majesty's Ship "Queen Elizabeth," flying the flag of the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Fleet, His Majesty's Ship "London," flying the flag of the Rear Admiral commanding the First Cruiser Squadron, and His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire," in which Surgeon-Lieutenant Robinson was serving.
    By order of the Turkish Government a Turkish destroyer also took part and cast a wreath into the sea with an inscription expressing the sympathy and regret of the Turkish Government. The Turkish Government have also spontaneously expressed their desire to pay a compassionate grant to the relatives of the deceased officer.

    FINLAND (MOTOR-SHIP "OMAR" ARREST).
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Secretary of State far Foreign Affairs whether he can now state what has been the outcome of the representations made by him to the Finnish Government regarding the arrest of the motor-ship "Omar" and the long delay in dealing with the question of its release?
    Sir J. SIMON: The Finnish Government were informed on the 25th June that the judicial proceedings in this case appeared to have been unreasonably delayed, and that, if a claim for damages for wrongful detention under the terms of the Liquor Smuggling Convention were ultimately put forward, the delay would naturally increase the amount claimed. His Majesty's Minister at Helsingfors is following the matter, and no further action is contemplated at the moment.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Could my right hon. Friend give some indication of the date when this ship will be released?
    Sir J. SIMON: I cannot say at the moment. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question on the Paper.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (TREATMENT OF PRISONERS).
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been a favourable response to the draft rules for the treatment of prisoners circulated by the League of Nations to States members of the League; and whether the British delegation to the League will be authorised to propose confirmation of these draft rules at the forthcoming assembly of the League?
    Sir J. SIMON: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) on the 30th May last. As regards the second part, the position is that the Fifth Committee of the forthcoming assembly will have before it a report by the Secretary-General of the League giving the views of the various Governments on this subject. Until that report is received it is
    1516
    not possible to decide what action shall be taken by the British delegation, but the House has already been informed that the revised rules are already applied in practice in this country.

  AGRICULTURE.

    EGGS (IMPORTS).
    Sir A. KNOX: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, as the imports of eggs from the following countries in the first six months of 1934 showed an increase as compared with imports in 1933, he will recommend adequate protection for the home industry, either by tariff, or quota, or both: Denmark, Finland, Poland, Netherlands, Turkey, China, Brazil, and Chile?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): As I have already stated, the first six months of 1934 include a period outside the six months covered by the arrangement proposed by His Majesty's Government for a standstill in imports of eggs in shell. This period of six months began on 15th March, 1934, and since that date the total imports of eggs show no increase as compared with 1933 and indeed to 11th July show a decrease of the order of 7 per cent. The action to be taken to regulate imports after 14th September next, when the six months come to an end, is now under consideration.
    Sir A. KNOX: Does my right hon. Friend know the very great anxiety among home poultry producers in this country, and would it not be better to impose a quota now instead of waiting for the necessity to give a subsidy from the taxpayers' money?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I think anxiety would be increased by a question such as my hon. and gallant Friend has asked, suggesting that there has been an increase since the Government took action, when in fact there has been no increase.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Does my right hon. Friends' statement apply to all the countries mentioned? Has not the supply from Turkey increased during the last three months?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I was careful to say that the total imports are so much decreased, and that is what concerns the market in this country.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not the case that, while the total quantity of imports of eggs in shell has decreased, the average price at which these quantities have come in, compared with last year and the year before, has decreased very much more, and that the question of price is really much more important that the question of quantity?
    Mr. ELLIOT: That does not arise from the original question. I was asked about the quantities, and they do not show an increase.
    Mr. PALING: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the protection given to the industry at present is sufficient?

    PRICES AND WAGES.
    Mr. LAMBERT: asked the Minister of Agriculture, taking 1925 as the base year for agricultural wages and prices, what would be the present agricultural wage if wages had declined to the same extent as agricultural prices; and what has been the decline in the number of agricultural land workers in Great Britain between the first recorded and latest available date?
    Mr. ELLIOT: If agricultural wages had been governed solely by the movement of the prices of agricultural products since 1925, the average of the weekly minimum wages for ordinary adult workers in England and Wales would have been 23s. 5d. in June last. The total number of agricultural workers in Great Britain in 1921, the first year for which comparable returns on an annual basis are available, was 996,081, the corresponding figure for 1925 being 925,400 and for 1933, 827,400.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Does not that show that farmers are unable to employ a sufficiency of labourers at the present agricultural prices?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I think it shows the great desirability of having a more remunerative level of prices than that at present existing.

    POULTRY COMMISSION.
    Captain HEILGERS: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state the date when he expects to receive the Report of the Poultry Commission?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to a similar ques-
    1518
    tion by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) on 12th July, a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend.
    Captain HEILGERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Poultry Commission has abandoned the idea of an interim report on the question of eggs?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I could not say without notice.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the Poultry Commission sitting regularly or only occasionally?
    Mr. ELLIOT: As one would expect from a body which is considering such a problem, it is, I understand, sitting practically continuously.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Are they what we call in Scotland "clocking hens"?

    MILK MARKETING BOARD (HIGH COURT DECISION).
    Mr. T. SMITH(for Mr. THORNE)asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information to give to the House about the steps he proposes to take in view of the decision given in the King's Bench Division in connection with the illegality of the Milk Marketing Board?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have just received a copy of the Judgment referred to, but I have not yet had an opportunity of considering whether it calls for any action on my part.

    OFFICE OF WORKS (OBJECTS OF ART).
    Mr. BURNETT: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether there are in the possession of his Department any artistic items of bronze or stone statuary by British artists or any garden decorations for which no location has yet been found?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): There are no such articles in my Department's possession.

    HIGH COURTS OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).
    Mr. CAPORN: asked the Attorney-General the number of actions now awaiting trial in each of the ordinary

    1519
    lists of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice; how many of these actions were set down for trial prior to the 29th May, the 10th April, and the 15th January, 1934, respectively; whether he is aware that the long delay in the trial of the civil actions causes hardship and extra expense to many poor litigants; and whether it is proposed to increase the number of judges so as to secure that civil actions are disposed of during the term succeeding that on which they are set down for trial?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The answer to the first part of the question is in the form of a statistical table which, with my hon. and learned Friend's consent, I will circulate

    Number of Actions awaiting trial on 20th July, 1934.

    —

    Set down prior to 15th January, 1934.

    Set down prior to 10th April, 1934.

    Set down prior to 29th May, 1934.

    Total awaiting trial on 20th July, 1934.

    A.

    B.

    C.

    D.

    E.

    Ordinary List—

    Special Juries

    28

    94

    124

    167

    Common Juries

    8

    66

    102

    140

    Non Juries

    10

    179

    311

    453

    New Procedure List

    1

    1

    5

    141

    Commercial List

    2

    7

    13

    40

    Set down under Order 14 Rule 8a

    —

    —

    —

    32

    49

    347

    555

    973

    Notes.—C includes B.

    D includes C.

    Stayed Cases not included.

    in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am aware that long delay in the trial of civil actions may in certain cases have the effect described by my hon. Friend, but before any decision to increase the number of judges could be effective there are other problems of accommodation, staffing and organisation which must be solved. My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has these problems under consideration.
    Mr. CAPORN: Is it the fact that in the case of an action set down for trial by a special jury, at least 12 months must elapse before it can possibly be tried at the present time?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I could not answer without notice.
    Following is the statistical table:

    HYDE PARK.
    Mr. BURNETTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that considerable areas at the north-east end of Hyde Park behind the orators' rostra have long been denuded of turf; and whether he will cause these and any other worn-out surfaces in Hyde Park to be resown or returfed during the autumn?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am, of course, aware of the condition of this part of the park, which is the result of the uses to which it is put and to the exceptionally dry weather. Each year the worn portions of the park are resown at the appropriate season.
    Mr. BURNETT: Has not this part of the park been bare of grass for a very long time?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It all gets worn every summer to a certain extent, and this part of Hyde Park is used for all kinds of public meetings and large concourses of people gather there.
    Mr. BURNETT: But is it not the case that the part of the park which is used for public meetings is some distance behind this portion and that there has been no sign of grass for a long time on the part to which I refer?
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman arranged to have that part of the park laid out with crazy paving?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS (CARTRIDGE CASES).
    Mr. DIXEY: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has made a full inquiry into the importation of foreign cartridges into this country; and, if so, is he satisfied that no infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act has occurred
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will institute proceedings against the persons who have failed to comply with Section 1 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, by offering for sale certain imported goods hearing the name of a British firm, but not bearing any indication of origin, namely, cartridge cases which, though
    1522
    filled since importation, have not undergone since importation any treatment or process which has resulted in a substantial change in their character as cartridge cases?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): My right bon. Friend will, of course, be glad to consider any instance of an alleged offence against the Merchandise Marks Acts that my hon. Friends may bring to his notice. He is, however, advised that the practice which they have in mind is not an offence against Section 1 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, since the name of the British trader is applied to the cartridge as a whole which cannot be regarded as "imported goods" within the meaning of the section.
    Mr. DIXEY: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it might be advisable to remedy this defect in the Merchandise Marks Act?
    Dr. BURGIN: That, of course, is a very wide question. It would affect every article which is an ingredient in the making-up of some other article and that is a matter which would require very careful consideration to ensure that it did not entail more disadvantages than advantages. At present, a raw material used in the making-up of a manufactured article can be imported from abroad, converted into something else, and the ultimate manufactured article can be described as British. It would be a very big matter to alter the Merchandise Marks Act in the sense indicated by my hon. Friend.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the fact that cartridge cases, which happen to be manufactured near my constituency, do not really constitute a raw material; that a great many manufacturing processes go to producing them, and a great many British workpeople are employed on them; and will he bear in mind the employment factor and its value to the country?
    Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. PIKE: Would the reply of the hon. Gentleman be altered at all if evidence were brought to his notice that the cartridge cases also contained explosive caps?
    Dr. BURGIN: I should consider every fact which is brought to my notice, but that fact has not been brought to my notice so far.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Does the hon Gentleman consider that the cartridge on being loaded is thereby converted into a different article? Is that what he implies?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am stating the obvious fact, that there is all the difference in the world between an empty cartridge case and the full cartridge, in a condition ready to be shot off.
    Mr. DIXEY: If representations are made to him upon the matter, will the hon. Gentleman consider the whole question?
    Dr. BURGIN: Certainly.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the actual case which is the cartridge, or the contents?

    IMPORTS.
    Mr. WISEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that the imports of electrical goods during the first six monts of 1934 reached a value of £1,313,923, as compared with £896,501 in the corresponding period of 1933, an increase of 46.5 per cent.; and whether he will make inquiries as to the effect of this increased importation on employment in the industry;
    (2)whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the case of hardware, machinery, typewriters, cotton yarns, undergarments, cotton underwear, tissue paper, furniture and cabinet-ware, and builders' woodwork the imports are more than 50 per cent. Higher in the January-June period of 1934 than they were in the January-June period of 1933; and whether he will take steps to investigate the cause of this increase in imports and the effect on the emloyment situation in those industries?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the increase in imports to which my hon. Friend refers. Owing to differences of classification, statistics, but where comparable figures are available for the trades referred to by my hon. Friend there have been substantial declines in unemploy-
    1524
    ment since last year. As regards the cause of the increase in imports, I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) on 28th March.
    Mr. WISE: As this Government were returned to correct an adverse balance of trade, and as the country appears to be heading for a situation exactly similar to that of 1931, ought not some more definite action to be promised by the hon. Gentleman?
    Dr. BURGIN: I think we want to be very careful to see that goods imported for the purpose of being processed and converted into something else in British factories are not arbitrarily reduced in volume.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say what process a typewriter undergoes after it has been imported?
    Dr. BURGIN: Very often it is assembled.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade the change in the volume of retained imports of maim-factures in the first half of this year as compared with the first half of last year, including non-ferrous metals and petroleum products and excluding non-ferrous metals and petroleum products, respectively?
    Dr. BURGIN: Calculations of the volume of our overseas trade during the second quarter and the first six months of this year are now being made, and the usual quarterly article will be published in the Board of Trade Journal on Thursday next. The additional information required by my hon. Friend is being prepared, and I will send it to him as soon as possible.

    HOLLAND (NEGOTIATIONS).
    36. Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement as to the position of the negotiations for a trade agreement with Holland?
    Dr. BURGIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Exchange of Notes dated 20th July which has been issued as Command Paper 4662.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Will the hon. Gentleman give an under-

    1525
    taking that agricultural matters will not be used as bargaining pawns in any negotiations?
    Dr. BURGIN: It would be improper to give any undertaking of the kind suggested. I can certainly assure my hon. and gallant Friend that in any commercial negotiations the interest of all industries and all parties will be carefully borne in mind.

    AUSTRALIA.
    Mr. LAMBERT: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has been in communication with the Australian Government with regard to their prospective treatment of British goods in the event of a quantitative regulation of Australian meat imports being adopted by Great Britain?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I assume that my right hon. Friend has in mind paragraphs which have appeared in the Press attributing statements on this subject to a Commonwealth Minister. I understand that the Minister in question issued in the Australian Press of the 21st July an emphatic denial.

    COTTON IMPORTS.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY (for Sir WILFRID SUGDEN)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the imports of cotton yarns have risen by 69.6 per cent. in the first six months of 1934 as compared with the corresponding period of 1933, and that the imports amount to 1,660,834 lbs. as against 979,261 lbs.; and whether he is prepared to take any action, in view of the widespread unemployment in Lancashire?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the increased imports to which my hon. Friend refers. As regards the second part of the question I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hartland) on the 1st May.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY (for Sir W. SUGDEN): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of cotton underwear in volume have increased by 92.5 per cent. in the first six months of 1934 as compared with the first six months of 1933; whether he will
    1526
    state the source of these increased imports; and whether he proposes to take any steps to reduce them?
    Dr. BURGIN: The increased imports referred to by my hon. Friend came mainly from Japan. Any question of an increased duty on these goods is a matter in the first instance for the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: If the trades concerned were to make representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and if the committee were to consider that their representations required action, is there any machinery whereby effective action could be taken during the Recess?
    Dr. BURGIN: That is a hypothetical question, but I should imagine that the answer is in the affirmative.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    CANCER OF THE LUNG.
    Mr. CLARRY: asked the Minister of Health whether His Department have any evidence that cancer of the lung may be caused by dust from tarred roads; and if there are any known fatal eases of lung cancer attributable to this cause?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is advised that a relation between the inhalation of dust from tarred roads and cancer of the lung has not been established, and it is, therefore, not possible to say whether any deaths from this disease can be attributed to this cause.
    Mr. CLARRY: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is a fact that any appreciable quantity of dust can be obtained from a properly tarred road?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is a matter for the Minister of Transport.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAE.L SAMUEL: Has my hon. Friend yet got any records to give any information why there is this great increase in the number of recorded cases of cancer of the lung?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I should not put it as high as that. The percentage of cases of cancer of the lung is very small.
    Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of deaths from cancer of the respiratory

    1527
    organs is only 90 per million, as compared with 1,500 altogether from cancer generally, that this so-called statement was only a chance suggestion, not a statement, by a distinguished layman with no medical qualifications, and that it is considered by medical opinion unwarranted?

    RIVER POLLUTION (BRISTOL CHANNEL).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Minister of Health whether he will authorise an inquiry into the pollution of the rivers flowing into the Bristol Channel; whether he will require local authorities to take joint action to avoid the discharge of works effluents, drainage, and sewage outfalls into the streams; and whether he will consider recommending joint schemes for the cleansing of all such sources of pollution by means of filtration, chemical treatment, or similar measures?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If the hon. Member will state what particular rivers he has in mind, the matter will be given further consideration. My right hon. Friend is always prepared to entertain applications for joint action by local authorities and county councils for the prevention of pollution in rivers.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention not been called to the filthy condition of all the rivers in the industrial area in South Wales, and can' he not suggest something by which joint action can be taken by all the local authorities in the district?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I should be glad if my hon. Friend would discuss this matter with my Department.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INSURANCE FUND.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Labour the present debt of the Unemployment Fund, and also the present assets of the fund which have not been used for the reduction of debt?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the, MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The funded debt of the Unemployment Fund is £105,780,000. After allowing for the accrued charge for debt services under Section 18 of the
    1528
    Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, the fund has in hand a sum of approximately £7,000,000.

    IRISH IMMIGRANTS (MERSEYSIDE).
    Wing-Commander JAMES: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the facts disclosed by the recent social survey of Merseyside that Irish immigration to Merseyside is at the rate of about 6,000 a year, and that these immigrants are swelling the ranks of casual labour and of those in receipt of public assistance, he has taken any steps to check this influx, or what steps the Government have in contemplation?
    Mr. HUDSON: The figure which the hon. and gallant Member quotes appears to be an estimate, based on information not derived from official United Kingdom sources, of the net passenger traffic for the years 1927–29 between Ireland and the port of Liverpool, with some allowance made for persons from Ireland proceeding overseas via Liverpool. The report makes it clear that the figure does not purport to represent the number of immigrants from Ireland who settle on Merseyside. In this connection, the census reports show that, both in Liverpool and in Great Britain as a whole, there were fewer Irish-born persons in 1931 than in 1921. There is no power to restrict the entry of British subjects into the United Kingdom.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: In view of the desire of Mr. de Valera that Southern Ireland should be a self-contained entity, will representations be made to him for the return of these persons to Southern Ireland, or else that he should reciprocate with regard to the large unemployment of ex-service men in Southern Ireland?

    GOOD INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION RECORDS.
    Mr. DORAN: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider taking steps in the near future to grant to those who have continuously paid into the Unemployment Insurance Fund without drawing any benefit a rebate of their accumulated contributions?
    Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir. This method has been tried in the past and abandoned. The preferable method appears to be to give increased benefit rights to those with relatively good contribution records, as in done in the Unemployment Insurance Act recently passed.

    TRAINING AND RECONDITIONING CENTRES.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: asked the Minister of Labour the number of training and reconditioning centres in the Wales Division and in the United Kingdom; the number of persons in each of the two areas who have been passed through such centres in the last six months; and the number of such centres in contemplation for the next year?
    Mr. HUDSON: The total number of these centres for men of 18 years of age or over is 37, of which five are in Wales and two others are on the Welsh border and reserved for Welshmen. The number of men who completed their courses during the six months ending 28th June was 7,578, of whom about 1,600 were Welshmen. Only a small number of these passed through the Welsh centres, none of which has yet been open for any length of time. The provision to be made for next year is under consideration.

  GIBRALTAR.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that on the 19th October, 1933, Mr. Pedro Carrasco, blacksmith in the employ of the Gibraltar Gas Company, was killed in an explosion, and that the amount of compensation paid to his widow was; and if he will take some steps to improve the law of workmen's compensation in the colony?
    (2) whether he, is aware that Mr. Alfred Sheriff, an employé of the city council of Gibraltar, met with an accident whilst at work which necessitated the amputation of a leg; that the only compensation which he could legally claim was the sum of £18 1s. 8d.; that the city council made an ex gratia payment of a small pension and addressed a communication to the Governor raising the whole question of compensation for workmen; and whether he will now take steps to institute a further inquiry into the question of workmen's compensation and employers' liability in Gibraltar?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have no information on either of the two cases referred to by the hon. Member, but I am asking the Governor for his
    1530
    observations in the matter. The hon. Member will recollect that, in answer to a question which he asked on the 6th June, I made a full statement on the question of workmen's compensation in Gibraltar.
    Mr. MACLEAN: As that statement was wholly unsatisfactory, and as, the conditions under which compensation is paid still remain, will the right hon. Gentleman not go into the matter further, since the city council itself has now made a request to the Governor?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not had anything, but, if I had from the Governor a report and a recommendation from the city council on the subject, I should naturally give the most careful consideration to it and afford the city council an opportunity to make observations thereon.
    Mr. MACLEAN: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the dissatisfaction that arises owing to the fact that when dockyard workmen go out from this country and suffer an injury, they come under workmen's compensation according to the dockyard rates for this country, and, if anyone is injured there in practically the same work, he comes under the state of compensation paid in Gibraltar?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I believe the position is that a very large number of people are either direct employés of His Majesty's Government in the dockyard or municipal employés. The dockyard people, if I remember aright, are covered by a Treasury Warrant, and the other people by a somewhat similar arrangement, which leaves very few people to whom no workmen's compensation applies.
    Mr. PIKE: Can my right hon. Friend say if these grievances existed when the Socialist party were in power?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, if they are grievances. I think we are carrying on exactly the same system, both municipally and nationally, that has been the practice for years.

    COLONIAL HOSPITAL (MILK CONTRACT).
    Mr. MACLEAN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the contractors for the supply of milk to the Colonial Hospital at

    1531
    Gibraltar are Spanish refugees; that the firm concerned have been convicted for supplying adulterated milk to the institution; and that the contract is still in force in spite of the comments of the judge who tried the case; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such contracts shall in future be given to reputable business houses established in the Colonies?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no information about this case, but I will make inquiry of the Governor.

    EDUCATION (TEACHERS' PENSIONS).
    Major PROCTERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that a teacher's pension is calculated on the basis of the average salary for the last five years of pensionable service, the incidence of the 10 per cent. salary cut will not operate for pension purposes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotharn): My Noble Friend would draw attention to the answer given to the hon. Member for Fairfield (Mr. Brocklebank) on the 12th July, of which he is sending his hon. Friend a copy.

    BRITISH ARMY (OFFICERS' PROMOTION).
    Lieut.-Colonel CRUDDASasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is in a position to state what steps are being taken to remedy the serious block in the promotion of officers at present existing in the Infantry of the Line as well as in other branches of the Army?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): This question, so far as it affects officers of the Infantry of the Line, has been examined by a committee of which my right hon. Friend Lord Stanhope, a former Under-Secretary of State, was chairman; and as a result certain exceptional measures have been decided upon. The most important of these measures are as follow:
    1532
    Promotions have been made to the ranks of major-general, lieut.-general and general, in the place of the general officers who have been permitted to retire prematurely. Their vacancies in the establishment of general officers had remained unfilled pending the dates when they would have been retired on completing three years non-employment, or have come within two years of the age limit for compulsory retirement or have died, whichever would have been the earlier. Certain reductions in the establishments of general officers will, however, be effected over a period of time, but the net result at the moment is to make some seven promotions in these ranks at once. There will be a consequential and increasing number of promotions throughout the lower ranks.
    A number of officers of the rank of major or below, whose commissions bear a date before 1st January, 1919, will be invited to retire voluntarily with special terms as regards retired pay or retiring gratuities. If sufficient volunteers are not forthcoming, it may be necessary to select officers for compulsory retirement with the same special terms.
    It is further proposed to exercise a greater degree of selection as regards the promotion of officers from major to lieut.-colonel. Majors will not be allowed to continue serving beyond three years in that rank unless they are considered fit to assume command, provided that no such officer will be placed on half-pay until he has attained the age of 45.
    The position as regards promotion in certain arms other than Infantry of the Line is also being examined, but I am not in a position at present to state whether any special steps will be necessary in their case.
    Brigadier-General NATION: May I ask whether the establishment of full colonel is to be altered and whether the length of period during which a full colonel can remain on half-pay will be changed?
    Mr. HACKING: I shall be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will read the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is rather involved, and, if he is not satisfied with any point, perhaps he will put down a question.
    Brigadier-General NATION: My hon. Friend has not mentioned colonels in his statement. He spoke of general officers, but colonels are on a separate basis.
    Mr. HACKING: I said there would be promotions from majors to commands, and I also spoke of more vacancies so far as the higher commands were concerned. There is, therefore, a better chance of promotion from colonel to general.
    Mr. MACLEAN: In view of the fact that certain officers who ranked before 1919 are being asked to retire and are being offered special gratuities and pensions, will anything appear on the Estimates for this purpose, and will the alteration of any warrant be required?
    Mr. HACKING: Any change that requires a bigger grant will appear on the Estimates.
    Mr. PALING: Will the policy of special gratuities to officers who retire be carried forward to the workers?

    PUBLIC MEETINGS (PRESERVATION OF ORDER).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet consulted with the leaders of the opposition parties as to measures for securing order at public meetings.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT
    (Sir John Gilmour): I hope to discuss the different aspects of this problem with the leaders of the Opposition Parties before the House adjourns for the summer.

    CODEX SINAITICUS.
    Mr. TINKER: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a date has been agreed upon with the British Museum when the subscription list to the cost of the Bible known as the Codex Sinaiticus will close; and can he say what will be the estimated amount the Treasury will have to find.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): No date has been fixed for closing the subscription list, and subscriptions are still being received. In regard to the second part of the question, a Supplementary Estimate for £41,440 has been presented to Parliament. The final charge on public funds will be less than this amount, but
    1534
    it is not possible at this date to estimate by how much.
    Mr. TINKER: Shall we have a chance of discussing this Supplementary Estimate We have not yet had an opportunity, and I understand that we are not likely to get one. I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

    BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY (ARMS EMBARGO).
    Mr. GEORGE HALL (for Mr. JOHN WILMOT)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position regarding the embargo on the export of arms to Bolivia and Paraguay; and whether all the member States of the League of Nations are loyally co-operating in enforcing the embargo?
    Sir J. SIMON: So far as I am aware, the only Governments who have up to the present been actively preventing the supply of arms to the belligerents have been His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, the United States Government, the Danish Government, the Dutch Government and the Swiss Government. I have, however, just learned with great satisfaction that the Italian Government have now informed the President of the Committee of the Council of the League of Nations that they will enact the necessary measures to prevent the export of war material destined for Bolivia and Paraguay from Italian territory. There is now reason to hope that all the other 'Governments which have accepted the League proposal in principle will take the necessary steps without delay.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the League that they should go further and propose an economic boycott of both these States unless they cease fighting?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think that the practical thing to do is to take advantage of the opportunity which now offers itself and to make effective the embargo for which we have worked so long.

    ROMBALDS MOOR, YORKSHIRE (PUBLIC ACCESS).
    Mr. REA (for Mr. MALLALIEU): asked the Minister of Agriculture whether

    1535
    he has any further statement to make as to the proposed order limiting the right of the public to access to Rombalds Moor, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the right to lodge objections to it; and whether, in view of misunderstandings which have arisen, he will ensure that objectors have adequate time to prepare and lodge their objections?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving me an opportunity of correcting a misstatement in my reply to the question which he put to me on the 12th July. The time specified for objections to the proposed order is three weeks from the latest date of publication of the notice of the order and such period expire to-day. Numbers objections to the proposed order have now been received, and a public inquiry will accordingly be held in the locality. Due notice of such inquiry will be given to all the objectors, and adequate time allowed for the preparation of their case. Any further objections presented in the meantime will be duly considered.

    POST OFFICE (NON-DELIVERY OF LETTERS, GERMANY).
    Mr. PETHERICKasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the non-delivery of letters addressed from the United Kingdom to British subjects staying in Germany; the reason for it; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second and third parts do not therefore arise.

    ROMFORD COUNTY COURT.
    Mr. HUTCHISON: asked the Attorney-General for what reasons the Romford County Court is being closed down in September and being transferred to Ilford, as Ilford is a subsidiary court to Romford?
    The ATTORNEY- GENERAL: The present court buildings at Romford and at Ilford are inconvenient both for the court sittings and for the offices of the staff. Concentration in a new central building will result in improved efficiency and in economy.
    Mr. HUTCHISON: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the rapid growth of the Romford district; and if new accommodation is being erected, will it be possible to place the new county court in Romford owing to the increase in fares and the distance in which litigants will be involved if it is placed in Ilford?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If those questions are not taken into consideration, I will take care that they are.

    WATER SUPPLY, HIGH WYCOMBE.
    Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Minister of Health whether he can give any information to the House about a private contractor buying water from the High Wycombe, Bucks, Water Company and selling it to the householders; if he can state what the contractor paid per 1,000 gallons and the charge made to the householder for one gallon; and whether the High Wycombe Council are allowed by the water company to distribute water free to the householders?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: There is no company of this name. The town council supplies water in High Wycombe. My right hon. Friend is not aware of the sale by a contractor of water purchased from the council. He is informed that one householder purchased water from the council at ls. 5d. the 1,000 gallons and arranged with a contractor for its cartage to her premises, that earlier the premises in quest-ion could have been connected with the mains had this been desired, and that connection will be facilitated by an extension of mains shortly to be carried out. The town council also sells water to the rural district council who pay a contractor for its distribution: the rural council are now carrying out a scheme.

    HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE, COLNE).
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now received a final report from the general inspector of the district regarding the action of the Colne Town Council in evicting people from houses in the Windybany area of the Colne slum-

    1537
    clearance scheme without providing alternative accommodation; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The general inspector continues to keep my right hon. Friend in touch with and to inform him of the proceedings of the council. The council is the responsible authority and my right hon. Friend does not contemplate further action.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (WIDOWS).
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange to collect information showing the number of widows who lose pensions owing to their husbands being short of four or fewer stamps in the required total of 104, with the object of enabling him to say whether legislation can be usefully introduced to help these women?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The requirement of the payment of a minimum number of contributions is an essential feature of all schemes of national insurance, and, whatever number is fixed as the minimum, cases are bound to 'arise in which the number of contributions just falls short of the requirement. My hon. Friend no doubt appreciates that the pensions scheme in question confers a right to a pension for life on the widow, with allowances for children, in return for 104 contributions, which represent less than eight weeks' pension at the minimum rate.

    WARRINGTON PRODUCTS WORKS, LONGFORD (ACCIDENT).
    Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from one of his inspectors in connection with the death of a man who was electrocuted at the Warrington Products Works, Longford; and whether the plant in question was in any way defective?
    Sir J GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. I have received a preliminary report. I understand that the coroner's inquest has not
    yet been completed, and I regret that I am unable for the present to make any statement.

    LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) ACT.
    Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN (for Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT)asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the names of those licensing districts which, subsequent to the passing of the Licensing (Permitted Hours) Act, have extended the hours of sale and supply of intoxicating liquor to eight and a-half?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that the information asked for is riot available.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any statement to make on business, and also whether he can say what Orders will be taken to-day?
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The suspension of the Eleven o'Clock rule is being asked for in order to secure the first two Orders. We propose to take also Nos. 3 and 4, both of which are formal but are exempted business.
On Wednesday the Ministry of Labour Vote will be put down.
I regret that I am not yet able to announce the business for Thursday.
On Friday, on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, the position of trade will be debated.
As a result of conversations which have taken place through the usual channels, it has been agreed to treat the remaining stages of the Appropriation Bill on Monday next as formal and to proceed to consider the Opposition Motion of Censure relating to armaments.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided; Ayes, 211; Noes, 44.

Division No. 342.]

AYES.

[3.33 p.m.

Acland-Troyts, Liout.-colonel

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Ba lle, Sir Adrian W. M.

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

Anstruther-Gray, W..J.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

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

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar

Grimston, R. V.

Peto, Geoftray K.(Wverh'pt'n,Blliton)

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

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

Pike, Cecll F.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Gulnness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

Bernays, Robert

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Ra kes, Henry V. A. M.

Bllndell, James

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

Boulton, W. W.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

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

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Hammertley, Samuel S.

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Hanbury, Cecil

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Brass, Captain Sir William

Hartland, George A.

Rankin, Robert

Broadbent, Colonel John

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Brown, Ernest (Le th)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Ray, Sir William

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

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Reld, David D. (County Down)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter

Remer, John R.

Burgln, Dr. Edward Leslie

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

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Burnett, John George

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

Ross, Ronald D.

Caine, G. R. Hall.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbrldge)

Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

Runge, Norah Cecil

Carver, Major William H.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynomouth)

Castlereagh, viscount

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Insklp, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Salmon, sir Isidore

Clarry, Reginald George

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

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Ker, J. Campbell

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

Cooks, Douglas

Knox, Sir Alfred

Savery, Samuel Servington

Cooper, A. Duff

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Cranborne, Viscount

Leckle, J. A.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Critchlcy, Brig.-General A. C.

Lelghton, Major B. E. P.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Crooke, J. Smedley

Levy, Thomas

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Crookshank, Col. C. de Wlndt (Bootle)

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Cross, R. H.

Lister, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip Cunllffe-

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

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Somerset, Thomas

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

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Somervllle, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Davison, sir William Henry

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Despeneer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Dick e, John P.

McCorquodale, M. B.

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Dlxey, Arthur C. N.

Macdonalo Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Doran, Edward

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Duckworth, George A. V.

McKie, John Hamilton

Strauss, Edward A.

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Duggan, Hubert John

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Sutcllffe, Harold

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

Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander

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

Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Maltland, Adam

Todd, A. L. S. (Klngswinford)

Edmondson, Major Sir James

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

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Tree, Ronald

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Meller, Sir Richard James

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Entw itle, Cyril Fullard

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Weymouth, Viscount

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Moreing, Adrian C.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Fox, Sir Gifford

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlver'ties)

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Moss. Captain H. J

Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel George

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Munro, Patrick

Wise, Alfred R.

Ganzonl, Sir John

Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H.

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

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

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Womersley, Sir Walter

Goff, Sir Park

North, Edward T.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Nunn, William

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Gower, Sir Robert

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

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

Orr Ewing, I. L.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Granvllle, Edgar

Patrick, Colin M.

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Pearson, William G.

George Penny.

Graves, Marjorie

Petherlck, M.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Logan, David Gilbert

Attlee, Clement Richard

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Lunn, William

Banfield, John William

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

McEntee, Valentine L.

Batey, Joseph

Grentell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

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

Mainwaring, William Henry

Buchanan, George

Grundy, Thomas W.

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Cove, William G.

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Paling, Wilfred

Cripps. Sir Stafford

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

Rea, Walter Russell

Daggar, Gaorge

Harris, Sir Percy

Rothschild, James A. de

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Holdsworth, Herbert

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Dobble, William

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

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

Edwards, Charles

Jones, Morgan (Catrph y)

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

Leonard, William

Tinker, John Joseph

1540

1541

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald.

Wilmot, John

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Weston-super-Mare Urban District Council Bill,
Cardiff Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Lowestoft Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

SHOPS BILL [Lords.]
That they have agreed to certain of the Amendments made by the Commons to the Bill, without Amendment; to certain others, with an Amendment; and to one other, with Amendments; and they have made consequential Amendments to the Bill.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.
Fourth Report from the Committee on Public Petitions brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (ANIMALS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Friday read, and discharged: —Bill withdrawn.
COAL MINES (PROTECTION OF ANIMALS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Friday read, and discharged: —Bill withdrawn.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of, and payments to, Cattle Fund.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    3.42 p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture exactly what we are to expect from this Clause. When the right hon. Gentleman issued a White Paper a short time ago, there was an indication that, if he succeeded in his bargaining with the importers from South America and the Dominions, he would be able to apply a levy. In a few observations which he made during the Debate upon the Money Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman hinted that there was no possibility of any levy being brought into effect. Hon. Members are in some doubt as to whether the £3,000,000 advance is to be regarded as a direct subsidy from the Treasury with no hope or intention of repayment, or whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the proceeds of the levy would ultimately go towards repaying the advances. We ought to have as clear a statement as the right hon. Gentleman can make. I appreciate that he can only reply provisionally, the position depending upon whether he succeeds or fails in his negotiations with the South American countries and various parts of the Dominions, but a matter which ought to be cleared up once and for all is whether this fund is to be drawn from the Treasury with no intention of repayment, or whether the money is likely to be repaid out of a future levy following negotiations with the various interests. If the latter is to be the case, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there will be intense opposition from these benches to any part of the Measure; on the other hand, should the proposal be for a direct payment from the Treasury, our opposition may be slightly, but only slightly, tempered. The Committee are entitled to know, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in so far
    1550
    as lie can make a statement, will do so, and will let us know whether the tax-, payers are to pay this £3,000,000 or whether the consumers of imported meat are to pay it. If the right hon. Gentleman will clear up that matter, the Committee will be better able to determine their attitude towards the Bill.
    3.45 p.m.
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I readily respond to the invitation of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). The position as regards Clause 1 is simply that it sets up a fund, and the remaining Clauses indicate how payments shall be made out, of that fund. In the White Paper we said that if we could secure agreement with the countries concerned, it was our intention to place a levy upon duties, but it would not be in order to discuss that proposal at this stage. The Bill merely makes provision for the payment of money out of the fund. We thought it fair to leave hon. Members in no misapprehension as to what were the aims of our policy, but it would not be in order to go further into that matter on this occasion.
    3.46 p.m
    Mr. PALING: The Clause says that any advance shall be repaid from the fund to the Exchequer. We understand that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to raise the money by means of a levy, but, in presenting the Money Resolution, he indicated that there might be a difficulty as to whether the countries would pay or not, and that it might be found, after negotiation, that the levy could not be put on at all. If the negotiations fail and the levy cannot be put on, and the fund does not materialise, from what source is the right hon. Gentleman going to repay the money to the Exchequer? I understand that the money is to be taken out of the Exchequer immediately, and before the levy is decided upon.
    3.47 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I shall do my best to make that point more clear. It will eventually be within the power of this country, when the trade agreements run out, to place any levy desired upon any imports coming into this country, if no arrangement can be come to before that time. No levy will be, or can be, imposed in contravention of any trade

    1551
    agreement into which we have entered, but when the trade agreements run out it will open to the country to decide whether it desires to place a levy upon imports. What I indicated was that it was at present the policy of His Majesty's Government to recommend that such a levy should be placed upon imports. Naturally that is a matter for the future. We are dealing with the present,, and we cannot discuss that matter now.
    3.48 p.m.
    Mr. PALING: Is it the intention of the Government, whatever be the result of the negotiations, to repay this money to the Treasury in any circumstances? That provision is part of the Clause. The government are asking for the money on the understanding that it shall be repaid. Hon. Members have argued that this money is not a subsidy, but is only a loan. If the levy fails, from what source is the money to be repaid?
    3.49 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member is discussing points which arise under Subsections (2) and (3). These are mere matters of accounting. The money is to be repaid if the country decides to put on a levy. If the country does not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—but that is not contrary to the statement of the White Paper. The money is to be repaid if the country decides to put on a levy, and if the Government carry through Parliament the legislation necessary for putting through a levy. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to recommend a levy, and, if the House accepts the Government's advice, then the money will be repaid. The House of Commons is completely sovereign over what it does in the future, and it is in a position to accept or reject any advice given to it by the Government. We are making preparations to pay from this fund advances towards the producers of beef. We have indicated to the House how we propose to feed that fund in the future, and it would be out of order to enter into that matter now.
    3.50 p.m.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: I have never been under any delusion with regard to this particular fund. When we were considering the Financial Resolution, I anticipated exactly what the Minister has now made clear. The right hon. Gentle-
    1552
    man has always been perfectly frank, and has never tried to deceive either the House or the country. I interpreted the Financial Resolution as meaning that the whole idea of creating a fund of this kind was that, when the opportunity and circumstances permitted, the fund would be reimbursed by a levy—or in other words a tax—on imported meat. I pointed out at the time, and I think the right hon. Gentleman agreed, that at present, owing to an agreement which we have made with the Argentine, our hands are tied until 1936, and in the case of the Dominions until 1937, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is powerless to act in the manner contemplated without a real breach of agreements solemnly made in return for certain concessions on manufactured goods. The whole thing is a speculation. The right hon. Gentleman is, if I might say so, gambling on his powers of bluff or pressure with the Argentine and the Dominions to get them to give way and agree to a levy. I assume that he is going to use the threat of a quota, as a possible alternative, to persuade them to agree to a levy. He is going to say to them—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I do not think we can go into a general question of policy of that kind on the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, but it is in order to ask the Minister whether the money is to be found from the Treasury or whether there is some intention to find it from other sources.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Then we are not discussing the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Are we not justified, as controllers of the public purse, in trying to find out clearly, before we agree to this fund being started, how it is to be repaid? I am not, of course, questioning your Ruling, but, after all, the two things are inter-connected. If we are going to create a fund, we have, in our solemn position as defenders of the taxpayer, to ascertain how the right hon. Gentleman is going to find the money. Unfortunately, money does not come down like manna from Heaven; it has to come out of some pocket, whether it be the Income Tax payer's or the indirect taxpayer's;

    1553
    and it seems to me that, before we agree to establish, not a small fund of a few hundred or a few thousand pounds, but a fund of £3,000,000, to be given as gratuities, no doubt thoroughly deserved, to a particular interest, we ought to know how the money is to be raised and who is going to provide the cash. I am surprised that, on the occasion of a Debate of this kind—it shows how we are degenerating in our duty as controllers of the public purse—there is no representative of the Treasury present to explain to the Committee how this new fund, which may be a precedent for others, is to be managed. When we are starting this new principle of subsidies, we ought to be told perfectly frankly how it is going to be financed.
    It seems to me, and my hon. Friends above the Gangway appear to agree more or less, that it is going to be found at present from the general taxpayer— in other words, that it is going to be found out of the vanishing surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only other alternative, which I am precluded from discussing on this occasion, would be to find some new form of revenue. A new form of revenue has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but even that is a gamble; he is not sure whether he will be able to find that new form of revenue. I think that this is a very clumsy and dangerous way of carrying out legislation. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade, when he is dealing with shipping, will use a more satisfactory method for financing the subsidy. Now that the Minister of Agriculture is embarking on his third method of helping agriculture—the first was by quotas, the second was Protection, and now we have a subsidy—he ought to make it clear to Parliament, and through Parliament to the country, how the money is to be obtained. If it is to be obtained by a tax, let the right hon. Gentleman say so; or, if not, let him make it clear to the nation that it is to come from the general taxpayer.
    3.57 p.m.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The speech of the hon. Baronet was obviously devoted, not to making the matter clear, but to confusing the mind of the public outside. The matter is perfectly clear. The Minister has told us that he is hoping by negotiation to bring about certain arrangements which will place the money
    1554
    at his disposal, but in the meantime he wants to give immediate assistance to the industry. He proposes to do that in the first place by a loan out of the Consolidated Fund—which is what I might call one of the numerous book entries under the charge of the Treasury —and later on, when the exact situation is known, that is to say when it is known whether he will be able to make arrangements for a levy, and whether in that event the levy collected during the financial year will be equal to or less than the amount required, he will know how much he will need by way of a Supplementary Estimate, and in due course that Supplementary Estimate will be presented and passed. It will then be possible to refund to the Consolidated Fund the sum which for the moment has been advanced on loan. Surely, there is no mystery about that.
    Since the other aspect of the policy is not known, and cannot be known until certain negotiations are completed, the Minister in the meantime is making the money available. Whether it will be a charge on the general taxpayer at the 31st March next, obviously neither the Minister nor anyone else can say at the moment, because the negotiations are not completed. In the worst circumstances, there will be a Supplementary Estimate of £3,000,000, and to that extent the Financial prospects for the present year will be worse than they otherwise would have been. On the other hand, if the levy, or tariff, or whatever it may be called, is obtained, that sum will not be required in full. Surely, there has never been any mystery about the matter; it has all been disclosed in full in the past. I do not understand why hon. Members are trying to make a mystery out of something which has never been a mystery, and never can be a mystery, because it has been perfectly clearly disclosed.
    3.59 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I think that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has himself rather mystified the Committee. The hon. Gentleman, 'who now apparently speaks on behalf of the Treasury, has made quite clear to us, so far as he himself knows, precisely where this money is coming from, but in a matter of this kind, when £3,000,000 has to be found from somewhere, while

    1555
    a book entry is all very well in its way, there must be a day of reckoning, and I am wondering where the safeguard of the Treasury has got to. It has always been assumed in this House, and it has been said on many occasions by various Ministers, that, however sympathetic they may be to one scheme or another, the watchdog of the Treasury always stands in the way. What has happened so far as this matter is concerned? Apparently the watchdogs of the Treasury have gone to sleep, or have gone on a holiday; or is it because there has been a change in the officials that we have no representative of the Treasury here to give us that explanation which obviously the hon. Member for South Croydon himself thinks the Committee requires and should have?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I did not think that the Committee required it, but, after the remarks of hon. Members opposite, I thought that the people outside might.
    Mr. BANFIELD: If I may suggest to my hon. Friend opposite, very kindly, there are other people beside himself who speak for the people outside this House. It would appear to me that if the Budget surplus which the Chancellor anticipates in this financial year is to be frittered away by a subsidy last week, a subsidy this week and, possibly, a further subsidy next week, the people outside will want to know what the Treasury is doing and what the House itself is doing to allow millions of money to be given to this or that distressed industry, with, apparently, no safeguards whatever. I look upon this Clause as the fundamental Clause of the Bill. I am not satisfied about the fund. Had a wicked Labour Government suggested the setting up of a fund of this kind for some other purpose, hon. and right hon. Members opposite would have denounced it to the utmost. I hope that we shall vote against this Clause. It is a matter of serious consideration if the Government side of the House no longer have any qualms about the Treasury, and if they themselves are indifferent as to the way millions of money are to be given to this, that or the other object. At least, we on this side are thoroughly justified in demanding that we get some official statement from the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to
    1556
    where this money is coming from. The Minister of Agriculture himself is by no means satisfied in his mind that there is any possibility of getting this tariff, or levy, or whatever it is, soon enough to give us this money back in this financial year. He makes provision for round about six or seven months. I cannot understand —it may be due, of course, to my utter ignorance—Sub-section (2), which says:
    "any advances made under this subsection to the Cattle Fund shall be repaid from that fund to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom before the end of that financial year."
    If that means anything at all, in view of what the Minister has explained from time to time, it is pretty obvious that this money will have to be found by the Exchequer, and as it appears that it must be found by the Exchequer for this financial year, under the terms of Subsection (2), surely the Financial Secretary to the Treasury might have been here to explain to us that this has their blessing, that they do not mind £3,000,000 going in this way, and endeavour to ease the minds of some hon. Members who are not so readily inclined to see millions of money, I will not say exactly thrown away, but frittered away without any guarantee or sufficient explanation. Of course, we are all obliged to the hon. Member for South Croydon for trying to do his very best for the Minister and the Government, and I am sure that they in turn, must be extremely obliged to him for the care which he takes to explain and apologise; but the hon. Member's explanation hardly carries the same weight as that of the Chancellor, and it is only fair, right and what is due to the dignity of this House, that a statement should be made either by the Chancellor or by the Financial Secretary with regard to this £3,000,000.
    4.6 p.m.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: I should be glad if the Minister would explain the two Memoranda which have been issued. Sub-section (2) of this Clause merely states:
    "The Treasury may, during the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, make, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof, advances to the Cattle Fund not exceeding in the aggregate three million pounds."
    Then, in the first Memorandum, it is also stated:

    1557
    "Authority will be sought in this Bill for making temporary advances to the Cattle Fund from the Consolidated Fund to an amount not exceeding £3,000,000."
    But the small Memorandum, which was placed in our hands last Thursday, states:
    "It is estimated that the total sum which Parliament will be asked to provide under the proposed legislation in respect of payments to producers and in respect of the administrative expenses of the Cattle Committee and of the appropriate Ministers will not exceed £3,000,000."
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain a very simple matter, namely, whether the amount is really limited to £3,000,000, or, as indicated in the final Memorandum, it is merely an estimate.
    4.7 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I think that this Clause is absolutely clear, and, in the event of the Government being unable to come to any terms such as the Minister stated, the taxpayer will have to pay. May I congratulate the Minister on having done one thing that I have never known any Minister do before: he has made something clear to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). I understand that the hon. Member now says it was not made clear, but I think he got one sentence clearly in his head. I want to say, as one who has always very strenuously opposed anything of this kind, that, as far as I can see at the present time, the Minister, having been put in an exceedingly difficult and hopeless position, has had to come to the Exchequer. Whether you are justified in coming to the Exchequer for £3,000,000 for the beef producer and the agricultural labourer, is a matter of balance, on the whole. The Minister has been put in this position by years of a system of free imports, and, Further, by the behaviour of a section of the Liberal party, or, should I say, ex-Liberals, who were returned to support the Government. If you fail at the present time to help the beef market, you will have an enormous addition to unemployment, and if you think also of the stimulus put into other trades and industries, I think the Minister has some justification for the expenditure of this money.
    But I would say, as a Member of the House of Commons who dislikes any form of subsidy, and dislikes going to the Exchequer whether it is for coal or anything else, that this is only justified
    1558
    because of the success of the wheat quota, and the whole of this will follow on those lines. I would say at the same time that I think it is rather a pity that on all these occasions you fall back on the Exchequer. I am always being told that there are immense funds at present available in the money market, and I am not at all sure that it might not be possible in some other way, by starting a company or something of that kind, so that there was not the chance of piling burdens on the Exchequer, as you are in this Bill. All I wish to say on this Clause is that I, personally, have not the slightest intention of taking part in this subsidy one way or the other, and I protest most strongly in the interests of the taxpayer, but I would like to remind those who criticise the Government that this position is almost entirely of their own making, and every time they speak they simply show their entire lack of knowledge of agriculture and the conditions of the business world to-day.
    4.11 p.m.
    Mr. McENTEE: I want to be clear about the money which is being voted today to the Cattle Fund. In the first place, in the event of the Minister of Agriculture succeeding in extracting an agreement by the negotiations he is about to enter into with the representatives of the Argentine, I take it from him that it is proposed, 'as soon as may be, to impose a levy on those people, and that the money now being taken from the Consolidated Fund will be repaid, but that, in the event of those negotiations not succeeding, then he tells us at some future time, in 1936 or 1937, or sometime after that, when the existing agreements have expired, it is the intention of the Government that a levy shall be imposed. But a, number of things may happen in the meantime to alter the views of the Minister or the Government. A General Election may alter the constitution of the Government, and, in those circumstances, they would have to consider whether or not the policy of the present Government should be pursued. Assuming the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in these negotiations, and the levy is imposed, who is going to pay the levy?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out that that would require fresh legislation, and we cannot go into the

    1559
    question of fresh legislation now. In no circumstances could money from other sources be paid into the Cattle Fund under this Bill.
    Mr. McENTEE: I accept your Ruling, but, so far, we have been discussing the question of the House being asked to vote a sum of money to-day on the assumption that the levy will be repaid, but, if we cannot discuss that, I will put it in this way. We are really in the position now that there is no guarantee whatever that this money will be paid back to the Treasury. The Minister says that he hopes in the future to be able to do something which it is not in order to discuss now, and that if that does take place, the Government of the day hope to be able to pay the money back into the Treasury. Is it not a fact that if they are unable to pay back the £3,000,000 in the way indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, the consumers of meat on which the levy is to be imposed will pay? Would anyone in their senses imagine that the people who have actually to pay the cash down in the form of a, levy—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All that I ruled was that the hon. Member was entitled to ask the Government whether they could raise money from some other source or not. We cannot go into details.
    Mr. McENTEE: I certainly do not want to do anything contrary to your Ruling, but may I submit that I am trying to get clearly as to who, in fact, will ultimately pay the money, whether it comes in the form of a levy, a quota, a subsidy or a tariff, which it is hoped to impose on someone in the future, and that that sum, when recovered, will be put back into the Treasury. Am I not in order in arguing that, if the money is recovered in that way, it will be passed on by the people from whom it is recovered to the actual people who consume the meat?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not on this Clause. If the hon. Member looks at the Financial Resolution which covers the Clause, he will see that it provides for advances to the Cattle Fund, not exceeding in the aggregate £3,000,000 out of the Consolidated Fund and for requiring that any such advances shall be repaid out of moneys provided by Parlia-
    1560
    ment before the end of the financial year. Therefore, it will require fresh legislation to pay money into this fund from any other source but a supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. McENTEE: There is no guarantee whatever that the money will be paid from any other source except public money from one Department to another. I should like to ask a question or two in regard to the administration of the fund itself. The Clause says that, subject to certain regulations which will be imposed by the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman or his successor will be the administrator of the fund. We have a right to know how he is going to administer it. In connection with all other money that we vote here, we generally get some information as to the general lines on which it will be administered, and some information as to the test that will be applied to the people who are to become the beneficiaries. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to apply any test to the stock raisers.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That arises on the next Clause.
    Mr. McENTEE: The Clause says that the fund is to be controlled by the Minister of Agriculture. Before we pass over that right of control, surely he has an obligation to tell us what conditions he will apply to the people who are to benefit under the fund.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that really arises on Clause 2. The hon. Member can discuss the general administration, but Clause 2 deals with the terms on which the money is to be paid out to the producers, and the question arises there.
    Mr. McENTEE: I will put my questions on the next Clause.
    4.19 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I am very much indebted to you, Sir, for your Ruling, because it makes it clear that, although the Government are suggesting that we should spend £3,000,000, there may be no provision whatever for repaying the money to the Treasury. We find ourselves in very peculiar circumstances to-day. We have the most ingenious Minister of Agriculture that we have ever had, and in this Clause we have his

    1561
    latest device for helping the farming industry, and he is going to give them £3,000,000. He has no hesitation in making that statement quite clearly, and I have not the slightest doubt that he feels no qualms of conscience about it at all. He knows very well how generous are the masses of the people of the country. Not only do they make sacrifices on behalf of those who are worse off than themselves, but they are willing to make sacrifices for people who are better off than themselves and, whatever method the right bon. Gentleman may suggest of getting this money back at some time in the future, he will be able to take it from the pockets of the great masses of the people, and they will not squeal very much. Just as they help one another, he knows they will help the farmers and will help everyone else who is much better off than they are, and consequently the Minister is satisfied. Your Ruling, Sir, has made it clear where the Government stand on this matter. Here is £3,000,000 for the farmers. We do not know precisely how it is to be paid back to the Treasury, but we know that, when the moment comes, the mass of the people of the country will pay up and will be happy and the farmers will be more prosperous than they have ever been before.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Are we to have no reply from the Minister? It is treating the Committee with scant courtesy if we do not get an answer.
    4.21 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am more than ready to reply. I have been waiting until hon. Members have concluded their remarks. I had to remain seated while others were standing. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) asked how the Clause squared with the financial Memorandum. 'Clearly it would be rushing the matter unduly to bring in a supplementary Estimate; therefore, a temporary advance will be paid from the Consolidated Fund limited to the temporary period of the Bill. As to the other point, of course what the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) is pleading for is a quota of the most rigorous kind to be applied forthwith, so that no liability shall fall on the Treasury. The hon. Member is more royalist than the King. While I am anxious to avoid inroads upon the trade
    1562
    of the country or an immediate jolt to the price level, which might be caused by a rigorous application of the quota, hon. Members opposite have pressed on me that no leniency should be shown to the foreign or indeed the Dominion importer at all, which might lead to a liability on the Treasury.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is now going beyond my Ruling.
    Mr. ELLIOT: Far be it from me to enlarge the ambit of the Debate. I think the matter has been made quite clear and the intentions of the Government have been made clear within the limits of Order, and I hope very much that it will now be possible for the Committee to let us have the Clause.
    4.25 p.m.
    Mr. PALING: I am very disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman has acquired a reputation for straightforwardness. Surely the questions that have been put to him are very plain indeed. The Clause says, that these moneys shall be repaid from the Cattle Fund to the Consolidated Fund and that they shall be paid before the end of the financial year.
    Mr. ELLIOT: Out of moneys provided by Parliament.
    Mr. PALING: That is true, but I want the right hon. Gentleman to give a definite answer. We have had one from the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I do not accept any answer given by anyone but myself, but I have repeatedly made it clear that this legislation merely requires money to be paid into the Cattle Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament, and anything else will need further legislation.
    Mr. PALING: If within the seven months it is not possible to arrive at an agreement, or if the money cannot be raised in the way it is intended to be raised, is the Minister coming to the House for a supplementary Estimate?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It is laid down in the most explicit form in the Financial Resolution and in the Bill. Of course, I must come to the House for a supplementary Estimate. There is no power under this legislation to do anything else.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 39.

    Division No. 343.]

    AYES.

    [4.28 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Pearson, William G.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.

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

    Penny, Sir George

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

    Granville, Edgar

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Petherick, M.

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

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Bndell, James

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

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

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hanbury, Cecil

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

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Hartland, George A.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Has am, Henry (Horncastle)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Remer, John R.

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

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Buchan, John

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Lesile

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

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Burnett, John George

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brm y)

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, d.)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sandeman. Sir A. N. Stewart

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

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

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Lees-Jones, John

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Levy, Thomas

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Cooke, Douglas

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwlch)

    Cranborne, Viscount

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

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Somerset, Thomas

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

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

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Crossl y, A. C.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Spear, Brigad-General Edward

    Da keith, Earl of

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

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    McK e, John Hamilton

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

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

    Dickle, John P.

    Macqukisten, Frederick Alexander

    Strauss, Edward A

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Maitland, Adam

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Doran, Edward

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

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Drewe, Cedric

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

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

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Meller, Sir Richard James

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

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

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

    Molson, A. Hugh Esdale

    Tree, Ronald

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Morsing, Adrian c.

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

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

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

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Eimley, Viscount

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlver'ties)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Munro. Patrick

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Entwistle, Cyril Fu lard

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Fielden, Edward Brock ehurst

    Nation, Brigad r-General J. J. H.

    Windsor-Cve, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

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

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    North, Edward T.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Nunn, William

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    O Ewing, I. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Sir Victor Warrender and Major

    George Davies.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M (Poplar, South)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

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

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Daggar, George

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Banfield, John William

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Batey, Joseph

    Dobble, William

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Bernays, Robert

    Edwards, Charles

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

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

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Buchanan, George

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Leonard, William

    Cove, William G.

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

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Lunn, William

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Wilmot, John

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Sa ter, Dr. Alfred

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Pa ng, Wilfred

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Payments out of Cattle Fund to producers of cattle.)
    4.35 p.m.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, after "animals," to insert "which have been sold for slaughter."
    It is our intention to make certain that the payments referred to in this Clause which are to be made out of the Cattle Fund to producers of cattle in respect of certain categories shall only be made when the beast is sold for slaughter. The words of the Amendment make the position plain, and it is our intention to avoid the possibility of extensive trafficking in cattle in anticipation of the subsidy by people who are already too numerous and take too large a share of the proceeds of the cattle industry. The Minister and the House know that in the preparation of beef for the market there is considerable trafficking. The young cattle are bought and brought together usually in large numbers by people who make a business of preparing livestock for the market. Very often one finds that young beasts are taken away from the place where they have been bought to certain suitable areas in the course of preparation for market. The business of preparing beast for slaughter is a very highly skilled and specialised one, and in that preparation, in which the livestock breeder plays so important a part, there are also people who make it their business to buy and sell these beasts. The dealer who makes it his business to buy and sell does not play any part in the actual fattening or preparation of the beast. It is because we believe that there is already too large an element of speculation and of trafficking in this business that we provide in our Amendment that no payment shall be made except to the cattle producer. As there are other Amendments on the Order Paper, to which, I understand, Captain Bourne, you are permitting me to refer in the course of my arguments on this Amendment, I would point out that we wish to make certain that the person to receive the subsidy shall be the person responsible for the production of beef
    1566
    and not the person who comes in between and takes advantage of market conditions.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies)—in page 3, line 27, to leave out "United Kingdom," and to insert "possession of the applicant "—it would be very difficult to argue any point which did not. arise on the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and the more I listen to the hon. Gentleman, the more I am convinced that that is the case.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Our intention is that a person shall not be able to buy any number of cattle for preparation for market or for reaching marketable condition and sell them again to somebody else, so that the dealer receives the subsidy and not the producer who has prepared the beast for market. I am speaking in the presence of people who know the business very much more intimately than I do, but hon. Members will realise that very often these cattle may be sold a few weeks before they are actually due for slaughtering. Where they change hands shortly before being turned into beef it is bound to result in a grave miscarriage of justice and a misuse of the purposes of the subsidy. If such a thing is encouraged and opportunity is given to a dealer to buy a beast, and then, after having it in his possession for a few weeks, to send it forward to the slaughter-house, he will be able to pocket the subsidy which will be payable. If one reads the Bill from beginning to end, he can find no reference to the actual point at which the subsidy is to be paid. There is a reference to carcases, but there is no direct reference to the point at which the subsidy becomes payable. The words of the Clause say that
    "the appropriate Ministers may, in accordance with any arrangements approved by them … make out of the Cattle Fund payments to producers of cattle in respect of"—
    the categories mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b)—

    1567
    "being animals or carcases, as the case may be, which have been sold in the United Kingdom by such producers during a period, and so on."
    Any cattle sold between the 1st day of August of this year and the 1st day of April of next year will be liable to the payment of the subsidy. The claim, according to the Clause, can be made by anybody who sells a fat beast between these dates without any condition that the animal shall be immediately slaughtered. A person may approach the Treasury and say, "I sold a beast which fell within these two categories, and I claim the money due to me under the Act." Our chief concern is not as to the amount of exploitation of the Measure, but one in which we regard the producer as the person most entitled to benefit under it. The benefit should not go to some sham person who has kept the beast for a few weeks before killing it, and has then sold it, saying: "I want the subsidy of 9s. 4d. per cwt," or 5s. per cwt. if the beast has been sold in a live condition. Therefore, we move the Amendment in the hope that the Minister will find it a necessary and a reasonable one and will clearly lay down the condition that the subsidy shall be given to the cattle producer and not to any person who can step in between the producer and the market and hold the Cattle Fund up to ransom and demand the payment laid down in this Clause.
    4.43 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am much indebted to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) for moving the Amendment. I think that his point is not merely a simple one, but one of importance, namely, the destination of the money payment, and the desire on the part of both sides of the Committee is to ensure that the money payment shall go to the proper person. Clearly, when we have to pay on beef it will not be possible for it to be paid on sales of store stock. The suggestion here is that we can get over the administrative difficulties which may arise by saying "Sold for slaughter." I ask the hon. Member for Gower whether that, in fact, would carry out his desire, namely, to ensure that the money shall go to the producer of the beef and not necessarily to a dealer in beef. It would be possible for a dealer to visit a farm and collect animals which were ready for
    1568
    slaughter and take them to the market and sell them and collect the money. I think that "Sold for slaughter" will be very difficult to administer, because, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, that is an expression of the intention of the vendor. It is not necessarily binding on the purchaser. The Reorganisation Committee considered that point, and I will read to the Committee in a moment what they said, because it rather comes down against this solution. We came down in favour of the solution "Fit for slaughter"; that is to say, if and when a man has produced a beef animal which is fit for killing and comes up to the standard prescribed by the regulations of the Minister and takes it to a market and sells it, he thereupon qualifies for this deficiency payment.
    By our arrangement we ensure that the animal is thereupon marked and that a certificate is given to the seller that he has so sold it. Thereupon, the payment can only be made in connection with this first transaction. He might sell it possibly for a small amount, or, if he did not approve of the price, he could withdraw the animal from sale, but it would have been weighed and stamped as fit for slaughter, and it would still be possible for him on a later occasion when it was sold to get the payment for the beast. It would remain in his power to collect the payment and it would not be in the power of anyone else. All that arises out of the arrangements which will have to be made, and my hon. Friend will see that it all hinges on the arrangements made for certification and marking after the passing of the Act that is, when the animal is certified as fit for slaughter.
    We are hard at work upon the arrangements now, and I hope that it may be possible to give more detailed information about them before the House rises. When we are in a position to communicate the information I shall be glad if my hon. Friends will put down a question, or otherwise, to elicit the whole of the information so far as we have gone. We are standing upon the test, "Fit for slaughter." First, has the producer produced a beef animal? Secondly, there and then, we mark the beef animal so that the producer, and not anyone else, may collect the money. I hope that if these arrangements are found satisfactory to my hon. Friend, it will not be neces-

    1569
    sary for him to press the Amendment. It is unnecessary to read the whole of the passage which I had intended to read from the report of the Reorganisation Commission, but it is germane to say that they point out, on page 32, that there is a class of stock on the border line, in a three-fourths fattened condition, which would be bought for slaughter or for further feeding, according to the requirements at the moment of the meat market.
    It would be desirable that that class should not be extinguished. There is the man who buys an animal which is fit for slaughter, but says, "I can put a polish on this beast; I can improve it." In those circumstances it is not necessary for him to take the animal to the abattoir and have it knocked on the head. If he desires, with his special skill, he can put a polish on the beast and bring it to a greater state of fitness, but he will not collect the deficiency payment. That payment falls to the man who produces the beast which is fit for slaughter and sells it. The other man who buys it and further polishes it does not get the money. I hope that explanation will be sufficient to satisfy the hon. Member.
    4.48 p.m.
    Major HILLS: The explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman seems to be clear, but I should like him to say what constitutes making an animal fit for slaughter. If an animal is raised, for instance, on a hill farm and it is sent to the lower country to better grass, it will be made fit for slaughter. In the case of a partly fattened animal it may be sold for slaughter or kept for a short time to be completely fattened. Under Clause 2, the man who is to get the payment is the producer. I am sure that we are all anxious that the payment should go to the right person. Would it be the right person if the producer was taken to be merely the last hand that had touched the cattle, that is, the farmer or dealer who had finished off the cattle, even though the finishing process was only a small part in the life history of the animal? I know that it is a very difficult question, and I agree that if you have a rule that you only make payment to the man who has produced an animal fit for slaughter you get a simple rule, but I am not quite sure that that would be just to the stock raiser, especially in the
    1570
    part of the country that I represent. You may get a large number of cattle that are raised and only partly fattened and then sent away. Where does the equity lie? Who ought to get the subsidy? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman imagine a hard case where the real work put into fattening the animal is done by somebody who only indirectly benefits. He may benefit indirectly by the general rise in the price of stores and of partly fattened animals, but the rise would only take place conditional on the number of stores being reduced. It may well be that the subsidy would leave out the man who had done a large part of the work and it would be given to one who had not so well deserved it. I appreciate the advantage of having a clear rule, but the matter is very difficult, and I should like to trouble the right hon. Gentleman to give me further information.
    4.51 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I can answer my right hon. Friend quite simply. The producer is the man who produces the animal fit for slaughter, and it would be clearly impossible to go back into the store trade. If a man fattens a beast to the point when it is fit for slaughter, he can either by the ordinary commercial transaction sell it to somebody else, and take into account the fact that he is not himself to collect the deficiency payment, or he can send the beast to the market and collect the deficiency payment himself, when, though the animal is subsequently sold to another person and polished by a further process, no further payment can be made. Therefore, we come down to the one question, what is "fit for slaughter"? I should say, in the briefest possible way, that it is an animal that is going to kill out at a certain percentage of its weight. There is no difficulty about that, because we have had to administer similar conditions in connection with Irish fat cattle. Therefore, it comes down to a fairly simple final test of what is an animal fit for the butcher and what is not. Almost in every case people will judge on the ordinary evidence of their eyes, but in the percentage at which the animal will kill out we have a simple test which will be applied.
    Major HILLS: I am rather anxious, because I am afraid that that arrangement will rule out a large number of stock raisers who will get no direct benefit under the Act.
    Mr. ELLIOT: We are all agreed as to the store trade, and there is no point at which the deficiency payment can be made in respect of store beasts. It can only be made when the beast is brought forward fit for slaughter. The storeman gets his advantage. We have to remember what would happen if this payment were not made and the price of beasts was down. In that case, the price that would come to the storeman would be so much worse. Clearly, under this arrangement the storeman will get an advantage. There must be some administrative rule under which the payment shall be made, and the administrative rule is whether the beast is fit for killing.
    4.54 p.m.
    Sir ROBERT SMITH: Let me put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. A producer has produced a beast fit for killing and he is entitled to the deficiency payment, but he may sell the beast to another person, who may further enhance the value of the animal. Must the producer who brought the animal up to the fit stage for deficiency payment claim that subsidy, or can he sell the beast to another man and transfer to that other party the right to claim the payment?
    4.55 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: In the old days in Lincolnshire the dealers used to come to the farms and buy the fat cattle. Now, I understand that it is proposed to do all the marking in the markets. It was convenient for the farmers when the dealers came round to the farms. In that case will the arrangements about marking work? Will the beast be marked in the dealers' hands? If so, will there not be difficulty about getting the payments?
    4.56 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: Marking must be done under supervision, and therefore it can only be done at an approved centre. We estimate that there will be some hundreds of these approved centres. Clearly, it would be impossible to have an officer in attendance at every place where a sale may take place, or, alternatively, to allow private individuals to have control of the marking apparatus, which clearly might be a source of, let me say, great convenience to them, if not great profit. The apparatus for marking must be in the hands of somebody responsible, and therefore it must be at
    1572
    an approved centre. Therefore, if a man sold a beast on the farm he would have to sell it without the marking, trusting to the dealer to give him a price in accordance with what he has learned, by the wireless or otherwise, to be the prevailing price for fat stock. There is no very great danger in that. The producer, if he is dissatisfied with the price offered by the dealer, can himself send the beast to the market and claim the deficiency payment.
    Sir R. SMITH: Can he transfer the right to the deficiency payment to the man to whom he sells the beast, if it is ready for slaughter?
    Mr. ELLIOT: If he sells it, after it has been marked, in his own name, he cannot transfer it, but if he sells it before it has been marked, he can transfer it.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Take the case of farms where they have a disposal sale when somebody dies or when farms are given up. In some cases the number of cattle may be 200 or 300. Will it be possible to deal with those cases by marking on the farm?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It would be possible to deal with them if there were large numbers, but it would be inadvisable to multiply the centres unnecessarily, because that would raise the administrative cost and thereby less money would be available to be distributed to the producers. It is desirable to work the centres as cheaply as possible. In general, a price level will be established which will be broadcast all over the country and when such price level has been established private transactions will in a great many cases take place before the deficiency payment has been paid in those particular instances.
    4.59 p.m.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: I think we can now understand what it is proposed to do. Arrangements are to be made—and those arrangements will be made known to the people concerned and also to the House in due course—for the certification of beasts sold for beef purposes, and that certification will carry the right to the deficiency payment. There is only one certification and that certification will be made the test. There will be no possibility that the beast will carry two payments or that two persons will draw the

    1573
    subsidy in respect of one beast. We are prepared to withdraw the Amendment on an understanding from the Minister that he does not encourage trafficking in beasts which are almost fit for marketing or the creation of any doubt whether the actual producer may be exploited by a system which the dealers may invent among themselves to circumvent the intention of the Bill and to prevent the producer from getting his due payment.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am glad to give that understanding.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5 p.m.
    Mr. ROSS TAYLOR: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "on," to "and," in line 29, and to insert:
    "the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-four."
    The purpose of the Amendment is to determine the date upon which payments under the Bill shall begin instead of leaving it to be determined in the future as is proposed in the Bill. The Minister of Agriculture will probably say that, in view of the difficulty of setting up a rather complicated organisation, it will be well to have a little latitude in the matter of the time, and that if no date is fixed and the machinery is not ready, no harm will be done. I suggest that if he fixes on the date proposed in the Amendment, which I believe is the date he had in mind when he spoke on the Financial Resolution, and we know that his preparations are well advanced, he need have no fear that those responsible for setting up the organisation will let him down and will not be ready on 1st September. The Ministry of Agriculture in the last few years has shown itself to be admirably equipped for dealing with schemes of great magnitude and complexity at short notice and with great expedition, and I feel that on this occasion they will be able to do the same. My experience as a former Government official, not under the present Government, is that in some respects it is better to have a fixed date. From the point of view of the cattle producer it is of vital importance that payments should begin at the earliest possible moment. For two years at least prices have been quite unremunerative and many producers of cattle are in desperate straits to-day,
    1574
    there are very few who are not in difficulty. Now this hope is being held out and surely it is not too much to ask that it shall be given to them at the earliest possible date.
    5.2 p.m.
    Captain HEILGERS: I should like to support the Amendment, and to point out to the Government that September is the first of the big months for beef supplies. The only other point I want to make is this, that the later you leave it, the later you leave the commencement of the operation of the subsidy, the more likely you are to get an extra quantity and thus intensify the autumn glut in September and November, which it is the object of the subsidy to defeat.
    5.3 p.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I appreciate the reasons why the Amendment has been moved. The hon. Member who moved it did, in fact, anticipate clearly the answer that I shall have to give. We are all of us most desirous that it should be possible to begin payment on the 1st September, should my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture find it possible to fix that date, but it would be unwise, with some five or six weeks of intensive organisation before us, to bind us by legislation to that particular date. I am glad of this opportunity, seeing that the question of date has been raised, of saying that the utmost expedition is being used; and what is more that every possible difficulty has as far as possible been figured in advance and dealt with in advance, which is really the essence of good administration. While we have real hopes that the 1st September may very well be the date on which payment will begin, it would be unwise to make it the legal date.
    5.5 p.m.
    Mr. C. BROWN: We on these benches have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Members who have moved and supported this Amendment, and if they care to divide the Committee on the matter, and would like to have our valuable support, we will do everything we can to ensure that the farming community shall have the swag at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. HASLAM: The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland says that there is every

    1575
    prospect of 1st September being the date; I should like to ask if he will be in a position before the House rises to make a definite pronouncement on the matter?
    Mr. SKELTON: I do not think it would be possible in view of the few days which remain to give such an assurance. The assurance I have given is that every possible effort is being made to ensure a date as early as possible, and as soon as it can be done an announcement will be made.
    5.6 p.m.
    Mr. PALING: I can appreciate the desire of hon. Members opposite to get the money as soon as possible. I was very interested in the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) that, if the Minister would pay the subsidy between the 1st September and the 14th September, all the autumn cattle would come in between those dates. I wonder if farmers would do that if they knew that the subsidy was going to start on 14th September.
    Mr. TAYLOR: In view of the assurance given by the Under-Secretary of State, and notwithstanding the very kind offer of hon. Members of the Labour party, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: No.
    Amendment negatived.
    5.8 p.m.
    Mr. PALING: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) An application for the issue of a certificate for the purposes of this section in respect of an animal shall not be granted unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the person whose function it is to entertain the application that the applicant is paying wages to persons employed by him in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924."
    Numerous question have been asked in the House relating to the wages of agricultural labourers and the Government have endeavoured to prove that in spite of the fact that prices have dropped and all the hardships which farmers have had to meet that there has been no drop in the wages of agricultural labourers, at least, not equal to the extent of the drop in prices. The Minister himself has said that he is not only interested in the prosperity of agriculture from
    1576
    the point of view of the farmer but also from the point of view of the agricultural labourer. We take that as a guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious that the agricultural labourer shall get some benefit out of the moneys and subsidies which are being provided by Parliament to-day for the agricultural industry, and in the Amendment we are asking that any farmer or producer of cattle, before he gets the subsidy, shall prove to the satisfaction of the authority concerned that he is paying wages according to the Act which is now in operation.
    The Minister of Agriculture may say that the Act provides that farmers shall pay a certain amount in wages, hut, unfortunately, experience proves that there are farmers, not always a very small number, who do all they can to avoid payment. Notwithstanding all the alertness of the inspectors of the Ministry they cannot possibly find out every case by a long way, and it is probably true that there are still some farmers who do not pay the proper scale of wages. If this House is going to provide money for the benefit of agriculture and if the Government are really anxious for the welfare of the labourer as for the farmer, it is not asking too much that farmers shall give some proof that they are obeying the law in this direction and are giving the labourer the scale of wages to which he is entitled.
    5.13 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. It would cut out Scotland altogether. That might create same difficulty, because this money would only be paid in England if it were proved that farmers were carrying out satisfactorily the Agricultural Wages Act, while they would be able to get paid in Scotland whatever they did. I am afraid there would be a great deal of hard feeling about that. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that we are desirous of maintaining and improving the standard of wages in agricultural areas, but he will also agree that it is scarcely possible to do so under the provisions of the Bill. Certification is going to be difficult enough, but imagine 400 or Son beasts walking up the main street and a sort of drum-head court-martial having to be held on each producer as he comes up. The Amendment will be much more likely to lead to great delay in butchers getting the cattle and consumers getting

    1577
    their meat than to improving the condition of the agricultural labourer. Having made his point, which I fully appreciate, that the benefits which the Government are giving to agriculture by its numerous measures of assistance should not be withheld from, but should be shared by the agricultural labourer, and I having assured him that our whole desire is to maintain that principle, I hope he will not find it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division.
    5.14 p.m.
    Mr. LEONARD: I regret that the Minister of Agriculture has not seen his way to accept the Amendment. He has expressed himself over and over again as to what he hopes farmers and producers will do, but, unfortunately, our experience is that they do not do it; and we want to get something definite inserted in the Bill in regard to the wages of agricultural labourers. His point with regard to Scotland puts one in a difficulty, but the right hon. Gentleman has shown great ability in getting the most complex measures accepted and passed by this House, and I do not think he is entirely incapable of getting over this difficulty. I hope he will reconsider the matter and give us some assurance in regard to the wages of agricultural labourers.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. HASLAM: As one who is desirous of benefiting both the farmer and the worker, I have considered this Amendment moved by the hon. Member opposite and the question it raises. I am bound to say that I agree with the Minister that the Amendment would introduce considerable complexity. It would be likely to tend to increase the cost of administration, and, therefore, it would benefit the farmer less and ultimately the farm worker also. In this industry the farmer, who has suffered such heavy losses, is obliged to consider how many men he can employ. Anything which tends to increase the expense of administering the Bill is contrary to the interests both of the farmer and the farm worker. Hon. Members opposite have not produced any evidence to show on what scale farmers are lacking in the payment of proper wages. They have not produced evidence to show that the Ministry is slack in administering the present Acts. Before the Committee con-
    1578
    siders the adoption of the Amendment such evidence should be produced. This is not the Bill and this is not the way in which to carry out what hon. Members desire.
    5.17 p.m.
    Mr. T. SMITH: I would be the last person to charge the general body of farmers with trying to evade their responsibility in the matter of wages. The hon. Member who asked for evidence ought to address his question to the Minister. If he cares the Board's inspectors can furnish him with statistics showing the amount of money that they have insisted should be paid by those farmers who have tried to evade their responsibilities. Further, if the hon. Member cares to apply to the National Union of Agricultural Workers for evidence he will get it, and he will be astonished at the abundance of it. Less than 24 hours ago I saw details of a case in which obviously farmer was evading his responsibility, and in which steps have been taken to secure for his farm workers what they were legally entitled to receive. Each year there is evidence that all farmers are not carrying out their legal responsibility towards the workers.
    The Argument regarding the complexity that the Amendment would introduce is unsound. There is complexity in the filling up of all forms. Some farmers say that they cannot keep books or fill up Income Tax forms, but the fact is that they have more intelligence than they are credited with. When the Minister says that the Amendment would be confusing he ought to remember that if an applicant for money from this Cattle Fund knew that before he could get any money he had to pay proper wages, as laid down by the Agricultural Wages Act, that farmer would be more careful to see that his men got what they were entitled to. We ought to press the Amendment. The Minister usually expresses surprise that we criticise his subsidy policy. What we say is that if any industry comes to the State for money at least some portion of that money ought to be reflected in the. wages of the workers concerned. No one will say that the wages in agriculture are too high. On the contrary, they are far too low, and we hope to see the day when farm workers will get a better deal than they are getting now. The Minister is not treating the Committee fairly by

    1579
    opposing the Amendment. The Amendment is justified, and I hope it will be pressed to a Division.
    5.19 p.m.
    Sir GIFFORD FOX: I listened with interest to the argument of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). Hon. Members on the Labour Benches always seem to use the same argument, when we discuss a subsidy, or whatever help to the agricultural community may be called. They say that everything goes to benefit the landlord and the farmer and that nothing goes to help the farm worker. I would remind them, however, that to-day the wages of agricultural workers are rising gradually. On the other hand while hon. Members were in office the tendency was for agricultural wages to decrease. As a result of the assistance given to agriculture there are to-day more farm workers in employment, land is going back into cultivation and there are better times for everyone in the industry. I shall have pleasure in supporting the Minister to defeat the Amendment, which if carried would only have the effect of delaying the help which is to be given to all those engaged in producing fat cattle.
    5.20 p.m.
    Mr. C. BROWN: The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), when we were discussing a previous Amendment, was very anxious that the people who did the work in fat cattle raising should get the money which we are providing in the Bill. It seems to me that the people who really do the work are the farm labourers. If we push the matter to its logical conclusion they do the job. Consequently we are very anxious that they should at any rate get some of the money. We cannot be certain that by anything we will do they will get it all, but we want them to get some. The last speaker reminded us that a few days ago the Minister said there was a slight tendency for the wages of agricultural labourers to rise. We are very glad to know it. But in none of this legislation, none of these proposals to improve agriculture, is it made explicit that any of the benefits which are to go to agriculture shall go directly to the farm labourer. That is merely incidental, or rather accidental. Consequently by this Amendment we want to
    1580
    make certain that wages which are the recognised wages in given areas shall be paid to the agricultural labourers who do the essential work in raising fat stock for the market. It may be that there are all kinds of ways of evading proper payment.
    The Minister's argument against our Amendment was extraordinary. He did not oppose it on principle, but merely suggested that there were technical difficulties in the way. What does the word "difficulty" mean to him? He has been surmounting difficulties from the moment that he took office. He has nearly turned the agricultural world upside down. He does not convince me that there are any difficulties in the way at all. He is frightened of the farmers; that is all. Why should he be frightened? He is helping them in all sorts of ways. Let him accept the Amendment. Let him face the difficulties, as he has faced other difficulties. I think he will regret what he said a few minutes ago. Let him get up again and say now, "The Opposition is right. I have swept the difficulties out of the way, I am prepared to see that the agricultural labourers get a share of this money that is going into the industry."
    5.23 p.m.
    Captain HEILGERS: Several hon. Members opposite have stressed the fact that at least some portion of what is going to the industry ought to pass on to the workers. I agree. Hon. Members opposite will be glad to know that in my own county there have been two rises in wages since the National Government came into power, and that those two rises just counterbalance what was lost during the period of the last Government. As regards the actual proposal of the Amendment, I ask hon. Members to contemplate a rush of cattle going through a market, one after the other, at the rate of two or three a minute. Who is to stop and make inquiries as to the antecedents of every person who is selling a beast?
    5.24 p.m.
    Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: It is assumed all along by hon. Members on the Labour benches that the farmer never pays more than the minimum wage in any part of the country. The truth is that many farmers pay more than the minimum. The Agricultural Wages Board exists for the sole purpose of seeing that when there is any

    1581
    improvement in the industry the labourers get the benefit just as much as the farmers. Far from that result being accidental it is absolutely consequential. I am afraid that the Amendment is put forward with a certain amount of propaganda interest. I am not making any charges against hon. Members in this House, but there are certain baser Members of their party in parts of the country where they do not pay much attention to political decency who, if we vote against an Amendment of this sort will charge us with voting against any improvement in the wages of the agricultural worker. Rules and regulations, if they are put into force properly, can do everything that is necessary. Hon. Members might just as well say that before any colliery gets rating relief it ought to be able to show that it is paying proper wages all round.
    5.27 p.m.
    Mr. G. MACDONALD: If the hon. Member for Winchester (Sir G. Ellis) comes forward at a later date to ask that the mining industry shall be given the same consideration—
    Sir G. ELLIS: I have not forgotten the subsidy that we had some time ago.
    Mr. MACDONALD: Every coalowner should give a guarantee, when he receives any subsidy from the State, that he will pay wages according to the Minimum Wage Act of 1912.
    Sir G. ELLIS: I do not think he would mind that in the least.
    Mr. MACDONALD: The Minister says he has two objections to the Amendment. The first is that it would not apply to Scotland. As he knows, it was not our intention to exclude Scotland at all. Scotland is excluded by the Act to which he has referred. The right hon. Gentleman's other point was that any improvement that goes to the industry in consequence of this subsidy will show itself at an early date in an improvement of the condition of the workers in the industry. If that is the case what objection can there be to accepting the Amendment? Surely it is not intended that the farmer who does not carry out the 1924 Act should receive public money? Our sole point is that when public money is given to an industry the workers should be safeguarded. It may be a good propaganda point, but there is nothing base in the use of it. If this subsidy is going to bring
    1582
    prosperity to the industry we want a guarantee that the workers shall be safeguarded, and we deny the right of any farmer to receive any public money if he is not prepared to give a definite undertaking that he has regard to the provision of the Agricultural Wages Act of 1924. There is no insurmountable difficulty in carrying out the Amendment.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. DAVID REID: I am sure the Committee are agreed as to the fundamental point of this Amendment, but when the hon. Member opposite suggested that there was no difficulty in carrying out the Amendment, he must have overlooked the fact that it would involve re-drafting the Bill. As he has already heard from the Minister the person who finally markets a beast, may not be a farmer at all. He may be a dealer to whom the provisions of the Agricultural Wages Act of 1924 could not possibly apply, because he employs no agricultural labourers. The probable result of inserting these words would be to defeat the main purpose of this Measure, while the object which hon. Members opposite have in view could easily be evaded.
    Mr. JOHN WILMOT: The hon. and learned Member must have misunderstood the Minister's statement. The Minister was careful to point out that it was the intention that this subsidy should wherever possible be paid to the actual producer and not the dealer.
    Mr. REID: The Minister is here and can speak for himself, but as I understand the position a farmer can sell to a dealer and, knowing that the subsidy is going to be added, he can ask for a higher price from the dealer. But it is then the dealer who carries out the actual sale to which the subsidy attaches.
    5.32 p.m.
    Mr. WILMOT: I may have misunderstood the Minister, but I took it that he was discouraging trading in options in this matter—that this was to be a direct subsidy to the producer and that he was not going to encourage any trading in the right to draw the subsidy. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is desirable, when we are voting this subsidy, that we should try to make sure that it will reach the destinations for which it is intended. One such destination is the

    1583
    agricultural worker. Nobody in the industry is more in need. Of course if it were impossible to carry out the Amendment there would be no point in pressing it, but I am not sure that it is impossible. I assure the hon. Member for Winchester (Sir G. Ellis) that this is not a propaganda point any more that the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) was a propaganda point. The hon. and gallant Member said there had been two rises in agricultural wages since the present Government came into office, but I am sure he was merely trying to impress upon the Committee how much world conditions had altered during the last two years.
    This Amendment is a genuine attempt to do what I am sure the Minister would like to have done and that is to see that part of this money goes to the poverty-stricken agricultural worker. The Minister pointed out to me the other day that he was asking my constituents in a London suburb to pay this subsidy with good will, because it was going to their comrades the workers in the fields. This is an attempt to enforce the right hon. Gentleman's intention in that respect. I take it that a person making an application for a payment will have to fill in and sign a form. If so, would it not be possible to embody in that form a declaration that the conditions of the Agricultural Wages Act have been observed? It amounts to nothing more than the ordinary Fair Wages Clause procedure in connection with public contracts. If the Minister is prepared to embody a declaration of that kind, in the form of application for the subsidy, I think it is possible that my hon. Friends would consider the withdrawal of the Amendment.
    5.35 p.m.
    Mr. D. MASON: The suggestion of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) would be an admirable one if it were practicable, but I rather agree with the hon. and learned Member for Down (Mr. D. Reid) that it is impossible to be sure that the actual sale will be carried out by the producer. The animal which is being sold may have been passed on to another party and the holder of the animal at the time of the sale may not be a producer. I am in favour of any-
    1584
    thing which would ensure the agricultural wage earner getting a share of any advantage. Much as I detest a subsidy I would like to see the agricultural worker getting his proper share, but I think we are more likely to ensure that he will get his proper share by facilitating the payment of the subsidy than by increasing the complications. If we add to the complications I do not think we are likely to advance the object which hon. Members above the Gangway have in view, and if we are going to have a subsidy at all, much as I dislike it, I think it is better that the payment of it should not be surrounded with too many complications.
    5.37 p.m.
    Sir R. SMITH: I think the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) recognised the weakness of this Amendment. An extraordinary position would be created if this Amendment were carried, because under the terms of the Amendment the person who would have to decide whether a farmer was paying proper wages under the Act of 1924 or not would be the official whose function it was to entertain the application for a certificate. I cannot imagine the Socialist party desiring to place the duty upon this new official of deciding whether a farmer was carrying out the terms of the Agricultural Wages Act or not. Under this Amendment a farmer who had sent forward beasts for sale could say afterwards "My cattle were passed for payment of the subsidy and therefore I am held by this official to be paying the proper wages under the Agricultural Wages Act."
    Mr. WILMOT: I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but in order to qualify for the subsidy, a certificate has to be applied for and the beast which is being sold has to comply with numerous requirements as to age, condition and so forth. Can we not add one more condition, namely that the beast has been produced under fair wages conditions?
    Sir R. SMITH: That is not the Amendment on the Paper.
    5.40 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I think the point in connection with this Amendment was best summed up by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) when he said that no person should get any public money who could not give an affirmative answer

    1585
    to the question, "Are you paying the proper wages?" I fully agree that no one ought to get any public money is not paying the proper wage, but on the Statute Book at present there is the machinery for the enforcement of proper wages in the agricultural industry and the question here would not be whether or not a man signed a declaration but whether or not the Agricultural Wages Act was being enforced. If we specialise on this particular point in this connection, surely we are pro tanto weakening the effect of all the other applications of the Agricultural Wages Act. It is a commonplace that if you stress one particular aspect of a Measure, you thereby and to that extent weaken the others. I can point to the fact that I have this year appointed three extra inspectors to ensure that the Agricultural Wages Act is being enforced, and I think it would be undesirable to place on the machinery of this Bill, which is designed for the swift handling of the situation in the cattle industry, the additional task of having to ascertain, all the way through, to the satisfaction of the certifying officer, whether the persons applying are paying wages in accordance with the Act of 1924 or not.
    I would point out, too, that under the terms of the Amendment it is not merely a question of complying with a form or signing a declaration. It would be necessary to prove to the official that wages in accordance with the Act were being paid. 1The onus of proof would be on the person making the application. I ask my hon. Friends opposite to consider whether the enforcement of the Act of 1924 is not the proper way to proceed, and whether I am not entitled to say that I believe in the enforcement of that Act, since I have reinforced the staff necessary for that purpose. The difficulty with regard to Scotland and Northern Ireland is not dealt with by merely saying that they are left out. This Amendment precludes any payment being made except to those who are carrying out the 1924 Act, and, if we carried this Amendment, we should incidentally have to pass corresponding Agricultural Wages Acts for the whole of Scotland and for Northern Ireland, which would be a considerable addition to our labours before the Recess and would impede the passage of the Bill. I am not making a point purely on the ground of technical diffi-
    1586
    culties, but I submit that the proper apparatus for dealing with questions of wages payments is the Wages Act, duly enforced by a proper system of inspection. The Act is on the Statute Book, the inspectorate is in being and functioning, and the enforcement of the wages should be left there, instead of an attempt being made to spatchcock a provision of this kind into this Bill.
    5.44 p.m.
    Mr. PALING: I want to see the Agricultural Wages Act enforced and I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to appoint additional inspectors, but that is no reason why, in connection with this subsidy, we should not give an additional incentive to those who are not paying the proper wages, to observe the terms of the Act. I think the huge majority of farmers do pay the proper wages and probably do so without giving any trouble, but it will be admitted that there are a few who do not. I do not think there would be any objection on the part of the great majority of farmers to giving a guarantee that they are paying the proper wages. Any objection would be sure to come from those who are evading the Act.
    Mr. ELLIOT: Surely the man who has made a false declaration in the one case, would not boggle at making a false declaration in the other case, and two false declarations instead of one would not strengthen the position of the agricultural labourer.
    Mr. PALING: But a man may not be paying the proper wages under the Agricultural Wages Act, and he need not make any declaration at all.
    Mr. ELLIOT: If anyone asks the question, "Are you paying fair wages?" he has to be in the position of saying "Yes." The position would not be at all strengthened if, under this Amendment, someone still had to come up and ask the question, "Are you paying fair wages?" in which case he would have to answer "Yes" or "No."
    Mr. PALING: I agree that if an inspector approaches him, he has to make a declaration, but most of these people will not be approached by an inspector for a long while at least, and if they are found out and prosecuted, they generally get off to such an extent that they are not losers. If they had to make a declaration, most of these people would

    1587
    think twice before making a false declaration. There is something in what the Minister says, but in spite of all his objections, I think this Amendment would help in bringing in the defaulter, whereas now he manages to keep out. I thought the Minister would have offered some more cogent objections against the Amendment than he has. The objections that he has offered are fairly small for a man like him, who admittedly has got over many difficulties. If he were willing to get over this difficulty, I am sure he could find ways and means of doing so very easily. It is no new thing for contractors, when taking on public contracts, to have to make a declaration that they are paying fair wages or trade union rates. They do it regularly, and I suggest to the Minister that if that be so, and if these people have to provide this, that, and the other proof before they get a subsidy, it is not asking much more to ask that they should provide the extra proof that they are paying fair wages.
    The hon. Member for Winchester (Sir G. Ellis) spoke about mining employers having to make a, similar declaration as to the payment of fair wages. I would suggest to the hon. Member that if the mining industry were getting a subsidy, the miners, being organised, would be
    able to get some share of it, but in spite of our good organisation as miners, we do not manage to get all we want from the mineowners. An hon. Member opposite said that there was no need for this Amendment, because since the National Government came in agricultural wages had gone up. They have, in one or two cases, but not in all by a long way. That, however, is not due to the economic state of the industry. They have gone up because the industry has been helped so much out of public funds. If the mining industry were given something like £20,000,000 a year subsidy, as has been given to the agricultural industry year by year, the mining employers might find it possible to increase the miners' wages. The hon. Member for Down (Mr. D. Reid) objected that if we did this, it would upset the Bill, but the Minister did not say so. He was content with putting one or two specific objections to the Amendment, and that was not one of them, and if the Minister had found out that to include this Amendment would upset the whole of the Bill, he would have said so. I am sorry to say that we cannot withdraw the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 209.

    Division No. 344.]

    AYES.

    [5.51 p.m.

    Adams. D. M. (Poplar, South)

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

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

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

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Paling, Wilfred

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Rea, Walter Russell

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

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Buchanan, George

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Sinclair. MaJ. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Cove. William G.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Smith. Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silver-town)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Dobble, William

    Lawson, John Jamas

    Wilmot, John

    Edwards, Charles

    Leonard, William

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Lunn, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

    Grenfell, David Rees Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

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

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Buchan, John

    Cooke, Douglas

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

    Burnett, John George

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Barclay-Harvey. C. M.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Cranborne, Viscount

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

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

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

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Bernays, Robert

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Bndell, James

    Carver, Major William H.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

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

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A

    Cross, R. H.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Barnard

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Dickle, John P.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

    Drewe, Cedric

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Lewellln, Major John J.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Skelton, Archibald No

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

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

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dne, C.)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Elmley, Viscount

    McKle, John Hamilton

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. si Ian

    Soper, Richard

    Entwistle, Cyrll Fullard

    Makins, Brigad er-General Ernest

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Ganzonl, Sir John

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

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

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W')

    Goff, Sir Park

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Goldle, Noel B.

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

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

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Granville, Edgar

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Touche, Gordon Co mo

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Munro, Patrick

    Tree, Ronald

    Grimston, R. V.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Han. F. E.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    North, Edward T.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend>

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Nunn, William

    Wardlaw-Mne, Sir John S.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Hanbury, Cecil

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Hartland, George A.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Pearson, William G.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Petherick, M.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Heneage, Li ut -Colonel Arthur P.

    Pike, Cecil F.

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

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

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

    Withers, Sir John James

    Horsbrugh, Florence

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

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Womersley, Sir Walter

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

    Ray, Sir William

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Rid, David D. (County Down)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald R.

    Remer, John R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, c.)

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Sir George Penny.

    5.57 p.m.
    Mr. C. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 3. line 32, at the end, to insert:
    "(6) If any person knowingly makes any false statement for the purpose of obtaining payment under this Section, he shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine."
    The Minister has indicated more than once during these Debates that in many ways this is a highly hazardous experiment and that everyone recognises that in it there are countless opportunities for all kinds of deception and fraud. Indeed, he has already told us that he will have
    1590
    to make some very elaborate regulations to deal with the situation that will arise when the Bill comes into force, and in view of those circumstances, we feel that there should be proper penalties for any of that deceit or fraud that is likely to arise. It will be very easy, I imagine, for people skilled in raising stock and handling cattle to dodge the regulations that the Minister may make, and to escape the net that he may set for them. Consequently, when those people are doing that kind of thing and are receiving public money at the same time, we feel that they should be properly punished. We live in a very peculiar civilisation in some respects for buying and selling is the beginning and end of

    1591
    existence for some people. We all know that in that process there is plenty of opportunity for fraud. The regulations which the Minister will draft will, he has told us, be necessarily elaborate, for they will have to meet a difficult situation. Let us be certain that they are sufficiently strong to deal with those who outwit the Minister. Clever as the right hon. Gentleman is, and adequate as the regulations will be from his point of view to deal with the situation, there are many clever people in the agricultural industry, some of whom will undoubtedly set out to outwit even the best regulations the Minister can devise. If they do, we ought to punish them adequately.
    6.1 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Gentleman made it abundantly clear that his object was that there should be adequate penalties if false statements were made for the purpose of receiving money. We entirely agree with that proposition, but it so happens that because the false statements which are here involved are false statements for the purpose of receiving money, the law in England and Scotland already deals adequately with them. Indeed, it deals with them so adequately that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of imprisonment not exceeding three months is a mere shadow of what the law already lays down. The making of false statements for the purpose of receiving money is an extremely serious offence in the criminal legislation of all countries. In England the Larceny Act, 1916, in Scotland the False Oaths Act—which covers more than a formal oath and includes any false declaration made in regard to an Act of Parliament—together with the Common Law, deal adequately with the offence. So far as England is concerned, Section 32 of the Larceny Act enables a punishment of penal servitude for a term not exceeding five years to be given for making false statements for the purpose of receiving money. I do not think, therefore, that the very modest proposal of three months' imprisonment really adds to the strength of the deterrent legislation which the wisdom of Parliament has already imposed.
    Mr. WILMOT: The statement which the Under-Secretary has made rather emphasises the value of the declaration
    1592
    which I recommended on the last Amendment.
    Mr. C. BROWN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper: In page 4, line 5, at the end, to add:
    "(8) If after such sale and before such payment out of the Cattle Fund a producer of cattle shall die, or become subject to any legal disability, or shall have entered into a composition or scheme of arrangement with his creditors, the personal representative, committee, trustee, or other person may be treated as if he was the producer of cattle for the purposes of the payment out of the Cattle Fund, and the payment may be made to him."—[Mr. Turton.]
    The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): It was not my intention to select this Amendment, because I regarded it as unnecessary, but I understand the hon. Member thinks he can make out a case to show that it is necessary, and I will therefore call upon him to move it.
    6.5 p.m.
    Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, at the end, to add:
    "(8) If after such sale and before such payment out of the Cattle Fund a producer of cattle shall die, or become subject to any legal disability, or shall have entered into a composition or scheme of arrangement with his creditors, the personal representative, committee, trustee, or other person may be treated as if he was the producer of cattle for the purposes of the payment out of the Cattle Fund, and the payment may be made to him."
    The position which makes this Amendment necessary is due to Clause 5, which defines a producer of cattle as
    "a person whose business it is to keep Cattle in the United Kingdom for the purpose of selling them in an improved condition."
    In Clause 2 power is given for the payment of the advances out of the Cattle Fund to producers of cattle. My submission is that the position here is exactly the same as it was under the Wheat Act, where, owing to the definition of registered growers, we had to introduce a wider power so that the payments should be made not only to the registered grower but, in cases of insanity or legal disability, to his representative or the committee which is acting in place of the registered grower. I move the Amendment to enable that to be done in this

    1593
    case. It is a technical point, but I think a point of some substance seeing that a great many farmers are very near bankruptcy. If that be the case and the trustees will not get the advantage of the subsidy, it is important to have this additional safeguard in the Bill. The wording of the Amendment is an exact replica of the wording in the Wheat Act, 1932, in Section 5, Sub-section (2, g). I move the Amendment merely because I felt that there was that lacuna in the Bill.
    6.8 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising this question, but in the circumstances of this Bill the Amendment is unnecessary. I am informed that once the certificate giving all the information about the animal and the sale is in the hands of the seller of the animal, his representatives will be able to receive the money from the Minister. My hon. Friend will recollect that the repayments under the Wheat Act were much more elaborately legislated about because that Act was for a minimum period of three years, whereas the payments with which we are dealing under this Bill last only a few months. Here we see no difficulty, for once the certificate is obtained, whatever happens to the receiver of the certificate, whether it be death, incapacity or anything else, there is no reason why his representatives should not have the payments that the Minister makes. I thought that my hon. Friend would perhaps raise the question of the rights of a receiver in bankruptcy to what, under the terms of the Bill, is a voluntary payment. I mention this in order to give the Committee the assurance that where there is a case of bankruptcy, if there be any doubt as to the actual legal right of the liquidator, as he is called in Scotland, to receive the money from the Minister, the legal position will not be taken advantage of by the Minister against the owner of the animal. I ask my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment, particularly in view of the fact that this Bill is for a strictly limited period, and that we think the ground is sufficiently covered.
    Mr. TURTON: May I ask the Under-Secretary to deal with the question of the payments to producers of cattle in Clause 2 and the definition of producers
    1594
    of cattle in Clause 5? Surely that definition will cut out any trustee or committee.
    Mr. SKELTON: As I understand my hon. Friend's difficulty, it is in the case of a producer who has received a certificate and becomes incapable of receiving the money. We are satisfied from the terms of this Bill and the powers of the Minister to pay that that difficulty does not arise, either in the case of a trustee or in the case of any other representative.
    6.11 p.m.
    Sir R. SMITH: Would not my hon. Friend's difficulty be got over if there were some wider definition than that in Sub-section (1, a) of Clause 5? It seems an extraordinary thing to limit the definition to a man who keeps cattle in the United Kingdom for the purpose of selling them in an improved condition. If the cattle were not in an improved condition it would seem that the producer would not be entitled to the subsidy. If they should go down in value he would not be entitled to it. The definition says that he must be a man who keeps the cattle in an improved condition.
    Mr. TURTON: On the assurance of the Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    6.12 p.m.
    Mr. PALING: I hope that the Labour party will vote against this Clause. This Government have found it remarkably easy to grant money to owners of industry, as they are doing in this Clause, and in no case, as far as I can remember, have they ever done anything to make sure that the workers will get their share of the money. We tried to amend this Clause so that something would be done to ensure that some of the money would go through to the workers, but we failed, as usual when we asked anything of that kind of this Government. It has been said that nearly £20,000,000 a year is given to agriculture, and the only statement we have had from supporters of the Government to-day is that since the National Government came into office there are one or two counties here and there in which there have been increases in wages. If the

    1595
    workers had their proper share of the money that is being poured into agriculture, the wages increases would come to a much greater amount than the small amounts about which an hon. Member was boasting a few minutes ago. It has been said that the money which goes into an industry drains down eventually into the pockets of the workers. We do not agree. The Government too easily assume that that happens, but our experience in industry is unfortunately to the contrary. Agricultural workers and the workers in other industries get only as much as they can compel the owners of industry to give. They have to fight continuously in order to maintain what bit they have got, whether the Government give anything or not.
    When the Government give anything to an industry they should represent the working classes as well as the owners of industry, and they should guarantee that the workers get their proper share of it. They never do it. They boast about the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, and say that gives a guarantee of wages to the worker. It may be so, but that was not due to this Government or to the supporters of it. Hon. Members opposite did 'all they could to prevent even that much being given to the agricultural workers, but now they quote the Act as an excuse for saying that nothing further is necessary at the present time to ensure that the workers shall get some of the money which is being paid to the industry. We think it is as necessary to guarantee that the worker gets his share as to guarantee that the producer has his share, and it is because we have no such guarantee for the agricultural workers, whose wages 'are so low that they find it difficult to maintain a decent existence, that we shall vote against this Clause.
    6.16 p.m.
    Mr. WILMOT: I would ask the Minister before fixing the date when the scheme is to come into operation to institute an inquiry into the matters which I mentioned on Second Reading. On that occasion I brought forward evidence of the wide gap between the price which the producer receives and the price which the urban consumer of beef has to pay. Whereas the producer is getting less than the pre-War price, the consumer is paying nearly double the pre-War price. I
    1596
    asked the Minister whether he could give us any information as to the cause of this astonishing phenomenon, and whether it was a fact that somewhere between the producer and the consumer there existed a monopoly interest, it may be, levying a toll on the industry, and whether it was not possible to ensure the prosperity of the producer by closing the gap between the price obtained by the producer and the price charged to the consumer. I got no reply from him on that occasion.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot raise that point on this Clause.
    Mr. WILMOT: I hope that I am not ontravening the Rules of order, but, as I see it, this Clause gives the Minister discretion in fixing the date upon which this scheme cornea into operation. That was the point to which I was addressing myself. I ask the Minister to give us an undertaking that before fixing the date he will institute an inquiry into this curious anomaly in this industry.
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to debate that point. The Minister is charged with the duty of fixing the date, and it has to be a date before the 31st March, 1935.
    Mr. WILMOT: With the greatest respect I ask your Ruling on this matter. Would it not be in order to ask the Minister to endeavour to get some information on these two curious matters before fixing the date?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, I do not think that is so. The hon. Member stated that he raised this question on Second Reading, and it was quite a proper question on that occasion. If he wants to raise it again he must find some other opportunity, for he cannot do it on this Clause.
    Mr. WILMOT: Should I be entitled to indicate to the Minister that it is my view that without some such undertaking the Committee ought to vote against the Clause?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, certainly not. That would be advancing reasons against the Bill, and would not be in order.
    6.20 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I recognise the force of the argument put forward by my hon. Friends on the other side, and par-

    1597
    titularly by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling), that it is most desirable that a fair share of these benefits should be obtained by the producers, and under the heading of "producers" we place the argicultural workers. It is also true to say that there is in existence statutory machinery for regulating wages and to point to the fact that the wages of agricultural workers have been maintained against a very sharp fall in the receipts for agricultural produce out of which the wages of the workers have to be paid. I cannot, however, go at length into these arguments without transgressing the Rules of Order. It is the admiration of all of us on this side to see how extremely skilful hon. Members opposite have been in, conducting a long Debate on agricultural wages, and a considerable Debate upon the gap in the prices received by the producer and the charges which have to be paid by the consumer, within the four corners of a Clause which can only cover those matters by a certain amount of bulging at the sides. But, in general, the Clause does cover the way in which the payments are to be made, and I hope that I have been able to explain, at least in a sketchy fashion, the scheme which we hope to lay before the House later. I ask the Committee to give attention to Sub-section (6) which says:
    "As soon as may be after they have approved any arrangement for the purposes of this Section the appropriate Ministers shall lay particulars of the arrangements before both Houses of Parliament."
    and I would add that it is our hope, before the House rises, to give a fairly full indication of the sort of arrangements which we shall subsequently lay before Parliament. I hope that after this we may now have the Clause.
    6.23 p.m.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: I am very glad to know that the House is to have further information on matters referred to in the earlier Sub-sections of this Clause dealing with the arrangements for the certification of animals and the like. That information will be necessary if we are to adjudicate upon the effectiveness of this machinery. Without going into the principles of the Bill, which, we had an opportunity of discussing on Second Reading, there are still one or two points of detail which I wish to raise. In the
    1598
    first Sub-section "producers" are referred to more than once. The Minister has given us an assurance that a producer shall be a person who can be easily identified, and not easily impersonated by someone else, and in the information which he has promised us he will, no doubt, safeguard the position of the actual producer. There is, however, already a definition of producers in Clause 5, which we accept. It says there:
    "A person shall be taken to be a producer of cattle if he is a person whose business it is to keep cattle in the United Kingdom for the purpose of selling them in an improved condition."
    I do not think that definition could be improved upon. Then we find that the producer is to get payments, and we are more or less content that the object of the Bill will be carried out without any possibility of evasion or deliberate effort to defeat the object of the Bill. We are not, however, enamoured of these proposals, and we believe they are very dangerous indeed, and it will be a condition of success that the regulations shall be drawn out as clearly as possible, so that everybody may know and understand them before the scheme is launched. I understand that I am denied the opportunity of questioning even the main principle, of the Clause at this stage, but I would like to call attention to paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) which provides that meat is to be subsidised at the rate of ld. per lb. No doubt it is very convenient from the point of view of dealers and producers to express the subsidy in terms of hundredweights, as is done in that Sub-section, but the housewife realises the extent of this subsidy only when she is given it in terms of pence per lb. Here we are providing for a subsidy of ld. per lb. on the wholesale price, and we are extremely anxious that under the arrangements made by the Minister that ld. per lb. will not carry an additional penny before the meat reaches the retailer. I claim no monopoly of anxiety on that paint for hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite and the Minister himself must recognise the importance of not allowing the retail prices to be raised too high. If the producer is to get what may be called a. deficiency payment, a term which I do not like, and which is almost fatal to the success of this Bill, I hope the Minister will be very vigilant to see

    1599
    that no advantage is taken of that to add yet further to the price of the beef in the market.
    We are precluded now from dealing with the question of the levy and the means by which the subsidy is to be raised, but that will be decided when fresh legislation comes before the House. One point, however, to which I would like to draw attention is the omission from this Clause of any reference to the wages to be paid to agricultural workers. The Minister has expressed his admiration for the skill shown on this side of the House in bringing certain matters under review on this Clause, but he himself is always very careful to have two strings to his bow, and when one does not suit the arrow he tries the other. On this Clause he has two strings, and when number one failed he put in the other and came nearer to the target on the second shot. He first explained that any attempt to confirm the existing law in regard to agricultural wages by provisions in this Act would he too difficult. He suggested that it would be too complicated to make him responsible for deciding whether a producer was paying the proper wages or not. If he had in mind a rapidly moving queue of producers so eager to get subsidies from public money that no delay must be interposed, it was not a very reassuring prospect which he held out to us. I hope the money will not be paid out as quickly as that, and that there will be some sort of safeguard to prevent an improper use of the subsidy. I would point out to him in this connection that he has insisted on other safeguards. For example, no certificate for a subsidy is to be issued unless the animal comes up to a certain weight standard.
    Then we come to Sub-section (3) which says that a certificate shall not be issued if it is shown that the animal is in a certain condition and might not properly be described as fit for slaughter and fit for consumption. The certificate is not to be granted unless the animal has been resident in this country—if that is the right term to use—for a period of three months. What is the difficulty? Suppose I want a certificate. I make an application for a certificate I have to satisfy the certifying officer first of all that the beast which I submit to his inspection is in a proper condition, that is
    1600
    to say, that it has been properly fed and carries sufficient weight. Then I have to satisfy him that it is of a certain age and has resided for three months in the United Kingdom. How am I to do that? I must produce written evidence, and that is not the kind of thing which you can do in a rush such as the Minister described. It has to be shown that it is a naturalised British beast.
    Why cannot the person who makes the application for a subsidy and who has to produce these separate pieces of evidence also produce a statement as to the wages paid to the people in his employment to show that he is a decent employer and worthy of assistance by the State? The Minister has not satisfied us on that point. We have an objection to the Clause. We do not wish to impair it; we submitted Amendments to improve it, in the hope that it would not have the effect which we expect from this kind of legislation. We have failed to improve the Clause, and we have been denied the opportunity of giving some protection to the wage earners in the industry. We shall, therefore, vote against the Clause.
    6.34 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I shall not do the same as the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). I shall not vote against the Clause; I shall vote in favour of it. I want to ask the Minister a question in regard to Sub-section (2). He proposes to pay a. sum not exceeding 5s. per cwt. in the case of a live animal and 9s. 4d. in the case of a dead animal. I am not an expert: I have not weighed an animal alive, killed it and then weighed it dead, but I am told that the ratio between liveweight and deadweight is not accurately or generally expressed in the ratio between 9⅓ and 5; in other words that if 5s. is right for a live animal, 9s. 4d. is too much for a dead animal. If that is so—I am advised that it is—the Clause definitely weights the subsidy in favour of it being paid on the dead animal. That seems to indicate a desire to stimulate the system of centralised slaughtering. I am not one who believes that on balance it is necessary to trustify or centralize everything. I am of opinion that the continued existence of a large number of small slaughter houses has substantial arguments in its favour. Hon. Members will be aware that there has been an active correspondence on this subject in

    1601
    the "Times," in which the arguments have been stated pro and con. If it is desired at some time or another to establish a system of centralised slaughtering I think it ought to be proposed in a definite Measure for that purpose so that we know quite clearly what we are doing; it ought not to be attempted indirectly by certain Sub-sections of a Clause in the Bill which we are now considering.
    Mr. ELLIOT: That is not our intention. Roughly speaking, the proportion represents the killing of about 54 per cent., which is not far from the average. So far as we could work it out, that was as nearly as possible holding the balance between the two methods of paying subsidy.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very glad to hear that it is not the intention, by a side-wind, to decide a separate issue of public policy. I think it only fair to tell the Minister that on Thursday I received a detailed memorandum, which I handed to another hon. Member who I thought was likely to speak, and in which there was a good deal of evidence that the percentage of 54 which the right hon. Gentleman has given, is by no means the average. I do not know what sources of information the Minister may have, but no doubt he has access to the very best sources. There is a substantial body of expert opinion which thinks that the proportion of dead weight to live weight is other than that which is indicated in the proportion chosen in the Bill. I hope the Minister will look into the point. I do not think that it interferes with the privileges of another place, and I hope that he will verify the information which has been supplied to him, and which is contrary to that which has been given to me.
    6.36 p.m.
    Mr. EVERARD: It is not laid down in the Bill that 1st September is the day on which the scheme comes into operation, but that the day shall be:
    "such day after the end of August."
    I know the difficulties that Ministers have in preparing these very important schemes, but if there is not a definite date, we may get towards October before the scheme comes into full operation. I appeal to the Minister to realise the very great urgency of this problem, and to give an indication that, unless something
    1602
    extraordinary happens, the scheme will come into full working not later than 1st September.
    6.37 p.m.
    Mr. McENTEE: The most interesting thing in the Debate is the admission of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that he is not an expert in this matter. I am sure the Committee did not know there was anything in which the hon. Member was not expert. I want to ask the Minister a question which I endeavoured to raise on Clause 1, as to whether it is proposed to make any regulations in regard to deficiency payments. If this is to be a deficiency payment, will the subsidy or grant be made in the event of there being no deficiency? It is always a good argument that people, who, we may assume, are managing their industry or their part of the industry to the best of their ability, may fail to make a profit out of it, and that consequently many of them may have to go out of industry, which, being an essentially national one, might suffer. Are those who are making a good living out of the industry still to get a grant, to enable them to make still larger profits?
    Does the Minister propose, in making regulations, to embody a clause laying down some rule that what we might call "excess profits" cannot be made by those in the industry taking public money when there is no need for it? Most people might be willing to subsidise those who are in a bad way through no fault of their own, and who are unable to get a reasonable living, but they would not give public money to people who did not need it because they were already doing very well. Is any such regulation to be made, or has it been discussed by the right hon. Gentleman with the officers of his Department? "Means test" is an expression which has frequently been used in connection with unemployment. I should like to know whether any means test is to be applied to the stock-raisers before they receive public money for which there may be no need at all.
    My next point is by way of protest. It is somewhat extraordinary that the Minister will not enable people employed in the industry to be assured of a proper rate of wages. I cannot imagine any truth in his statement that there will be such a rush, and that people will be queueing up to get money so quickly, that it will not be pos-

    1603
    sible to ensure that they are paying decent wages to their employées. The National Union of Agricultural Workers could tell the Minister the position probably within five minutes if he rang them up on the telephone. They could give a certificate in a very short time if it were required. I hope that the Minister will reconsider what appears to be his decision not to take any notice of the conditions of labour of the stock raisers who apply for grant under the Bill. Governments have for many years inserted a fair wages clause in contracts, and within the last few weeks I brought to the notice of a Minister a case where the clause was not observed, and the matter was put right. The Minister is making a very big contract with these people, to whom large sums of public money in the aggregate are to be given, and possibly considerable sums to the larger stock-raisers. It is not asking too much that people who apply for public money should give a guarantee such as is given by every contractor who gives service for the public money which he receives. The people who are to benefit under the Bill will get their money for nothing, and it is not unreasonable that they should observe as good conditions of labour for their employés as obtain with the ordinary contractors to the Government. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the point, and see if it would not he possible, in making the regulations, to insert some Clause that would assure workers in the industry of a decent standard of living.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. C. BROWN: In a few minutes the Tory supporters of the National Government will be going into the Lobby to vote for this Clause. I wonder whether any of them have realised its full significance. While we have been discussing the regulations which are to be made with regard to fat stock under this Clause, I have been recalling how in bygone days Tories, in their propaganda, were never tired of picturing the day when Socialists would be in control of the Governmental machinery of this country, and used to tell people that if we were in control we should be regulating everything—that folks would be wearing the same sort of clothes, living in the same kind of houses, and everyone would have to go through a prescribed routine. But never in their wildest moments did they tell
    1604
    the public that a Socialist Government would ever enact a Measure under which a Minister of Agriculture would lay clown regulations stating that the carcase of a cow must be dressed in accordance with those regulations, and that, before people in this country could have their Sunday joint, it would be necessary to count the teeth of the beasts that were killed for the purpose. It has been left for a National Government to carry regulations to those amazing lengths. How can the Tory supporters of the National Government, after all their denunciation, and the way in which they professed to describe the regulated society which they said Socialists would set up, go into the Lobby in support of the appalling regulations that are being brought forward by this National Government, prescribing in the minutest detail how carcases shall be dressed and how the joints shall be served?
    6.48 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I would ask the Minister if he would reconsider the question, which was raised by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), of the regulation of the wages of the working people engaged in the industry. The, right hon. Gentleman's reply did not seem to me to meet the case which was put forward, and I would ask him to consider again whether, before public money is paid in this way, at least some form of guarantee could not be required oaf those to whom this public money is being granted should pay a particular wage to those engaged in the industry. It seems to me that, before this assistance is granted, the applicant for it should at least sign a declaration that be is paying a particular wage. That would have a two-fold effect. If it were found that he was not paying a proper wage, then, in addition to the ordinary criminal proceedings, there would be good ground for his being compelled to repay the sum to which he was not entitled. It seems impossible to ordinary folk, though it may not seem so to others who look at things in a different light, that the granting of millions of public money to people engaged in an industry—I am not discussing whether the industry is in a good way or in a bad way—cannot be accompanied by a simple definite guarantee that certain wages are paid to those who work in the industry.

    1605
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I see in his place, will recollect that in connection with the housing subsidy I had considerable correspondence with him with regard to the subsidy that was being paid to certain people and the wages paid to the workpeople engaged. I say that, before public money is granted, a firm guarantee of this kind should be obtained from those who receive the money. It may well be that it would not be possible to make inquiry at every farm to see that every individual man is paid the proper wage, but at least it should be possible to get a similar guarantee to that which is obtained for Income Tax purposes. All that is required there is an affirmative declaration from the person concerned. Inquiries are not made, but, if it is found afterwards that that Affirmative declaration is wrong, the person concerned is liable to certain proceedings. Ill this case every applicant ought to be required to make an affirmative declaration that he is paying the proper rate of wages.
    The other point that seems to me to be peculiar is that, while in other cases the Conservative party have denounced the granting of public money, and have said that whenever it was granted steps should be taken to see that only those who need it receive it, yet in this case those engaged in the industry are to receive a grant of public money quite apart from any question of need. The Minister may say that everyone in the industry is in need, but I have never thought that the claim could be put as high as that, and, unless he does put it as high as that, it seems to me that there ought to be some test. I shall vote against the Clause, but I wish the Minister, who has a logic born of the country from which he comes and which he represents in the House, would apply that logic to the argument that, while the Conservatives demand grim tests for poor people when they are receiving public money, no test is to be applied here, when public money out of the same public funds is being granted; and I would also ask him why it is beyond the power and ingenuity of his Department to require from the applicant at least a declaration that he is paying fair wages.
    6.53 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I apologise to the Committee for coming before them once more,
    1606
    but it would perhaps be courteous if I say another word. I think that the point raised both by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) can be quite simply met. If any undue profit is made out of this payment, there is power in the Bill itself to make the payment less than the amount here laid down. We are advised, however, and I think it is common knowledge to everyone in the House who is engaged in the industry or has to review the results of the industry, that, at present prices, everyone engaged in the industry of raising meat is receiving less for that meat than the cost of its production. If prices rose to a point at which they could do without the subsidy, we should be only too glad. I think that that is the answer to both the points which have been raised.
    Mr. McENTEE: May I ask whether the applicant will be required to make any statement with regard to his financial position? Otherwise, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to apply the test?
    Mr. ELLIOT: We propose to apply it by the general knowledge that we have of the circumstances of the industry and the cost of raising meat. Surely that meets the point fully. If undue profits are going to be made, it will be possible to reduce the payment. As to how we know the cost of raising meat, we get that knowledge, not from the costs of one man, but from the costs of the many hundreds, and, indeed, thousands, of producers to whom we have access at the present moment. As to the question why we should not take further precautions to secure the enforcement of the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924, I say again that the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924, is a separate Statute which fully covers the question of wages, and for the purpose of which I have appointed additional inspectors. That Statute is operated in its own way. As to the question of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), whether 1 should not make inquiry into the costs of distribution before fixing the appointed day, clearly it would be out of the question for me to do that. The costs of distribution are a long business. We have had evidence from the co-operative societies that the costs of distribution of butcher's meat are by no means excessive, and the danger is that,

    1607
    while we are working out these small points, the industry itself may collapse. It would clearly be impossible, and I am sure that the hon. Member would not desire it, that, for the sake of carrying out yet another inquiry, I should stop deal-
    ing with the whole problem for the purpose of dealing with which the House passed the Financial Resolution.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 51.

    Division No. 345.]

    AYES.

    [6.59 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Magnay, Thomas

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Maitland, Adam

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

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

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

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

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

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

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

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

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

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Ba ie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

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

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

    Moss, Captain H. J.

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

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Munro, Patrick

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Bernays, Robert

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Blindell, James

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Boulton, W. W.

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

    North, Edward T.

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Nunn, William

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Pearson, William G,

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

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Penny, Sir George

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Petherick, M.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newby)

    Hales, Harold K.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Burnett, John George

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Hartland, George A.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Cadogan, Hon Edward

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

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

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Carver, Major William H.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Ray, Sir William

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Cheater, City)

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

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hornby, Frank

    Remer, John R.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

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

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Courlauld, Major John Sewell

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Sandeman. Sir A. N. Stewart

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

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

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Selley, Harry R.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Leckie, J. A.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

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

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Cross, R. H.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ah'd'n & K'dine,C.)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Somerset, Thomas

    Denville, Alfred

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

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Dickle, John P.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Somerville, Ann sley A. (Windsor)

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Soper. Richard

    Drewe, Cedric

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

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

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Tree, Ronald

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

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

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

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Storey, Samuel

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

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

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert-Ward

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    and Maior George Davies.

    Train, John

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    NOES

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

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

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Paling, Wilfred

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Banfieid, John William

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Rea, Walter Russell

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

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Buchanan, George

    Holdsworth, Herbert

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

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Janner, Barnett

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cove, William G.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Thorne, William James

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Curry, A. C.

    Jones, Moran (Caerphilly)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    West, F. R.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

    White, Henry Graham

    Dobble, William

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Nell (Galsgow, Govan)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Mallal eu, Edward Lancelot

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

    Resolution agreed to.

    Clause 3 (Marking of imported cattle,) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(The Cattle Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    7.7 p.m.
    Mr. PALING: I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions on this Clause. Sub-section (1) refers to the appointment of a committee to be known as the Cattle Committee, and then, according to Sub-section (2),
    "The appropriate Ministers may appoint a secretary to the Cattle Committee, and the committee may employ such officers, agents and servants as those Ministers, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine."
    I suppose that it is almost impossible for the Minister to say with any degree of accuracy how many people are likely to be employed, but, even so, before going into a matter of this description, a Department generally does try to get some idea of how many people ate likely to be employed, and I think that it would be a great advantage if the Minister could give us some information on this question. One last word. It does appear to me very curious that this party, which has always been accused of being the party which supports bureaucracy and of
    1610
    having officials by the thousand and score of thousands, which has been accused of creating officials in order to cure unemployment, should now be faced by a National Government which is creating officials much faster. What is more to the point is that it is not creating officials for some constructive effort, but in order to pay those officials to pay more Government money out of the public purse. We cannot stop them from paying that money, but we should like to know how many more people are to be employed in order to pay this subsidy.
    7.9 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: Clearly it would not be possible at this moment, when we are merely framing the proposals, to indicate to the Committee the number of persons whom we may have to employ. It is our desire to keep the number as low as possible, and we have taken steps to ensure that they are to be paid out of the Cattle Fund itself, so that the possibility of recovery which applies to other sections of the expenditure, applies here also. If it were desired that I should place the whole scheme before the Committee, I could not do anything before the new Session. We are faced here with the fact that we have to take swift action, and therefore I beg the hon. Gentleman not to press me on this point, because I shall inform the House as soon as ever it

    1611
    is possible to do so. Of course, the House will be informed when the money comes to be voted on the Supplementary Estimate, and it will then be informed what the administrative cost will he. As to the other point about the appointment of officials, I am afraid that the difference between my hon. Friend and myself is just the point which he stated. He arraigned us for not appointing officials to carry on the industry. We do not believe that an industry carried on by officials would be a good thing, but it does seem to us to be a good thing, both from the point of view of the country and that of the Exchequer, that an industry should be supervised in this way, given temporary assistance and helped by a proper quota to raise prices.
    7.11 p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman's reply is the most extraordinary that has been given in this House or Committee for a very long time. He tells the Committee that it is far better to have a body of officials appointed for the purpose of distributing a subsidy to the unfortunate farmers than it would be to have a body of officials helping and guiding the industry so as to make a real success of it. It really is a most extraordinary reply.
    Mr. ELLIOT: It is not what I said.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I should hate to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but that was my interpretation of what he said: That it is far better to have a body of officials—very efficient ones—distributing this relief than to have a body of officials guiding the industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Running!"] I know the difference between running the industry and guiding it. No hon. or right hon. Member could have justified with the same skill this £3,000,000 subsidy as the Minister himself has done. He has proved to this House over and over again the absolute inevitability of coming forward at once with financial assistance for this industry for a very definite period. I do not charge the farmers with having mismanaged their business. It may be that financial complications, the banks, or half a dozen factors may have had something to do with the livestock depression. The fact is that the industry cannot pay its way at the moment, and because of that the Government are pro-
    1612
    posing to assist it to the extent of £3,000,000. That may all be justified. If votes count for anything, the House has justified this proposal. But surely even the right hon. Gentleman would not argue that it is preferable to establish a body of officials to pay out a subsidy rather than to establish a body of officials to help to organise efficiently production, marketing, and slaughtering of livestock in this country.
    It seems to me that while perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could not tell us how many officials are to be created, he might tell the Committee whether or not this is to be on the lines of the Milk Board, under which the country has been divided into areas for the purpose of administering the scheme, and whether or not each area is to be guided by a central body to be established by the Minister. If the Minister has made up his mind that the money must be administered efficiently, so that there shall be no person receiving money twice, and so on, then he should have made up his mind approximately into how many areas the country will be divided for the purpose of administering the scheme, and if the Committee knew that, they could apply their minds to the potential number of servants, officers and agents who would be required, and approximately the total cost of the administrative service. The right hon. Gentleman ought to take the Committee into his confidence to that extent in order to ensure that there shall be as few loopholes as possible and that the scheme will be administered on appropriate lines satisfactory both to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House. We ought, further, to ask him this: In administering the scheme there will be a good deal of information forthcoming to those responsible on the question of slaughtering. We want to know whether the officials who will be administering the fund will also be charged with the duty of advising the Minister as to how best cattle may be slaughtered. The right hon. Gentleman ought to take the Committee into his confidence on these material points before the Clause is passed.
    7.17 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman's statement about the administration to carry out the distribution of this largesse was really rather

    1613
    alarming. He said swift action was necessary. He apparently desired to give the impression that this crisis came like a thief in the night and caught him unprepared. I was under the impression that the country had long been conscious of a depression and that the right hon. Gentleman had been racking his brains to find a solution for months past. If we are to believe the newspapers, he has been wrestling with the problem for the last six months. Now he says he has no scheme. He has thought out no details. Re does not know what it will cost. He does not know the size of the staff. He does not know whether it will be a small or a big organisation. He cannot even tell the Committee the character of the officials who will do the job. During the War the Government took over the supplying of beef, when everything had to be done through the Ministry of Agriculture, and I have a vivid recollection that a very elaborate organisation was built up. Local auctioneers and agents were used for the purpose.
    We have a right to know—especially the agricultural Members—what kind of organisation the right hon. Gentleman anticipates. He does not think his scheme will be ready before the Adjournment and we are to wait till next Session before he can tell us what organisation is to be set up. I understood from hon. Members opposite that the whole thing was to be at work by the end of next month. The latest date was to be 1st September. The right hon. Gentleman is embarking on the scheme without being in a position to tell the Committee what it will cost and how many men will be employed. I really do not think he is treating the Committee fairly or squarely. I am very glad to see at last the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the dim background. He ought to have been in the forefront of the battle. ft is his funeral. He will have to pay the bill, though it does not matter what the cost is, because it is to come out of the subsidy. It is rather hard on the farmers that a large percentage of the money is to be frittered away on officials.
    There is a very bitter feeling among farmers all through the country at the cumbersome, elaborate organisation set up at Thames House by the Milk Board. Are we to have another Milk Board? Are we to have all these typewriters and
    1614
    mechanical machines to calculate the cheques that are to be paid out? Is it to be centralised or localised? Is another building to be taken for the purpose This Parliament came into being largely for the purpose of economy. Rightly or wrongly, the country was under the impression that there was a financial crisis, and it was necessary to keep a tighter control over public expenditure, and particularly over the multiplication of officials, but the Minister comes forward week by week with another scheme. It may be necessary. It may be that, owing to the general world depression in prices, it is necessary to give subsidies, but the right hon. Gentleman should think out his scheme in advance. Is it to be done by counties or through London? If it is to be done through London, does it mean the establishment of a central machine through which all the money is to go, like the Milk Board? I prefer localisation.
    All these central boards are playing into the hands of hon. Members above the Gangway. The Prime Minister invented the phrase, "the inevitability of gradualness." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was a very skilful phrase. Hon. Members above the Gangway are enjoying the right hon. Gentleman's experiment in Socialism. It has all the kind of machinery which is the inevitable objection to any centralised organisation. This is the distribution of public funds to favoured individuals. The right hon. Gentleman comes here, with the Financial Secretary merely as a passenger, and tells us solemnly that he has not yet made up his mind how the money is to be doled out, how many and what kind of officials are to be appointed, and what they are to cost, and he cannot tell us till next Session when the money is to be handed out next month. If this is business by a business Department, I do not know how it is going to end. We are sorry for the right hon. Gentleman. We realise that he has so many irons in the fire that it is inevitable that he should burn his fingers. I hope that he will take us into his confidence before we part with the Clause. He must have something in his mind, and we are entitled to know what it is.
    7.25 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Baronet has asked me a number of questions on be-

    1615
    half of the distressed agriculturists of Bethnal Green. This agricultural idea went to his head to such an extent that he totally failed to read the Clause that he was criticising. May I direct his attention to it? He does not appear to have a copy of the Bill. Perhaps he could borrow one from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason). He does not seem to have one either.
    Mr. MASON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will stick to the Bill and answer my hon. Friend's criticisms.
    Mr. ELLIOT: If the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had read the Clause, he himself could have answered in advance all the criticisms that the hon. Member has just made.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I was answering the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he stated that he could not give us the information till the next Session of Parliament and that he could not tell us how many officials are to be appointed.
    Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Baronet was able to answer my speech because he had not read the Clause. If I read it, it, will perhaps shorten the discussion:
    "The appropriate Ministers shall appoint a Committee … whose duty it shall be to advise those Ministers … and to prepare and submit to those Ministers particulars of such arrangements as are mentioned in Section two of this Act."
    The hon. Baronet now splits the welkin in his denunciation of me, because 1 cannot give him the information in advance of the provisions of the Clause. If he had read the Clause, he would have said I was proposing to appoint a committee but that it was only camouflage. It was skilful of him to reply to me before he bad read the Clause. We ask the Committee to approve a Clause drawn up in careful and specific terms in which Ministers are to appoint a committee, and the committee is to submit to them particulars of the arrangements mentioned in Clause 2. In those circumstances, it would clearly be premature, and it would not be carrying out the simple purpose of the Clause, if I were to lay down what the arrangements and the organisation were to be, and to say whether it was to be a regional or a county organisation, whether it was to be done through London, whether type-
    1616
    writers were to be purchased, and whether the offices were to be in Thames House.
    The hon. Baronet wanted to know a great deal. I refer him to the simple words of the Clause that he was criticising. If I had appointed a committee without the consent of the House, or if I had submitted to the Committee particulars of the arrangements which I am directed by the Clause to receive from the committee, no one would have been louder in his denunciations than the hon. Baronet. I beg hon. Members to adhere to the criticism of the Clause itself. Shall there be a Cattle Committee? I ask the Committee to say there shall. Shall the Cattle Committee prepare and submit to us arrangements? I beg the Committee to say that it shall. Will the committee have officers, agents and servants? It will, and they will be paid, not by the Ministers alone, but by Ministers with the approval of the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman was very sarcastic about the presence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and suggested that he was a mere passenger on this bench. Let me assure him that in the words
    "The appropriate Ministers may appoint a Secretary to the Cattle Committee, and the Committee may employ such officers, agents and servants as those Ministers, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine "
    the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has secured all that he wants and does not need to be a passenger on this Bench. He is the gaoler of the people who are in the prison van. Surely, the proposals are simple. They are businesslike. They have to be put through, once the Committee approves of the Clause and indeed of the Bill which we are now asking them to pass. I suggest that the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has invented some of those questions, and he will find the best answer in the simple statement that this Bill deals with an emergency. The emergency is not because we have not considered these matters which he has suggested to the House. The emergency is because we are waiving our undoubted right to impose heavy restrictions upon imports into this country and on that account only, and, having decided to waive what everybody admits to be our legal right to impose restrictions on imports into this country, we are acting at short notice to

    1617
    find another way of meeting the problem upon which we have been working for the last six months, and, indeed, for the last 18 months. It is that which produces the necessity for short-term legislation, and in reproaching us for that hon. Members below the Gangway, who, in season and out of season, press these considerations upon us, are, I submit, making a totally unworthy use of a genuine attempt by the Government to make the least interference with trade as possible. On both these grounds, I hope that the Committee will allow us now to have the Clause.
    Clauses 5 (Interpretation, and provisions as to orders and regulations and as to accounts of Cattle Fund) and 6 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

    SCHEDULE.

    No. of Vote.

    Navy Services, 1932, Votes.

    Deficits.

    Surpluses.

    Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

    Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

    Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.

    Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1

    Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet
    Services.

    10,800

    15

    2

    —

    —

    1,723

    5

    11

    2

    Victualling and Clothing

    —

    52,467

    11

    11

    145,836

    5

    10

    —

    3

    Medical Establishments and Services.

    —

    951

    11

    6

    20,422

    19

    2

    —

    4

    Fleet Air Arm

    —

    —

    —

    —

    5

    Educational Services

    —

    —

    8,187

    10

    8

    2,770

    3

    9

    6

    Scientific Services

    —

    7,179

    4

    5

    27,830

    13

    9

    —

    7

    Royal Naval Reserves

    —

    225

    8

    7

    3,673

    15

    6

    —

    8

    Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:

    Sec. 1. Personnel

    —

    —

    56,935

    18

    2

    5,332

    15

    0

    Sec. 2. Matériel

    —

    165,881

    9

    6

    439,846

    9

    2

    —

    Sec. 3. Contract Work

    232,028

    17

    2

    3,819

    14

    10

    —

    —

    9

    Naval Armaments

    —

    60,476

    13

    8

    229,791

    2

    2

    —

    10

    Works, Buildings, and Repairs

    62,998

    10

    0

    65,451

    11

    5

    —

    —

    11

    Miscellaneous Effective Services.

    —

    —

    67,936

    17

    11

    11,284

    0

    3

    12

    Admiralty Office

    —

    —

    17,866

    3

    9

    252

    5

    2

    13

    Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers.

    35,734

    2

    9

    —

    —

    3,814

    17

    11

    14

    Non- Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men.

    19,811

    10

    8

    —

    —

    5,757

    11

    1

    15

    Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowance, and Gratuities.

    17,093

    6

    5

    40

    4

    7

    —

    —

    —

    Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.

    2,455

    4

    11

    —

    —

    —

    380,922

    7

    1

    356,493

    10

    5

    1,018,327

    16

    1

    30,934

    19

    1

    Total Deficits

    £737,415

    17

    6

    Total Surpluses

    £1,049,262

    15

    2

    Net Surplus £311,846 17 8

  NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1932.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DTENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1933, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, and that as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £311,846 17s. 8d, namely:

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  1,049,262

  15

  2

  Total Deficits

  737,415

  17

  6

  Net Surplus

  £311,846

  17

  8

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
  Resolved,
  "That the application of such sums he sanctioned."—[Mr. Ruff Cooper.]

  1619
  II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1933, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £509,761 3s. 2d., namely:

  SCHEDULE.

  No. of Vote.

  Army Services 1932, Votes.

  Deficits.

  Surpluses.

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, etc., of the Army

  2,672

  5

  9

  —

  —

  33,222

  13

  9

  2

  Territorial Army and reserve Forces.

  —

  6,337

  4

  4

  55,429

  7

  3

  —

  3

  Medical Services

  —

  3,170

  3

  1

  21,296

  3

  1

  —

  4

  Educational Establishments

  22,380

  5

  1

  11,066

  19

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Quartering and Movements

  —

  —

  28,153

  18

  9

  55,810

  4

  3

  6

  Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts.

  —

  33,935

  11

  3

  241,926

  19

  9

  —

  7

  Clothing

  —

  43,011

  16

  4

  61,265

  8

  5

  —

  8

  General Stores

  —

  39,886

  8

  7

  132,806

  12

  5

  —

  9

  Warlike Stores

  —

  152,008

  18

  11

  49,478

  19

  0

  —

  10

  Works, Buildings, and Lands

  23,079

  15

  0

  —

  —

  1,086

  10

  9

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services.

  2,004

  3

  0

  4,971

  18

  5

  —

  —

  12

  War Office

  —

  —

  10,991

  5

  4

  763

  7

  2

  13

  Half-Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers.

  —

  9,153

  6

  5

  51,930

  3

  5

  —

  14

  Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-commissioned Officers,
  Men, and others.

  —

  —

  60,914

  7

  10

  68,061

  15

  11

  15

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities.

  7,254

  2

  2

  —

  —

  93

  10

  11

  —

  Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.

  2,537

  7

  1

  —

  —

  —

  59,927

  18

  1

  303,542

  6

  9

  714,193

  5

  3

  159,033

  2

  9

  Total Deficits

  £303,470

  4

  10

  Total Surpluses

  £873,231

  8

  0

  Net Surplus £509,761 3 2

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Duff Cooper.]
  7.37 p.m.
  Brigadier-General NATION: We are saving here a fairly large sum of money, nearly £1,000,000, to the Treasury, and there are two or three items on which I should like to ask questions of the Minister. I see under the heading of

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  873,231

  8

  0

  Total Deficits

  363,470

  4

  10

  Net Surplus

  £509,761

  3

  2

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorized the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
  Vote 6, "Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts," nearly £242,000 unspent. Are we to understand that, owing to the strength of the Army for the year being considerably less than the authorised establishment, there has been less money spent on supplies? On Vote 8, "General Stores," £132,000 has been underspent, chiefly, I understand, in respect of clothing. Is that also due to the strength of the Army in 1932 being less than the

  1621
  authorised establishment? There is one other item which I confess I do not understand, and, if the Minister can give an explanation, I shall be very glad. Under Vote 9, "Warlike Stores," there is an item of £152,000 in the deficiency column. Does that mean that that amount has been overspent? These are the three chief items in this statement of expenditure, and it would be for the benefit of the Committee if the Minister could kindly give us an explanation.
  7.39 p.m.
  Earl WINTERTON: I want also to ask a question about the Territorial Army and Reserve Forces. I am not sure, from the form in which this return is presented, whether there has been an actual surplus over the estimated expenditure under this heading. If there has been, I would venture, as a member of the Territorial Association, to put in a strong plea to the Minister, which, I think, would be supported by the Council of the Territorial Association, that that money should be given to the Territorial Forces. The Minister will be aware that for a long time the Council of the Territorial Association has been pressing for certain expenditure which the Army Council have not thought it possible to authorise. I wish to put in a sympathetic plea on their behalf.
  The CHAIRMAN: That will be out of order here, as this is expenditure which is past and done with.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry
  7.40 p.m.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I think that I can answer the question put to me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation). In fact, if he had taken the trouble to obtain a copy of the Army Appropriation Accounts, 1932, from the Vote Office he would have seen answers given to all his questions. He asked me about Vote 6, "Supplies, Road Transport and Remounts." The best thing I can do is to read the explanation given in the Notes in this particular publication. As far as A and B are concerned, that is "Provisions and Forage and Allowances in lieu," prices were lower than were estimated, and, therefore, that is the reason why we have a surplus there. As far as "Petrol and Lubricants" are concerned, there was
  1622
  "an over-estimate of requirements partly offset by a rise in the price of petrol."
  With regard to F, "Appropriations-in-Aid connected with Sub-heads A to E," this publication says:
  "Purchases by the Navy and the Air Force were less and at lower price levels than estimated."
  With regard to G, "Hired Road Transport," it says:
  "The requirements of hired transport in Palestine were over-estimated."
  As to H, "R.A.S.C. Mechanical Transport," it was
  "due to abnormal maintenance requirements,"
  that we had a deficit. On J, "Subsidies for Mechanical Transport," there was a surplus because
  "the number of vehicles enrolled under the scheme was smaller than estimated."
  That is the only reason that there has been any change in that particular Vote.
  Brigadier-General NATION: It is on no account due to the fall in the strength of the Army for that year? That is the only assurance that I wish to obtain.
  Mr. HACKING: I can give that assurance. The only reasons for the change are those which I have given to my hon. and gallant Friend. Does he want to know about other Votes?
  Brigadier-General NATION: I should like an explanation of Vote 9, "Warlike stores."
  Mr. HACKING: There there was a surplus of £49,201, due to delays in manufactures.
  Brigadier-General NATION: What about the deficiency of £152,000?
  Mr. HACKING: The explanation of the deficit of £152,009 of actual, as compared with estimated receipts, is that the details of the estimated and the actual appropriations-in-aid on the two items of Vote 9 are printed on page 19 of the Account. The deficit on Item 1 of £23,174 was due to a smaller amount of proof and experimental work being carried out for the Admiralty, and the deficit on Item 2 of £128,835 was due to the demands for issues from the Dominions and Colonies being less than the Estimate. That was the reason for the difference.
  Earl WINTERTON: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to explain how the surplus shown in the last column

  1623
  but one in the Schedule on the Order Paper relating to Vote 2 arose?
  Mr. HACKING: Is my Noble Friend referring to this publication?
  Earl WINTERTON: I am referring to Vote 2, "Territorial Army and Re serve Forces," where there is a surplus actually estimated over gross expenditure.
  Mr. HACKINGWhat amount is that?
  Earl WINTERTON: On the printed paper it says the amount is £55,429 7s. 3d.
  Mr. HACKING: I regret that I have not the details here this evening, but if the Noble Lord will put a question tomorrow on the Report stage I shall be glad to reply.
  Earl WINTERTON: I willingly agree to that suggestion, but I would point out that this is a very ancient opportunity of raising this question, and it is a common practice to ask questions. The Report stage does not offer the same opportunity as the present stage, because an hon.

  SCHEDULE.

  No. of Vote.

  Air Services, 1932, Votes.

  Deficits.

  Surpluses.

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force.

  —

  6,974

  6

  5

  70,117

  8

  4

  —

  2

  Quartering Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport.

  —

  15,207

  9

  9

  134,420

  10

  9

  —

  3

  Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services).

  —

  16,741

  2

  6

  14,737

  17

  11

  —

  4

  Works, Buildings, and Lands

  —

  4,718

  15

  5

  131,183

  12

  9

  —

  5

  Medical Services

  —

  —

  6,140

  0

  2

  2,661

  15

  9

  6

  Technical Training and Educational Services.

  —

  171

  3

  9

  4,650

  4

  0

  —

  7

  Auxiliary and Reserve Forces

  5,950

  9

  3

  31

  2

  9

  —

  —

  8

  Civil Aviation

  6,313

  9

  1

  —

  —

  17,008

  5

  11

  9

  Meteorological Services

  —

  528

  17

  0

  8,526

  19

  4

  —

  Miscellaneous Effective Services.

  —

  —

  10,466

  10

  3

  413

  4

  8

  10

  Air Ministry

  —

  —

  6,421

  10

  4

  1,022

  1

  4

  11

  Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-effective Services.

  9,555

  9

  0

  —

  —

  1,300

  17

  6

  —

  Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.

  249

  12

  5

  —

  —

  —

  22,068

  19

  9

  44,372

  17

  7

  386,664

  13

  10

  22,406

  5

  2

  Total Deficits

  £66,441

  17

  4

  Total Surpluses

  £409,070

  19

  0

  Net Surplus £342,629 1 8

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  Member can speak only once. However, I agree to the course suggested.

  £

  s.

  d

  Total Surpluses

  409,070

  19

  0

  Total Deficits

  66,441

  17

  4

  Net Surplus

  £342,629

  1

  8

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.
  Resolved,
  "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Duff Cooper.]

WAYS AND MEANS.

  WHALING INDUSTRY (LICENCES).
  Resolution reported,
  "That, under any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to a Convention for a Regulation of Whaling and to make provision for other matters, such fees as may be prescribed by the licensing authority under the said Act shall be charged in respect of the grant of licences authorising the use of ships and factories for taking and treating whales, being fees which do not exceed—

  (a) two hundred pounds in the case of licences authorising the use of ships or factories for treating whales; or

  (b) one hundred pounds in the case of licences authorising the use of ships for taking whales"

  WHALING INDUSTRY (PAYMENT OF FEES AND FINES INTO EXCHEQUER).
  Resolution reported,
  "That there shall be paid into the Exchequer—

  (a) all fees received under any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to a Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and to make provision for other matters by the licensing authority under that Act or by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Fishery Board for Scotland or any other person acting under the authority of the Board of Trade; and

  (b) all fines recovered by virtue of the said Act."

  WHALING INDUSTRY (REGULATION) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to a Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, signed at Geneva on behalf of His Majesty on the twenty-fourth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, to prohibit the taking or treating of whales within the coastal waters of the United Kingdom, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses incurred for the purposes of that Act by the licensing authority thereunder or by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Fishery Board for Scotland or any other person acting under the authority of the Board of Trade (including' sums required to pay the remuneration and expenses of whale fishery inspectors acting in pursuance of that Act)."
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir Lambert Ward.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes before Eight o'Clock.

  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (OVERTIME).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (OVERTIME).
  LIBERIA.
  LIBERIA.
  BOTANICAL GARDENS (TENNIS COURTS).
  BOTANICAL GARDENS (TENNIS COURTS).
  OPEN SPACES (FIRES).
  OPEN SPACES (FIRES).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  GLUCOSE AND MOLASSES.
  GLUCOSE AND MOLASSES.
  BINDER TWINE (IMPORT).
  BINDER TWINE (IMPORT).
  RUBBER BOOTS AND SHOES (IMPORT).
  RUBBER BOOTS AND SHOES (IMPORT).
  EX-RANKER OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  EX-RANKER OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  AMERICAN MOTOR CARS AND CHASSIS (IMPORT).
  AMERICAN MOTOR CARS AND CHASSIS (IMPORT).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (APPEALS) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
SOLICITORS BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION (TROL LEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) an re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Statement of grounds of refusal of relief, etc., to be furnished on application]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The three Amendments to this clause are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("Any decision refusing relief as aforesaid") and insert ("Whenever any such decision as aforesaid is intimated to an applicant for relief, the intimation")
Page 4, line 2, leave out ("the applicant") and insert ("him")
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("this section") and insert ("the foregoing subsection").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Training of and performance of work by poor persons.
"(2) Subject to any regulations which may be made by the Department, any able-bodied person applying for or in receipt of outdoor relief may, as a condition of receiving or continuing to receive such relief, be required by the local authority to perform, work suited to the person's age, sex, strength and aptitude if the authority consider it expedient so to require in the particular case:
Provided that no person shall be required to perform any work otherwise than at a work centre provided under this section or at or in connection with any institution maintained by the authority for the purposes of the principal Act, and on a certificate by a medical officer of the authority that he is physically fit to perform the work."
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to the proviso in subsection (2): "which certificate may, in the case of a person who has a regular medical attendant, be given only after consultation with such medical attendant wherever there is a reasonable opportunity of consulting with him." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to fulfil an undertaking given in another place. Subsection (2) of Clause 7 proposes that the local authority may in particular cases require an able-bodied poor person to perform

873
work, at a work centre or at or in connection with a poor law institution, as a condition of receiving outdoor relief. No person can be required to perform work except on a certificate by a medical officer of the local authority that he is physically fit to perform the work. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the medical officer of the local authority, who may have no knowledge of the person's medical history, will, by consultation with the person's regular doctor, be aware of the medical history of the case before granting a certificate.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 23, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Outdoor relief to members of friendly societies, etc.
11.—(1) In affording outdoor relief to any person a local authority shall disregard—

(c) the first one pound of any wounds or disability pension of which he, or any other person whose resources the authority take into account in relieving him, is in receipt; and

(d) any maternity benefit.

VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) the "whole of any maternity benefit payable in respect of his own or his wife's insurance under the last-mentioned Acts, exclusive of any increase of such benefit by way of additional benefit and of any second maternity benefit within the meaning of those Acts; and."
The noble Viscount said: The words proposed to be inserted are to be substituted for the words "any maternity benefit" in paragraph (d). The provision that any maternity benefit shall be disregarded was inserted by an Amendment accepted in another place. That Amendment was accepted in principle on the clear understanding that words such as are now proposed would be added. The amended provision will secure that the normal maternity benefit of 40s. cannot be treated as ordinary income available for the maintenance of the household. It is similar in terms to the provision in Section 33 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, relating to the
874
determination of the need of applicants under Part II of that Act. The normal maternity benefit is 40s. In the case of a married woman who is herself insured under the Health Insurance Acts a second or double maternity benefit is generally payable. In some cases the amount of benefit is increased by way of additional benefits. Authorities will be compulsorily required to disregard the normal benefit, and it would be within their discretion in an individual case to ignore any increased or second maternity benefit if they considered that the special needs of the case justified it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 26, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is purely consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, leave out from ("receipt") to the end of line 41.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

COLONIAL STOCK BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETABY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL HOPE):My Lords, this is a short Bill of two clauses which I think I can explain to your Lordships very briefly. The Colonial Stock Act, 1900, laid down three conditions which every Dominion or Colonial Government must observe if it desires its loans to be given trustee status in the London market. The third of these conditions reads as follows:
"The Colonial Government shall place on record a formal expression of their opinion that any Colonial legislation which appears to the Imperial Government to alter any of the provisions affecting the stock to the injury of the stockholder, or to involve a departure from the original contract in regard to the stock, would properly be disallowed."
In 1929 the Conference on the operation of Dominion legislation, while recommending that disallowance in general was no longer operative, made one exception, that where any stock was outstanding

875
which was of trustee status the right of disallowance must remain and could properly be exercised. Both the United Kingdom Government of the day and the Dominion Governments at the Imperial Conference in 1930 approved of this recommendation. Thus the rights and safeguards of the stockholder remain exactly as they always had been in every Dominion where the right of disallowance has not been abolished altogether. If, however, a Dominion should propose to change its Constitution in this respect a new situation would arise.
This situation has in fact arisen in South Africa, where last autumn the Dominion Government of South Africa gave notice that they were going to bring to an end a clause in their Constitution which gave the power of disallowance of Dominion legislation. But they desire to maintain the trustee status of their stocks which of course enables them to raise money in the London market at a much lower price than they would otherwise pay, and so they gave a very definite undertaking and have followed that by legislation to confirm the undertaking which they gave. The wording of Clause 1 (1) (a) of the Bill now before your Lordships was agreed to between this Government and the Government of the Dominion of South Africa, and it is in fact at the request of the South African Government that this Bill is now before your Lordships. The other Dominions were asked whether they, too, wished to join in a similar Bill, but the Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand all preferred to remain under the old conditions. Therefore they do not come into the Bill. None the less, the Government have thought it wise to draw the Bill on general lines so that, should a Dominion hereafter wish to accede to the Bill, it will be possible for them to do so. I think there is nothing further that I need say to your Lordships on this Bill and I beg to move it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, this is a Bill which comes before your Lordships every year. It is merely to bring the Customs Duties in the Isle of Man in line with those imposed in the Finance Act of this country. It is usually brought before the House as soon as the Finance Act has become law, and it confirms the Resolution passed in the Isle of Man, which, otherwise, would have operation only for six months. I think I need say nothing more about the Bill. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, this also is very nearly an annual Bill, although the last occasion on which such a Bill came before your Lordships was two years ago. Whenever the Public Works Loan Commissioners come to the end of their money they have to come before Parliament to get a new Bill. This Bill is to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance sums to borrowers out of the Local Loans Fund to a total of £18,000,000. When that comes to an end I imagine that Parliament will again be asked to pass another Bill of this character. That is the main purpose of the Bill, as provided for in Clause 1. In Clauses 2 and 3 power is taken to write off bad debts which, in the case of Clause 2, will be repaid to the Public Works Loan Commissioners by the Exchequer, and the Exchequer has power to recover where that is possible. In Clause 3 a further stage is taken in that a debt is written off altogether, together with outstanding interest for the past two years. The debt is due from the Fishery Board for Scotland. It is not desired that that body, already not very flush of funds, should have to find this money. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHOPS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 98 as printed for the House of Commons.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 12, after ("persons") insert ("between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years ")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the first Amendment, on the Paper limits the working of overtime by young persons to those who are between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years. It will not, therefore, now be possible for a young person under sixteen years to work more than forty-eight hours in any week or fifty-two hours during the transitional period of two years. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree, with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Fever sham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page, 2, line 4, leave out ("any")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 2, leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new Clause:—
Power to regulate employment in spells.
("2.—(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is necessary to make provision for preventing the hours of employment of young persons from being so divided, into spells as to deprive them of reasonable opportunities for instruction and recreation, he may make regulations directing that, subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be provided by the regulations, the working hours of a young person employed shall (notwithstanding anything in the definition of the expression ' working hours ' contained in this Act) be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to include the period from the time at which that person first begins on any day to be employed about the business of a shop
878
until the time at which he last ceases on that day to be so employed, exclusive only—

(a) of such intervals, whether for rest or meals or otherwise; and

(b) of time allowed for attendance at such instructional courses,

as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Any regulations made under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation has been laid before it resolves that the regulation shall be annulled the regulation shall forthwith be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new regulation.")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this is a new clause which is framed to meet certain points raised in Committee in another place. It provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations to prevent the hours of young persons being so divided into spells as to deprive them of reasonable opportunities for instruction and education, and also recreation. This will provide means, if necessary, to prevent any abuses which may arise from employers working their young persons early in the morning and again late at night, by dividing the, employment into two spells with an interval of two or three hours between the spells. It is considered better not to attempt to impose any rigid requirement applicable to all and every shop at the present time. I think your Lordships will agree it is obvious that certain modifications and exceptions will be required to any system of consecutive hours, and this is a matter which can only be decided in the light of experience in the working of the Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 3, page 3, line 28, after ("employed") insert ("during that hour")
Clause 3, page 3, line 28, after ("the") insert ("collection or")
Clause 3, page 3, line 29, leave out ("during that hour") and insert ("or newspapers")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, under Clause 3 a young person must have at least eleven consecutive

879
hours rest in every twenty-four and the period of eleven hours must include the period between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. An exception is, however, made in the clause for male young persons between sixteen and eighteen employed in connection with the delivery of milk or bread in the early morning, who may be employed from 5 a.m. The effect of the Amendments is, first, to extend this exception to include the delivery of newspapers; and, secondly, to make it clear that the collection of the commodities in question, for example, from a railway station or wholesale depot, is also covered. I beg to move that these Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 4, line 2, after the second ("to") insert ("a shop shall be deemed to include references to the place in or from which the retail trade or business is carried on, and references to")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 5, page 4, line 10, after ("two") insert ("consecutive")
Clause 5, page 4, line 15, after ("person") insert ("between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years")
Clause 5, page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (2)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the first two Amendments are drafting Amendments and the third is consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 4, line 43, at the beginning insert:
("If the occupier of any shop gives notice that he elects that the provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable to that shop then, unless and until the notice is withdrawn, the said provisions Shall not be applicable thereto but as respects business carried on at any shop to which
880
the said provisions are not so rendered inapplicable.")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will refer to this Amendment and the next together. The occupier can confine his overtime to six weeks in the year, in which case he may employ young persons overtime up to a maximum of twelve hours a week (subject of course to the annual limit of 50 hours overtime for the individual young person). Alternatively, he may employ young persons overtime in any week in the year, but in that case he must not employ any young person for more than eight hours overtime in any period of two consecutive weeks.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 5, line 4, leave out from ("and") to the end of line 8 and insert:
("if other business is carried on in the shop the overtime employment of persons in relation to whom this subsection applies shall not be taken into account for the purposes of the application of the said proviso in relation to other young persons:
Provided that while the provisions of this subsection are applicable to a shop, Section one of this Act shall, in relation to any young person so employed in connection with the business aforesaid, have effect as if in proviso (b) to subsection (2) thereof there were inserted the following additional paragraph, that is to say—
(iii) (a) in any period of two consecutive weeks so that he is employed over time about the business of a shop for more than eight working hours in that period.
"(4) A notice given under the last foregoing subsection with respect to any shop, and a notice withdrawing any such notice as aforesaid, shall be given in such form, in such manner, and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, to the local authority whose duty it is to enforce the foregoing provisions of this Act within the district in which the shop is situated, and any such notice shall take effect on such date after it is given as may be prescribed.")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, in paragraph (iii) (a) in the words inserted by the Commons I move to leave out "a" and insert "the."
Amendment to the Commons Amendment moved—
Page 5, Line 15 of the words inserted by the Commons, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I have to move that we agree with the Commons Amendment, as amended.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment, as amended.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 5, line 15, leave out from ("and") to ("during") in line 16 and insert ("midnight").
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, under subsection (4) of Clause 5 as it stood male young persons between sixteen and eighteen might be employed in restaurants up to one a.m. The Amendment substitutes "midnight" for one a.m. so that they may not now be employed after twelve o'clock midnight.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 5, line 20, at end insert ("to whom the provisions of this Act apply ")
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("where") and insert ("in the case of a person employed at premises to which")
Page 5, line 25, leave out from ("apply") to the end of line 26, and insert:
("is not wholly or mainly employed there in connection with the business of selling intoxicating liquors or refreshments for consumption on the premises")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, these three are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 5, line 27, leave out subsection (7).
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships agree with this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 6, page 5, line 36, leave out from ("use") to the first ("that") in line 41, and insert ("gives notice")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this is drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 6, line 1, after ("persons") insert ("between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, under the provisions of the clause the occupiers of garages may average the statutory hours over a period of three weeks, subject to a maximum of fifty-four hours in any week. The Amendment provides that the averaging arrangement is only to apply to young persons between sixteen and eighteen. This is similar to the provision made in the case of the catering trade under a previous Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this is drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 6, line 17, at end, insert:
("(iii b) in any period of three consecutive weeks so that he is employed overtime about the business of a shop for more than twelve working hours in that period.")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, in this Amendment I propose to move an Amendment, in line 3 of the words inserted by the Commons, to leave out "a" and insert "the".
Amendment to the Commons Amendment moved—
In line 3, of the words inserted by the Commons leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that we agree to the Commons Amendment, as amended.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, as amended.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 6, line 18, leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4).
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the omission of subsection (2), relating to the notices to be given, is consequential upon the new clause relating to notices to be inserted. The omission of subsection (3), which relates to cases where the sale of accessories is carried on in a department of a multiple store, is also consequential upon a new subsection (4). The omission of subsection (4), which relates to the transitional period, is consequential on the new clause to be inserted after Clause 14. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 61, line 38, at the beginning insert:
("If the occupier of any shop gives notice that he elects that the provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable to that shop then, unless and until the notice is withdrawn, the said provisions shall not be applicable thereto, but as respects business carried on at any shop to which the said provisions are not so rendered inapplicable.")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment should be taken with the next Amendment. It is parallel to the Amendment to Clause 5, line 4, and is to extend to garages, which, like catering establishments, are exempt from the limitation of overtime to six weeks in the year. They may, therefore, use overtime in any week in the year. The Amendment makes it a condition of this exemption that overtime shall not exceed twelve hours in any period of three consecutive weeks.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 7, line 1, leave out from the beginning to the end of line o and insert:
("if other business is carried on in the shop the overtime employment of persons in relation to whom this subsection applies shall not be taken into account for the purposes of the application of the said proviso in relation to any other young persons.
Provided that while the provisions of this subsection are applicable to a shop. Section one of this Act, shall, in relation to any young person employed in connection with the business aforesaid, have effect as if in proviso (b) to subsection (2) thereof there were inserted the following additional paragraph, that is to say—
(iii) (b) in any period of three consecutive weeks so that he is employed overtime about the business of a shop for more than twelve working hours in that period.
(3) A notice given under subsection (1)or under subsection (5) of this section with respect to any shop and a notice withdrawing any such notice as aforesaid shall be given in such form, in such manner, and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, to the local authority whose duty it is to enforce the foregoing provisions of this Act within the district in which the shop is situated, and any such notice shall take effect on such date after it is given as may be prescribed.
(4) Where two or more retail trades or businesses are carried on in the same shop and the business of serving customers with supplies or accessories for aircraft, motor vehicles, or cycles sold for immediate use, is not the principal retail trade or business carried on in the shop, the provisions of this section shall apply only in relation to young persons employed about the business of a shop who are wholly or mainly employed in connection with the business of serving customers with such, supplies or accessories as aforesaid.")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move, in paragraph (iii) (b) of the proviso, to leave out "a" and insert "the."
Amendment to the Commons Amendment moved—
In line 15 of the words inserted by the Commons leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move, in subsection (4) of the Commons Amendment, to leave out "a" and to insert "the."
Amendment to the Commons Amendment moved—
In line 34 leave out ("a") and insert "the").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, as amended.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, as amended.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 9, page 8, line 27, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(".—(1) For the purposes of the provisions of Section one of the Shops Act, 1912, and of the First Schedule to that Act, every young person who is wholly or mainly employed about the business of a shop or in connection with any retail trade or business carried on in any place not being a shop shall be deemed to be a ' shop assistant,' and in those provisions and in this section that expression shall be construed accordingly.
(2) Subsection (1) of the said Section one (which relates to weekly half-holidays) shall not apply to any young person in any week unless he is employed as a shop assistant for more than twenty-live hours in that week and shall not apply to the employment of any young person in a theatre in any week(notwithstanding that he may be employed as a shop assistant for more than twenty-five hours in that week) if he is not employed as a shop assistant before midday on any day in that weak.
(3) If in any proceedings against any per son in respect of a contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) of the said Section one in relation to any young person it is shown that the young person was not so employed by him in the week in which the contravention occurred as to render that subsection applicable to the young person, it shall be a defence to prove that he did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the young person was also employed in that week as a shop assistant by some other employer.
(4) In the application, of the provisions of Section one of the Shops Act, 1912, and of the First Schedule to that Act, to young persons, the expression ' shop ' shall have the same meaning as n this Act, and those provisions shall, in their application to persons employed in connection with any retail trade or business carried on in any place not being a shop, have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say,—

(a) subsection (2) of the said Section one (which relates to the posting of notices) shall not apply;

(b) references to ' employment about the business of a shop ' shall be deemed to include references to employment in connection with any retail trade or business carried on in any place not being a shop, references to ' a shop ' shall be deemed to
886
include a reference to the place in or from which the retail trade or business is carried on, and references to ' the occupier of a shop ' shall be deemed to include references to the person by whom the retail trade or business is carried on.")

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move to leave out "as a shop assistant" where that phrase last occurs in subsection (2), and to insert "in the theatre." Clause 9 extends the provisions, of Section 1 of the Shops Act, 1912, relating to weekly half holidays and intervals for meals, which are at present confined to "shop assistants," to all young persons employed about the business of a shop. Under the Amendment the provisions of Section 1 of the Shops Act, 1912, are extended to young persons employed in retail trade or business carried on elsewhere than in a shop, for example, to young persons employed in street trading or trading from vans.
Amendment to the Commons Amendment moved—
In line 17 of the words inserted by the Commons, leave out ("as a shop assistant") and insert ("in the theatre ").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, as amended.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, as amended.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 8, line 36, leave out ("such persona as aforesaid") and insert (" young persons ")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 10, page 9, line 10, leave out from the beginning to ("suitable") in line 11 and insert:
("In every shop, not being a shop exempted from the provisions of this subsection, there shall be provided and maintained ")
Clause 10, page 9, line 12, at end insert ("available for the use of persons employed in or about the shop")
Clause 10, page 9, line18,after ("shop") insert ("not being a shop exempted from the provisions of this subsection")
Page 9, line 25, at end insert:
("(6) A shop shall be exempted from the provisions of subsection (2) or of subsection (4) of this section if there is in force a certificate exempting that shop there from granted by the authority whose duty it is to enforce those provisions, respectively, and any such certificate shall remain in force until it is withdrawn by the authority, but no such certificate shall be granted with respect to any shop unless the authority are satisfied that by reason of restricted accommodation or other special circumstances affecting the shop it is reasonable that such a certificate should be in force with respect thereto, and that suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences or washing facilities as the case may be, are otherwise conveniently available and, subject as hereinafter provided, a certificate in force with respect to any shop shall be withdrawn if the authority at any time cease to be so satisfied as aforesaid:
Provided that if the occupier of a shop is aggrieved by the withdrawal of such a certificate he may appeal to the County Court for the district in which the shop is situated and that Court may make such order concerning the certificate as appears to the Court, having regard to the matters aforesaid, to be just and equitable.")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave I will take the Amendments on page 9 of the Bill together. Under subsection (2) of the clause as it stands, sanitary conveniences need only be '"conveniently available" for the use of persons employed in or about the shop but they need not necessarily be provided in the shop. Under subsection (4) on the other hand washing facilities had invariably to be provided in the shop itself. The effect of these Amendments is that both sanitary conveniences and washing facilities must be provided in the shop, unless the shopkeeper is granted a certificate of exemption by the local authority. The authority are not to grant or continue a certificate unless they are satisfied that the restricted accommodation or other special circumstances affecting the shop make it I reasonable that exemption should be granted and that suitable sanitary conveniences or washing facilities are otherwise conveniently available. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 11, page 10, line 18, leave out from ("court") to the end of line "20, and insert:
("having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the terms of any contract between the parties, to be just and equitable, and any order made under this section may direct that any such contract as aforesaid shall cease to have effect in so far as it inconsistent with the terms of the order.")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is inserted to make it clear that in deciding upon the apportionment of the expenses incurred in complying with the requirements of Clause 10, the Courts are not to be bound by the terms of any lease. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Fever sham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 11, page 10, line 21, at end insert the following new clause:
Amendment of 2 Geo. 5. s. 3.
(". Subsection (1) of Section three of the Shops Act, 1912 (which relates to the provision of seats for female shop asistants), shall have effect as if there were inserted at the end thereof the words ' and it shall be the duty of the occupier of the shop to permit the female shop assistants so employed to make use of such seats when-even the use thereof does not interfere with their work, and the occupier shall in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed form give notice informing such shop assistants that they are intended to do so.'")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this new clause amends Section 3 of the Shops Act, 1912, which relates to the provision of seats for female shop assistants. The new clause makes it the duty of the occupier to permit the use of the seats whenever that does not interfere with the assistants' work. The occupier has also to give notice in the prescribed form and manner to his assistants that they are intended to use the seats. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 12, page 11, line 1, leave out ("(as extended by Section four of this Act)")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 14, page 13, line 39, leave out ("the") and insert ("a")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
Temporary modifications of limitations imposed by Act on working hours.
". Until the twenty-seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, the provisions of this Act mentioned in the first column of the Schedule (Temporary Modification of Reference to Working Hours) to this Act shall have effect as if for the references therein mentioned in the third column of that Schedule there were respectively substituted the references mentioned in the fourth column thereof:
Provided that as respects any shop to which the provisions of subsection (1) of Section four of this Act are applicable during a period comprising the said twenty-seventh day of December the substitution of references in that subsection which are mentioned in the said Schedule shall continue to have effect until the expiration of that period."
THE EARL OF FEVERHAM THE EARL OF FEVERHAM moved that the Commons Amendment be agreed to with an Amendment—namely, to leave out the proviso and insert:
"Provided that where a period of two or of three consecutive weeks specified in a notice exhibited or given as respects any shop under subsection (1) of Section five, or under subsection (]) of Section six of this Act comprises the twenty-sixth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six,
890
then, as respects that shop, the substituted references in that subsection which are mentioned in the said Schedule shall continue to have effect until the expiration of that period."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this new clause was inserted by the Government on Report to take the place of the original Clause 2 which was deleted in Committee. The new clause with its Schedule provides that during the transitional period of two years the normal maximum weekly hours shall be fifty-two instead of forty-eight, with a reduction of the allowance of overtime. The Bill as it left your Lordships' House contained separate provision in Clauses 5 and 6 for the transitional period as it affected the catering trade and garages, and it was found more convenient that the clause should be inserted in its present place and form. I beg to move to leave out the proviso in the Commons Amendment and to insert the alternative proviso.
Amendment to the Commons Amendment moved—
Lines 9 to 15, leave out the proviso and insert the said new proviso.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, as amended.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 15, page 14, line 19, at end insert:
("(c) For any reference to the Public Health Act, 1875, there shall be substituted a reference to the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897 ")
Clause 15, page 14, line 34, leave out ("Subsection (3)") and insert ("Subsections (3) and (4)")
Clause 15, Page 15 line 7, leave out ("1860") and insert ("1934")
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, these Amendments are drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Schedule, page 15, line 17, at end insert the following new Schedule:

SCHEDULE.

Temporary Modification of References to Working Hours.

Provision of Act.

Subject matter.

References for which Substituted substitution is to be made.

Substituted references.

Section one

Hours of employment

48 working hours

52 working hours.

50 working hours

24 working hours.

12 working hours

8 working hours.

Subsection (1) of section four.

Special provisions as to the catering trade.

96 working hours

104 working hours.

Subsection (3) of section four.

Special provisions as to the catering trade.

8 working hours

4 working hours.

Subsection (1) of section five.

Special provisions as to the sale of accessories for aircraft, motor-vehicles, and cycles.

48 working hours

52 working hours.

54 working hours

58 working hours.

144 working hours

156 working hours.

12 working hours

6 working hours.

Subsection (5) of section five.

Special provisions as to the sale of accessories for aircraft, motor-vehicles, and cycles.

12 working hours

6 working hours.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this is the Schedule containing the details of the hours and overtime to be worked during the transitional period. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I have to move three Amendments to the Bill consequential on the Commons Amendments. The first is in Clause 1, subsection (3), after "week," to insert "or period of two or of three consecutive weeks." The second is also in subsection (3) of Clause 1, after "week" in line 23, to insert "or period." The third is in Clause 7, subsection (1), after "for," to insert "rest and." I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 20, after ("week") insert ("or period of two or of three consecutive weeks")
Clause 1, page 2, line 23, after (" week ") insert (" or period ")
Clause 7, page 7, line 10, after ("for") insert ("rest and ")—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons with the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments and the consequential Amendments to the Commons Amendments.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name, That Standing Order No. XXI be amended. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any explanation. This is the Standing Order recommended by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House whose Report we discussed on Thursday last. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be amended as follows:
Clause 7, page 7, Line 17, after ("renewed") insert:
"When any Notice shall have remained on the Minutes of Proceedings for one month, exclusive of any period during which the House may stand adjourned for more than five days, without any Lord giving notice of appointing the same for a date, such Notice sha11 not ally longer appear among the Notices and Orders of the Day, and shall not again be included among the Notices and Orders of the Day until any Lord shall give notice of appointing the same for a date."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Order amended accordingly, and to be printed as amended.

ARMAMENTS POLICY.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to resolve, That this House regrets that a policy of increased armaments has been announced by His Majesty's Government before the termination of the Disarmament Conference, and after the recent conversations with France; and considers that such a policy is not calculated to give greater security

893
to this country, but by encouraging further competition in armaments is likely to endanger world peace.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion on the Paper in my name, on behalf of the Opposition in your Lordships' House and after consultation with my honourable friends in another place who are moving another Resolution at a later date very much in the same terms but further elaborated. I am on this occasion voicing the opinion of the Party with which I have the honour to be associated, and do not desire for a moment to inflict on your Lordships the views which I hold personally and which may differ in degree from those held by others. The course I am taking on behalf of my noble friends is one which we thought appropriate, as we have in your Lordships' House the Secretary of State for Air, who is chiefly concerned in the very grave announcement that was made by the Government last week. We have therefore lost no time, as we considered that your Lordships' House was the appropriate place in which to make the first of our charges against the Government's action. I hope very much that nothing that I shall say will strain too much the well-known and disarming courtesy of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, but so grave is the situation caused by the Government's announcement that we felt that without delay our attitude with regard to it should be laid before the country.
The subject divides, itself really into two parts: the policy declared by the Government and the occasion for the announcement of that policy. The policy declared by the Government involves an increase of forty-one squadrons in the Air Force which, when complete, will mean that thirty-three squadrons will be added to the total number available for home defence. That is an increase of 75 per cent. Eight extra squadrons will be available for service overseas, and provision will be made for four new squadrons in this year's Estimates. The total increase in strength will be aproximately 460 first-line machines when the whole programme is completed. The total expenditure, comprising a great number of new aerodromes, it is estimated, though we cannot say with what accuracy, is likely to be in the region of £20,000,000. There is a tendency, in dealing with the
894
Forces to consider that the air arm can be dealt with in a similar way to the military and naval arms, and we very often fall into error in that respect because the capacities of the air arm are, to a large extent, still unknown, but as we go along we are learning certain facts which are sufficient now to allow us to make a very clear estimate of its value and capacity.
The first question that arises is: What is the object of this increase, this sensational increase, in the air arm? Is it for defence? I shall lay aside any suggestion that it is for aggression. Nobody that I know in his senses in this country desires any aggressive policy, or wishes to arm or increase armaments for the sake of aggression, so that is a matter that need not enter into our discussions. Therefore we come at once to the question: Is it for defence? In the course of my remarks I shall have occasion more than once to quote the words of the Lord President of the Council, because he has made himself responsible for a series of very important speeches ranging over two years, dealing almost exclusively with this very grave problem. And as he is a leading member of His Majesty's Government we are therefore obliged to take what he says as authoritative, and we are justified therefore in quoting from his speeches.
He answered the question with regard to an increase in the air arm meaning defence, when he said in November, 1932:
"I think it is well also for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through."
The noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Air, has in none of his speeches denied the truth of that, and the Undersecretary for Air has confirmed it in his speeches. Therefore we can dispose of the idea—
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUES OF LONDONDERRY): I do not think the noble Lord said I had confirmed that?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: No, I said that the noble Marquess had never denied the truth of that, although he never, as I quite admit, made the same assertion. We may, therefore, dispose of the idea that this is for defence, and indeed it would be very wrong to delude the people of this country into supposing

895
that it was for defence. But it may be argued that attack may be the best defence and that the question with air warfare is who gets the rapid blow in first. We then come to the question of defence by threat of retaliation. Again the President of the Council said:
"The only defence is in offence, which means you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves."
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in a recent debate emphasised this point by saying that the threat of retaliation would have the effect of preventing an air attack. It has become an almost favourite doctrine and I wish to say a word on the subject. The argument is this, that if nation A desires to attack and drop bombs on the capital of nation B, nation A will hesitate to do that if it knows that nation B will retaliate by dropping bombs on the capital of nation A. That seems very plausible and a very good argument on paper. It visualises neatly arranged war between two nations where this offence is going to take place and is going to be thwarted in that way. Anybody who follows the course of international relations and looks at the world of to-day knows that a war if it comes— I used to say "if it comes"; I think since the present Government's announcement, I should say "when it comes"—is not going to occur in that way at all.
The network of treaties, assurances, obligations, engagements, commitments, tentative proposals, friendly conversations between one Power and another makes it impossible that a war is going to break out by the isolated aggressive intention of one nation A against another nation B. There are obligations under Article 16 of the Covenant; there is the Kellogg Pact; there are a number of treaties of non-aggression which have been concluded by the Soviet Government; there is the Little Entente; there is, I believe, a Balkan Pact; there is a Turkey-Persia Entente; there is the Nine-Power Pact with regard to the Far East; there is Locarno, and recently there are the regional pacts which have been called the Eastern Locarno. So it is perfectly clear that the next war, if it arises, will not be a matter of military strategic alignments, but of complex diplomatic entanglements. And in these conditions this clear-cut proposition of one nation being deterred from dropping bombs on
896
the capital of another nation by the threat of retaliation is simply no argument at all.
We come next to a third possibility as a reason for this policy and that is the desire for parity. The noble Marquess, I think it was in June of this year, said that the Government were determined to obtain for this country parity in the air with any country within striking distance of these shores. I rather hope he is not going to repeat that to-day after M. Barthou's recent visit, but at any rate the Government have got parity in mind, and the quest of parity is really a new fangled method of talking of competition. It is the quest of parity that must lead to competition in armaments. "I have one, you must have two: then you have three, I will have three," and so it goes on. It is this quest for parity that leads to a wholesale competition in armaments. When this programme is carried out we shall have approximately 1,300 first line machines; France has now about 1,650; Russia and Italy have each 1,500. We shall not have reached parity. But why parity? Is there safety in parity? There will be far greater safety in preponderance. If any Government could guarantee the safety of this nation by spending vast sums on a huge Air Force then the matter would be different, but we know that this Air Force is no defence; that it is not going to be used for attack; that defence by retaliation is an argument that will not hold water. The mere desire for parity really is an idle and insufficient reason for alarming this country with the declaration of this new policy.
Again I go back to the Lord President of the Council. When he was examining the three possibilities with regard to the question of disarmament he mentioned first the idea that all nations should disarm down to the level of Germany—a proposition which His Majesty's Government never pressed. He then pointed to the possibility of a limitation of armaments, which excludes large offensive weapons, and added:
"The third alternative is competition in armaments. Those are the three possibilities. What I say there is that in no circumstances must that third alternative be reached."
But it has been reached, and the Government have been the first to lead in that direction. Mr. Baldwin and his

897
Government have gone steadily down the path which he, in the most eloquent terms, has warned the country to avoid. We are now in the full flow of re-armament, and this is what he said about rearmament:
"If re-armament began in Europe you may say good-bye to any restoration of cuts, to any reduction of taxation for a generation. And it is just as well to face these things. We may have to face thorn, and let us realise what it is we are up against. … Psychologically WES should be back again in 1914, and with more knowledge than we had then, and I have never disguised my own view that another war in Europe would be the end of the civilisation we know."
Those are very grave words which moved the country very deeply, and here we find the Government, a few months afterwards, drifting precisely down that very steep precipice.
I am not alone in thinking that the present situation resembles the earlier months of 1914. There is the same idea of competition, the same vague, undefined suspicions, the same feeling of insecurity, the same absence of a bold, courageous lead in the right direction. Although it may be a side issue one must consider the question of money. In recent debates which we have had in your Lordships' House on housing, on education, and on questions like the provision of public works and unemployment, we have found the Government necessarily held back by want of money, by reluctance to impose further taxation, and this real national defence is to be sacrificed for a system which so far the Government have not defended as being national defence at all.
One wonders what in recent months has induced the Government to take this step. I do not know if it is to satisfy the clamour of a very articulate but utterly negligible section of public opinion. I do not know whether it is to help people such as those who call themselves the Air Defence League. I dare say other noble Lords have received, as I have received, a leaflet with the portrait of a, gentleman on the outside of it—a very hideous character, who has apparently lost most of his teeth and so wants somebody else to bite for him. In that leaflet we are told that there must be created "a new winged army of long-range British bombers to smash the foreign hornets in their nests." Is that the sort of clamour to which the Govern-
898
ment are giving in? If so, they will find that it is a negligible minority, who are actuated by motives so low and who seem to glory in the use of these diabolical methods of destroying human life.
Then there is the argument which I have seen used—I am not sure that it was not used by somebody last Saturday—that this policy of ours announced last Thursday is going to encourage other nations to disarm. That is a most surprising theory. It may go down in Han-well and Broadmoor, but it will not go down in Parliament. We, who have the least cause of almost any nation to be nervous of any prospective attack, say that our rearming is going to reassure the world so that they will begin to disarm! The truth is that the Government have created a very anomalous situation and then they will point to that situation as a justification of the measures they have taken.
But, my Lords, under the second heading of the occasion they have chosen for the declaration of this policy, still graver charges can be brought against His Majesty's Government. Where is the imminent danger? I would venture to assert without contradiction that in the history of Europe there can hardly have been a time when the nations and their Governments were more intent on internal reconstruction and the adjustment of things in such a way as to get rid of the terrible dislocations of the recent War. I do not believe there has been a time when nations have been so intent on internal policy as they are to-day. You see that wherever you turn. We find that the various changes that have been going on in Germany are of such a character as to make internal questions the one interest of the moment. And unfortunately in France the same may be the case with the internal troubles that they have. Italy wants to reconstruct her national life The Soviet Government are intent on so testing their past experiment as to prove it, if they possibly can, a success, and they know that the whole of the experiment depends on world peace. The tension even between Germany and France recently seemed to have been very much loss strained.
At the same time the long-drawn-out attempt at disarmament which, under the auspices of the League of Nations, has been going on in the Disarmament Con-

899
ference has not yet terminated. Surely it is premature on the part of the participants in the Conference to make a declaration that that Conference has failed. That the British Government should take it on themselves openly to declare the failure of the Disarmament Conference before the doors are closed, when as often as not, as we know, at the last moment after great differences some solution may be found, we regard as a malevolent act of diplomatic sabotage without any parallel—a wanton act of mutilation at a critical moment which only indicates the insincerity of the pretended support the Government have given to the League as the appropriate body to deal with these grave international problems.
Not only that, but hardly a fortnight has passed since the French Foreign Secretary was our guest here in London. Regional pacts were discussed, and Sir John Simon in another place made a long statement in which he expressed his approval of the steps that were being taken and he assured us that no further obligations had been undertaken by this country. My Lords, I hate the sound of "no obligations." It reminds me as much as anything of August, 1914. We are not, as a nation, famous for our diplomacy. The French are rightly very famous for theirs. When will our diplomats learn that an obligation may not depend on any written and sealed document or on any treaty or formal engagement, not even on any verbal assurance, but that it can become binding as an obligation of honour founded merely on a friendly expectation of co-operation in certain circumstances where you find yourselves committed to some possible form of intervention?
This Eastern Locarno, these regional pacts, sound very plausible and one is naturally desirous of supporting anything that will bring Russia and Germany back into the League of Nations. Any friendly intention on the part of Powers to work together co-operatively for the sake of peace is a policy which very naturally we should be inclined to approve. But we must regard these questions a little more closely. This Eastern Locarno is linked to the Western Locarno by France. If France is committed to support Russia against a possible German attack, it is not inconceivable that a war might break out on Germany's Western frontier, and
900
then we are involved. You cannot detach these matters. But, as I pointed out just now, the entanglements in Europe are so complex that we must regard the possibility of here or there some commitment turning up of which we were not aware. The assurances of the Foreign Secretary were such as to make us think that this was all to the good—that there was no new commitment; but when, within a fortnight, the Government declare out of the blue that they are going to increase their air arm by 75 per cent., then we are inclined to wonder whether there are not some hidden obligations of which the country is unaware. Certainly the announcement of the Government has done very much to make us very suspicious of these recent conversations with France, unless they can explain it in some other way. We are wondering. There is a lot still to be explained, because the country, and the world, are somewhat mystified as to this step on the part of Great Britain.
Somebody—I do not know who it was— declared that this Government believed in faith, hope and parity: faith in the efficacy of the new and diabolical weapon of aerial bombardment, hope that threatened retaliation would prevent an attack, and parity, this fruitless pursuit which is the surest way to encourage competition and endanger world peace. As I said just now, we have a lot more to learn. The noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Air, has in your Lordships' House always very clearly and very explicitly put the point of view of the Air Force for which he is responsible. He has not indulged in any rhetoric, and I think he has often been very much embarrassed by the eloquence of the Lord President of the Council. However that may be, there is a lot that requires explanation before the nation will be satisfied. By the declaration of this policy at such a time the Government have done much to damage the reputation which they imagined they had gained for wisdom, sanity, and judicious economy. The great mass of the electors, who are inarticulate, will take note of this. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the policy of the Party to which I have the honour to belong, we all know that when it comes to an Election it is the failures of Governments and not the promises of Oppositions which turn the scale. A Government which has de-

901
liberately sowed discord in the world when it had, with its large Parliamentary majority, an unrivalled opportunity of taking the opposite course, the path of peace, is a Government which the people of this country in their present mood will show that they will no longer tolerate.
The Government are creating a scare quite inexcusably. They are authoritatively damping down all prospect of disarmament. They are suggesting that their recent approval of regional pacts may involve indirect obligations to draw us into Continental wars. They are devoting a large part of the country's resources to destructive purposes when every penny is required for the arduous work of reconstruction; and they are showing their complete confidence in the imbecile doctrine that by devastating violence you can settle international disputes. That is our indictment against the Government, and we are making it because we know that we are voicing the opinions of many millions of our fellow-countrymen. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House regrets that a policy of increased armaments has been announced by His Majesty's Government before the termination of the Disarmament Conference, and after the recent conversations with France; and considers that such a policy is not calculated to give greater security to this country, but by encouraging further competition in armaments is likely to endanger world peace.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbreae.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the interesting speech to which we have just listened from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is in accordance with the views he has often expressed in this House and also in agreement with those of his Party. I do not propose, to-day, to travel into many of the points which were raised by him, but hope to confine myself to the precise matters before your Lordships in the present Motion. It cannot be doubted throughout the world that this country and the successive Governments of this country in late years, ever since the War, have devoted their energies and abilities to the promotion and maintenance of peace; certainly they have done what they could to prevent wars in the near or immediate future. In relation to dis-
902
armament in particular, I think we must bear in mind, in view of what has been said by the noble Lord, that for some eight and a half years now successive Governments of this country have been engaged in promoting disarmament, in allowing their own armaments to fall to a level below that which has been considered quite secure, and have gone, as some have thought, too far in that direction. I myself cannot accept that view, but nevertheless there has been definite criticism in this respect.
It has been said again and again that a time would come when the Government would be bound to take action in order to remedy the deficiencies which have been allowed to happen during those years, owing partly to the financial position of the country and partly also to the discussions on disarmament. Eventually, only a little while ago, we reached a condition of affairs in which it was thought, so far as I can gather, by all who had studied the international situation in relation to the Disarmament Conference, that there was little hope for this Conference. I have no desire to recapitulate various statements that were made, and various indications that were given, not only by the Government but by others, and I am perfectly certain by some members of the Opposition Party as well as, I have no doubt, by some members of my own Party. I am not for a moment suggesting that they declared the Conference was at an end, but what I think we all thought not so long ago was that the prospects of the Disarmament Conference were just about as bad as they could be, and that it would surprise nobody to hear that within a very short time the Conference was to come to a conclusion.
As your Lordships know, all who are engaged in a Conference, and all the nations who are taking part in it, are anxious to avoid as far as they can anything like a complete failure and the announcement of the dissolution of a Conference without having reached any result. It was thought, certainly so far as my reading and discussion helped me, that that had happened only a little while ago and, as I gather, there have been discussions by the Government, with, I should imagine, the Committee of Imperial Defence and with those whose advice they were taking on this subject, as to what was to happen in the event of the Conference being declared at an end, and

903
of stock having to be taken in relation to the Defence Services. I do not hesitate to say, and I am sure your Lordships will all agree whether you are in opposition or not, that no Government, of whatever Party composed, could possibly have held the position of an executive Government during the last two months, to take only a short period of time, without giving care, thought and time to the consideration of the defences of this country—to the three defensive Forces—in the future, and particularly if the Disarmament Conference should come to a conclusion. I am perfectly certain that nobody could blame the Government if, for some time, and it may be for a long time, they had been considering all these possibilities. I gather that the Government did come to a conclusion in regard to the Air Force, and that has been followed by the declaration made by the Government in the last few days.
We are concerned to-day with that declaration and what it means. That it is a highly momentous statement of policy by His Majesty's Government, and that it must have an effect upon the international situation, apart altogether from our own national situation, cannot be disputed. It is a very important statement to have made. It is confined in its definite policy to an increase of the Air Force, but I notice that in the statement that was made by the Government it proceeds rather further. It is true that the Government confined the statement in the main to deficiencies of stores and equipment, but nevertheless what they had to say in this respect affects all three Services. The material words in the declaration are:
"In the light of these considerations the whole question of Imperial Defence and the part to be played in it by the three Defence Services has been for some months under review by the Government. It is not necessary to-day to give any complete account of our inquiries or of the detailed conclusions at which we have arrived. The deficiencies which it will be necessary to make good are largely deficiencies in equipment and stores which … have grown up owing to financial stringency and the discussions on disarmament. In these respects the results of our inquiries will be reflected in the Estimates for future years, and can be more conveniently discussed when those Estimates are debated."
The only point I wish to make, to-day, in debate upon that, is that I would ask the Government to give us some indica-
904
tion of what that means. I have been myself somewhat perplexed by it, because "equipment" is a word of wide meaning. It is a term which can be extended and expanded, and in relation particularly to our naval forces, and also the Army, one would like some indication—I cannot ask the Government to be precise about it—of what is in the mind of the Government in regard to this.
It is a very definite statement and has been most carefully thought out, but it gives no idea of what will be involved in relation to expenditure. After all, we must consider the question of finance. It has a very material bearing on the situation. I doubt whether it has been stated, but I have seen it estimated that the increase in the Air Force will cost over the next four years, when this programme is completed, from £20,000,000 to £40,000,000. So far as I can judge, and I have not, of course, the same opportunity of forming an opinion as the Government must have, £20,000,000 will be nearer the figure, but I hope we shall be told what is meant by that statement. I hope the Government will give us some idea—I understand there is much to be considered—which will enable us to form our own opinion as to what will be involved in the future by increased Estimates which will be brought forward in successive years in order to make good what are called the deficiencies in equipment and stores.
We are at the present day spending money rather freely. Even with a very careful Chancellor of the Exchequer we have been piling up burdens. We have not been able to spend money in a direction which most of us would have desired—namely, in education—as explained quite recently by the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, as well as in other matters, whereas we are becoming used to subsidies. From week to week we hear of new subsidies which have either been granted or will have to be granted in the forthcoming year. I certainly am not going to take up time in discussing details of the matter, but I only refer to it in order to press upon your Lordships what I submit cannot be left out of consideration, and that is that the Government's statement as it stands does mean serious expenditure, apart altogether from what may be necessary for the Air Force.
I can quite realise that in view of the various new conditions that prevail

905
abroad, with the possibilities of terrible destruction and devastation both of life and property that would ensue from attack from the air, the Government have been particularly concerned about the Air Force. Perhaps it is easier to point to deficiencies in our Air Force, as compared with some countries in Europe, than in the other Services. Whether it was necessary to increase the Air Force I cannot pretend to argue: it is the Government's responsibility. The Government have all the advantage of knowledge and advice on this subject, and I am not disposed to quarrel with their statement that it is essential now to increase the Air Force in order to keep pace. As I understand, what the Government are proposing now is an increase of 41 squadrons, including the four that have already been provided in the present year's Estimates, so that, if this policy is carried out, there will be an increase of 75 per cent. in the number of the aeroplanes which will be available in this contry.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Marquess speaks of 75 per cent. I am not sure what figure he refers to.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I will tell the noble Marquess. As I understand, we have hitherto had 42 squadrons. Ws are increasing by 41 squadrons, of which 33 are to be for home defence. That increase—I mean the addition of 33 to 42—would make an increase of 75 per cent. in home defence. There is just a little confusion because it makes a total of 75 squadrons as well as an increase of 75 per cent. The extra eight, of course, are to go to the Fleet air arm, and there the increase is only 20 per cent. I have no doubt that the Government had ground for coming to the conclusion that that increase would place this country in a better position for defence than has hitherto been the case. I imagine that little can be said against the fact, although there may be a difference of opinion in regard to the time or the measures that are taken.
The difficulty that I find in the Government's pronouncement is not so much in the declaration that they will have to increase the Air Force as in the moment they have chosen for the making of the announcement. I say, in all seriousness, that I cannot conceive a more inoppor-
906
tune moment to choose for this declaration than that which was selected on July 19 last. I have no desire to press the Government on the point but I cannot but come to the conclusion, having regard to all that has happened, that the Government made that announcement merely because at an earlier stage it had given a promise that it would make the announcement before the present Session came to an end. To put it perfectly plainly, the moment had arrived when it was thought the Disarmament Conference was bound to fail, although it was still kept alive and the failure had not been declared.
I have no doubt that the Government then formed conclusions as to what they should do, and thought that there would be no objection—especially as there must have been pressure put upon them from those who thought it necessary in the interests of the country to increase the Air Force—to an announcement being made before the end of the Session in order to relieve the apprehensions of those who were disturbed by the present state of deficiency. But in the interval there was a very important debate. I need not discuss in any detail the arrival of M. Barthou, the French Foreign Minister, or the discussion that took place then. But I would beg your Lordships to observe that on the occasion of that debate it was made quite clear by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that a real change was taking place in the situation; that there was reason for encouragement; and he made the very definite assertion that we should seize this opportunity with both hands to bring about the better condition of things which, according to his view, was bound to supervene if what has often been termed the Eastern Locarno Pact became an accomplished fact.
It is in this respect that I am troubled by the announcement that the Government made some very few days after that, because from that moment it was thought there was a change in the European situation. I think the Leader of the Opposition has made much of this—and, as it seemed to me, rightly—that from the mere fact of the announcement made in the House of Commons by Sir John Simon on that Friday there had been an improvement in the situation, and an improvement which it was hoped would continue from day to day and grow in strength, and that if it eventually re-

907
sulted in the treaty—perhaps not with all the various terms which were suggested, but with some of the important terms incorporated—it would be a great gain, and would eventually lead to agreement, at the Disarmament Conference, or, if that is putting it too high, let me say to a greater possibility of reaching agreement at the Disarmament Conference to take place at a later date.
That happened; and I have been troubled, as I have indicated, by the Government's action in making this announcement on July 19 just at the moment that it had set everything moving by declaring its approval of M. Barthou's proposal, coupled with the statement that we are not as a nation entering into any new commitment but using our influence as far as we possibly can, as we declared we would and as we have done, to bring this pact of mutual assistance, this regional pact, into operation. Of course, as your Lordships will see, the position in Europe would be entirely different if that pact succeeded. Russia would be a guarantor to France and Germany, Germany would be a guarantor to Russia and also to France and other countries which I need not name, with the result that an entirely new situation would be created, with the consequence, as it was hoped and believed, that Russia would enter the League of Nations and, as it was also hoped, that Germany would be induced to re-enter the League of Nations.
If these things could be pictured as possibilities, as they were, by the statement of Sir John Simon, undoubtedly a new situation had been created which materially improved the outlook as compared with what it had been but a few days before. Now one wonders why, in face of this and of the communications that the Government have undertaken to make and have made, it should have been necessary to make the declaration to which attention has been drawn, only six days after. So far as I can see the only possible justification for it is that the Lord President of the Council had said at an earlier stage and before this improvement had set in, before the question of the Barthou treaty negotiations had ever been suggested, that he would make a statement before the end of the Session. One cannot but think that it might have been preferable if the Government had, in view of the new conditions, postponed the statement until later
908
in the year. It would not have required the eloquence of the Lord President of the Council or of the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Air, to persuade the public that in view of the new circumstances it was really undesirable that the Government should make that statement before the end of the Session. That really is the position as I understand it and as I follow it.
I am not suggesting, and I hope it will not be thought that I am suggesting, that because the Government took the view that conditions were improved they were absolved from giving further consideration and further devotion of care and thought to the problem of the Air Force. Not for a moment. I quite realise that they were bound to give all their attention to it, especially in view of the apprehensions that had grown up and in order to provide for greater national security. But I would like to ask the Government certain questions, and my mind and the minds of those who are associated with me will really be affected by the answers the Government may make to the questions I am putting to the noble Marquess. I am certainly not pressing him to make any statement which he would think contrary to the public interest. I can quite realise there may be circumstances which he would think it not only undesirable but contrary to the public interest to announce in this House, but I do want him to give his attention, if he will, to certain statements that are made and which leave us in some doubt.
One of the Government's statements is:
"The Government's policy remains one of international disarmament, and we have by no means abandoned hope of reaching some limitation."
It is to be observed that in this statement of policy the Government did make reservations, and indicated that in consequence of the fluctuations in the course of events it might be necessary to modify or adjust their programme, and they reserved all right to do it, as it seems to me perfectly rightly, because it does not follow, if they have the authorisation to increase the Air Force by these forty-one squadrons, that it will be necessary to do it. Supposing—and I can do no more than suppose—the Eastern Locarno Pact were to eventuate, or something approaching it were to eventuate, ob-

909
viously, it would seem to me, and I hope to the Government, that it might not be necessary to go as far as they have at present indicated because the result would be that you would have got rid to a large extent of the difficulties in Europe. You would have got agreements both on the Eastern and Western sides of Germany, with the consequence that there would be a far greater hope of reaching agreement at the Disarmament Conference than ever could have existed before.
That is why we are so impressed by the inopportuneness of the moment of the statement. I would ask the Government whether they would be a little more explicit than they have been in relation to the Disarmament Conference. I observe that they have not abandoned hope of reaching some limitation, but I would ask them to be more explicit than that, and to give us an assurance—I hope I am not asking too much—that they will use unremitting efforts to reach a Disarmament Convention, that they will not be content with not abandoning hope, but will continue to do all they can in order that we may reach a disarmament agreement with the consequence that we might then prevent the rearmament of other nations as well as ourselves. I pass over altogether those questions relating to finance, which are important enough because, if all these alterations have to be made and increases such as are indicated in the Air Force have to be made again in the Navy, the finances of this country will be seriously burdened. That, however, is a burden which we shall, of course, have to face if the necessity for it arises.
I would ask the Government and the noble Marquess who is to reply to give us some indication of the Government's views in this respect, and I would put one further question which I hope the noble Marquess will be able to answer, I trust favourably. In view of the time selected, the result is that we are at this moment dealing with this new policy of the Government's of increased armaments at the moment when negotiations have been set on foot for bringing about this most important change in the condition of Europe by what we call for convenience the Eastern Locarno Pact. I must assume—I cannot conceive that in view of the statements that the Government make they would be unready to agree—that a
910
reasonable time must be allowed for these negotiations to take place in relation to that pact. I do not mean by that an undue length of time. On the contrary, I use the word "reasonable" purposely, because one knows well that otherwise it might be that you would have a prolongation which would be very unsatisfactory and the Government would not know how the position stood. I submit that it is not pressing them too far to ask, whilst talking of steps that may be essential at the moment for the purpose of getting themselves ready for the defence of our coasts and of our country, that nevertheless they will stay as far as they can more active steps in carrying out this policy until at least a reasonable time has been allowed in order to see whether the negotiations will be successful.
I would ask them to go as far as they can in that direction, so that we may know that we shall not be unduly spending large sums of money when we are ourselves seeking to bring about, by giving our approval to it, this very new pact which has been called the Eastern Locarno Pact. I would ask the Government to help us upon that, and, as a last question, to tell us also what is it that they have in mind in relation to the conditions that must be fulfilled before they would be prepared to stay their hand in this new increase of the Air Force. I do not think that is an unreasonable question to ask, because the noble Marquess will have in mind that in the announcement which he read, and which was made in another place by the Lord President of the Council, he definitely indicated that they are not at all sure that this will have to proceed, and, indeed, that they hope it will not. That is the whole burden of the announcement which was made by them. They have reserved the right to modify or adjust the programme in the light of new factors that may arise. I would ask the noble Marquess to give us some indication—I cannot of course ask him to give us a long pronouncement upon it—of what is in the Government's mind, and what are the conditions, or something approaching the conditions, that they will require to be in existence before they can be satisfied.
Those questions, I believe, are of great importance. I am well aware that the

911
Government—and here perhaps I am differing from what has been said by the noble Lord who leads the Opposition, at least so far as I was able to follow his argument—cannot stand still when they have before them the possible dangers of an attack such as might be contemplated from the air, and it does not satisfy me to tell me that there is no immediate risk of such attack. I am in entire agreement with the Government view in that respect. I can only say that if I were myself a Cabinet Minister again and I had to face possibilities of this character I should think it would not only be right but it would be my duty to give my attention to this matter in order that we should be prepared to meet the risk when it occurred. Nothing is more unsatisfactory than the argument, Why do this when there is no immediate risk? The answer to it is: What is the good of doing it when there is the immediate risk? The time will have passed. For that reason I am not prepared to oppose the views which the Government have put for the increase of the Force. On the other hand, for the reasons I have given in relation to the moment which they have chosen for the statement and to the effect of it upon matters relating to national security as well as to international security, I do ask the Government to tell us as far as they possibly can what they have in mind, in order that we may be in a better position to exercise a judgment on this matter than we are at present, and may be able to form some view as to what the Government intend when they say that they make reservations for modifications and adjustments.
After all, in all these matters, the Government have very special responsibilities, and they possess knowledge not open to all of us. They probably have knowledge which they cannot disclose to us, and we must, therefore, be prepared to go some way with the Government, although we cannot be quite satisfied that their view is right. For myself I will make this final observation, that if the Government can satisfy me in relation to the questions that I have put to them, if they can satisfy my mind to the extent that I am relieved of some anxieties which I now have because of the situation created, I would then be prepared to go further than I have indicated and to give them support; but I do ask them
912
to go as far as they possibly can in that direction in order that we may be enabled to form a real opinion upon the situation and not to have to depend upon mere conjecture.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend has just said, I thought with great truth, that the decision of the Government was a momentous one and that its effects were not in any way confined to this country but might go far beyond it. That, I think, is profoundly true, and your Lordships will feel that the matter ought to be considered as far as possible apart from all Party prejudice and merely with the desire of seeing what opinion ought to be given by this House at this moment. The Motion before us
"regrets that a policy of increased armaments has been announced by His Majesty's Government before the termination of the Disarmament Conference, and after the recent conversations with France; and considers that such a policy is not calculated to give greater security to this country, but by encouraging further competition in armaments is likely to endanger world peace."
That is described, and no doubt rightly described, as a Vote of Censure, but I think it worth while to point out to your Lordships that a Vote of Censure in this House has not quite the same significance as a Vote of Censure in another place. It is in some respects regrettable that the decisions of your Lordships' House have not the same effect as the decisions of the House of Commons, but they do not have the same effect, and that does enable us, as it seems to me, to consider any proposition put forward on its merits, because we need not consider that any vote that we may give will result in endangering the existence of the Government of the day.
I had hoped, I must say, that before I should have the honour of addressing your Lordships we should have had some exposition from the Treasury Bench of the meaning and purpose of this very important Government departure. I observe that the Lord President of the Council, the acting Prime Minister, said recently that the Government had a case which they desired to put before the House and the country, and speaking of the debate in the other House he said that he thought it would be for the convenience of the House if he spoke at the

913
beginning of the debate and tried to make clear the whole position of the Government and what they were driving at. I cannot help feeling that that was a just appreciation of the situation. I confess that I a little regret that the Government do not think it as necessary to put this House in that position which they apparently think is necessary in the case of the House of Commons. It makes the position difficult for some of us. I should have been very glad to know before I spoke whether there is anything that the Government desire to say substantially beyond what they have already said. Indeed, I think I am entitled to say, because I asked my noble friend whether I might, that I did ask whether they were prepared to make any fresh statement and they said they did not desire to make any statement at the beginning of the debate but wished to reserve their statement for the end.
In those circumstances it is necessary to take the Government case as it stands at the moment without speculating on what else may be said in its defence. What is the Government's policy as disclosed in the statement made in this House and in another place? It was in two parts. They said with respect to some part of the armaments of the country that there had been deficiencies gradually growing up, and they would have to be repaired. That is quite a separate matter from this proposal to increase the Air Force. As for the deficiencies, the reason for repairing them was said to be due to all sorts of things, like the increase in our obligations under the Covenant, Locarno and things of that kind. There was apparently no immediate urgency felt by the Government with respect to those things because they thought they could be deferred to the time when Estimates would be brought in. As to the second part of the statement, the increase in the Air Force, the reason alleged was that we were out-numbered by our nearest neighbours. They regard that as a matter apparently of immediate importance and relatively precise. There is nothing new about that circumstance. It has been so for years past and we have constantly heard that we are, in point of fact, outnumbered. Whether numbers are all you have to consider in regard to the Air Force may be ques-
914
tioned, but as far as numbers are concerned there is no change so far as I know in the position between this country and France.
It is no use talking about "nearest neighbours." France is the only one to which the argument applies. There is no difference in the comparison between this country and France as far as I know, or no substantial difference. Therefore we must assume that it has always been an urgent matter of anxiety to the Government. Yet until quite lately, indeed until this announcement was made, the policy of the Government was substantially different. I need not quote the statement—it was quoted by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby just now—made by the acting Prime Minister. He was not acting Prime Minister then, but the Lord President of the Council, and leader of the larger part of the majority on which the Government depends. His statement was that the Government's object was to achieve abolition of naval and military aircraft throughout the world, apart from some special exemptions which do not affect this particular discussion. He went on to say, either in that speech or in a later speech, that failing that they would seek to achieve parity in the air. Even then they would immediately proceed to try to get a further Air Convention—I suppose to achieve their original object, the abolition of naval and military aircraft. That was a perfectly intelligible policy, one which I can quite understand and, as far as I can see, I should have been quite ready to support. They said they would seek to achieve parity should there be a definite failure to achieve that object or anything like it—to achieve some definite and substantial reduction; that was the immediate, the essential part of that policy. As far as I can see no such definite failure has taken place.
I observed the other day—I am sorry I have not got the exact words here—that the Lord Privy Seal in a speech protested strongly against the doctrine that the Disarmament Conference had failed, and said that on the contrary he thought there was good ground for hoping that it would reach some result. I quote, from memory, but I believe that is substantially what he said. Others have said the same kind of thing. I cannot see why the Government should have at this

915
moment despaired—if they have despaired—of any possibility of getting such a substantial reduction in the Air Forces of the world, even if they cannot get immediate abolition, as to make unnecessary a policy of this kind. We know that as long ago as the spring of 1933 the French Air Minister professed his willingness to accept a policy of that kind on certain conditions. That has been endorsed, as far as I understand it, by Russia and Italy and certainly by some of the smaller Powers of Europe. I believe, unless the English language means different things on different sides of the Atlantic, that the President of the United States has also endorsed that policy. It may be that I am wrong. I have only the ordinary means of informing myself. I can only get what is reported in the newspapers. I am satisfied that that is the substance of what has been reported in the ordinary newspapers.
It is quite true that there has been always the reservation that something must be done to deal with civil aviation. That is no doubt a difficult proposition. I do not underrate the difficulty of it. I have tried to consider it myself, and with others, and we know it is a difficult proposition. But what is the position? A Committee of the Conference was appointed as long ago as the spring of 1933. I believe it has never met. It was reappointed the other day with two other Committees. The others have met and have arrived at certain conclusions, but the Air Committee has never met. Why not? What is the reason? Why have not the Government pressed for it? I really do not know why. Then in that state of things where you have, as it seems to me, as far as public statements go, a fairly favourable—I will not put it higher—atmosphere, at that very moment of a reference to a Committee to discuss the matter in order to reach some agreement about this one difficult point of civil aviation, suddenly we have this pronouncement by the Government that they can wait no longer, and that they must therefore proceed immediately to take the first steps towards enlarging their Air Force by 75 per cent.
It is admitted that there is no threat of war from any foreign Power. Indeed, the only Power they mention as one with whom they have to reckon is France.
916
That is the only Power that they have mentioned right through. They need not have mentioned any, but they have mentioned one—"our nearest neighbours." I should have thought that as a matter of policy it was quite safe to say that the chance of France making any aggressive war on this country was infinitely remote. Anything may happen in the world, I admit, but certainly that is not more probable now than it has been at any time in the last two or three years. If this (as I think) desperate resolve really becomes the only thing to be done, I cannot believe that a short delay would have added in any degree to the dangers of the country.
It is not really that the Air Force stands alone. The First Lord of the Admiralty made a speech the other day in which he demanded some unknown but considerable extension of our expenditure on the Fleet, and he used the remarkable phrase, which has been quoted more than once—"this dream of international disarmament." I see my noble friend the Secretary of State for War present. I do not know, but I think it is most unlikely that the Army will be content with filling up a few deficiencies and will not require, or think it requires, a substantial expenditure on increasing its strength in a number of ways. I really do not see how you can possibly hope that to sanction a great increase in one arm will not involve considerable increases in the other arms also. And observe that this increase is advocated quite definitely as a matter of competition with another country. That is the whole case put forward. The whole argument is that there is another country whose Air Force is so big that we must have a bigger Force. That is a definite acceptance of the principle, or the practice, of competition in armaments which many of us think so disastrous to the peace of the world. I cannot help feeling that this decision of the Government, taken at this moment, bears a suspicious appearance of a reversion to the pre-1914 policy in armaments and consequently in all external affairs.
The last thing that I want to do is to make any unfair attack against the Government. That is far from my desire. I give the Lord President of the Council, if I may say so without impertinence, full credit for his very precise asseverations that this means no slackening in

917
his pressure for a disarmament policy and that he is going on with it. Indeed, I see in this morning's Times that he is reported as going so far as to say that he thinks that to increase air armaments will positively make the policy of disarmament easier. He is reported to have said that:
"his conviction was that such action on our part would make it not more difficult but less difficult to proceed with our own efforts to secure some limitation of armaments."
I am quite certain that anything that my right honourable friend says is absolutely what he believes, but I think it will be very difficult to convince foreign observers that that is really the purpose and the object with which the Government have sanctioned an increase of armaments. I cannot help feeling that what the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Air, said towards the end of last month is the real and true account of what has happened. Your Lordships will remember that he then said in effect—I have his words here—that the Government had long hoped that success at Geneva would enable them to avoid any substantial increase—
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Will the noble Viscount quote my words?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I will with pleasure:
"Until recent months the Government have had every reason to believe, and every motive to encourage the hope, that something might be achieved out of the Disarmament Conference which would render unnecessary any substantial addition to the size of our Air Force."
I think my noble friend will agree that I have not so far misquoted him.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I was only trying to help the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am, much obliged. I am always anxious to receive assistance from anybody. I had better read it all. He goes on:—
"Now …. the situation has become unhappily all too clear. We can no longer hope that an international convention will solve the problems which agitate the whole of Europe. His Majesty's Government have therefore decided that they can no longer delay the steps which are necessary …."
and so on. That is the case which the noble Marquess made. He said: Geneva has tailed, the Disarmament Conference
918
is no good, therefore we must arm ourselves further for safety. I am very glad to see my noble friend Lord Hailsham here. I think he spoke in very much the same language on Saturday, unless he is misquoted in The Times. May I read just one sentence of what he said?
"As we had been unable to persuade other people to lay down their arms, we had determined that we could not remain altogether defenceless."
It is the same case—that the attempt at disarmament had failed, and therefore—
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): Had not yet succeeded.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The distinction is extremely ingenious. I do not think that in this particular instance there is a great distinction between having failed and not having succeeded. Evidently it might be, said not to have succeeded at the very outset of the Conference—it certainly had not—but I think the expression will be generally understood to mean that there has been a failure, and that the time has come when the Government have got to rearm. That is the case, and one is forced to ask the next question: Assuming that that is really the case of the Government, or at any rate of the section of the Government whose policy has been adopted, are they going to get safety in this way? I am not going into all the well-known ground of how far it can be said that there is any possible defence against air attack, but I think it will be admitted by my noble friends on the Government Benches that they have never suggested that you can make a complete defence against air attack. Their whole case has been that if you have a sufficiently large force to threaten immediate retaliation—
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If the noble Viscount will pardon my interrupting, that is not a, statement which we have ever made.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am very much surprised to hear my noble friend say so. I certainly have understood that the Government have said so. Certainly the Lord President of the Council has stated in the most specific language—my noble friend Lord Ponsonby quoted it just now—that there was no means of defence, that anybody

919
who thought there was was labouring under a very grave delusion, and that the only thing to do was to have sufficient power to make such retaliation as would frighten any aggressor off. I am a little relieved, and very much surprised, to hear my noble friend suggest that that is not the policy of the Government. I have never understood that, and I do not think that anyone else in this country has ever understood that. The threat of retaliation, the increase of numbers—that has been the case that has been made for the increase of the Air arm. I think that is a most hazardous view. My noble friend may not hold it, but I am satisfied that that is the view continually put forward. I rather think it was put forward in substance by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. Yes! he said:
"The belief that Great Britain was in a position to defend herself was the surest guarantee that the world would remain peaceful and that Great Britain would not be attacked."
That is substantially the same thing. I am delighted if my noble friend says "We do not believe in retaliation," and still more delighted if he can assure us that he really thinks you can prevent an attack by air by means of another Air Force. I doubt very much whether he will say that to your Lordships, and I am quite sure he will find it very difficult to get his professional advisers to support him if he does.
The theory that you can defend yourself by retaliation is unsound. The theory is that you are going to be subject to sudden attack by the air arm of another country. It will begin by attacking your aerodromes, and crippling your means of making the attack. Therefore it is exceedingly doubtful whether you would be able to make your counterattack, even if your counter-attack might otherwise have effect. I do not believe there is any means by which you can be secure from air attack except peace, and, as a means of peace, the abolition of naval and military aircraft. I believe that is the only way in which you can secure it. I do not believe there is any highly skilled adviser of the Government who will disagree with me on that point. If that is so it does seem to me to follow that until every possible step has been taken, and every conceivable step has been taken, to try to secure that means of safety for this country, the abolition of
920
naval and military aircraft and the maintenance of peace—those two things will secure our safety and nothing else will secure it really effectively, and really without doubt—there is no justification for coming to Parliament and asking for extensive rearmament.
I agree that if after taking every conceivable step to secure that object you are driven at last to the decision that it cannot be secured, then, while the amount of security you will get from it will be very small, though it may be that it is better than nothing—I do not know—an increase of armaments may possibly be defensible, but I am quite sure it is not defensible until you have made that tremendous effort. The fact that you have not made it, and the fact that you are proceeding with this present step without it, does seem to me to be a most regrettable advance in the direction of abandoning the whole policy of attempting by collective agreement to maintain peace and security throughout the world. I know what the Government have said, or at all events, what the Lord President has said, about international disarmament. I hope they will go on with it, but I cannot help feeling that this step will make it much less likely that they will succeed. I believe that the section of the Government which believe that the Disarmament Conference has failed, if they were not right when they said it will be right as soon as this policy becomes known.
After all, you may know what our motives are, and that we do not contemplate anything wicked, and are not out for aggression, but if everyone imitated us would you consider that it gave a better hope of success at a Disarmament Conference? I do not believe it. I cannot understand why the Government should not have gone to the Conference—it only meant waiting for five weeks before the Conference meets—and said: "Here are our proposals"— I hope there will be proposals—"for the abolition of national armaments, and we are quite prepared to consider whatever measures may be necessary with regard to civil aviation, but let us have a definite decision upon the matter. If the Conference decides against us then let us adjourn the Conference, because it is evident that nothing worth doing can be done with regard to the Conference." I could understand that policy, but to ask

921
your Lordships and the other House to sanction this policy, which as Lord Reading has truly said is a very momentous step, until every conceivable step has been taken to give us the only real security, is what I individually cannot approve.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, we have listened to three speeches this afternoon from three of the most distinguished members of the House. Two of them have been in utter condemnation of the Government's policy as announced last Thursday, and the other, if I may say so, damned it with faint praise. I rise to support the Government in the policy they have announced. I welcome the policy that has boon stated because I believe that such a declaration is absolutely essential to-day, if Europe is to become aware of what our final attitude is to be in connection with armaments. The noble Viscount who has just sat down has told us that what the Government are doing is a retrograde step. I for one cannot understand why a step taken by this Government should be retrograde when the same step is being taken by many of the principal Governments of the world. I go even further. I should have welcomed this statement sis months ago, because I believe that we have been taking part in the Councils of Europe without sufficient weight behind us. We had no armed weight behind us, whereas all the other nations which have been participating in the Disarmament Conference, which has been going on since 1932, have not only had their aimed forces behind them, but they have been increasing those forces all the time, and have to-day in some cases reached a state of armaments almost approaching those of 1914.
The noble Lord's Motion suggests that the announcement of a policy of increased armaments at this moment is not calculated to give greater security, but encourages competition in armaments. What would have happened supposing we had waited, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has suggested, until the Disarmament Conference was finished? If that Conference ended in failure—and there is no reason to believe that it may not end in failure, in view of everything that is happening in Europe and in the East to-day—I can conceive that there would then be such a mad rush of competition in armaments as would lead us almost imme-
922
diately into war. But I hear from all my European friends—and I have no doubt the noble Lord has heard the same, although he does not seem to believe them—that the greatest guarantee of security that we could give to the Disarmament Conference to-day would be by increasing our Air Force to the level of any other strong Air Force in the world. I hear that on all sides. They know that we as a nation are not aggressors, but they realise that, should war break out in Europe, we should possibly find ourselves launched into that war. If before that war breaks out we are in the position of giving advice, with armed force behind it, possibly we might prevent the outbreak of such a war. I believe that there are a great many statesmen in Europe to-day who desire that we should rearm, and who are glad to see the announcement that has been made by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, whom I do not see in his place at the moment, seemed to indicate in his speech—and he has done so before—that it was absolutely no use increasing our Air Force because we should not be able to defend ourselves against any Air Force that might attack us. What he suggests is that in the event of any nation wishing to attack us we should allow them to attack us, that we should create no defence for that purpose, in fact, that we should allow ourselves to become a doormat for any nation that liked to wipe its feet upon us. That is not a policy which this country is likely to agree to, and I believe that the nation as a whole will welcome the announcement which has been made by the Government, as showing that they appreciate their responsibilities for the defence of this country.
While I welcome the Government's announcement, I should like to say something with regard to certain details of it. The statement said:
"We have come to the conclusion that we cannot delay any longer measures which will in the course of the next few years bring our Air Forces to a level more closely approaching that of our nearest neighbours."
I should have liked to hear a clear clarion note struck in this statement. I should have liked the Government to have said, as they have indicated in past statements, that they would put our Air Force on a parity with that of the

923
strongest air Power within striking distance. I have no reason to believe that the Government have departed from that policy, but I hope that the noble Marquess in his reply to-day will be able to re-affirm it. My further reason for wishing that this had been said is that I believe that if it were known by other nations who are increasing their air armaments from week to week that we intended definitely to have parity with the strongest nation within striking distance, that would go a long way to stop the competition in armaments. If they know to-day that we are going to increase our air strength by forty-one squadrons, they do not know what will be the increase to-morrow—it may be another twenty, it may be another thirty squadrons. They will go on increasing proportionately. But if they knew from the commencement where they stood so far as Great Britain is concerned, I believe that that knowledge would act very largely as a deterrent against their increasing their Air Forces.
There is another point to which I should like to refer. The Government statement says:
"The rate at which this programme can be carried out within the five years must depend upon various considerations, including finance, which I cannot specify now."
We all agree that finance must have consideration in these matters, but there is a time when finance has to some extent to be put aside. I believe that the moment has arrived when somehow or other we have to increase our Air Forces in this country, and therefore I hope that His Majesty's Government, when considering this subject, will not take finance into consideration as if the matter were an ordinary item of the financial Budget. I am going to make a suggestion. I notice that the proposals that have been put forward imply that the whole cost of any increase of the Air Forces shall be borne out of annual income. I have long believed that this sort of expenditure, whether for the Navy or the Army or the Air Force, should be charged, if not wholly, at any rate partly, to capital account, and I suggest to His Majesty's Government that when they are considering the arrangements for financing this increase or any increase in the future, they will consider my proposal that this should be paid for partly out of income and partly out of capital account. After all, the other nations who are increasing
924
their Air Forces are all the time charging the cost to capital account and are raising loans for it. That is no reason, I agree, why we in this country should do the same, but nevertheless I suggest that that would be only a fair and reasonable way to meet the additional charge which would have to fall upon the taxpayer.
There is just one other point before I sit down, and that is with regard to the Imperial side of these proposals. Personally, I am very sorry to see that the statement contains no reference at all to the Imperial aspect. It is true that out of the forty-one squadrons thirty-three squadrons will be utilised for home defence and eight squadrons for overseas, but the point is that the time has come, in view of the position with regard to air development, when the Empire has to consider working together in this matter. There was a debate in this House only a few weeks ago in which I ventured to put forward some proposals for an Empire Air Force and an Imperial Defence Conference. I was very disappointed, as I said at the time, at the reply given to me by the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Air. I venture once more to-day to suggest to him and the Government that they should take this question into consideration. Upon that occasion the noble Marquess pointed out that at the Imperial Conferences in 1923 and 1926 certain resolutions were passed which were not sympathetic towards such proposals, but these resolutions were passed a long time ago so far as air development is concerned, and I feel certain that if His Majesty's Government would only approach the Dominion Governments in this matter they would receive a very much more sympathetic hearing to-day than they did six or seven years ago.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Far from it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My noble friend says, "Far from it." I do not know what reason he has for saying so, but I have consulted and talked with certain influential representatives of the Dominions, and I find that there is considerable sympathy in this matter. At any rate the position to-day is that all we have is the interchange of certain Dominion flying officers and certain equipment, and over and above that we have the Imperial Defence Committee

925
who advise the Government with regard to such co-ordination as there may be. That is not enough. We have to go further than that. I can assure His Majesty's Government that there is a strong feeling in this country that we have got to go further, and representations will continue to be made on this subject until we obtain much greater and closer co-ordination between the Air Forces of the Empire than exists to-day. If this Motion goes to a Division I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Government and going into the Lobby with them.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, His Majesty's Government, for anything I know, may be grateful to the noble Viscount who has just sat down for the support he has given to their case, but I confess that I do not feel sure that he has strengthened their claim for the approval of your Lordships' House. The noble. Viscount made the astounding statement that European statesmen were positively glad that we were going to increase our striking force, as if these aeroplanes which are to be built were joyous toys for people to look at, as if we were building them merely to create international pleasure. Are we undertaking this vast expenditure to please European statesmen, or are we doing this thing in order to gain some additional internal security? The noble Viscount also said, what other speakers have said before him, that in this proposal we do not intend any kind of aggression. That is what we think. It cannot be what other nations think. Let us remember that all nations say that. It is common patriotic form. Germany said it before the War, and other nations have continuously said it. The noble Viscount was claiming that we should be put on a parity with other nations in the air and perhaps so far as other forces are concerned, and lucre, it seems to me, is the hidden policy behind this matter. We are asked to build to a degree which will equal what other nations think is necessary for their safety, not what we think may be necessary for our own. In regard to the matter of finance there is the usual optimistic view that future generations will be glad to pay for our follies—do not let us trouble to take the money out of current account, let it pass to capital account and prove a very nice investment for those who have the money so to invest.
926
The method of our Parliamentary discussions requires that this matter should be discussed more or less in the form of a Vote of Censure, and His Majesty's Government have chosen this time to enter upon a policy which no Opposition, no number of independent, thinking Members of Parliament, could possibly let pass without serious challenge. We have been told that we are in a state of danger, but we have not been told precisely what the dangers are which have caused His Majesty's Government to enter upon this alarming and dangerous policy. We in the Labour Party have always supported the policy of a pooled security. We should be glad to support that at all times. We have always advocated disarmament by agreement, but we have never advocated rearmament in isolation. I have never understood, I cannot understand now, why in regard to civil aviation, which has been mentioned this afternoon, the Government will not endeavour to promote the internationalisation of civil aviation, in entering upon this discussion I do not propose to criticise the opinions or record of any Minister, and I am far from wishing to make a mere debating attack upon His Majesty's Government, but we on these Benches cannot do less than assert, in the most emphatic way that is open to us, that His Majesty's Government owe to Parliament and to the conscience of mankind more explanations of their programme and of the reasons for adopting it than they have hitherto felt it necessary to offer.
They are certain in advance to have the enthusiastic support of those who sit behind them, and it may be that the opinions and desires of those who sit opposite to them do not interest them, but I want with courtesy to put one or two questions to His Majesty's Government in this matter. What precisely is their programme? Why have they at this juncture chosen to enter upon it? Why, at this time above all others, has this new policy been adopted? Was there no other way open to them? Had all the other alternatives been adequately considered and for sufficient reasons been rejected? Is the step that they now propose to take irrecoverable or is it subject to review, and, if it is, when is that review to take place and under what conditions? These are the things that we

927
ought to be told and we ask that His Majesty's Government, as far as they possibly can, should respond generously to our desire for information. Parliament ought not to enter upon this slippery path with mere patriotic blinkers about its eyes. If this dreadful prospect of competition in armaments is indeed inevitable and justifiable, we have the right to have more evidence of the justification than we have yet received.
We may, for anything we know, be at the beginning of a great new peril, for it still remains one of the eternal truths that those who rely upon the sword perish by the sword. We have our gravest hesitations about the policy which His Majesty's Government are about to embark upon, and, with such evidence as we have, which we can get only from the newspapers, we cannot exclude from our thoughts the gravest suspicion that the habitual and probably designed procrastination of His Majestys' Government in regard to the general policy of disarmament, the tepid and inconstant support that they have given to the Disarmament Conference, and their obvious lack of a clear-cut and creative policy to secure the peace of the world, have had their part in the crisis that has now been reached. If we are mistaken in holding these views we should be informed precisely where, and why, and to what extent, we are mistaken. It seems to me, at any rate, that because the pedestrian efforts of the Government to secure international agreement have not hitherto been successful, and because they are unwilling to remind the Fighting Services of our country that Parliament and not they are responsible for national policy, they are deserting those who believe that with faith and with patience and insight and devotion and wisdom a more excellent way can be found, and they come here with a partly coerced and partly panic-stricken policy of rearmament. It seems to me, therefore, that the Fighting Services have once more had their way. Another Government has bowed itself to their will.
Well, they will get their forty-one new squadrons, but the nation will get therefrom no increased security; and the other Services in their turn will demand that their own appetite for more of the playthings of war may be appeased. We cannot afford to pay for the cost
928
of an increased age of leaving school for children, but we can afford to pay for this. The Lord President of the Council, in a speech in October, 1933, to which my noble friend behind me (Lord Ponsonby of Shulebrede) has referred, used words which I will venture again to repeat.
"If rearmament is begun in Europe you may say good-bye to any restoration of cuts, to any reduction of taxation for a generation."
We cannot, therefore, on this occasion accept the proposals of His Majesty's Government in any authoritative declarations of that kind without the most serious misgiving and without demanding as emphatically as we possibly can the information which will justify the action they propose to take.
We are asked to build against our nearest neighbour. Who is our nearest neighbour? It is France, in whose soil abide the bones of nearly a million of our countrymen. Now we are to consider her as a potential enemy. I cannot think that we should enter upon a course of that kind with a light heart and without demanding, with what sincerity we may command, that His Majesty's Government should ask if there is even now no other way. If that is impossible then the issue passes from Parliament to the people, not to those whose age protects them from reaping what they are sowing in their policy, but to the youth of the world who are the destined victims of any folly we may commit, and if their spiritual courage is equal to their physical bravery I believe that they will stand as a moral witness against the indefensible sacrilege of war. Therefore I only desire to say in conclusion, let the need for, and justification of, this proposal be proved. Let it be established that the safety of the nation can only in this way be secured and then the Government can rely upon the united support of the nation. But we cannot accept assertions for proofs nor mere prejudices for facts. Therefore until the Government justify their demand by giving us the evidence for which we ask we shall to the extent of our powers oppose their demand.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I must not be tempted to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken in the, if he will allow me so to describe them, somewhat dogmatic utterances which he made about disarmament. If I were to do that I

929
should be tempted to say that I do not think that history would justify him in suggesting that those nations who have taken the sword have perished by the sword. I would rather say that defenceless nations who disarmed prematurely and neglected defence died and came to a terrible end. Nor will I remind him that it might not have been necessary to throw up a rampart of our dead in Flanders behind which to make preparations if we had acted betimes and made preparations for national security. It is a little difficult to follow the noble Lord's argument about pooled security. As I understood him he would be willing to contemplate additional defence resources for what he calls pooled security but none for the mere sordid defence of our own country. But I thought we had got pooled security in the shape of Locarno to-day. Are we then not to have the wherewithal, as Mr. Baldwin reminded us the other day, to give effect to our pooled security? A pretty poor partner we are in the Locarno settlement if our support is going to be confined to disarmament on the day that demands are made.
I did not come here to do more than ask the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State, to give me an answer to one or two questions, so I shall be brief. I think he will possibly agree with me if I say that the real anxiety which the country has felt about national defence is due to the fact that people have been frankly and honestly puzzled—and here I agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down—by the Government's attitude towards all disarmament questions. I should like to ask the Secretary of State to give a clear answer to one question. He must be in a position to do it. Will he please tell us what would be the conditions which would enable the Government to decide that the death of the Disarmament Conference had taken place place? Many of us feel that the Disarmament Conference is already dead. We feel that quite honestly. The wish is not father to the thought. We do think that this Disarmament Conference is as dead as a conference can be. Therefore we think that the time for the fulfilment of the pledge of the Lord President of the Council, that at that moment we should be given parity or an Air Force which will be as large as any within striking distance of our shores, has
930
already arrived. At any rate he must agree that the Disarmament Conference, if it is not dead, is very sick indeed.
Do the Government really think there is a chance of the survival and success of the Disarmament Conference, as Mr. Baldwin indicated the other day? If that is so, I think it is natural for all Parties to wonder a little why the Government have chosen this particular moment to announce a new policy rather than at any time in the last six or eight months. Those who want rearmament think it is tardy and those who do not want rearmament think it is premature. I think we are entitled to have the Government tell us what they think are the signs of death. People in this country want to know that. They do not quite trust the Government's judgment in the matter. If they think that the chances of its success are very remote and very slight then there are two things to be said. The first is that this programme seems to us to be very slender and ill calculated to fulfil Mr. Baldwin's pledge. The second thing to be said is that I think both Houses of Parliament in such circumstances are entitled to know a great deal more as to what exactly are the Governments plans—how much money is going to be spent on preparations, how much is to be spent on machines, and on personnel, what on aerodromes and on the organisation of the industry, and what on training.
The exact number of machines to be provided is a matter on which the Government are probably far better qualified than anybody else to judge. It may be said that he who builds last will probably build best. He will have the latest type of machine. But we ought to know how much is going to be spent on preparation, on aerodromes, on machines, and on personnel. I do not know how long it takes to get a pilot effectively into the air for Government purposes, but it takes a considerable time. There is a great deal of other preparation which even the most uninitiated can appreciate to a certain extent. I repeat that this question is all-important.
I do press upon my noble friend the Secretary of State to give a clear answer as to what in Government eyes will constitute the zero hour that is the death of the Disarmament Conference. As a matter of fact it does not really depend

931
—or very little—upon Mr. Baldwin's statement of conditions. We all know that our policy of disarmament was pursued as an example to the world; an example which we now know no single nation has followed. That it was no doubt right to make that attempt and to show that we were in earnest few will be concerned to dispute. But when so many years have passed and every other country has rapidly rearmed itself, it is not to be wondered at that public opinion in this country becomes gravely alarmed as to the Government's real mentions. My noble friend Lord Cecil, who spoke this afternoon, asked for more delay. How much more delay does he want, and why? He sees, like the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who, I notice, is no longer here, no value in air defence at all. In that case I would ask any noble Lord sitting on those Benches to tell us what they propose to substitute. My noble friend here said there was no security from attack in the air except, as I understood him, peace and the abolition of military aircraft. But suppose you abolish military aircraft, what about civil aircraft? What are their substitute proposals? If military aircraft cannot be abolished and if the danger is very grave what do they propose to do to give us the necessary security?
Lastly, I would ask my noble friend the Secretary of State what he is going to do—or rather I would ask the Government, as a whole, what they are going to do. They have admitted that in greater or less degree a change, a definite change, in the situation—they do not measure it—has taken place. It is the only defence of their policy. I think their policy is dangerously weak. I think we need much greater and more rapid expansion, but that is merely my point of view. In any case, what are they going to do to give us balanced armaments? I do not deny—I should be the last to deny—the enormous importance of an increase in our air strength, and I would be the last to agree with Mr. Baldwin when he goes so far as to say that there is no defence against air attack except retaliation. There is a measure of truth in it, but it is an exaggeration. There is more defence in a strong Air Force apart from mere retaliation.
That is another matter, but I would ask the Government, now that they have
932
admitted a change in policy, what they are going to do to give us balanced armaments? Air Forces are not sufficient. How are they going to give us the fuel? How are they going to guard the sea routes? How are they going to give us the oil which is going to get the machines in the air? They may hope to get increasing quantities of oil from this country by divers methods—I do not know-about that—but the main sources of supply of fuel which alone can make the Air Force effective, quite apart from the food which feeds the people who fly the aircraft, are utterly dependent upon our sea routes. In my judgment the Government by their admission of a change in the situation have committed themselves to a reconsideration not only of our air strength, but of the whole of the balanced armaments which are necessary for an island people such as we are.
In conclusion, may I put the question which primarily I want to ask? I am sure that the secondary question as regards aerodromes, personnel, and training, if my noble friend has not time to answer it to-day, will be answered in one place or another in the course of the next few days, but specifically I am begging him to-night to give us, if he kindly will, a clear answer—because I think it will be of advantage to the debate which is to be held in another place in a few days—to this question: What are the factors which are going to decide the Government as to the moment of success or failure, the demise or the resurrection, of the Disarmament Conference?
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: My Lords, I will ask your attention for only a very few moments, not while I make the speech which I would like to make in reply to my noble friend Lord Lloyd, but while I put one definite question to the Government which I hope the noble Marquess will try to answer: Is it possible for the two Houses of Parliament and for the country at large to have a White Paper setting down in chronological order, with precise dates and exact quotations, the record of the Air Commission and the General Commission so far as it dealt with air armaments at Geneva? If the country is to sanction this grave step of increasing Air Forces, it seems to me imperative that we should have simultaneously an

933
accurate public record of what has been done in the matter of air negotiations by this Government at Geneva. The noble Marquess and myself have before now debated in this House the facts of the Air Commission. We have differed. We have had other White Papers dealing with other aspects of the Disarmament Conference. When the Lord Privy Seal has been upon his tours through the Capitals of Europe the results of his tours have been published in White Papers. On this question of the air we are without precise knowledge. I myself have seen minutes of the Air Commission, but I think it is most important that there should be brought out in publicly documented form a record of the events which have taken place on that Commission.
May I explain the reason I say that? So far as I am concerned I do not attack the Government on the precise decision to increase the Air Force. The gravamen of my charge against the Government is that they have decided to increase Air Forces without producing an alternative scheme to prevent that. May I remind the noble Marquess of the record of his own Government, which is now being spoilt by the decision at which the Government have arrived? The Government began by unilateral disarmament. The air armaments of this country have been brought down from the first position in the world to the sixth position, and we brought about that unilateral air disarmament without asking for security in the same way as France has done with regard to her disarmament. That step was a fine step. It was a noble act of leadership, and we owe it to the Government to give them credit for that step. The Government then went further; they produced a Disarmament Convention, and in that Convention they asked for the abolition of military and naval aviation. They quite properly made that demand conditional upon the control of civil aviation. That particular contribution to the Disarmament Conference was as admirable as the unilateral action of disarmament which the Government had previously taken. To that Disarmament Convention the Government attached an annexe and in that annexe they set out an illustration of how civil aviation could in the opinion of the Government be controlled. That is the first record of the Government.
934
Now we come suddenly to a period of uncertain vagueness and lack of knowledge. What has happened at the Disarmament Conference with regard to those schemes? Have they been rejected? Have we rejected the scheme of France, and the much more elaborate scheme of Spain? Have other countries rejected ours? We do not know. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, I venture to think, actually made a mistake in point of fact when he told your Lordships in this debate that the Air Commission had not met. If I understand the documents correctly, the Air Commission, has met. So far as I can tell—the noble Marquess will correct me if I am wrong—the last meeting of the Air Commission was in the month of April, 1933. The month of April, 1933, was fifteen months ago. How can you expect to produce an agreement upon armaments in the air if your Government do not see to it that an Air Commission deliberately set up to deal with air armaments meets during the period from the month of April, 1933, up to the present? Then they come to the nation and they say: "We are sorry, but we do not expect to get out of the Disarmament Conference anything sufficiently secure to enable us to avoid substantial increases in armaments."
Where has been the initiative of the Government? Why has not the Air Commission met, and why have we not before us a record of what has happened in the Air Commission? We do not know the arguments that have been used against cur own scheme. I propose, therefore—and I hope the noble Marquess will not avoid replying to it—that a White Paper should be published so that both Houses of Parliament and the country at large may have a record of the facts of the Air Commission and the discussions on air armaments in Geneva, when they are asked to make this grave decision. Having a record as good as the Government's record has been up to that point, it seems to me to be deplorable now to call upon the nation to enter perhaps upon an air race when we have not taken adequate measures at the Disarmament Conference itself for providing against it.
I come to my last point. We have heard over and over again about the speech of the Lord President of the Council in which he pointed out that there is no defence against attack from the air.

935
I heard my noble friend Lord Lloyd in an earlier debate try to deal with that, and miserably he failed to do it. I have never yet heard any speaker in this House explain, and I do not believe the noble Marquess himself will explain to-night, accurately, precisely and in a practical way what is the defence against air attack. Mr. Baldwin tried in the House of Commons to modify his speech. He said that people had taken his words too literally, and that there was a means of defence against attack from the air, which was that possibly if you strengthened your own Air Forces then the fear of casualties might prevent the potential attacker from attacking. If the only defence against air attack is a fear of casualties, then all I can say is that it is a complete delusion.
What nation has ever abstained from attacking because of fear of casualties? Seven million men were killed in the last War and there were 25,000,000 casualties. Did fear of casualties prevent that War? Take our own brave men who went to their deaths in that War to block the Zeebrugge Mole; every man amongst them was perfectly willing to go to certain death if he believed that thereby he could serve the interests of this nation. Fear of casualties is never going to prevent brave men serving their country. If, therefore, the only modification of Mr. Baldwin's speech can be this mutual fear of casualties, then Mr. Baldwin is making an attack upon the bravery of men of every race, and I think therefore that that argument will be heard no more. But there is in fact, unless the noble Marquess can enlighten us with his expert knowledge, no defence against bombing by air. I hope, therefore, before this country is committed to a step which is a danger to economy and a danger to peace, we may have a White Paper placed before us giving all the data of how we have attempted to bring about mutual disarmament in the air.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I will not detain you for more than a moment. When I read the subject for debate today I thought for a moment of making a speech which might have been perhaps not uninteresting, giving certain historical facts in defence of the policy of the Government, but it is too late in the afternoon to go very deeply into that. At the same time I should like to express my
936
surprise because the debate to-day has not been only on the issue of the increase in our aerial armament, but has also been very largely an attack upon the Government for having no policy, no vision, and a number of other charges. I fail to see the reality of any of these charges. It appears to me that the Government have most loyally endeavoured to interpret the spirit of the country, which was wholly in favour of disarmament. Every step they should have taken they loyally took. When a crisis occurred last spring, that was got over by the concession of the German Government and the MacDonald scheme was universally adopted. If criticism could be made, I think a little criticism could have been made of our Government for having themselves become the mouthpiece of the prolongation of the probation period for Germany, which was one of the causes of her going out of the League of Nations, but since then I can see no complaint to make of any of the steps which the Government have taken in the same direction. My noble friend Lord Lloyd has asked as to when the Disarmament Conference died or is going to expire. There was no doubt in my mind—
LORD LLOYD: If my noble friend will pardon me, I did not ask when it was going to expire, but when it was recognised that it was going to expire.
LORD RENNELL: I beg my noble friend's pardon. There was no question to my mind that it did expire very definitely when, after all that had passed, we had a very definite statement from the German Government, accepting five years probation and not demanding any diminution of the armies of France, and offering, moreover, the entire suppression, so far as she was concerned, of aerial bombardment in every form, and agreeing to remain in what she had described as a period of humiliation for another five years. When that proposal was definitely made to the whole public, and somewhat cynically I might say thrown to the winds, I myself felt there was no more hope for the continuance of the Disarmament Conference.
However, while defending warmly the policy of the Government, what I really rose to do to-day was to answer a point brought forward by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby with which I am in complete disagreement. He has criticised certain

937
members of the Government for having stated that they thought an increase in our Air Force might even be of value in assisting in the future fate of the disarmament issue. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby said that if we increased our Air Forte we should be restarting competition in armaments. I venture to think that in that he is entirely wrong. If I have any right to speak to you in this House at all on such a subject it is that I have a pretty extensive knowledge of the Continent of Europe, and am in continual contact with men of other countries who tell me what is in their minds. Therefore, so far as somebody in a quite unofficial position may be said to know what is in their thoughts, I may say that I have a pretty shrewd idea of it.
They say that the prestige of this country has increased enormously in the last few years. They say: "You have established a credit which is the envy of the world; you have dealt honestly with every country and earned universal respect; but you are weak. Your word stands so long as it is a question of ethics, and economics, but your word is weak in the Councils of Europe. You have tried to give the world a lead in disarmament, but the rest of the world has very positively, though never in so many words, declined to follow. So long as you continue to be weak, instead of being a strength to Europe you become almost a danger to Europe." There is hardly anybody with whom I talk in other countries who does not consider that the best hope for Europe is in the strength of the British Empire, and the knowledge that she will make good what she has undertaken to do. I therefore do not believe that any increase in our Air Force, or for the matter of that in our Navy, will do anything whatever to start off the competition in armaments in other countries. I know there are a great many countries that will welcome it, and. I do not believe there are any who are opposed to it. We have done our best to convert the world, but that is no reason for leaving our front door open.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, this is the mast depressing debate I have listened to since the War. We are back again, on the authority of the Lord President of the Council, in the 1914 atmosphere,
938
but the outlook is infinitely blacker than it was in those pre-War days. The first reason is that in those years the aerial danger was unknown. It has since emerged with all its appalling possibilities. The second reason is that there were then people who thought war would end war, but apparently if the policy of the Government is going to be pursued we must say good-bye to any hope, of that kind. The mad race in rearmament has begun, and it is only a question of time before the next war comes. That is according to the teachings, of history, and I am afraid it will be true that in these fateful days the decision of the Government is going to lead to a course of things which, to use the words of Mr. Baldwin, will mean the end of civilisation. I am only going to speak for a few moments, because we all wish to hear what the Minister for Air has to say. I will refrain from making a Party attack on the Government.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Go on.
LORD ARNOLD: Heaven knows there is opportunity enough. They are divided amongst themselves.
A NOBLE LORD: How about your own Party?
LORD ARNOLD: One says one thing and one says another thing, but whereas some Ministers purport to be in favour of disarmament, and anxious for it, we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the reason why we have not up to the present taken our place in the race for armaments has been the fear that we might go bankrupt. Then we have the First Lord of the Admiralty talking about disarmament as an "international dream." But the point which I wish to put is this—it really follows upon the very important subject matter of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Hurtwood—Why is not any further attempt going to be made, or is any further attempt going to be made, to secure an Air Convention? Because Mr. Baldwin, speaking as recently as March 8 in another place, said:
"Suppose the Convention fails; I would not then relax for a moment, nor would the Government relax, the efforts, if a Convention on our lines failed, to start work the next morning to get an air convention alone among the countries of Western Europe,

939
even if we could not get one in some that are far away, for the saving of our own European civilisation."
Is anything going to be done about that? Has the Government policy changed completely to one of rearmament and a bigger Air Force? I think we are entitled to have some reply about that.
The truth is that the Government, like all weak and irresolute Governments, have yielded to pressure, a tripartite pressure. First, from an irresponsible section of their own supporters militaristically inclined, who gloat with ghoulish joy over the demise of the, Disarmament Conference. Lord Lloyd is one of them: he revels in the death of the Disarmament Conference, his eye glints with joy when he talks about it. That is the first kind of pressure. The second is from Press clamour; and the third, and the most important is this—it is what always happens to weak Governments—they give way to the pressure of the Service Departments. That is the real, main operative force behind this lamentable decision on the part of the Government. No case whatever has been made out for urgency. What is the reason? What is the war? I will not discuss France, but, if it is Germany, it is only right to point out that Germany is the one Power in Europe which has unconditionally offered to abolish air warfare. Germany has done that.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Offered?
LORD ARNOLD: I say Germany has unconditionally offered to abolish air warfare.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Offered, yes.
LORD ARNOLD: If the noble Viscount is so anxious to have a war that he will not even consider an offer, nothing more is to be said. Why is not some attempt going to be made to get this Convention? Germany has said quite unequivocally that she is willing to have it. I saw that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, militaristic as ever, speaking this week-end, said that we are again at the edge of risk. But, if the risk is against aerial attack, Lord Ponsonby pointed out very powerfully that, as we know very well, there is no effective defence against air attack. And in that connection I would like to call attention to a very important book published not long ago called What would be the Character of the Next War? published by Gollancz, a collection
940
of reports got together by the Inter-Parliamentary Union at Geneva. I wish every statesman in Europe would read once a week the chapter in that book on chemical warfare. No expert there holds out hope of defence against gas attack and aerial warfare.
It is pointed out—I do not say these figures will always apply, I hope they will not, but they are the Latest figures I have seen—I am not giving anything away, Germany knows all about this—that in air manoeuvres over London out of 250 aeroplanes converging on the Capital only 16 were discovered by the searchlights, and 234 got through and were free to roam over the Capital. And this was when presumably the defence knew that some attack was coming. What a perfectly hopeless and lamentable position! Here we are in London, 10,000,000 people, nearly as many people as in the whole of Canada, crowded together in a few square miles. There was a powerful article the other day by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in the Evening Standard, headed "There is no defence against gas attack." The only possible defence is to get a convention, so that it shall not take place. And the Government have apparently given up that object.
I want to say something about the Locarno Treaty, because the Government have cited the Locarno Treaty as one reason for doing what they are doing. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, spoke about the Locarno Treaty. Some of our statesmen are very fond of saying that our word is our bond. If our word is our bond, what has happened to the Kellogg Pact? Under the Kellogg Pact we undertook to renounce war as an instrument of policy; we put our hand solemnly to that, and solemnly pledged ourselves that the
"solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be which may arise among them shall never be sought except by pacific means."
Having set our hand to that the Government now go in for rearmament. Then they come along and say: "Oh, of course we always keep our word." Well, why is not our bond to the Kellogg Pact to be kept?
It is almost incredible that the Government can cite Locarno to justify them in what they are doing. Locarno was signed some years ago on two main con-

941
ditions. The first was that Germany, as a result, would come into the League of Nations, and the second was that it was to lead to disarmament. Germany was brought into the League of Nations by Locarno; Germany has gone out of the League of Nations, and it is now very questionable, in the opinion of many authorities, whether Locarno has any legal validity whatever. And even Sir John Simon, speaking in another place, said: "Well, it is two years before Germany finally goes out of the League of Nations." He hopes she will come back, but, if she does not, he has admitted that at the end of the two years the whole question will have to be considered in conference with the Powers as to what the position then is. But the Government, without waiting for that, come forward and quote Locarno find our commitments under Locarno as something which we must now provide against; whereas it is very likely that within little more than a year now Locarno will be as dead as a door-nail.
In my view it is as dead as a doornail now, because the other provision has never been kept by France. The other provision was perfectly clear. In the Final Protocol of the Locarno Conference the signatories affirm that the Treaties would
"hasten on effectively the disarmament provided for in Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,"
and undertook—
"to give their sincere co-operation to the work relating to disarmament already undertaken by the League of Nations and to seek the realisation thereof in a general agreement."
France has not done that. France has not disarmed. Ever since Locarno France has been rearming as fast as she could, as fast as her finances would allow. France has broken the contract, and in those circumstances Locarno, for this country, has no legal validity, and we have no right to contemplate sending the young men of England to be maimed and killed in a hell of mud and blood under a Treaty like Locarno which has been broken by France.
If the Government have no better case than that, they are indeed in a poor way. I say that no British Government will find it possible to mobilise an army to go and fight on a battlefield of Europe
942
because of the Locarno Treaty. Nobody can do that. Locarno is dead. All I will add is this, that the policy of the Government is one which entirely leaves out of account that the real risk which this country is running is in rearmament. That is the risk, because it makes the next war as certain as anything can be. It is only a question of time. Much the lesser risk will be to go on other lines, to try and secure conventions, and pursue persistently and carry out our policy of disarmament whatever other nations do. I honestly believe that is the lesser risk. Big armaments have been tried and have failed. Disarmament has never yet been tried.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, before the noble Marquess replies there is one point of some consequence I wish to raise. We have been talking about aeroplanes for hours, and most noble Lords have spoken rather with the idea that you can put your money into a slot machine and get your aeroplanes without any difficulty. The first point about having aeroplanes is to be able to make them. I should like to hear from the Government that this country is in a position to turn out aeroplanes and aeroplane engines at sufficient speed for the purposes of the defence of the country. I am not raising the question of whether we can or cannot make good aeroplanes and good engines; our engines and machines are first-rate. The point I am raising is whether in an emergency the industry can be expanded at anything like a sufficient rate to keep up with what Continental nations can easily do. Noble Lords opposite have made a great deal of play with the question of why steps should be taken now. If they had on their Benches one fully-trained mechanic he would probably have given them the answer. You cannot have an air fleet, you cannot provide aeroplanes in the numbers that would be required if war broke out, unless you have the men trained in the making of aeroplanes and aeroplane engines. It is on that point that I should like to hear whether, in the Government's opinion, full provision has been made for the organisation of the aeroplane manufacturing industry so that we shall be in a position, in case of war, to extend our forces with adequate speed for the purpose of defence.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has asked me a very specific question as to whether this country is prepared in the directions which he has named. I can inform him, as he probably knows already, that it is the policy of the Government, if I may use the expression, to make good deficiencies. At the present moment I am bound to say we are not up to date and ready with the full developments of which the noble Lord has spoken, but I can assure him that these matters are being closely investigated by the Government, and we hope as time goes on to place ourselves in a position to carry out all these matters of which he has spoken in the very brief time he occupied in addressing your Lordships.
This debate has ranged over a considerable field, and has assumed the usual complexion of a Vote of Censure. I think it was intended by the noble Lord who opened this debate to move a Vote of Censure on the Government, and he brought to bear on that subject his eloquence as to those delinquencies of which he has been continually accusing the Government. He was supported by Lord Snell in a speech of something less than the accustomed temperate manner in which the noble Lord addresses this House, and he has been supported by other noble Lords. I find myself standing between what I might term cross-fire: I am upbraided on one side for not going far enough, and I am upbraided on the other for going too far. When one receives attacks of this description it usually makes one feel that the course which one is adopting on behalf of the Government is not such a very bad one. One feels that with public opinion in this country as well instructed and as powerful as we are always proud to think it is, when one receives attacks on either side from those who are men of affairs and with high reputation, one feels that the course one is endeavouring to steer is a course that probably satisfies the bulk of public opinion in this country.
I am bound to confess, however, some surprise at the terms of the Resolution moved by the noble Lord on behalf of the Party which he represents, for the reason that we have been given to understand that the Socialist Party have explicitly rejected the policy of unilateral disarmament for this country—I think
944
Lord Snell made that point to-day—and they have explained that nothing is further from their intentions. Yet the noble Lord who leads the Opposition has chosen this moment, this precise moment, when the Government have abandoned the policy of unilateral disarmament because of its failure to achieve the results for which we have so long and so persistently hoped, to move a Vote of Censure. The Socialist Party continually set themselves up as the particular champions of peace, when their propaganda, if I may say so, invariably bristles with military phrases, their doctrines definitely ensure the dragooning of their fellow-countrymen, and, if I have correctly understood some of their latest pronouncements in another place—I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, is very anxious to do this—they are willing to fight in any part of the world in support of the League of Nations. It seems to me a curious paradox that at the same time they should deem it proper to set every obstacle in the way of our placing our defensive forces in a state in which they can, if necessary, repel foreign aggression and afford protection to the population of these islands.
The whole question of disarmament has been so frequently debated both here and in another place that I do not think it necessary to trouble your Lordships with any detailed exposition of the history of the Disarmament Conference since it first assembled more than two years ago, in February, 1932. But I think many of us will be very interested to hear, and I am sure my colleague Sir John Simon will be interested to hear, that Lord Snell considers that we have given but a tepid and inconsequent support to the Disarmament Conference. I am not proposing to go into these matters to-day or to give a detailed narrative of the successive endeavours which His Majesty's Government have made to achieve a far-reaching measure of disarmament, culminating in the British Draft Convention presented by the Prime Minister at Geneva in March of last year. These are matters which, I am sure, are clearly within your Lordships' recollection. That draft contained very definite proposals for the reduction and limitation of armaments, but though this draft has been accepted in principle by every

945
nation represented at Geneva, we can, I regret to say, point to no tangible result at present.
We have by no means abandoned the hope of ultimately reaching a Convention. The noble Lord who sits on the Cross Benches (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) has reminded me that prospects at this moment are dim, but we have by no means abandoned the hope of ultimately reaching a Convention. While this is not a moment at which I desire to cross swords with the noble Viscount on this very important matter, still I venture to suggest to him that if at the beginning of these proceedings he had taken a slightly more practical view than he did, if he had gone not on idealistic theories, but on action for the limitation and reduction of armaments simply and solely, we should have come to a result which would have given satisfaction to this country and to the whole world. That time has gone by, and we find the Disarmament Conference in a condition at this moment which the noble Lord who sits on the Cross Benches (Lord Lloyd) is actually desirous that I should diagnose. I can only say to him that I am not in a position to diagnose the present vitality of the Disarmament Conference, but I can assure him that I should regret very much if that Conference came to an end without some Convention. I do not say a bad Convention would be in the interests of the world, but if we can reach a Convention, and if chat Convention is on the lines of the Draft Convention which was presented by the Prime Minister, I am sure this country and the world in general would have every reason to be grateful.
Your Lordships are aware that by reason of the state in which the Disarmament Conference is at the present moment, His Majesty's Government have reached the conclusion that, in the light of developments abroad, they can delay no longer. The noble Lord who sits behind me, Lord Allen, asked a specific question as to the publication of a White Paper upon the activities of the Government itself in connection with the Disarmament Conference. I think a White Paper on that subject has been published on more than one occasion. I should like to point out to him, in relation to the Air Committee, that that Committee is called together by the
946
Chairman of the Committee itself. I would also like to point out that while this Committee may sit, and I have no doubt it will sit, he will find that the absentees will be such countries as Germany and Japan, two of the most important countries of the world in this connection. I should have thought that for the settlement of such a matter it would have been wise to have their opinion and to know exactly what they were going to do.
It is plain that in the matter of the Defence Services generally, and of the Royal Air Force in particular, His Majesty's Government, in their desire to further the cause of disarmament among the nations, have not only preached, but also have practised, a degree of restraint which has in fact placed us to-day in what amounts to a position of unilateral disarmament. One would imagine from the speeches to which we have listened that we alone of all nations had increased armaments, and that we were creating a departure from what had been done in practice quite different from what really has occurred. As I informed your Lordships last November, we were at the end of the late War—and it has also been quoted in this debate—if what I may call the relevant factors are taken into account, the strongest Air Power in the world. To-day it is recognised on all sides that air power is as vital to our national and Imperial security as sea power. We have for some years ranked fifth among the nations in terms of first line strength. The noble Viscount seems to think nothing of that. He seemed to suggest that we have had a smaller Air Force than France for a number of years and that we should allow that position to continue indefinitely. I do not know if the noble Viscount is familiar with air matters. France is close to our shores, but he knows probably as well as I do that this country is within reach of other countries from the air and that we have to consider all these matters.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I must point out that I was quoting from the statement made by the noble Marquess in this House and by the Lord President in the other House, who spoke of "our nearest neighbour."
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If the noble Viscount refers to our nearest neighbour as France he is entitled to do so.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not; it is what you refer to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: When the fifty-two squadron programme of 1923 was announced it was expressly stated by Mr. Baldwin, who was Prime Minister at that time, that this programme was but a first step towards rectifying a weakness which had become intolerable. He added that the fifty-two squadrons were to be created with as little delay as possible. He went on to say:
"The details of the organisation will be arranged with a view to the possibility of subsequent expansion, but before any further development is put in hand the question should be re-examined in the light of the then air strength of foreign Powers."
That is a statement, I would ask your Lordships to observe, which was uttered by a Conservative Prime Minister, was accepted, and the policy was continued by successive Governments of which two were Socialist Administrations, Governments of the Party now represented by the noble Lord who moved this Vote of Censure. Since 1923 completion of that modest programme has been continually postponed in the interest of disarmament, though air developments and air armament have been proceeding at a very rapid rate. In consequence, in 1932, when the Disarmament Conference opened, the programme of 1923, which was already overdue for completion, was still ten squadrons short of its total complement of fifty-two squadrons, which, it was agreed at the time I have mentioned, was the minimum required for our defence. Nevertheless, I would like your Lordships to mark, for the first two years of the Disarmament Conference the programme was once again held completely in suspense. We did not move in the matter at all.
What is the situation to-day? Substantial programmes of air development are in hand at this moment in almost every country, and the expenditure of large sums has now been authorised, amongst others by the United States, by France, by Italy, by Russia, by Japan, by Sweden, by Switzerland, by Belgium, by Yugoslavia and by Turkey. Those are the nations which have authorised expenditure. Yet the noble Lord thinks we have taken a departure of our own in deciding to extend
948
our Air Force. Of developments in Germany I am not proposing to say anything on this occasion. The first four countries which I have mentioned already have Air Forces which largely exceed our own. The numerical strength of the Air Forces of France and Russia is indeed twice that of the Royal Air Force. I can say without hesitation that no responsible Government, with any regard for the overriding duty to ensure by all means in their power the safety of the people of this country, could allow our Air Force to remain any longer in a position of such tremendous inferiority.
As I informed your Lordships last November, His Majesty's Government, recognising that adequate air defence is vital to our national and Imperial security, have decided that parity with the strongest Air Force within striking distance of our shores must in future be a cardinal feature of our defence policy. As I said on that occasion we can achieve the parity we seek in four ways. The first is by a complete abolition of naval and military aviation, subject of course to adequate safeguards that civil machines will not be used for the same purpose—parity, that is, at zero. Secondly, by other nations reducing first to our level, and thereafter by reduction to such lower figures as we may all agree. That is embodied in the Convention which we put forward. Thirdly, by our building up to the level of the strongest Air Power within reach of these shores. Fourthly, by a combination of the second and third alternatives. That is the way we can reach parity. We have shown in the British Draft Disarmament Convention our willingness to go to any length in the matter of disarmament. We have done all we can, by discussion, deliberation, consultation, at home, at Geneva and in various foreign capitals, with the end in view that practical measures for the limitation of armaments should emerge. We are not for a moment suggesting that those efforts may not be ultimately rewarded or that they should in any degree be relaxed.
The noble Marquess who spoke earlier in the debate agreed, I think, with the noble Lord who initiated this debate in saying that the moment we had chosen was not an opportune moment and that we should have delayed longer than we have. That is a point which was raised

949
by the noble Viscount who sits on the Cross Benches. He spoke of five weeks delay and said we could then have made up our minds. My Lords, these decisions are not arrived at in a moment of time. They are the result of deliberation over a very long period of time. I think that the noble Viscount, with his great Parliamentary knowledge and with the desire which we all have that Parliament should be informed at the earliest possible opportunity of the decisions at which we arrive, will realise on reflection that it was necessary that some statement which was the result of our deliberation in relation to our air armament should be made before Parliament rose for the Recess. If the noble Viscount will consider the matter from that point of view I think he will see that it was impossible for us to part for the holidays without that statement being made. That statement is the considered policy of His Majesty's Government and I feel that on reflection your Lordships will realise that it is a statement which had to be made before Parliament adjourned for the Recess.
As I have ventured, to say to your Lordships before, it seems to me that the time has come when, without relinquishing ideals, we must face realities, and when we are entitled to ask all political Parties to do the same. We have been, I believe, the last nation to face them. Within, the past two months the French Chamber and Senate have voted an air programme which contemplates the expenditure of some £15,000,000 during the next three years; and Italy has announced an expenditure of £16,500,000 over a somewhat longer period. Extensive programmes for the increase and reorganisation of the United States naval and military air services have also been announced of recent months. So I hope your Lordships will see that we have not been moving in haste without, as we had to do, and as it was right we should do, taking full stock of what is going on around us all over the world. Does the noble Lord who has moved the Resolution seriously suggest that His Majesty's Government can afford to ignore these developments, when, as I have said, we are now at this moment in a position of unilateral disarmament in the air, a position which, I venture to repeat, the official spokesmen of his
950
Party have, in the past, expressly repudiated as quite foreign to their intentions? How, without an Air Force adequate in relation to the size of foreign Air Forces, would the noble Lord propose to implement his Party's policy of lending effective and armed support to the League against an aggressor State or States? I do not know the noble Lord's opinion of that.
We are committed by Locarno—which the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, repudiates—and in relation to our obligations under the Locarno Pact surely it is necessary that we should have some force which can carry out those obligations under which we are placed at the present time. My noble friend behind me, Lord Rennell, who spoke in most practical vein, told us what opinion is abroad. We are supposed to be weak, and although, in economic matters or political matters and many other matters our word is listened to with great interest, still we desire to be a little stronger so that we can make that word more effective in the councils of the nations. Again, if at some future date, we should be called upon to protect our shores; against hostile attack, would the noble Lord and his friends be prepared to contemplate with equanimity the launching of our pilots against an enemy who outnumbered them by two to one? That would, to my thinking, be an indefensible betrayal of the trust with which we as a Government are charged, and for which I, in my capacity as Secretary of State for Air, am particularly responsible.
The noble Lord and his Party must not forget that Air Forces cannot be organised in a day, nor can machines and engines be constructed, and pilots and mechanics trained, except on a basis of an ordered long-term programme. The Royal Air Force is second to none in quality, whether of men or machines, but, when the testing time arrives, quantity too must inevitably tell. The most efficient force in the world, if unduly weak, would be borne down by sheer weight of numbers. I, personally, would never take responsibility, by the neglect of reasonable precautions in peace, for sending into action, in the unhappy event of war, pilots half trained, in aircraft defective because they were the products of hurried improvisation.
The noble Lord seems to regard the Government's action as threatening a

951
new race in armaments. He even suggests that it may endanger the world's peace. It is my sincere belief—and I think most of your Lordships will agree with me—that the decision we have taken will have exactly the opposite effect. The clear and practical indication we have now given that this country is determined to have an Air Force as strong as that of any other nation within striking distance of our shores will, I am convinced, strengthen our influence for peace, and help to avert a race in armaments. I hope, indeed, it may effectively hasten the day when we shall be successful in concluding that international agreement for the limitation of air, as of all other forms of armament, which we so earnestly desire.
When I spoke on this subject last November, I ventured to remind your Lordships that the strength of Great Britain has invariably been thrown into the scale upon the side of peace, and that there could be no greater encouragement to the aggressive policy of any nation than the knowledge that the sword of Great Britain was no longer heavy enough to tip the scale against aggression. It is with satisfaction that I note that a leading Continental journal has remarked, on the announcement of His Majesty's Government's policy in this matter, that "all true friends of peace can congratulate themselves upon it, for everyone knows that the might of Great Britain is a pacific might." It seems to me the noble Lord, as the friend of peace, the champion who is ready to support the League of Nations with armed force should need arise, who, with his Party, repudiates the policy of unilateral disarmament, should be the first to welcome the strengthening of what the foreign journal to which I have alluded has styled our "pacific might." The whole world agrees that the British Empire has the will to peace; it is surely essential that we should have the means, if need be, to make that will effective.
The noble Lord's Resolution suggests that the strengthening of the Royal Air Force will not give us greater security. This is a proposition which I find some difficulty in following, but it may be that he has in mind the doctrine which he has on innumerable occasions stated in the course of past debates, that there is no
952
defence against air attack. He quotes certain statements made by my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council in another place, but surely the noble Lord is aware that isolated statements can be turned into meaning almost anything. The noble Lord has continually told the country that there is no defence whatsoever against air attack, and we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, that the only possible defence is retaliation. I am not quite clear what the noble Viscount meant by retaliation because he did not develop his argument, but when retaliation is spoken of one hears of it in the crude form as meaning that if our towns are bombed our only policy is to proceed to the towns of our enemies of that day and retaliate with bombs on their population. I can assure him that there is no such plan or idea in the whole strategic library of the Air Force or of any Force of this country as that of waging war on women and children. The noble Lord did not say it, but I have on many occasions seen it alleged that the only form of defence that we have is retaliation on the civil population. I can assure him that that does not come into the category of the defence of this country in the Force which I have the honour to represent nor in the other Forces, which perhaps are not in the same position of being able to deliver such blows on the civil population.
There has been so much misrepresentation on this subject that, though I venture to think that ordinarily discussions of the technical details of air strategy and tactics are out of place in your Lordships' House, I think it is only right—and indeed I think the noble Lord will welcome it—that I should make some brief reference to the assertion which he is continually making. I have referred to the speech which was delivered by my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council in another place—a speech which was made two years ago and from which the noble Lord has quoted certain passages in isolation. Those passages and the quotations of them have been, if I may venture to say so, very much misunderstood throughout the country, and my right honourable friend himself had indeed occasion to remark only a month or two ago that "some people have leapt to the conclusion that, if what I said was true, there was no object in air defences at all." It seems

953
to me that the noble Lord is one of those who have leapt to such an erroneous conclusion. That there is no complete defence against air attack is entirely true. But I know of no form of warfare throughout the ages in which measures of defence have been able to give complete immunity. If our present cruiser strength was multiplied ten times, that would not prevent the enemy inflicting heavy casualties on the mercantile marine and the foodships on which these islands depend in time of war. But an adequate force of cruisers does minimise the damage which can be done.
It is undoubtedly the case that air defence constitutes one of the most difficult problems which have yet confronted mankind, because, as we know, aircraft move in three dimensions. It is however, entirely wrong to suggest that there are no defensive measures by which the danger of air attack can be reduced. It may be true—at any rate in the early stages of a war—that nothing will prevent a proportion of the enemy's attackers penetrating the defence. It is equally true, however, that a determined defensive force of up-to-date fighting; aircraft will intercept a substantial proportion of the raiders. I do not know from what source my noble friend Lord Arnold got his figures, but I am not prepared to accept them in toto.
LORD ARNOLD: If the noble Marquess will allow me to say so, the figures were given in the report which was got by the Inter-Parliamentary Union at Geneva and published in the book to which I referred. There can be no doubt about the figures at that time, I think.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That was some time ago.
LORD ARNOLD: I do not know quite how long ago it was. The book was published in the spring. It is not very long ago.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: In the course of the debate in this House last November some interesting figures bearing on experience in the late War on this point were cited. It is the case, as a noble Lord then stated, that in the last great air raid of 1918 the defences were successful in turning back some 60 per cent. of the raiders before they reached London, and that roughly 27 per cent. of the aircraft which crossed our
954
coast line were destroyed. It is also true that, according to a French publication based on official sources, only 7 per cent. of the enemy aircraft which attempted to raid Paris in the year 1918 succeeded in penetrating the defences. That was as long ago as 1918. Recent developments have certainly not made the task of the defensive organisation any easier, but I may say that, out of some hundred practice raids delivered during the course of the air exercises of the last three years, a very substantial percentage were intercepted on their inward or outward journey. It would, of course, be wrong to draw too comforting deductions from peace exercises, and I should be the last person to think of doing so. Accordingly figures obtained in such a manner must be very substantially discounted. It is at least clear, as I have said, that a material proportion of the enemy's raiding forces will normally be intercepted and that they will suffer heavy casualties. But that is only one side of air defence; it is, if I may revert to an analogy drawn from primitive warfare, our shield. But the shield without the spear is a wholly unsatisfactory defence and it is impossible to rely solely on a force of fighters.
The noble Viscount who sits on the Cross Benches says that this can be obviated by peace or by the complete abolition of Air Forces. I think that what he says in the first respect is probably true, but while I have not the time to argue with him at present I do not know how ho or anybody else is going to abolish Air Forces. Air Forces are the newest weapons which we have devised—some people say unfortunately. How he is going to obtain a Convention by which it is agreed that the newest weapon is not going to be used in some form or another is something which I do not understand. So long as Air Forces exist, a vital element in any scheme of air defence must be a force of aircraft which can deliver a continued and continuous counter-offensive. I mean an offensive by attacking aerodromes and the stations from which the enemy aircraft take off, because that is the counter-offensive, or that is the retaliation (if I may use a word which can be misunderstood) in which we believe, and which we believe will be as effective as any counter-measure can be effective as applying to any arm to which the noble Lord can refer. The object of our Air Force is,

955
as I have said, to deliver attacks against such targets as the enemy's aerodromes, depôts and wherever his aircraft are concentrated. This will gradually establish what is called air superiority, and we feel will render it impossible for the enemy to maintain anything approaching the full scale of his initial attacks. Moreover, adequate Air Forces must assuredly tend to deter an aggressor from gambling on the effects of a sudden attack. On the other hand, a weak Air Force can be neither a reliable deterrent nor an effective means of defence. Nor can an adequate defensive organisation be hastily improvised on the outbreak of war and under the assaults of the enemy.
I do not seek in any way to minimise the very great seriousness of the problem of air defence. I should be failing in my duty if I offered easy words of reassurance. But so much has been said on the other side that I feel it only right to point out that there is no need for counsels of despair. The view of those who suggest that the menace is such that we should make no attempt to meet it is wholly untenable. Almost as well might they argue that, because the enemy's submarine campaign in the late War gravely imperilled our food supply, we should, if we do not succeed in abolishing the submarine by international agreement, neglect provision for all those counter measures with which our naval experts attained such outstanding success and which are being steadily improved year by year, and rather, as the noble Lord would seem to suggest, sit with our hands idly folded awaiting starvation.
Your Lordships have expressed the desire that at this stage I should say something as to the programme itself, in amplification of the brief statement which I made last Thursday. The programme provides for the addition of forty-one new regular squadrons by the end of the year 1938, including the four squadrons the formation of which I announced earlier in the year in my Memorandum accompanying Air Estimates. Of these squadrons, as was stated the other day, thirty-three will be allocated to home defence; the balance are for the Fleet air arm or will in due course proceed to oversea stations. I am not in a position to announce full details of the programme, which is still in course of elaboration, but I may say that next year, 1935, we hope
956
to begin with a substantial instalment of new squadrons. We are also taking steps adequately to increase the reserve of pilots, upon which the Force will draw in time of emergency. The total cost of the programme up to and including the financial year 1938 will be approximately £20,000,000.
Expenditure, as your Lordships will understand, will vary from year to year, but it is hoped so to arrange its incidence that the expenditure in any one year will not be unduly excessive. I noticed in one journal the surprising statement that the programme would entail an addition of sixpence to the Income Tax. It would be more accurate to say that the average cost over the financial years 1934 to 1938 will be the equivalent of about ¾d., or nearly one penny, on the Income Tax, the necessity for which we must all regret, but which does not seem to me a disproportionate insurance premium in the circumstances of the world to-day.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Might I ask the noble Marquess whether he will consider the proposal which I made in my speech, with regard to the payment for this partly out of income and partly by way of loan?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I must apologise for not having referred specifically to that point. I do not know whether the noble Viscount is aware that this is a matter which has exercised most Governments for many years. It is based on a principle which is accepted by some and not by others. It is a financial problem which is not really within the ambit of the discussion we are having to-day. I shall be very glad to refer the noble Viscount to the Treasury, who will give him the particulars for and against the policy he has advocated.
Finally I would say a few words to those who fear that we have delayed so long that we are not now moving far and fast enough. New squadrons cannot be improvised unless there is to be inefficiency, waste, and grave risk to life and limb. It takes a full three years to train a skilled mechanic, and three to four years to bring to final completion a new station and its aerodrome. Moreover, the 41 new squadrons represent an increase of over 50 per cent, on the present regular strength of the Royal Air Force. His Majesty's Government see no need for panic measures. We intend

957
to go steadily forward with this programme on a basis which will ensure the continuance in the new units of the high degree of efficiency which the Royal Air Force has always maintained. With a Force thus efficiently organised, and built on solid and secure foundations, further expansion can be safely and expeditiously accomplished, should parity in the event prove unobtainable save by our building upward—a contingency, however, which we must all hope will yet be avoided by international agreement. A programme of improvisation could not give us these solid and secure foundations upon which to build. An ordered programme such as we contemplate will enable us to watch carefully the course of the international situation and the further progress of disarmament, and we shall, by allowing a reasonable degree of elasticity in our plans, be able to control development. We can accelerate our programme if necessary—I hope it will not be—or we can cut it down as circumstances demand.
The maintenance of peace still requires the existence of national defence forces. On the sea, happily, we have arrived at an international understanding which assures limitation, but for defence in the air such international agreement is still in the making. We have suggested a scale which has not been accepted. The very fact that, owing to our present weakness in the air, this suggested scale means a greater reduction of strength for other nations than for ourselves, has certainly not assisted its acceptance. This present proof of our determination to secure the balance we advocate, far from being, as the noble Lord opposite suggests, a danger to the peace of the world, and an encouragement to a race in armaments, provides the best ground for hope that we can see of the ultimate acceptance of that policy of reduction and limitation of armaments in the air for which we are so anxious, and to secure which we have already done so much.
I do not pretend to understand the present attitude of the noble Lord and his Party, on this plain matter of national defence, unless I associate it, and I am very unwilling to do so, with those methods of Party warfare, in which it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose whatever is put forward by the Govern-
958
ment of the day. I had always, hoped that, however bitter the Party strife, in these matters of great national importance we could propound a policy accepted by all Parties in the country, instead of the world contemplating divided opinion in this country. Fortunately for him and for this country there is, so far as I can judge, no immediate prospect, while they are in this mood, of the transfer to his Party of those serious responsibilities which are now exercised by the National Government. This country is the greatest centre of international trade in the world. Upon the confidence of our people, in the stability of our institutions, in the safety of our homes, and in the security of our world-wide activities, depends much more than the future of our nation or the future of our Empire. That real confidence, which our attitude here can radiate abroad, influences far more than is generally realised peace and good order and the progress of the whole world.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the noble Marquess has replied to the debate to the accompaniment of a squadron of aeroplanes above our heads. I do not know whether that was officially arranged, but I believe London is being bombarded to-day. I had not expected that the noble Marquess would be able to meet our charges and the charges that have been made throughout this debate, but I did expect something more than the repetition of mere assertions. A more disappointing reply and explanation of the Government policy I do not believe could have been given. It is terribly tempting for me to make the noble Marquess's remarks the theme for another speech, but I only want to detach one or two points from his speech. It is parity that the Government are aiming at, and I can find no refutation at all of my interpretation of parity as the aim. The noble Marquess and my noble friend Lord Rennell both say that our rearmament will help disarmament in Europe. Lord Rennell said that foreign countries liked to see us rearming. Really, do let us try to put ourselves in other people's shoes. If France rearms it is a danger; if Germany, Italy, Russia or Japan rearms then our Press is full of the menace to world peace; but when we rearm then everybody says: "Splendid; we can begin to disarm."
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It is quite true.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The noble Viscount says it is quite true. I am afraid he gets his information from people who agree with his particular view. I am afraid that Lord Rennell naturally associates with personalities in foreign countries as eminent as he is himself. But if the real opinion of the rank and file of the people in foreign countries were ascertained, I think it would be found that when any nation begins to rearm a certain panic and alarm is bound to seize the whole of the world. The noble Marquess kept on twitting me with what the policy of the Opposition was—pooled security under Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. My Party desire to participate in any steps that the League may take towards corporate action to secure peace and to punish an aggressor. In fact, in the declaration of that policy we go a great deal further than His Majesty's Government, who showed the greatest reluctance in the Far East to take advantage of Article 16 of the Covenant. And their reluctance was not due to the inability to supply a sufficient number of aeroplanes, but to their inability to support the League of Nations.
The noble Marquess, I am glad to say, repudiates the idea of threatened retaliation, and he keeps on saying that nobody has stood for it. I think he must have been out of the House temporarily when I quoted the Lord President of the Council, who said:
"The only defence is in offence, which means you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves."
The noble Marquess must really compose his differences with the Lord President of the Council. I see there is a good deal of conflict between the two, and between now and this day week, when the Lord President of the Council is going to make another speech on this subject in another place, I think the noble Marquess had better get beside him to prevent any great disparity in their remarks.
The increase in armaments is undoubtedly going to lead not only to an increase elsewhere, but to fresh demands on the part of the other arms of the Fighting Forces, and we are now on the edge of this slippery slope. No defence has been made for the occasion for announcing this policy. What was the defence? That we were going away for our holidays and we ought to have some statement before we went. Is that seriously put forward as a reason for making a momentous, world-important statement? Really, I hope the Lord President of the Council will find a better reason for making this statement than has been given by the noble Marquess. I ought not to detain your Lordships any further. It has been a very serious debate. There have been very important speeches. Two opposing points of view have been very sharply defined. We are a very small minority in your Lordships' House, but I am not at all sure we do not represent a considerable majority in this country at this moment and on this point. With that view we shall certainly challenge a Division.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)[Teller]

Sanderson, L.

Allen of Hurtwood, L.

Snell, L.

Arnold, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Feversham, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Elibank, V.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Falmouth, V.

Bath, M.

Morton, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Landsdowne, M.

Plymouth, E.

Hailsham, V.

Salisbury, M.

Powis, E.

Halifax, V.

Zetland, M.

Stanhope, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Aberdare, L.

Albemarle, E.

Bayford, L.

Denbigh, E.

Astor, V.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Derby, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Clinton, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Rennell, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Iliffe, L.

Rochester, L.

Darling, L.

Jessel, L.

Rockley, L.

Forester, L.

Lloyd, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Gage, L. (F. Gage.) [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Hampton, L.

Middleton, L.

Templemore, L.

Harris, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Wakehurst, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
NORTH WALES ELECTRIC POWER BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
WANTAGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (CLACTON-ON-SEA AND SAINT MAWES) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.