Sitting of 22 July 1935

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Easington Rural District Council Bill,
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Camborne Water Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Exeter Corporation Bill [Lords],
Severn Navigation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Poole Road Transport Bill [Lords],
St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    BOMBAY (GERMAN MOTOR CAR FACTORY).
    Mr. HALESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has now received further information as to the German-equipped motor car factory proposed to be erected in Bombay?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I am still awaiting a report from the Government of India.

    WHIPPING.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many sentences of flogging were passed by the criminal courts in British India in each of the last five years for which records are available, and the number of floggings inflicted for offences against prison discipline during the same period?
    Mr. BUTLER: I am circulating the figures for the years 1929 to 1933. Those for 1934 are not yet available.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman recommend to his chief that the asperities of prison discipline in India should be toned down?
    Mr. BUTLER: I will certainly convey what the hon. Gentleman says to my Noble Friend, but I do not think that there is any likelihood of any alteration in policy at the present time.
    Following are the figures:
    (1) Number of persons sentenced to whipping by criminal courts in British India, 1929 to 1933.

    1929

    8,100

    1930

    7,648

    1931

    6,309

    1932

    6,514

    1933

    4,987*

    * Excluding Punjab and Agra, for which figures are not yet available.

    (2) Number of punishments of whipping inflicted for offences committed by convicts in British India.

    1929

    221

    1930

    220

    1931

    174

    1932

    186

    1933

    255

    EARTHQUAKE-PROOF BUILDINGS.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICKasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has now had any reports from the Government of India as to the steps they are taking to investigate the problem of building earthquake-proof houses?
    Mr. BUTLER: The attention of the Government of India has been called to the subject in connection with a previous question, and the erection of earthquake-proof buildings will of course receive the fullest consideration of the authorities in connection with the rebuilding of Quetta.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Will my hon. Friend recommend to the Government of India that they should secure expert advice from countries where buildings have for many years been constructed to withstand earthquakes?
    Mr. BUTLER: My hon. Friend no doubt will be glad to know that an officer

    1459
    of the Geological Survey of India has made a study of this question and is now reporting on the recent earthquake.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Will these houses be proof against the new Constitution?

    ISTURBANCES, LAHORE.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Sikh-Mohammedan troubles at Lahore are now subsiding; and whether any British troops are still employed or held in readiness to restore law and order there?
    Mr. BUTLER: I regret to state that fresh trouble broke out at Lahore during the week-end. Large crowds of Muslims assembled with the object of proceeding to the Shahidganj Gurdwara. They assumed from the beginning a violent attitude towards the police and despite charges by the police and mounted police, they refused to disperse except temporarily. Firing became necessary on two occasions on Saturday after all other efforts to disperse the crowds had failed, and after a warning had been issued by magistrates, again on three occasions on Sunday when the crowd had again become violent. In all eight rounds were fired on Saturday and 15 on Sunday. The number of persons killed is reported not to exceed 10. At 9 p.m. it was reported that the situation was under control, and responsible Muslims were doing their best to persuade their co-religionists to desist from defiance of the law. Four companies of British troops have been on duty or in reserve during the week-end and will continue to be employed, together with other military forces which have been despatched to Lahore, until the situation returns to normal.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: In view of the necessity of employing British troops in these unfortunate communal troubles such as those at Lahore, will my hon. Friend go slow with the plans for the Indianisation of the Indian Army?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Are British troops only being employed, or are any native troops being employed?
    Mr. BUTLER: I think that the answer to the last supplementary question will really answer the first. There are, of
    1460
    course, Indian troops available for dealing with these disorders and they have been standing by, but it just happens that these particular companies have been used in the circumstances I have detailed.

    MR. M. R. MASANI (PASSPORT).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India why the passport issued by the Foreign Office to Mr. M. R. Masani, No. 219,993, 1930, has been impounded, although Mr. Masani is a British subject; and whether he will take steps to restore to Mr. Masani full facilities and the use of a British passport for travel purposes on the same terms as other British subjects?
    Mr. BUTLER: The passport was impounded and renewal was refused at the request of the Government of India, who considered that Mr. Masani's activities in India were such as to make it undesirable that he should be in possession of a passport for travel abroad. My noble Friend is not prepared to agree that his passport shall be returned to him, but an emergency certificate valid for his return to India will be issued to him when required.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Is there any account of any offence committed by this British subject; is Mr. Masani charged with any definite offence against the law of India or of Britain?
    Mr. BUTLER: The Government of India inform us that they consider that his activities in connection with Communism make it undesirable that he should travel abroad, and they refuse him a passport.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire, or cause inquiries to be made, to see whether the charge of being a Communist is a true one; and is it not the case that this man is a prominent member of the Indian Socialist Society, a constitutional and legal society, working within the Congress party in India, and is not a member of the Communist party at all?
    Mr. BUTLER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not the policy of the Government to refuse passport facilities to Indian Socialists as such, but we are informed by the Indian Government that owing to Mr. Masani's Communist

    1461
    activities, he does not deserve a passport for travelling abroad, and in these circumstances my Noble Friend is not willing to renew his passport.
    Mr. GRENFELL: If on inquiry it is found that even that charge is unfounded, will his passport be returned to him?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the excellent answer of the Under-Secretary referring to the safety of Socialists travelling abroad applies also to Communists, or is there a distinction between Communists and Socialists?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman have further inquiries made to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the statement with regard to Communism; and is he aware that Mr. Masani himself definitely dissociated himself altogether from any Communist activity, and, in these circumstances, does he not think that the passport ought to be returned?
    Mr. BUTLER: The questions which have been put to me by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will certainly be conveyed to the Government of India, but our definite information from the Government of India is contrary to that which has been prevailing here.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Is Communism forbidden in India?

    ITALY (MILITARY SERVICE).
    Mr. DICKIEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the conscription for military service in Africa of English youths born in Rome of English parents?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Samuel Hoare): Under the terms of the relevant Italian legislation none but Italian subjects are liable to conscription for military service.
    Mr. DICKIE: In view of the fact that this report has been very widely circulated, has the Secretary of State for foreign Affairs any means of bringing to the notice of newspaper proprietors the great disservice that they do to international friendship by circulating such an unfounded report?
    Sir S. HOARE: I certainly hope that my hon. Friend's question and my answer will be given publicity in the Press.

    PROPOSED EASTERN PACT OF NON-AGGRESSION.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made towards the conclusion of an Eastern pact of non-aggression; whether he has received any reply to the explanation given to the German Government of the views of His Majesty's Government on the subject; and what is the present standpoint of the German Government on the question?
    Sir S. HOARE: In regard to the first part of the question the position is still that indicated in the speech which I made in the course of the Debate on 11th July. In regard to the second and third parts, I have received no communication from the German Government.
    Mr. COCKS: Does it not appear that the German Government are showing very little enthusiasm for the conclusion of this pact?
    Sir S. HOARE: I think that I had better wait and see developments before I express an opinion.

    BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether and in what manner the appreciation of this country has been expressed to His Excellency the President of Chile for the important part, as is now known, he played in bringing about the cessation of hostilities between Bolivia and Paraguay?
    Sir S. HOARE: A Note expressing the congratulations of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom was on my instructions addressed to the Chilean Government by His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Santiago on the 17th June.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICK: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, does he not agree that the lead taken by the President of Chile provides an example which might well be followed elsewhere, and that it is calculated to strengthen the very friendly relations which already exist between this country and Chile and all the South American nations?
    Sir S. HOARE: It is because we wish to give testimony to the good work of the President that we authorised our Chargé d'Affaires to convey the message.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. WHITESIDEasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact that the granting of pensions for war disabilities is largely dependent upon medical evidence, there is an independent tribunal of doctors to whom the Minister refers in the event of a divergence of opinion between the Ministry's doctors and other medical authorities?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Arrangements are in force, as has on previous occasions been explained to the House, which enable me to obtain the independent advice of eminent specialists, nominated for the purpose by the Presidents of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, in certain cases which present serious doubt or difficulty on the evidence. Responsibility for the ultimate decision, except where an appeal can still be made to a statutory tribunal, must, of course, rest with the Minister.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether all cases or what percentage of cases are sent to such a body?
    Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir, I think that both my predecessors said that they could not send all cases. However, if there is any serious difference we make it a practice to refer for advice to the independent experts.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Is the hon. Member aware of the increasing number of cases that are being reported to Members of Parliament because of these complaints?
    Mr. HUDSON: I do not think that my brief experience at the Ministry of Pensions bears out that statement.
    Mr. WHITESIDEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. Henry Fisher, of 9, Brompton Row, Dewsbury Road, Leeds, was originally granted a pension of 24s. a week, but that this was reduced to 8s. a week in 1922; that he is totally unable to work and that, in the view of the highest medical authority at Leeds infirmary, his disability is due to a piece of shrapnel lodged in his chest; and will he consider, therefore, increasing Mr. Fisher's pension?
    Mr. HUDSON: In view of the strong opinion expressed by the surgeon at Leeds Infirmary, the whole case, including opinions in favour of the claim, was submitted to an eminent independent specialist nominated by the President of the Royal College of Physicians, who confirmed the view of my Department that on the available evidence it could not be said that Mr. Fisher's condition was due to the presence of a retained foreign body. In the circumstances I much regret that I cannot see my way to adopt the course suggested.
    Mr. WHITESIDE: If there is any doubt in the medical evidence will not the man be given the benefit of that doubt? He was originally in receipt of a pension of 24s., which has been reduced to 8s., and he is completely incapacitated from working, and, in the opinion of those who have operated on him, his disability is due to a piece of shrapnel in his lung.
    Mr. HUDSON: The eminent outside specialist, to whom the hon. Member refers, and to whom the case was referred, considers that his illness is not due to the presence of this piece of shrapnel.
    Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: If an equally eminent doctor says it is, cannot a third doctor be appointed to decide?
    Mr. PIKE: Can the hon. Member say how long after the actual wound was inflicted the doctor appointed examined the man, and what was the difference in the period between one examination and the other?
    Mr. WHITESIDE: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

    TRADE AND COMMERCE (RUSSIA).
    Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOODasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, since the conclusion of the trade agreement between Britain and Russia last year, there has been any reduction in the premium charged by the Exports Credit Guarantee Department in respect of exports to Russia; what the premium now is; and how it compares with that charged in respect of exports to other countries?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The premiums charged by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in respect of exports to Russia have been reduced by about a third since the conclusion of the trade agreement between Great Britain and Russia last year. The premiums are fixed by the Department's Advisory Committee having due regard to the circumstances of each case and are confidential. The premium rates compare favourably with those charged in respect of exports to many other countries.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister be good enough to give the House the exact figures indicating the terms now offered by Germany and those offered by the Export Credits Department.
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The terms offered in Germany have been the subject of a previous question to which I replied in some detail.
    Sir M. McKENZIE WOOD: Is there any reason why the figure for Russia should be confidential, in view of the fact that the consignee is the same in every case?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The department keep the figures confidential in every case. There is no discrimination.
    Mr. DICKIE: Is the Minister aware that the Export Credits Advisory Committee has been openly accused by a prominent business man of profiteering at the expense of British industry and that repeated representations have been made from every quarter of the House? Is it not time that the terms were reduced?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The Advisory Committee is taking risks with the taxpayers' money, and they must have prudent regard to all the circumstances of each case. In this particular case if the Soviet Government have any proposals to make the Committee will be glad to examine them. At the present time we have no concrete proposal before us.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not the fact that in no single case has Russia defaulted? In view of the fact that the German terms for five years' credit are known the wide world over, is there any reason why our terms should not be known, and, if trade is available, ought we not to take advantage of it?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If the Soviet Government want to put definite propositions forward, they know what approach to make.

  AGRICULTURE.

    BARLEY (FOREIGN IMPORTS).
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make any announcement on the subject of the methods to be adopted to deal with the foreign competition in barley, particularly malting barley, which is causing so much difficulty to British agriculture?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Applications for an increase in the import duty on foreign barley are now before the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and I am, therefore, unable to make any statement on this subject.
    Mr. LIDDALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British barley growers were badly beaten last year, and that this year's harvest is about ready, and, unless something is done at once, barley growers are going to be beaten again?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Following the ordinary practice, the application is not before me, but before the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

    EGGS (IMPORTS).
    Captain HEILGERSasked the Minister of Agriculture wheter he is aware that there was a 21 per cent. increase in the number of eggs in shell imported in June, 1935, as compared with June, 1934; and whether he can state what percentage of these eggs have been put into cold storage?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware that the increase in the number of eggs in shell imported in June, 1935, as compared with June, 1934, was as stated. During the quarter as a whole, however, the increase compared with the corresponding quarter of last year, when imports were at lowest for many years, was less than 6 per cent., and there was a decrease of about 1½ per cent. compared with the second quarter of 1933, which was taken as the basic period. I have no information about the percentage of imported eggs which is put into cold storage.
    Captain HEILGERS: In view of the fact that the industry is extremely anxious lest these eggs should be put into cold storage and produced when production and home prices are at their maximum, will the right hon. Gentleman make further investigation and give an answer if I put down a question next week?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have no power to call for returns, but I will see what can be done.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Can the Minister say whether the voluntary restrictions are being carried out?
    Mr. ELLIOT: They are being carried out in regard to most other countries except the Netherlands, which is largely increasing its imports into this country.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take steps to force the Netherlands to keep to the voluntary arrangement?

    HYDE PARK (VICTORIA GATE).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the removal of the existing lodge at Victoria Gate, at the north-west corner of Hyde Park, so as to allow of the widening of this gate and relieve the serious hold-up of traffic which occurs at this point by reason of the fact that there are at present only two narrow gateways for incoming and outgoing traffic?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am advised that the widening of this gate would not, by itself, afford any material relief to traffic, and that very large consequential alterations in the park itself would also be necessary. But I will give my hon. Friend's suggestion careful attention in connection with the problem of traffic generally in the park, which is under review, in consultation with the police authorities.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman in that connection consider the desirability of having a roundabout round the grass plots on the West of Victoria Gate, which would be of material assistance in sifting the traffic coming from the East and the South?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: When I referred in my answer to consequential alterations, I was referring to alterations that would involve a very large roundabout and a complete re-layout of all the road and the grass plots in that corner of the park.

    ADDINGTON GARDEN ESTATE, CROYDON (BRICKLAYERS).
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Health whether he has received any complaints from the National Housing Trust, Limited, who complain that there is a shortage of bricklayers for their proposed 4,000 houses on the Addington Garden Estate, Croydon?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): No, Sir.

    FOOTPATH, MEXBOROUGH.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a piece of land which has been let for many years to the Mexborough Urban District Council and used by the public as a footpath has now been closed to them after the council had agreed to purchase the land at the price suggested by the owner's representative; that the offer was withdrawn and a larger price demanded, while at the same time a larger rent was asked; and whether, in view of the inconvenience to the general public caused by this and similar incidents, he will obtain powers to prevent the exploitation of the public by such means?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The hon. Member has been good enough to bring this matter to my right hon. Friend's notice, and he has also received a statement from the urban district council. The hon. Member will appreciate that having heard only one side my right hon. Friend cannot express any opinion upon the merits of the case, but the council already have powers of purchasing land compulsorily at a price settled by arbitration, and he doubts whether further powers are needed.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member aware that this local authority desired to purchase the land at the owner's price

    1469
    and that the owner withdrew the offer and demanded three times the original amount or three times the original rent, and does not the Minister think that where public convenience is disturbed in this way there should be power to deal with such an owner.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I understand that there are powers, and, if the hon. Member will read my answer, I think he will find the information he desires.

    WYTON SANATORIUM.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Health whether he has yet replied to the Huntingdonshire County Council's request for permission to sell Wyton Sanatorium for Consumptive Children and adjacent lands, comprising nearly 200 acres, to the Air Ministry; and whether he can state where it is proposed that the children in question are to be sent and the price paid for the lands and buildings by the Air Ministry?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend understands that the county council are considering whether, in view of the reduced demand for beds for children, this sanatorium is still needed for its present purpose, but they have not yet submitted any proposals to him.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Miss RATHBONEasked the Minister of Health the numbers, respectively, of unmarried women and girls who are contributors to the old age, widows', and orphans' contributory pensions scheme, and of unmarried women drawing old age pensions under the scheme; and whether he is satisfied that the benefits ultimately accruing to this class of contributors represent a fair return for the amounts contributed by them?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 3rd July to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy). As regards the second part, I see no reason to doubt the fairness of the basis adopted in the Acts.

    NAVAL ARMAMENTS (ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT).
    Mr. JOHN WILMOTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many new submarines may be added to the German Navy without conflicting with the recent Anglo-German Naval Agreement?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The Anglo-German Naval Agreement only limits the total tonnage of the submarine force that Germany may acquire, without limiting the number of vessels, which depends on the size of the individual units. At the present time the completed tonnage of British submarines is approximately the figure to which the British Commonwealth is limited by the London Naval Treaty, namely, 52,700 tons. Under the terms of the Naval Agreement, except in the special circumstances indicated in the agreement, Germany may build up to 45 per cent. of this figure, namely, 23,715 tons, unless meanwhile the British submarine tonnage is reduced, when the figure to which Germany may build would be correspondingly reduced.
    Mr. WILMOT: Can the First Lord say whether the "special circumstances" which may arise will entitle Germany to build an unlimited number of submarines and whether they are the sole judges as to whether "special circumstances" have in fact arisen?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No, Sir. The "special circumstances" may enable Germany to build up to equality with us, but that is the limit, and they have to tell us what they are going to do; to give us warning.
    Mr. COCKS: Is it not a fact that the German Government have said that they have the minimum requirement of submarines, and that even if we were to reduce the number of our submarines they will not necessarily reduce theirs?
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the average age of all capital ships of the naval Powers at the present time?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The average age of the capital ships of the principal naval Powers at the present time is as follows:

    1471

    Years.

    British Commonwealth

    18

    United States

    18

    Japan

    18½

    France

    22

    Italy

    20½

    Germany

    20

    U.S.S.R.

    21

    Mr. COCKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a provisional programme of future British naval construction has been communicated to the German Government; and whether he is prepared to give the House particulars of this programme?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Certain provisional figures were communicated to the German Government as a basis of discussion. These figures, however, are hypothetical since they are dependent on the building programmes of other Powers, and to disclose them at the present juncture would be prejudicial to the success of the forthcoming Naval Conference.
    Mr. COCKS: Does the First Lord mean to say that Hitler was given particulars of the provisional programme of the British Government which have been withheld from the British House of Commons?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: We have to put forward a hypothetical programme to every country with which we have conversations, not only to Germany, and the House of Commons has never pressed for those details. If the House of Commons does press, all I can say is, on good authority, that if they are disclosed it will ruin any chance of getting a naval conference.
    Mr. COCKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that Great Britain is bound by the London treaty not to begin to replace her capital ships until January, 1937, he has made any request to the German Government not to start the construction of capital ships under the Anglo-German agreement until that date?
    Sir B. EYRES-MONSELL: The conversations with the German representatives were of necessity of a confidential nature, and it is not desirable, therefore, to state what passed, but, naturally the British representatives did their best to
    1472
    persuade the German Government to build up their fleet at a moderate rate. As was officially announced in Berlin recently, however, the first two German capital ships were laid down towards the end of 1934: the date of laying down any further ships has not yet been announced.
    Mr. COCKS: Does that mean that the Government have given permission to the German Government to construct new powerful battleships at a time when our ships will be over 20 years of age?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: It is not a question of giving permission at all. It is a question of limiting the number of ships Germany will build.

    COAL INDUSTRY (OVERTIME, SCOTLAND).
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary for Mines when the report of the inquiry into the question of overtime in the Scottish coalfield will be published?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): On Wednesday, Sir.
    Mr. SMITH: Will copies be available before the Debate on the Estimates?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Yes, Sir.

  SCOTLAND.

    FISHERY CRUISERS.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how long the "Brenda" and the "Freya" were in Leith Harbour on their last visit; the purpose of their visit; and the date of their departure?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The fishery cruiser "Brenda's" last visit to Leith Harbour covered a period of two days for the purpose of coaling after which she sailed on 19th instant. The fishery cruiser "Freya" sailed on 17th instant after a period of two and a-half days in Leith Harbour for coaling.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there was any lag in the protection afforded by the fishery cruisers?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Unfortunately there was slight overlapping owing to a misunderstanding in the transmission of a telegram, which I regret.

    UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.
    Lieut.-Colonel CHARLES KERRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the estimated future charges which will be borne by the Exchequer and the local authorities of Scotland, respectively, on account of able-bodied unemployed persons coming

    Authority.

    Estimated total annual future charge in respect of able-bodied persons coming within the scope of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934.

    Estimated total annual future charge in respect of all able-bodied unemployed persons.

    Local Authority.

    National Exchequer.

    Local Authority.

    National Exchequer.

    Cost.

    Percentage of total cost.

    Cost.

    Percentage of total cost.

    Cost.

    Percentage of total cost.

    Cost.

    Percentage of total cost.

    County of:

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Aberdeen

    …

    *

    —

    90,970

    100·00

    *

    —

    92,223

    100·00

    Angus

    …

    …

    *

    —

    44,815

    100·00

    978

    2·09

    45,761

    97·91

    Argyll

    …

    …

    231

    0·39

    59,069

    99·61

    4,789

    7·26

    61,141

    92·74

    Ayr

    …

    …

    3,086

    0·77

    397,514

    99·23

    8,824

    2·16

    400,085

    97·84

    Banff

    …

    …

    *

    —

    55,255

    100·00

    *

    —

    55,559

    100·00

    Berwick

    …

    *

    —

    6,269

    100·00

    34

    0·50

    6,748

    99·50

    Bute

    …

    …

    42

    0·34

    12,158

    99·66

    562

    4·39

    12,246

    95·61

    Caithness

    …

    *

    —

    34,960

    100·00

    *

    —

    35,231

    100·00

    Clackmannan

    …

    656

    1·65

    39,044

    98·35

    945

    2·36

    39,158

    97·64

    Dumbarton

    …

    4,977

    3·16

    152,323

    96·84

    7,773

    4·83

    153,026

    95·17

    Dunfries

    …

    *

    —

    36,625

    100·00

    *

    —

    37,110

    100·00

    East Lothian

    …

    *

    —

    26,335

    100·00

    431

    1·59

    26,752

    98·41

    Fife

    …

    …

    3,003

    1·17

    254,597

    98·83

    6,503

    2·47

    256,378

    97·53

    Inverness

    …

    *

    —

    48,618

    100·00

    *

    —

    48,864

    100·00

    Kincardine

    …

    *

    —

    15,754

    100·00

    *

    —

    15,957

    100·00

    Kirkcudbright

    …

    *

    —

    8,933

    100·00

    *

    —

    8,974

    100·00

    Lanark

    …

    …

    *

    —

    749,070

    100·00

    8,642

    1·13

    754,105

    98·87

    Midlothian

    …

    642

    1·01

    62,958

    98·99

    1,857

    2·84

    63,563

    97·16

    Moray and Nairn

    *

    —

    40,536

    100·00

    *

    —

    41,124

    100·00

    Orkney

    …

    …

    *

    —

    2,091

    100·00

    153

    5·71

    2,525

    94·29

    Peebles

    …

    …

    124

    1·80

    6,776

    98·20

    241

    3·41

    6,836

    96·59

    Perth and Kinross.

    *

    —

    33,405

    100·00

    334

    0·96

    34,540

    99·04

    Renfrew

    …

    3,595

    2·71

    129,305

    97·29

    6,235

    4·57

    130,083

    95·43

    Ross and Cromarty.

    *

    —

    67,371

    100·00

    *

    —

    68,544

    100·00

    Roxburgh

    …

    *

    —

    20,664

    100·00

    125

    0·59

    21,073

    99·41

    Selkirk

    …

    …

    224

    1·33

    16,676

    98·67

    457

    2·65

    16,796

    97·35

    Stirling

    …

    …

    513

    0·41

    124,087

    99·59

    1,457

    1·16

    124,540

    98·84

    Sutherland

    …

    *

    —

    6,652

    100·00

    6

    0·09

    6,685

    99·91

    West Lothian

    …

    *

    —

    90,524

    100·00

    467

    0·51

    91,938

    99·49

    Wigtown

    …

    *

    —

    12,834

    100·00

    *

    —

    13,105

    100·00

    Zetland

    …

    …

    *

    —

    3,836

    100·00

    *

    —

    3,965

    100·00

    Burgh of:

    Aberdeen

    …

    9,865

    4·51

    218,535

    95·49

    18,468

    7·72

    220,628

    92·28

    Airdrie

    …

    …

    456

    0·44

    103,444

    99·56

    1,787

    1·69

    103,908

    98·31

    Arbroath

    …

    *

    —

    30,263

    100·00

    *

    —

    30,271

    100·00

    Ayr

    …

    …

    830

    1·59

    52,270

    98·41

    1,730

    3·19

    52,489

    96·81

    Clydebank

    …

    9,501

    6·01

    157,999

    93·99

    12,373

    7·22

    158,927

    92·78

    Coatbridge

    …

    1,215

    0·71

    172,285

    99·29

    2,281

    0·90

    172,778

    99·10

    Dumbarton

    …

    2,492

    2·85

    87,408

    97·15

    3,485

    3·82

    87,752

    96·18

    within the scope of the Unemployment Act, and all able-bodied unemployed persons whether or not they come within the scope of the Act?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am circulating a statement giving the desired information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Authority.

    Estimated total annual future charge in respect of able-bodied persons coming within the scope of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934.

    Estimated total annual future charge in respect of all able-bodied unemployed persons.

    Local Authority.

    National Exchequer.

    Local Authority.

    National Exchequer.

    Cost.

    Percentage of total cost.

    Cost.

    Percentage of total cost.

    Cost.

    Percentage of total cost.

    Cost.

    Percentage of total cost.

    Burgh of—contd.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Dumfries

    …

    781

    2·51

    31,119

    97·49

    1,121

    3·47

    31,221

    96·53

    Dundee

    …

    …

    1,904

    0·40

    475,896

    99·60

    11,849

    2·41

    478,851

    97·59

    Dunfermline

    …

    975

    1·97

    49,425

    98·03

    1,276

    2·51

    49,523

    97·49

    Edinburgh

    …

    54,634

    10·89

    501,766

    89·11

    91,096

    15·21

    507,805

    84·79

    Falkirk

    …

    …

    2,950

    5·89

    50,050

    94·11

    3,976

    7·31

    50,424

    92·69

    Glasgow

    …

    189,668

    5·28

    3,589,332

    94·72

    350,826

    8·84

    3,618,174

    91·16

    Greenock

    …

    103

    0·03

    356,597

    99·97

    4,795

    1·33

    358,305

    98·67

    Hamilton

    …

    4,347

    3·35

    129,753

    96·65

    5,034

    3·73

    129,982

    96·27

    Inverness

    …

    540

    2·15

    25,160

    97·85

    1,149

    4·35

    25,292

    95·65

    Kilmarnock

    …

    466

    0·62

    75,534

    99·38

    736

    0·96

    75,616

    99·04

    Kirkcaldy

    …

    2,397

    3·15

    76,103

    96·85

    3,724

    4·64

    76,558

    95·36

    Motherwell and Wishaw.

    666

    0·28

    237,034

    99·72

    2,292

    0·96

    237,687

    99·04

    Paisley

    …

    …

    7,581

    4·30

    176,419

    95·70

    11,199

    5·94

    177,263

    94·06

    Perth

    …

    …

    17

    0·04

    38,683

    99·96

    1,963

    4·77

    39,231

    95·23

    Port Glasgow

    …

    1,431

    1·20

    118,869

    98·80

    2,930

    2·39

    119,595

    97·61

    Rutherglen

    …

    915

    1·97

    46,485

    98·03

    1,740

    3·59

    46,721

    96·41

    Stirling

    …

    …

    1,661

    5·23

    31,739

    94·77

    3,100

    8·83

    32,023

    91·17

    * The "Block Grant" appropriate to the expenditure on which the estimates are based is greater than the future charge to be borne by the Local Authority.

    NOTE.—The cost to the local authority has been estimated on the basis of expenditure incurred during the three months December, 1931, and January and February, 1935, in accordance with figures supplied by the local authorities. The contribution payable by the local authority in terms of Section 45 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, has been included in estimating the cost to the local authorities.

    In making the calculations the proportion of "Block Grant" applicable to the expenditure on the able-bodied poor has in each case been deducted in order to arrive at the net charge falling on the Local Authority. The amount so deducted has been included as part of the charge falling on the Exchequer.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any statement with regard to the report of the economic survey of small holdings outside the crofting counties undertaken by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in the autumn of 1934 and referred to on page 66 of the Department's Report for that year?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The report will be published to-morrow. It presents an analysis of information collected from 201 small holdings of 16 different types, showing with regard to each type the amount of capital invested, labour
    1476
    employed, output of produce, and, finally, the financial returns accruing to the holders.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    SPECIAL AREAS.
    Captain DOWERasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn in the commissioner's report for the special areas to the desirability of the establishment of a fund for the financing of industries in the special areas; and whether, seeing that under the Special Areas Act no such power is granted to the commissioner, he will consider taking such steps as may be necessary for the creation of such a special fund?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): This is a subject which will no doubt be among those discussed in to-morrow's Debate. I ought to point out at once, however, that what the commissioner actually says is that, as the result of certain enquiries which he proposes to make, he may find it necessary to advise that a special fund should be granted for this purpose.
    Captain DOWER: If the Commissioner puts forward the suggestion, will the Department give it its sympathetic consideration?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Any opinion or recommendation of the Commissioner will naturally be carefully considered.

    UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any reason why new orders making changes in the unemployment regulations have not been circulated to the Members of the House, in view of the fact that they have already been published in one of the London evening newspapers?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am afraid my hon. Friend has been giving too much credit to unauthorised statements in the Press. Any draft of new regulations will be laid before Parliament as soon as it is made.
    Mr. THORNE: Has the Parliamentary Secretary seen the reports in the newspapers which give the fundamental alterations which are to take place? Is it not perfectly evident that the report is in the possession of the Department, and should not Members of the House have it as well?

    TINPLATE MILLS, SOUTH WALES.
    Dr. JOHN WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the apprehension occasioned in the Llanelly and Swansea area by the threatened closing down of Messrs. Richard Thomas and Company and removal to Scunthorpe, he is prepared to meet a deputation of Members of Parliament to consider the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): My colleagues and I are always anxious to meet other Members of the House, but I think it would be better to await
    1478
    the results of the further discussions referred to by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in the Debate last Thursday. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government fully appreciate the anxiety felt in this matter.

  AVIATION.

    GLIDING (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for Air what assistance is being given by the Government to encourage the development of gliding?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As already announced, it has been decided to afford financial assistance to the gliding movement, within a maximum of £5,000 a year for a period of five years. A draft scheme for the allocation and administration of this subsidy, submitted by the recently reconstituted British Gliding Association, has been accepted in principle.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the Under-Secretary prepared to place the agreement before the House for consideration?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The House has already approved the principle.

    ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for Air how many fatal accidents per hundred thousand miles flown occurred during 1934 on the services of Imperial Airways, Royal Dutch Air Lines, Air France, and Société Anonyme Belge d'Exploitation de Navigation Aerienne?
    Sir P. SASSOON: In the case of Imperial Airways, there were no fatal accidents in 1934 and their total mileage on regular air services in the year was 2,315,000. I am not in a position to furnish the desired information in respect of the other companies.

    PETROL TANKS.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made in the evolving of an unburstable petrol tank for aeroplanes?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The position generally remains as stated in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the

    1479
    Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson) on the 6th June, 1935. A number of tanks of a new type are about to be ordered for trial, but I cannot at present make any statement as to the likelihood of its adoption for service use.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCE.
    Dr. J. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is prepared to authorise the continuance of the allowance of 10s. 6d. per week made to the parents of Cecil G. Davies, Royal Air Force, deceased, who served in seaplane Iris II. when it was destroyed on 4th February, 1931, which has been paid from the date of the airman's death, but which it is now proposed to suspend on account of the father's earnings having exceeded 28s. per week?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The regulations make the payment of allowances to the parents of a deceased airman dependent on their pecuniary and other circumstances. The particular case referred to was investigated as recently as November, 1934, and it was then decided that continuance of the allowance was not justified. I am, of course, quite ready to review the case if the circumstances have changed since then.

    EARTHQUAKE, QUETTA (BARRACKS).
    Mr. KIRKPATRICKasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, before the building of the Royal Air Force barracks which suffered damage by earthquake in Quetta, estimates were made, or tenders invited, for buildings of earthquake-proof construction; and whether all future buildings in India for the use of the personnel of the Royal Air Force will be built with a view to the greatest measure of security against earthquakes?
    Mr. BUTLER: I have been asked to reply. So far as I am aware, the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; as regards future building, no decisions have yet been taken, and, owing to climatic conditions, new construction cannot in any case begin until next spring. I am satisfied, however, that the military authorities in India are
    1480
    fully alive to the importance of new buildings being constructed on earthquake-proof lines in areas that are liable to shocks.

    ITALY AND ABYSSINIA (ARMAMENTS).
    Commander LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to prevent the purchase of arms and military equipment during the past year by the Ethiopian and Italian Governments from this country?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have been asked to reply. I hope to be in a position to make a full statement on the whole subject shortly.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (SUNDAY SHOOTING, PONTYPRIDD).
    Mr. DAVID DAVIESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware of the constant shooting practice that is taking place upon the Sabbath day by Territorials at the Treforest, Pontypridd, shooting range; and, in view of the serious interference caused to worshippers at the whole of the chapels and churches in the area, he will issue instructions prohibiting shooting practice upon the Sabbath?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I am informed that on two Sundays recently firing took place on this range between the hours of 10 and 1 o'clock. It is usually possible to avoid range-practice at hours when interference may be caused to worshippers, and I am taking up this particular case with that object.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (ALIENS).
    Mr. LOGANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to aliens on British ships, being under three years' contractual agreements, domiciled in this country marrying British women, and at the expiration of their service returning to their own country leaving wife and children chargeable to the Poor Law; and whether he is prepared to make inquiries with a view to remedying this matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Euan Wallace): Prior to the hon. Member's speech on the Home Office Vote last week the attention of my Department had not been called to any such cases. If the hon. Member refers to alien seamen domiciled here who are signed on articles opened in this country for a round voyage, the position is that such men are given leave to land for discharge on return of the vessel to the United Kingdom, but there is no power under the Aliens Order, 1920, to prevent them leaving this country of their own accord. If, however, the hon. Member is referring to cases of non-resident alien seamen who may contract marriages with British women during a temporary stay of their ship in port, and are not eligible in the ordinary way for a free discharge in this country, I can only say that to grant any alien seaman a free discharge because of marriage to a British woman would only encourage marriages of convenience and seriously weaken the administration of the Aliens Order. I should of course be glad to discuss with the hon. Member any particular case which he may have in mind.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that a certain shipping company in Liverpool has a hostel in which negroes are domiciled? These people are aliens. They arrive here under special contract. They marry and leave at the end of three years when their contract is finished. They leave their wives and children behind them. I want to know what steps, if any, are to be taken to prevent English women being married here to black men who are not domiciled here and never return to this country after they have left their wives and children here?
    Captain WALLACE: If the hon. Gentleman will read my answer, he will see that that case is covered.

    PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (ABSENT VOTERS).
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider amending the Representation of the People Act, 1918, so that the wives of serving officers and men of His Majesty's forces could be included in the absent voters' lists, so that they will not be
    1482
    debarred from exercising their franchise should they be living with their husbands who are serving at some place away from their home?
    Captain WALLACE: Wives of naval or military voters living with their husbands anywhere in the United Kingdom can be registered as electors and if registered are entitled to vote in the same way as anyone else. The possibility that after registration the wife may move with her husband to another constituency and an election may occur before she acquires a qualification in her new place of residence is not peculiar to wives of naval or military voters, and my right hon. Friend cannot hold out any hope of legislation on the lines suggested.

    CHAIN LETTER SCHEMES.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the serious nuisance of chain letters asking each recipient to make five or six copies within three days of receiving the same, sending such copies on to five or six other persons with 6d. to the first name on the list, and suggesting that if this is done the subscriber will in due course receive many hundreds of pounds; and what action the Home Office is taking in the matter?
    Captain WALLACE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to questions on this subject on the 27th June last.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does my hon. and gallant Friend not consider that these chain letters are as prejudicial to the morality of the public as the taking of a ticket in a lottery?
    Captain WALLACE: If my hon. Friend reads the answer, he will see that the Home Secretary gave some very good advice to the general public on the matter.

    BETTING AND LOTTERIES ACT.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Home Secretary whether he can inform the House that there has been any substantial diminution of betting and gambling in Great Britain since the passing of the Betting and Lotteries Act last year; whether his attention has been called to the fact that some 6,000,000 people during

    1483
    the football season have been in the habit of laying bets each week by means of postal subscriptions to football pools; and what proportion these numbers bear to persons who took tickets in lotteries which are prohibited by the legislation above referred to?
    Captain WALLACE: I have no means of obtaining the information for which my hon. Friend asks. The effect of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, does not appear to be correctly described in the last part of the question. Before that Act all lotteries in this country were illegal except those authorised under the provisions of the Art Unions Act, 1846, and the Act of last year while maintaining the general prohibition of lotteries, exempts from that prohibition certain types of small lotteries which are described in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Having regard to the fact that we were informed that the object of the legislation passed by the Government last year was to reduce betting and gambling, is it not desirable that the Home Office should have some information as to whether that object has been achieved?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not a fact that before the Act was passed many lotteries were allowed which are not now allowed and which are of a harmless nature?
    Captain WALLACE: Before the Act was passed no lotteries were allowed.

    CELLULOID (ACCIDENTS).
    Miss WARDasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to certain serious accidents to adults and children owing to the use of celluloid; and whether any steps can be taken to prevent such accidents in the future?
    Captain WALLACE: I presume my hon. Friend refers to accidents to members of the public from toys and other articles containing celluloid. Such accidents have occasionally been brought to the notice of my Department and the danger is widely known to exist; but I am afraid that so far as the Home Office is concerned nothing further can be done without legislation.
    Miss WARD: When the programme is a little less congested, will the Home Secretary consider the introduction of legislation to deal with this matter?
    Captain WALLACE: There are very great difficulties, but it will certainly be considered.

    TRANSPORT.

      MOTORING OFFENCES (MINISTER'S LETTER).
      Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a letter addressed recently to a conference of magistrates by the Minister of Transport, urging them to consider thoughtlessness on the roads as equal to conscious and deliberate wrongdoing; and whether he will restore the practice whereby Ministers, other than the Home Secretary, refrained from giving advice to magistrates as to how certain laws concerning their respective Departments should be interpreted?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend was invited to attend the conference in question and to speak. Being unable to attend in person he sent a message. My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension in suggesting that the message purported to interpret the law.
      Captain STRICKLAND: Arising out of the answer, is it not a fact that the magistrates were advised to treat cases of carelessness with as great severity as acts of wilful negligence, and does that represent a new policy on the part of the Government towards motorists?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The message which was sent was agreed with the Home Office before it was sent, and I think my right hon. Friend was acting perfectly properly as Minister of Transport in calling the attention of magistrates to the legislation which had been passed. It is his duty to preserve life, and I consider his conduct was perfectly proper.
      Captain STRICKLAND: Are we to understand that motor legislation does make a new departure in the law, by which deeds of carelessness are to be punished with as much severity as those done of wilful purpose?

      ROAD TRAFFIC ACT (HAULAGE CONTRACTORS).
      Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Minister of Transport how many interviews his Department has had with those firms of heavy haulage contractors who are suffering under the regulations of the Road Traffic Act; and whether it is his intention, as a result of the representations made to him, to promote an amendment to the Act so as to meet the difficulties which have been pointed out to him?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): If, as I assume, my hon. Friend refers to the Orders made under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, with regard to the movement of abnormal loads by road, this is a matter which affects not only haulage contractors but Highway and Bridge Authorities and the Police. Bodies representing all these interests have been consulted and as a result my right hon. Friend proposes to amend the Orders in question.
      Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: In expressing my gratitude to my hon. Friend, may I ask whether these Amendments can be made without delay?
      Captain HUDSON: A draft Order will shortly be circulated to the organisations interested for their comments on it.

      QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
      Sir PERCY HARRISasked the Prime Minister on what subjects questions can be addressed to the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy); and whether he has an office and, if so, where it is located, and what staff is at his disposal?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member, as regards the appointment and work of my right hon. and Noble Friend, to what I said during the Debate in Committee of Supply on the 10th July; but I think that for the present questions should be addressed to the departmental Ministers. My right hon. and Noble Friend is accommodated in the Ministry of Pensions building in Great Smith Street. No special staff has been assigned to him, any secretarial and typing assistance being provided by the staff of the Ministry.
      Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Is the Lord President of the Council domiciled there too?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, nor am I.

      MONMOUTH ASSIZES (SENTENCES).
      Mr. DAGGARasked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the sentences passed on the persons charged at the court of assizes at Monmouth on Friday last; and whether, in view of the exceptional circumstances which prevail in the area, he is prepared to recommend clemency in each of the cases?
      Captain WALLACE: Seventeen persons were tried at this assize on charges of riotous assembly and unlawful assembly. Two were acquitted, four were bound over, and 11 were sentenced to terms of imprisonment, varying from four to nine months. The decision as to the appropriate sentence for each defendant was taken by the court, after a trial which lasted 10 days and there does not appear to be any reason for thinking that all relevant considerations were not before the court. If grounds can be shown for clemency in any particular case or cases, it will be the duty of my right hon. Friend to consider them, but at present there is nothing before him to suggest that any action on his part is called for.
      Mr. MAXTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that throughout the country these particular sentences are regarded as being excessive and as evidence of class prejudice on the part of the judge, and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman, having regard to that fact, get his right hon. Friend to consider—
      Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot express views in this House on sentences passed by judges.
      Mr. MAXTON: I am not trying to express views; I am merely saying that that is the view held by large sections of the working-classes throughout the country. I am not endorsing it or denying it myself. I want the hon. and gallant Gentleman, having regard to that feeling which is widely held outside, to give special consideration to these long sentences with a view to their immediate reduction.
      Mr. DAGGAR: Would the Home Secretary meet a small deputation of Members who represent this area?
      Captain WALLACE: I am certain that my right hon. Friend will always be prepared to listen to Members of this House.

      SMUGGLING.
      Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the growth and development of more modern methods of smuggling, he will build a number of swift motor boats, and let the building of such vessels by open tender?
      Mr. COOPER: I am informed that the Customs Department already possess such motor boats and other vessels as in their opinion are necessary for the protection of the Revenue. Additions thereto are made from time to time as required.
      Mr. MACLEAN: Are the Government adding to the fleet already possessed by the Inland Revenue?
      Mr. COOPER: Not that I know of.

      MEMEL.
      Mr. MORGAN JONES (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any assurance from the Lithuanian Government regarding the fulfilment of their obligations at Memel; and whether any steps have yet been taken for the setting up of the chamber of representatives and the constitution of a directorate enjoying the confidence of the chamber?
      Sir S. HOARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) on 17th July, to which I have nothing to add at present.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply may be taken after Eleven of the Clock, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 46.

Division No. 280.]

AYES.

[3.33 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

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

Conant, R. J. E.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Cooke, Douglas

Grigg, Sir Edward

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Cooper, A. Duff

Grimston, R. V.

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

Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Assheton, Ralph

Copeland, Ida

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hales, Harold K.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Crooke, J. Smedley

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

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

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

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

Hartington, Marquess of

Bernays, Robert

Cross, R. H.

Hartland, George A.

Boulton, W. W.

Crossley, A. C.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Dalkeith, Earl of

Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

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

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Davison, Sir William Henry

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Boyce, H. Leslie

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Dickie, John P.

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

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

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

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

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

Dunglass, Lord

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

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

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Butler, Richard Austen

Elmley, Viscount

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Leckie, J. A.

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Fox, Sir Gifford

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Levy, Thomas

Chopman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Lewis, Oswald

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Glossop, C. W. H.

Liddall, Walter S.

Clarry, Reginald George

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Clayton, Sir Christopher

Goff, Sir Park

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Llewellin, Major John J.

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Percy, Lord Eustace

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

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

Petherick, M.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

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

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Storey, Samuel

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Strauss, Edward A.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Pike, Cecil F.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Mabane, William

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

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

Rankin, Robert

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

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

Rathbone, Eleanor

Sutcliffe, Harold

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

Reid, David D. (County Down)

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

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Remer, John R.

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

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Rickards, George William

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Maitland, Adam

Runge, Norah Cecil

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

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

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Turton, Robert Hugh

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

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

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

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Salt, Edward W.

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Moreing, Adrian C.

Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

Sandys, Duncan

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

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

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Moss, Captain H. J.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Womersley, Sir Walter

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Shute, Colonel Sir John

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Munro, Patrick

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Worthington, Sir John

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

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

Norle-Miller, Francis

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

North, Edward T.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel

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

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Sir A. Lambert Ward.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Rea, Sir Walter

Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

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

Rothschild, James A. de

Batey, Joseph

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

Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

Grundy, Thomas W.

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

Buchanan, George

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Thorne, William James

Cleary, J. J.

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

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josla

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Harris, Sir Percy

West, F. R.

Cove, William G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Williams, David (Swansea East)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Daggar, George

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lunn, William

Wilmot, John

Dobbie, William

McEntee, Valentine L.

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Edwards, Sir Charles

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Mainwaring, William Henry

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Gibbins, J.

Maxton, James

Mr. Tinker and Mr. T. Smith.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Amendments to—

Gloucester Corporation Bill [Lords],

Urmston Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Swansea Tramways Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1926, by making provision with respect to the measuring, sale and conveyance of sand, ballast and similar materials, with respect to the marking of bottles for use as measures, and with respect to the discharge of the functions of the Board of Trade; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Weights and Measures Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT In the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    ADMIRALTY OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed;
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,130,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."
    3.41 p.m.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I see that it is suggested in one newspaper that among the matters for discussion to-day is the breakdown of the catering arrangements in the "Maine" on Tuesday last week. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to raise that matter. I want to assure the First Lord of the Admiralty that there was no need for him to have sent me a letter of apology, because I have little or no cam-plaint. The Vote is put down in order to discuss something much more important, namely, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement which was recently signed. It is not my duty this afternoon to deal with the juridical part of the agreement, because that was dealt with a week on Thursday in the debate on foreign affairs. This afternoon, therefore, while just touching on the effect of the Agreement upon our Treaty obligations, the relations of various Powers, and that idea of collective security which is given so much space in our speeches and accounts for so little in our actions, I propose to examine it to a large extent from the point of view of the effect upon the building programmes of the naval Powers of the world. This Agreement cannot be squared with the declaration of February of this year, which stated that the release of Germany from the Versailles Treaty was to be part of a general settlement of Europe, and I do not think the Government can say that they have been in any way consistent in their action in dealing with that Treaty during the early parts of this
    1500
    year. I do not know whether the Goverment share the view which was expressed in the "Times" in June of this year, when it said:
    "There are parts of the Treaty of Versailles which it is best to forget about"
    and
    "The judicial validity of the Treaty cannot be terminated except by the act of all the signatories, but those parts of it which were not meant to be permanent in their original form, and which it has not been possible to reshape by common agreement, must simply be left lying in ruins."
    I am not sure whether that is the attitude of the Government. If it is, it would have been as well if the Government had said so before the beginning of this year. Let me say for the party which sits on this side of the Committee that we have repeatedly urged that there should be a reconsideration of this Agreement; and we urged it at the time when the Government seemed blind to the urgent need for a frank acceptance of the principle of equality while the going was comparatively good. Obviously, too, there is urgent need for limitation of German armaments voluntarily accepted by Germany, but, in our opinion, there is no reason to assume that the limitation of German armaments could not have been agreed upon collectively. Nor has any reason been given for suddenly throwing over the method of negotiations to which we have lately pledged ourselves anew. The method employed must involve grave consequences which, in our opinion, could have been avoided.
    The inconsistency of the Government in these matters is most marked. Only in March of this year we were parties to the Geneva decision which so strongly condemned Germany for repudiating the land and air force clauses of the Treaty, whereas the White Paper on defence, which was issued in the same month, referred to German armament as the reason for the standstill of the Disarmament Conference and the necessity for this country increasing her armaments. Then came Herr Hitler's speech in which he stated the naval claims of Germany. This was jumped at by the Government and accepted without any effective consultation with the other Powers with whom we had made so many declarations a few months previously; with little consultation with the signatories of the Washington and London Treaties which are exclusively naval agreements;

    1501
    with, I understand, no consultation at all with the Dominions; while there was no reference to the League of Nations or the Disarmament Conference. These organisations can, I think, reasonably complain that they have been rather shabbily treated in this matter. I would ask: Why the haste in accepting this offer? If it was so acceptable and agreeable, why was it not used as an opportunity for convening a conference among the naval Powers? If Germany were the only naval Power it would have been a different matter, but there are others with whom we have treaties which are expiring and which should form the subject of an international conference this year.
    This matter could have been so dealt with that we should have carried the other Powers with us, not only to deal with the naval side of armaments, but to take all other arms into account. We should have made every effort to extend co-operation by using Geneva and the League which, I am afraid, are forgotten and abandoned by this Government. I would like to ask the First Lord to state whether the Government have given up the idea of a multilateral agreement and whether they are now going to depend upon bilateral agreements with all other naval Powers. I have before me a cutting taken from the influential American review the "Nation", which deals with this important aspect. It says:
    "Having reached the conclusion that multilateral disarmament pacts are impossible under existing conditions, the new British Government apparently feels that bilateral agreements offer the only means of avoiding an armament race. It hopes that the German Pact may be followed by similar agreements with France, Italy and Soviet Russia, and that the same technique may possibly be adopted in subsequent negotiations with the United States of America and Japan."
    Then it points out a matter with which I am in entire agreement:
    "One wonders, however, whether the Baldwin Government has thought through the implications of this revolutionary change in policy. The limitations of bilateral as contrasted with multilateral action are much the same in the naval field as in tariff negotiations. The issues discussed do not relate to two nations alone."
    The same article says,
    "If pursued to their logical conclusion they would spell the end of all co-operative international organisations, such as the League of Nations."
    1502
    I want the First Lord of the Admiralty to pay some attention to that, because the principle underlying the agreement which was entered into between this country and Germany does give an indication that we have given up all hope of a multilateral agreement on naval armaments and are going to deal with the problem from the point of view of bilateral agreements. I do not think it is claimed by anyone that the Anglo-German agreement will assist disarmament. I do not think it is limitation, it is rearmament with a vengeance. At one stroke it increases the naval power of Germany by four times that which was allowed by the Treaty of Versailles. All the First Lord can claim for it is that our great hope in this country is that the new agreement may remove from the minds of nations any idea of competitive naval building. It is certainly a novel idea that the creation of at least five great battleships, 16 cruisers, 47,000 tons of aircraft carriers, 52,000 tons of destroyers and again at least 30 submarines will not lead to an increase of naval construction. I said "at least" the tonnage referred to. The Agreement does not provide for 35 per cent. of the existing tonnage owned by the British Commonwealth for all time, but any increase in British tonnage will be followed by an increase in German tonnage. Clause 2 even provides that there shall be an increase in the event of abnormal building by other Powers. Paragraph (c) of that Clause says:
    "If the general equilibrium of naval armaments as normally maintained in the past should be violently upset by any abnormal and exceptional construction by other Powers, the German Government reserve the right to invite His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to examine the new situation thus created."
    What are the reactions to this Agreement in the other European countries? It cannot be said that France and Italy are pleased with it. Under the Washington Agreement France and Italy agreed not to exceed 175,000 tons of battleships. This Agreement gives Germany a battleship tonnage in excess of that which was given to Italy and France by the Washington Agreement. France and Italy now have 33½ per cent. of British battleship tonnage, whilst Germany is allowed 35 per cent. The French reactions have already been seen. Almost

    1503
    immediately after the Agreement was announced the Naval Commission of the Chamber of Deputies passed unanimously the following Resolution:
    "In view of the fact that the Anglo-German Naval Agreement annuls the clauses of the Treaty of Versailles and that the Washington Agreement was accepted by France only by reason of the clauses of that Treaty, the Commission considers that complete liberty in naval matters is restored to France till the conclusion of new agreements. The Commission invites the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that France has always in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic naval forces sufficient to assure her security."
    I think France is not sorry to regain her freedom and to be in a position to bring forward a programme to meet her own needs, and if France insists on increasing her naval strength then the German and British Governments will clearly also have to consider increases. We all know that Italian naval policy depends very largely upon the strength of the French fleet, and we ourselves will feel the competitive effect of the Agreement, however much it has been disguised up to the present time.
    One may ask: What of the Baltic? This Agreement gives complete command of the Baltic to Germany. Russia, which was uninterested in naval matters in post-War years, has now become very much interested. The Agreement has been denounced in Moscow and other capitals, while some Powers with little or no naval tonnage are very much concerned about the new position. I am not going to deal with the very important question of submarines. As our Government have in past discussions on naval armaments raised the question of the abolition of submarines, it does seem strange that in this Agreement Germany is not only allowed to exceed the 35 per cent. provided for other naval armaments but can, after notification, or shall I put it stronger, after consultation with the Admiralty, increase her submarines to a point of parity with ours. As I understand that submarines are to be the subject of separate discussion, I shall leave the question there for the present.
    One of the most depressing features of the Agreement, apart from the points that I have mentioned, is that it does not provide for a limitation of the tonnage of the ships. The new programme recently announced stated that Germany
    1504
    was building two 26,000-ton battleships. I know that the First Lord, in reply to a question to-day, stated that these battleships were laid down at the end of last year, but that did not prevent those responsible for negotiating this Agreement from endeavouring to come to an agreement on the size of battleships. In 1930 the then Government declared that battleships, owing to their size and cost, were of doubtful utility and that they would work for their abilition. Even this Government, in July of 1932, submitted to the Disarmament Conference an offer to reduce the maximum size of any battleships to 22,000 tons and the maximum calibre of the guns carried to 11 inches. I am of the opinion that this Agreement will make it impossible to secure a reduction in the tonnage of battleships. Then there are to be cruisers of 10,000 tons each, with 8-inch guns. That is also very bad, for it will make it impossible to secure even European agreement on a lower maximum for cruiser tonnage; for here is Germany leaping in one bound from the 6,000-tons limit allowed by the Peace Treaty to the maximum limit decided upon at the Washington Convention.
    This new programme clearly indicates the desire of Germany to build up a fleet of powerful, offensive units, which I think will give a fresh impetus to other Powers to follow suit. Then what an excuse it will be for the Admiralty to go out for extensive building of all classes of ships by this country. This will lead to a policy of expansion in all navies, as regards both the numbers and the size of ships. The First Lord, speaking at the 1900 Club, in the presence, I think, of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), reminded his hearers that the Navy was on a regime of treaties, which had resulted in What was fashionably called to-day a slimming diet. May I suggest that it was a very satisfactory diet, and that there ought not to be much complaint about it. From 1920 until the present time no less than £1,000,000,000 have been spent on the Navy of this country. The position reminds me of the story of the farmer who consulted a doctor about his health. The doctor suggested that the farmer should go in for dieting, presented a diet and asked to see him in three months' time. When the farmer called again at the end of three months very little improvement was apparent.

    1505
    The doctor inquired whether he had kept to the diet, and the farmer answered, "Yes, sir, but my difficulty has been to fit it in with my other meals." I think that that might be the position as far as the Navy is concerned.
    There are, I think, very few people in this country who are aware of the benefits which this nation has had as a result of the naval holiday which was provided for in the Washington and the London Agreements. It will probably shock the world when it becomes generally known that between 1936 and 1942 the number of men-of-war belonging to the five Naval Powers that subscribed to the Treaty, and which will pass the age-limit and become due for replacement, comes to the total of something like 720 ships. I saw an estimate in the "Daily Telegraph" last year by the naval correspondent that it will cost no less than £800,000,000 for the replacement of overage battleships under the Washington and the London Naval Treaties. And here we have a Treaty which, in my opinion, can never take the place of those multilateral treaties which were then agreed to. The Anglo-German Agreement does not limit the German tonnage, as I have already pointed out, to 35 per cent. of the existing British tonnage. As our Navy and other navies expand, so will the German navy increase.
    Who is there in this House or in the country, outside the Admiralty or the Government, who has been informed of the Naval programme of this country? I was very interested in the reply by the First Lord of the Admiralty to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) to-day, as to why it is that the programme could not be communicated to this House and the country. The communique issued at the close of the second part of the Anglo-German naval talks stated that there had been a full and frank exchange of views on programmes of future naval construction. The Germans have been shown our programme, and we have been shown the German programme. Not only that, but the British projected programme has also been shown to the French, the Italian, the Japanese and the American experts, but it has not been disclosed to Parliament or the country. Why this secrecy? Why is it that this very important matter has been kept from the House of Commons? If disclosed to other nations, why
    1506
    not disclose it to the people who will be responsible for paying for these armaments? Quite apart from the feeling on this side of the House in connection with this matter, the disclosure of this programme should be insisted upon from every quarter of the House. Is it that the Government and the Admiralty are committed to a vast programme of naval expansion, and that the Cabinet is afraid of public opinion? One high naval authority recently said that in the last four years the Admiralty had to swim against a strong current of opinion. We all know that there are a number of Admiralty representatives who would willingly scrap the existing agreements. Some members of the present Government never favoured the London Agreement, and would willingly see it lapse.
    Again, may I say that what has been disclosed to some of the other nations ought to be disclosed to the House of Commons and the country. Our naval programme was disclosed to America in June of last year, and a statement appeared in the American press in that month. A correspondent wrote:
    "The British Government in the recent naval talks with the United States representatives at No. 10, Downing Street, proposed a great increase in British naval strength.… Mr. Norman Davis transmitted to Washington after last week's naval talks certainly informed the United States Government that the British Government wanted 70 cruisers in order to guarantee our Empire sea routes. This, it may be recalled, was the very demand made by the present Lord Bridgeman at the Three-Power Conference in Geneva in 1927."
    It was this demand which wrecked the Conference at that time. We insist, as far as it is possible, that the programme which the Admiralty has in mind should be disclosed to this House. There is no question that the Admiralty has revived its claim to 70 cruisers. The First Lord should let the House know, and also how far this demand is one of the chief obstacles in obtaining an agreement with the other Powers. As I have already pointed out, this was the obstacle to an agreement in 1927. I know there are hon. and right hon. Members who blame the Labour Government for the London Agreement, which fixed the cruiser strength of this country at 50 cruisers, but I wonder whether there is any truth in the rumour that there were some very highly-placed officials at the Admiralty

    1507
    who were of opinion long before the London Naval Agreement that 50 cruisers were sufficient if an agreement could be obtained. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement will not make it easier to obtain any agreement at all, for whatever increase is granted to us, a proportionate increase will be given to Germany. I must say that I am not hopeful, that is, if the Government continue their present attitude, that there will be a Naval Conference at all. If there is some prosepct of obtaining a Conference, I would that the First Lord should take the House into his confidence. It is seven months since the last Naval Conference was adjourned. At that time the Home Secretary, who was then Foreign Secretary, in a broadcast talk dealing with that Conference, expressed the very strong hope that the Conference would reassemble in two or three months' time. Seven months have elapsed, and there is very little prospect of the Conference being convened.
    I would again ask the First Lord whether he will, in the course of his speech, tell the Committee what progress, if any, has been made in getting the nations together to deal with this important matter? What does he himself desire? Does he desire freedom for building? I well remember, when he introduced his Estimates of 1932, he said that it was his dismal duty to introduce a low Estimate, and in a recent speech he said he was very pleased to say that there had been an increase in the Navy Estimates by 20 per cent., as compared with the time when he took office. I suppose that had the increase been 50 per cent. he would have been even more pleased. I realise the amount of propaganda that is going on at the present time for scrapping the Treaty. I have heard a good deal lately about the age of this country's battleships. Perhaps hon. Members will be good enough to look at the reply to the question I put to-day in which it is shown that the average age of our battleships at the present time is as low as that of any other naval Power in the world. Then, of course, we are being prepared for a very heavy programme of replacement. There has already been a very heavy cost for repairs, and we are being prepared by propaganda for a very large increase in the number of cruisers. I think that the Anglo-German Agree-
    1508
    ment will be used by a number of these propagandists for the purpose of endeavouring to achieve what they really desire.
    I do not think that the public in this country is fully seized as to what the increase in armaments, which, in my opinion, is inevitable if the policy of the present Government continues, will cost the country. During the present financial year, with the Supplementary Estimate which is to be discussed later in the day, the proposed expenditure on armaments this year is £130,000,000, equivalent to an Income Tax of 2s. 8d. in the pound, while the projected programme of aerial and naval expansion for the next three years, if the Government get their way, is bound to lead to still higher expenditure, unless a change speedily can be effected in Europe and the Far East. We are increasing expenditure in this country at the present time much more rapidly than in the years immediately before the Great War. In the five years 1908 to 1913, armament expenditure in this country increased by £14,000,000, whereas this year our expenditure for the same purpose is £23,000,000 more than it was in 1931. In 1913 we spent £72,500,000 on armaments; this year it is to be £130,000,000, or £58,000,000 more than it was in 1913, although we are now on sterling and not on a gold basis. A very real danger at the present time is the increasing threat to our financial stability by a return to the war spirit and preparation for war. Hon. and right hon. Members have spoken of the threat to financial stability by misrepresentation of the speeches of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). This is a very much more dangerous threat to stability than anything my hon. and learned Friend cared to say or cared to do if he had the power. In 1908, when the last armament race really gathered speed, we had a National Debt of £700,000,000, some of which was money borrowed for the Napoleonic wars. To-day our debt is nearly £8,000,000,000. In 1908 we collected from indirect taxation £70,000,000; this year it is £295,000,000, exclusive of a levy upon bread—wheat—another £7,000,000.
    I would ask the Committee to allow me to deal with the difference in the cost of naval construction to-day from what it was in pre-war days, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping,

    1509
    who has some experience in construction, as he was First Lord at that time, will see the tremendous changes which have taken place in costs to-day as compared with the time when he was at the Admiralty. The "Warspite," a battleship of 31,000 tons, launched in 1914, cost £2,500,000. The "Nelson" and "Rodney," completed in 1927, cost £7,000,000 each. Battleship construction has gone up from an average of £78 per ton in 1913 to £178 per ton for the last battleships. The cost of constructing light cruisers has gone up three times—from £71 per ton to £228 per ton for 1932–33, though last year it was down to £209. The cost of constructing submarines has gone up three times what it was in pre-war days. The same can be said of all other naval construction. It is as well to remind this Committee that in 1931 there was a committee appointed which was called the May Committee. The Government of the day accepted almost all the recommndations of that committee, and applied them in so far as they reduced wages and unemployment benefit of the poorer people of this country.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: While I am very much impressed with the figures the hon. Member has given us, he will, of course, hear in mind the change in the value of the pound.
    Mr. HALL: I assumed that my hon. Friend would have known that without being told. The May Committee reported in 1931 and recommended that before the next Naval Conference the Government should appoint a representative committee to inquire into the whole subject of naval design and to consider whether any modification might be adopted, with or without international agreement, such as would lessen the cost of naval defence without endangering naval security. That recommendation has been before the Government for four years. They must be aware of the very large increase in the cost of construction, and I would therefore like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a committee to inquire into the matters referred to in that recommendation. Even those hon. Members who are desirous of building a very large Navy are concerned about the question of where the money is to come from. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping wants, I feel sure,
    1510
    to go in for a programme of replacement of battleships. I am not sure what his view is concerning the London Treaty, which limited the number of cruisers to 50. I know he is very anxious, while wanting replacements and expansion of the Navy, that the cost should not be met out of the current revenue. I think it was on 27th June this year, and in the presence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, that he said that he did not want to shock the right hon. Gentleman, but that the only way in which we could deal with this situation was to have a defence loan.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear.
    Mr. HALL: In that he was supported by the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes). There is a gathering round the idea that, instead of placing a burden upon the taxpayer at the present time, in which case he might be made aware of what armaments are to cost, there should be a defence loan, spread over 30 years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping knows something, and so does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), about loans which have been raised for naval purposes. I am not sure whether they had not something to do with the old Naval Works Act, 1895 and 1905; if they had not, they had something to do with the payment of interest upon the money which was borrowed during that time. It was argued that, owing to the very heavy cost of naval works at that time, the cost should be met out of loan. It is interesting to read what seine of the Chancellors of the Exchequer said about it. Sir William Harcourt, speaking on the Naval Works Act in 1895, reported a speech of Mr. Goschen, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1888, with which he said he entirely agreed. When dealing with borrowings, Mr. Goschen had said that he was glad that the hon. and learned Member had called attention to the subject of borrowing, because it enabled him to say once more and most clearly that the present purpose of the Government could not be drawn into a precedent for building ships by means of loans. He should himself much deplore the fact that if this were in any way turned into a precedent for meeting the needs. The needs should be met out of the revenue for the year. If there is

    1511
    to be a very large expansion, I trust that the taxpayers will know what the expansions will cost them.
    On this side of the House we look upon the Anglo-German Naval Agreement with a great deal of apprehension. We can see no prospect of disarmament or limitation of armaments; in our opinion, there is going to be a very large expansion of armaments. The Government should take note of what was said by two very eminent statemen in this country with very large experience in the building up of armaments. I refer, first, to the late Mr. Gladstone, who as far back as 1860 said:
    "We have no adequate idea of the predisposing power which an immense series of measures of preparations for war on our part has, in actually begetting war. They familiarise ideas which lose their horrors. They like the inward flame of excitement, of which, when it is habitually fed, we lose consciousness."
    Similar words were used by Lord Grey in 1914, who said:
    "Every country had been piling up armaments and perfecting preparations for war. The object in each case had been security. The effect had been precisely the opposite of what was intended and desired. Instead of a sense of security there had been produced a sense of fear which was yearly increasingly.… Such was the general condition of Europe. Preparations for war had produced fear and fear predisposed to violence and catastrophe."
    Our view is that, unless the present policy of the Government is materially changed, both in regard to its foreign policy and its building up of armaments, the words uttered by those two very eminent statesmen, almost on the eve of war, may be said to be the position of this country.
    4.22 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral CAMPBELL: I have very little criticism to make concerning the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. It is probably the best arrangement that can be made in the circumstances. I hope that the Government are correct in their forecast that it will be of the greatest importance at the future Naval Conference. I feel that the Agreement is liable to be misinterpreted and misunderstood, especially in this country. Simply taking the fact that we have agreed to the German nation building up a navy of 35 per cent. of our tonnage sounds as though the superiority of our Navy over
    1512
    the German navy will be very large and marked, but is that really so? During the War, if we simply take tonnage versus tonnage, our superiority on many occasions was such that we might have expected many great victories, but we did not always obtain them.
    Take the case of the Battle of Jutland. In the opening phases of the Battle of Jutland, our superiority in tonnage was very great, and yet we lost two vessels, while the enemy lost none. Similar circumstances prevailed throughout that battle. Tonnage superiority was greatly in our favour, but the German ships were superior to ours in construction and very often in performance.
    People assume nowadays that no nation builds ships or other warcraft but for defence purposes, but we have to build our ships for the defence of a vast Empire which is spread all over the world. Germany has no overseas possessions and only requires to build ships for defence in home waters. That is a great handicap against us, because with a ship that is only required for home waters the question of radius of action does not need to be taken into account in the way it does when we lay down and build our ships. Furthermore, with ships which are required to be continuously at sea or to go for long voyages, such as our ships have to do, there must be proper accommodation for crew, provisions and so forth. That does not apply to ships which are built only to go to sea for two or three days at a time.
    What does the new Naval Agreement amount to? By it Germany is given a brand new navy. Anybody who attended the magnificent Naval Review last week will agree, on the other hand, that a great deal of our Navy is not what you might call new; in fact, it is verging on the obsolete. Germany will be able to build cruisers, destroyers and other vessels, making full use of the latest inventions of science and of engineering skill, while we, presumably, will be going on with our old policy of spending millions of pounds trying to bring up to date our old ships or even recent ships such as the cruisers of 1928 and 1929. We are going to be very seriously handicapped, compared with what the Germans will be able to do, unless some fresh naval agreement is reached when all the nations of the world are assembled round

    1513
    the conference table. Even if an agreement is reached, it appears that the new Germany Navy will put many of our ships prematurely obsolete, apart from those ships that are already getting on that way. We seem to be faced with the necessity for a large shipbuilding programme. If I am correct in my deduction, the sooner the country realises that we shall have to build a large number of new ships, the better it will be. The country should be told in plenty of time, so that they may realise the reasons and the necessity for it, should the occasion arise. It is bad to spring these things on to the public before the public have had time to appreciate the whys and wherefores.
    I do not believe that there is any such thing as a war party in this country, yet we have something which is almost worse; we have what I may call a "my-country-always-wrong" party, who are only too pleased to twist round and misinterpret as many facts as they possibly can. That brings me to the question of submarines. From what I have read, I feel that some of the statements that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has made concerning the abolition of submarines has given food for what I call the "my-country-always-wrong" party. I have never had any doubt but that the Government have pressed in every way they could for the abolition of all submarines, provided always that every other nation agreed. Be that as it may, the submarine is essentially an offensive weapon. It cannot be looked upon as a defensive weapon. Even the keeping off of ships from close blockade as it used to be maintained in the old days, can now be done by aircraft and by electrical and wireless-controlled boats. Though submarines might be useful as well, they are certainly not necessary or essential, and that is not a reason which justifies their existence or our not continuing to press for the abolition of submarines.
    I should like to ask the First Lord if he can tell us why Germany requires more submarines than she had in 1914? Submarine warfare is one of the most inhuman methods of warfare yet evolved. During the Great War I was many times called upon to pick up drowning women, children and civilians out of the water as a result of submarine activities, and
    1514
    on other occasions I was sent to the help of hospital ships which had been torpedoed by submarines. I feel very strongly that, on both moral and humane grounds, we should continue to press for the total abolition of submarines. If we have to fight, I hope we shall always fight clean and not hit below the belt, which is necessarily what submarine warfare amounts to.
    If the my-country-always-wrong party do not believe that the present Government wish to abolish submarines for moral and humane reasons, perhaps they will agree that submarines should be abolished on the principle of self-preservation, which I imagine is a thing about which most of that party think a great deal. This country nearly lost the last war through the activities of submarines. We should have been nearly starved if we had not been able to bring the War to an end. At one period our food supplies could not have been maintained for more than a very limited time, and thousands of battleships at Scapa Flow or Rosyth would not have availed us against the submarine menace. If, therefore, that party look at the question from the point of view of self-preservation, they will see that, apart from the fact that there are very high moral reasons for the abolition of submarines, it is actually in the interest of a nation which is so dependent as we are on long lines of communication, and which is rendered such splendid service by its Merchant Navy.
    I cannot help thinking that this Naval Agreement with Germany is going to end up in a new naval armaments race. It may not necessarily be a race in tonnage; it may be a race in regard to the design of ships, a race to make one ship superior to another. But, even if that be so, and fighting power is maintained, it will mean increased expense, and will amount to the same thing in the long run. What can be done? I realise that we must face things as they are in the world to-day, and that we as a great nation must build up ships, tanks, aeroplanes, or whatever may be required in the present conditions for the defence of our great Empire. At the same time, I feel that we should have in mind something more—that we should be looking forward to the world as we hope it will be in the future, when nations will live together in peace and security. We hear a great deal nowadays

    1515
    about collective security, and personally I feel that we are on the right road in dealing with the question of collective security. In fact, I believe that, as the world gets smaller owing to increased and improved means of transport, we shall eventually live in the world as nations live to-day, with their own courts and their own police forces, and that eventually we shall have something in the nature of an international police force, including an international Navy such as was suggested by the late President Theodore Roosevelt before the last war. I do not say or imagine that such a thing is practicable at a day's notice; I very much doubt whether many Members of this House will live to see it; but I believe that eventually it will be possible, and, in view of that possibility, I feel that, when naval agreements are made, we should not only think of the present, but should always have our eyes on what we are aiming at for the future.
    As regards the immediate present, I cannot help feeling that the only solution of the very grave and difficult naval problems with which the world is faced is that the two great English-speaking nations, the British Empire and the United States of America, should co-operate ever more closely and in such a way that the world may be told that, in the event of any nation attempting to break the Kellogg Peace Pact, the navies of the two great English-speaking nations would stand together as one, as they did in 1917 and 1918. This arrangement for co-operation would be no threat, and need cause no jealousy in the world, because the two great English-speaking nations affectionately dislike each other sufficiently to make it quite certain that neither of them would go one better than the other. I feel that, in order to make sure that a naval armaments race shall be prevented, these two navies should co-operate to a closer extent even than they do now to maintain the future peace and security of the world, pending an all-round settlement among all nations combined.
    4.38 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: We have all listened with great interest, as we always do, to the hon. and gallant Member for Burnley (Vice-Admiral Campbell), whose gallant deeds in the war will always remain a glorious record. I agree with him that
    1516
    there is a danger that this Anglo-German Naval Agreement might be misunderstood by the British public, and that its full significance will not be appreciated. We all know that, under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was placed under certain naval, military and air limitations. As far as the Navy was concerned, she was forbidden to build more than a certain tonnage, she was not allowed to build capital ships over 10,000 tons, and she was not allowed to construct submarines at all. We know that during the last year or so she has been breaking that agreement and has been seeking to re-arm, and that for some time past she has been constructing submarines. We have heard from the First Lord of the Admiralty that at the end of last year she laid down two warships of, I think, 26,000 tons, or, at any rate of a tonnage far exceeding her limit of 10,000 tons under the Treaty of Versailles. The news that she was re-arming became general property.
    Accordingly, on the 2nd February we had the London Declaration, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), but there is something in that Declaration to which I would draw the attention of the Committee. By that Declaration France and Britain agreed, in return for a general settlement which would include an Eastern Pact and a Western Pact, that, when Germany returned to the League,
    "there would be simultaneously established an agreement regarding armaments which in the case of Germany would replace Part V of the Treaty of Versailles."
    I would draw particular attention to the word "simultaneously." It will be seen that this agreement suggested a bargain that, in return for Germany giving new security to Europe by joining the League again and signing an Eastern Pact, we would agree that Part V of the Treaty of Versailles should be replaced by a general armaments agreement. Consequently, it follows that the giving to Germany of the part of the agreement which she wants weakens the bargaining power of the other nations in regard to the part of the agreement which they want, and, therefore, makes the prospect of a general settlement more remote. Moreover, under that agreement the two Governments state that they are agreed that neither Germany nor any other Power whose armaments have been defined by the Peace Treaty is entitled by

    1517
    unilateral action to modify its obligations, and at Stresa, when Italy came in, it was stated that:
    "The three Powers … find themselves in complete agreement in opposing by all practicable means any unilateral repudiation of treaties which may endanger the peace of Europe and will act in close and cordial collaboration for this purpose."
    Finally, there was the famous meeting at Geneva, when the Council of the League laid it down that:
    "It is an essential principle of the law of nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagements of a treaty nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the other contracting parties."
    It will be noticed that the word "parties" is in the plural. It seems to me that this agreement goes quite contrary to all those three resolutions—the resolution of the League of Nations, to which we were a party, the resolution at Stresa, and the London resolution of February last.
    What happened? On the 21st May, Herr Hitler demanded a naval strength equal to 35 per cent. of the British Navy, and it has already been announced that he had been constructing submarines. As a result of that, we had certain naval discussions, after which the whole of Herr Hitler's claim was conceded without any modification. It was conceded on the 18th June, an historic date—the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo; and it has been suggested on the Continent that that date was fixed by the German delegates because it was the date when the Prussians and the English were fighting against the French. Certainly it has been made use of in propaganda on the Continent. I would like to ask the Government why they were in such a hurry to sign that agreement. We informed the French Government that discussions were going on, and the French Note was only received on the morning of the 18th June, having been delayed owing to the fall of the. French Government and the formation of a new Government. The French Note objected to the agreement, and desired that it should be further discussed, but a few hours later, without acceding to the French request and without any delay at all, we hurriedly signed the agreement.
    We have been told by the Government that, if Great Britain had insisted on prior consultation with her friends or with the other nations, the Agreement would have been lost. What does that
    1518
    mean? It means that we were faced by a German ultimatum: "Either sign this or we will go away and build up to greater strength." As a result, the British Government surrendered; apparently there was no bargaining whatsoever. No doubt there were points that the British Government would have liked to be brought into the Agreement. For example, as I pointed out to-day at Question Time, we cannot begin to replace obsolete battleships until January, 1937, and, therefore, we should have tried, if we were going to have this agreement at all, to get the German Government, in consideration of our agreeing to a settlement with them, to delay the construction of their battleships, so that we should all be able to start fair—[HON. MEMBERS: "They had already laid them down!"]—They could have stopped going on with them if we had made a bargain of that kind.
    Then there is the question of supervision It has always been suggested in all these agreements that there should be some kind of supervision so that we can see that the different categories are not exceeded. That was all the more important in this case seeing that Germany, as we now know, has been building submarines and large ships about which nobody in this country apparently had any correct information. Unless we have supervision, therefore, it is possible that the same thing may happen again. Then there is this arrangement about submarines. Germany is not only to have 45 per cent., instead of 35 per cent., but she can build up to parity with us without our consent, merely by notifying us of her intentions. It has been stated on behalf of the Government that the German Government have a minimum requirement of submarines apart from the number that we have. Therefore, if as a result of some naval conference it were agreed or proposed that our submarines should be cut down in number by one-half, that would mean that the German Government would consider then that 35 or 45 per cent. of our strength would not be sufficient. If they are to make a stipulation of that kind—as has been stated on behalf of the Government—that makes any international arrangement about the limitation of the number of submarines practically impossible.
    Further, we were not allowed to consult our friends. We were told that the Agreement had to be signed there and

    1519
    then or not at all. There has been a good deal of controversy as to who won the battle of Jutland, but there was no doubt as to who won the victory in concluding this Agreement on 18th June. It was won by Herr Ribbentrop and his delegation. It was not only a defeat for our own interests but a defeat also for the collective system and a defeat for the principles embodied in the agreements we have made. In my view other countries are justified in considering that the signing of this Agreement was an act of bad faith. It is contrary to the Treaty of Versailles, which is still a legal document, and therefore in my view it is illegal and ultra vires; and, if there were any international tribunal which had the power to settle this thing—and I am not sure that there is not such a tribunal in existence—I think it would have no alternative but to say that that was so. The Foreign Secretary has said in defence of this Agreement that it was to the advantage of other naval Powers, that it would not leave the Baltic States to the mercy of Germany, and that in his opinion it would further a general agreement for the reduction or limitation of naval armaments. I want to examine for a moment these particular points. Take the argument that it would not leave the Baltic States at the mercy of Germany and that it would be to the advantage of other naval Powers. On 6th July, 1935, there appeared in the "Times" a long article from their Scandinavian correspondent in which he discusses the effects of the naval Agreement upon sea power in the Baltic. These are some of the things he said:
    "The German rearmament admitted by the Anglo-German Naval Agreement upsets the naval equilibrium in Northern Europe which dates from the end of the War. That equilibrium gave Sweden. Finland, Norway and Denmark 17 years of effortless security, during which they began to feel that they only among European States had solved the problems of peace and disarmament. By this agreement to her naval rearmament, Germany in the Swedish view more than recaptures her pre-war position in the Baltic."
    The article goes on to say that a Swedish Liberal paper, whose name I will not attempt to translate, says:
    "The German Fleet will now be in unchallenged control of the Baltic. Every new unit added to the German Fleet makes Sweden's position so much the worse. Even before 1914 our position was better as then
    1520
    the Russian and German Fleets about balanced."
    The article goes on:
    "Commenting upon Sir Samuel Hoare's statement in the House of Commons last week the same newspaper, one of the most responsible organs of Swedish opinion, goes on to say: 'Since England has allowed the Baltic and the Skagerack to be alienated from the sphere of British interests we have only France to look to for our support.'"
    It goes on to discuss the position of Denmark and says:
    "It means that the problem of Danish National defence will have to be considered afresh. Moreover, British superiority in the North Sea is now believed to be at an end."
    Then with regard to Finland:
    "In Finland the revival of German naval strength will prove an encouragement to the irresponsible Nationalist element, who, in spite of the constant official discouragement, seek in Russia a legitimate field for expansion. The first effect of the Naval Agreement has been to strengthen the hands of all those who are in favour of naval rearmament and air force extensions … The days of disarmament are over in Sweden."
    It is quite certain that other States not mentioned in the article, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania feel themselves greatly in danger by the Agreement because in the Baltic they will be placed at the mercy of German naval power.
    Then let us take the case of France. France is a country with two sea-boards—the Mediterranean and the Channel—and she has a large Colonial Empire to defend. Yet under this Agreement I understand that Germany will be allowed to construct 166,000 tons of new battleships whereas the present strength of France in modern battleships, including not only those built and building but those which are projected, is only 154,000 tons. That would give the German battle fleet a superiority over the French. That will certainly lead to a big increase in the French Navy. It was suggested the other day that before the War the French Navy was in a position of considerable inferiority to the German Navy and that by this Agreement Germany would be placed in a position of inferiority to the French. But it must be remembered, as I have pointed out previously, that before the War we had a naval agreement with France under which France was able to transfer ships to the Mediterranean while we defended the Northern coasts of France in the North Sea. That agreement does not exist to-day, and France

    1521
    can no longer rely on the British Navy to defend her Northern coasts. Instead of that, we have an agreement with Germany. It seems to me that the only Powers who will be helped by this Agreement are Japan in the East, and Italy in the Mediterranean—because it seems to me that the French Fleet will have to be concentrated in the North Sea, and the British Fleet as well, and that we shall leave Italy in mastery of the Mediterranean. So far as the Far East is concerned, Japan will be supreme there.
    As for the general agreement suggested by the Foreign Secretary, so far as I can see the only result of this will be an armaments race which will be to the benefit of the armament firms in every country in the world. What about the effect on our own country? As was mentioned this afternoon at question time, in two years' time practically all our battle fleet will consist of old and obsolescent vessels. I think the position is that in two years' time, when we are released from the provisions of the Treaties of London and Washington, we shall have only three battleships under 20 years of age. All the others will be over 20 years old. By that time some of these new German ships will possibly be ready—certainly before we have finished building our new ships. We were told that seven months ago the Germans had laid down a programme of two 26,000-ton battleships; two 10,000-ton cruisers; 16 very large destroyers of 1,625 tons displacement with 5-inch guns, practically equivalent to light cruisers; 20 submarines of 250 tons, six of 500 tons and two large submarines of 750 tons. She is laying down now in this year's programme more submarines than she had when the war broke out in 1914. Perhaps the First Lord will tell us what the ultimate battle fleet of Germany will be under this Agreement and under the arrangements now being made? It seems to me that under the tonnage allotted to her Germany will have five battleships of 26,000 tons in addition to the three ships of the "Deutschland" class that she has already got. These vessels will be supported by a very large fleet of cruisers, destroyers and submarines. Many of these ships will be in commission before any of our modern ships will be ready.
    Another point is that many people believe that there is some naval agreement between Germany and Japan. These two
    1522
    powerful nations are now outside the League and now own no allegiance to the Covenant. It is quite certain that the new German Fleet combined with the Japanese Fleet will be much stronger than the British Fleet. In addition, the German Fleet, being all concentrated in the North Sea, will prevent the British Navy from fulfilling in distant waters its obligations under the League Covenant if ever it is called upon to carry out those obligations. The British Fleet will be concentrated in the North Sea and there will be naval ports constructed in the North Sea. Rosyth and other ports, harbours and dockyards used in the war will be re-opened, and all this will lead to more reconstruction and more expenditure. I see that the "Berliner Tageblatt" says that this Agreement
    "will give Germany strength to assert her mission in the North Sea and the Baltic."
    It seems to me very strange that the Admiralty should have agreed to that plan which is so greatly detrimental not only to our own interests but to the system of collective security in the world.
    It is also true that this Agreement contains many of the features of a potential alliance. For example, the British Government can tell the German naval authorities that if they wish they can increase their navy above the 35 per cent. if they feel they are threatened by increases in the French Navy. That can be done without consultation with any other nation at all. If the Germans say that they are in danger through re-building on the part of France, we ourselves can give the German naval authorities permission to increase their fleet. There are tendencies in this country in the newspaper Press and even in the Government to favour the Nazi regime in Germany, and these are having a great influence over the Admiralty and the Foreign Office. I agree that this matter should have been dealt with as suggested by my hon. Friend who opened this discussion. I think we should have stood for our collective security and said that any building by Germany beyond the terms laid down at Versailles would be illegal unless approved by general agreement, and we should have warned her that, if she did not conform to that general agreement, the other Powers would have to organise themselves and confront her with such a superiority that, even with her increase, she would be placed in a position

    1523
    of hopeless inferiority. Instead of doing that, the Government signed an Agreement which broke the Stresa Pact, and repudiated the collective front and will lead to an expansion of armaments and an increase of the power of the Nazi Government. Speaking for myself, I have always been ready to support expenditure to keep the Navy efficient for the defence of our shores and upholding international obligations and upholding the League. Also speaking personally, I am not prepared to vote a penny for ships that are to be used merely to carry out a policy of making Nazi Germany the predominant Power in Europe.
    5.1 p.m.
    Colonel GRETTON: The two hon. Members who have spoken from the Opposition benches have made a most powerful indictment against the whole policy of the Government in their naval Agreement with Germany. I endorse what they have said. It is a deplorable position in which this naval Agreement has placed us. We have made it behind the backs of those with whom we have undertaken to act. Hitherto, the word of England has been taken to be reliable and true. In making this Treaty, we have gone behind the Agreement that we made at Stresa and the resolutions that we were parties to at Geneva. Nothing could be more deplorable. There must be most unfortunate reactions on the whole of our foreign policy. It places this country in a highly dangerous position in naval matters. It ties our hands, but it does not necessarily tie the hands of Germany. The Prime Minister the other day stated that there is the greatest difficulty in getting information about armaments, whether naval, military or air, in autocratic countries whereas in democratic countries that information is almost public property. That is true. Germany is governed by an autocracy and has all the elements of secrecy in the carrying out of her naval policy. What is to bind Germany to this Agreement? We are bound, and, if we broke it, we should be accused of having broken an agreement. I will ask another question. What Treaty or engagement has Germany kept since the War? Germany has become almost a professional treaty-breaker. Yet you have nothing but the word of the German Government to
    1524
    guarantee the fulfilment of this Agreement, which you cannot accurately check and which you are obliged to accept by the Treaty because, if you say, "We believe the German Government has not kept its engagements, and we must have an increased programme," you will immediately cause diplomatic repercussions.
    What are the British Admiralty going to do about this? They showed us at Spithead the other day a most admirably managed naval review, but, when analysed, the position is not satisfactory. Allusion has already been made to our deplorable position as regards battleships. We shall have to deal with that question, because it is unthinkable that there should be a compact, completely modern and ultra powerful, if small, fleet of battleships stationed at naval bases close to our shores of which we had only too great experience in the great War. We are forced for our own safety to take immediate measures to meet the modern vessels which Germany already has under construction. There has been no proposal made, and we have had too much experience of late years of the dilatory methods of the Admiralty in laying down a few keel plates in the financial year for which construction has been authorised and spreading construction over a very long period. It is the same with cruisers. What are we going to do about cruisers? A very large proportion of the cruisers now figuring as effective will be obsolete in two or three years. If we are to be safe on the seas, immediate steps will have to be taken to construct modern cruisers. Yet we are tied by the London Agreement, which was made greatly to our disadvantage, restricting our replacement of worn-out vessels but allowing the other parties to the agreement to replace their vessels at a much earlier date. There is in that treaty an escalator clause. If we find that, by reason of the construction of other countries, the naval position warrants it, we can claim to increase the number of our cruisers. That becomes extremely urgent at the moment because ships of the "Hawke" and "Frobisher" class are due to be put out of commission and thrown on the scrap heap. They are, however, effective ships and are urgently needed.
    The position in regard to submarines is even worse. After all, cruisers and

    1525
    battleships take time to construct, but submarines can be constructed with great rapidity. Their parts can be made in different factories scattered over a wide area, and they can be quickly assembled and launched. In fact, a very large increase of submarines can be made secretly, and they can be in the water almost before anyone knows anything about it. Yet the Admiralty agreed to this enormous increase of German submarine power, far beyond anything that the other Powers would be disposed to agree to, and contrary to the policy for the suppression of submarines, which they have always declared to be their desire and which most Englishmen desire. What does Germany want with this immense submarine fleet? She had experience of the use of submarines in the War. Does anyone think that that experience is going to be allowed to lie idle and that she will not make use of it? What is this fleet for? Obviously, it is to bring pressure upon other naval Powers, particularly upon this country. Germany is out to repair the damages of the War. If we have not a fleet which can hold its own, we shall have to submit and pay blackmail to German pressure when she is ready. We want in these days a firm, patriotic, naval policy, We have not had it from recent Boards of Admiralty, and I trust that my right hon. Friend will be prepared with such a declaration.
    Finance is a difficulty. We are driven into a corner. We cannot finance the necessary replacements brought about by the neglect of earlier Boards of Admiralty by the ordinary method of charging it against revenue. The time has come when we shall have to face a naval loan. There are great advantages in a naval loan with payments spread over a reasonable term of years. It can be done very cheaply now. It will immediately find employment on a large scale in the shipyards and the works of Sheffield, Leeds, Birmingham, and elsewhere, and it will keep together a band of skilled workmen whom we may need at any moment and who are gradually being dispersed. There is every reason why we should have a sufficient naval loan launched at the earliest possible date to enable us to make good these alarming and dangerous naval deficiencies which are driving some of us almost to despair. England has always depended on her Navy. The time has not come when she can cast her
    1526
    Navy aside. A Navy which is not equal to its task and not able to keep us in peace and security in face of other Powers which desire to be aggressive is a delusion and a waste of money. On all grounds, I urge upon the Government to realise what they have done by this naval Agreement and what it means to Germany and to ourselves, and to take the necessary measures for our security and protection.
    5.13 p.m.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have listened to a good part of the Debate. So far the speakers on both sides are in complete agreement with one thing, that is, in disapproving the Anglo-German Agreement, some from one point of view and some from another. I regret to have to strike a different note myself. It was to me quite incomprehensible. It was very strange certainly coming immediately after the Stresa Conference, which was summoned for the purpose of denouncing the unilateral rearmament of Germany without the consent of all the signatories to the Treaty of Versailles. There was no point in that Conference unless it was summoned for the purpose of considering a definite breach of the Treaty in disarmament. Herr Hitler had announced that he proposed to build up a great army and that he was building a great air fleet, and he also said he was building submarines. The Stresa Conference met to deal with that situation. It brought together statesmen from various countries in Europe to denounce that breach of the Treaty. Not satisfied with the meeting at Stresa, there was a second meeting at Geneva to consider what should be done in the event of that process going on, and what sanctions could be applied. A committee was appointed to consider that question, and the British Government invited the Germans over here to consider what measure of rearmament was to be permitted to them in view of the departure from the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. This was a bilateral conference. Other Powers were not present, the Powers represented at Stresa not being assenting parties. First you condone the breaches of treaty which had already been committed. But you are not satisfied with that. You proceed to arrange for further departures: an increase in the battleships of Germany, an increase in her destroyers, and, most

    1527
    fatal of all in my judgment, an increase in submarines. I can understand the feelings of Italy and of France when those negotiations were proceeding, and a part of the Agreement which especially dismayed me was the light-hearted way in which we not merely condoned the number of submarines constructed, but actually arranged with Germany that she be allowed to construct a great many more—I am speaking from memory, but I am not sure that it is not twice as many as she has already constructed—and under certain conditions that she should increase her armaments not by the 35 per cent., but up to a limit of 100 per cent. under certain conditions. Having regard to our experiences of the War in reference to submarines that was an extraordinary proposal.
    We heard a very striking speech from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Vice-Admiral Campbell), and I entirely agree with that speech, when he recalled the incidents of the War and how near we came to being beaten by the submarine. I may say we were more nearly beaten by the submarine than by the German guns, the German air fleet or the German army. It came very near. We were within a few weeks of starvation, and if we had not devised some means to check the destruction of our merchant ships we should have been beaten, the Allies would have been beaten, and Germany would have been triumphant. She thought that she was winning, and anybody who goes through the figures can see how, month by month, she was sinking our ships. The aggregate of ships, taking those of the Allies as well, that had been sunk to April, 1917, was something like 8,000,000 tons. It was a terrible figure. When you take all that into account, you begin to realise that the Germans had some reason to believe that they were going to pull it off. It is quite true that we were able to devise means of counteracting that, but what always happens between attack and defence is, that attack wins first of all, and then the defence finds some means of checking it, then the attack begins again and finds some other measure of getting round the defences. Luckily before that could take place the Germans were beaten, but I would not like to say that the last word in the power of the
    1528
    submarine was uttered in the War of 1914–18.
    I agree with the hon. and gallant Admiral that it was on the whole the cruellest method of war. It was an attack upon civilians. Their ships were sunk, sometimes scores of miles away from the shore in very rough weather, especially in the Atlantic off the coast of Ireland, and they had a very poor chance of the boats getting alongside. The losses of our sailors through submarines were almost equal to the losses of those who were engaged in the Navy in proportion to the number of people in the Mercantile Marine. You cannot go to any seaport town now and see the lists of those who fell in the War without being staggered at the number of sailors—in every little seaport town along the coast—who were drowned by these submarines. I cannot understand why three months after Stresa the Government agreed not merely to condone the action of the Germans, but agreed that they should increase the number of their submarines, and that, under certain conditions, they could even treble them.I have had no explanation and I cannot comprehend it, especially as there was an opportunity afforded, at any rate, for another attempt to abolish the submarine altogether. There is no difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman opposite and myself as to the fact that the Germans were prepared to co-operate for the abolition of the submarine, and I should have thought that before we had entered into a bilateral agreement, we should, at any rate, have made another effort to put an end to the submarine altogether. It may be said that we had already attempted it. The Government of which I was the head tried to do it, but the French refused. I am not sure whether the Japanese refused then or not, but the conditions are different now from when that proposal was put before us. I have never doubted that it was to our interest, as the hon. and gallant Admiral said, to abolish it. I never doubted that we should be only too delighted to abolish it. The whole point was, when there was an opportunity of co-operation with Germany in an effort to abolish it, why we should have agreed with them to increase the number before making another attempt to abolish it altogether.

    1529
    When the French refused to agree, the conditions were very different. The Germans had no submarines. The French, therefore, had nothing with which they could bargain, and bargaining with us did not matter. They did not want to build submarines against us, and they knew perfectly well that we did not want to build submarines against them, but the Germans were starting to build submarines. They were building a formidable flotilla, and, after all, they are the masters of the submarine. I do not want to say a word about the French Navy, but they were not comparable to the Germans in the matter of handling the submarine, or to ourselves in the method of dealing with the submarine. They had the most wonderful Army in the world. But here were the Germans beginning to build, people who knew how to handle submarines and had experience in handling them, and had done it with infinite, deadly and diabolical skill. It would have been worth while making another effort when the French knew that if the Germans built submarines they were in a fairly precarious position. They might very easily be cut off from their Colonies, a very serious matter for them. Their building of submarines is of very little use in checking submarines, and, whatever the number they may build, it will not enable them to protect their mercantile marine and their troopships against the German submarines.
    Therefore, it would have been worth while, when the Germans came along and said: "We are going to start building submarines, but we are willing to enter into a pact with other nations to abolish them altogether," taking advantage of the suggestion. I ventured to put a question upon the subject, but I was referred to reports in the Press. I am sorry that when I got my notice from the hon. Gentleman over there I was not present. I was in the country at the time. It adds neither to his dignity nor authority to suggest that I was afraid. I am not going to run away in this House. I will just say what the reports were to which I was alluding. Two of them appeared in papers that are supporters of the National Government, and others apeared in papers that are not supporters of the National Government. I will quote from the papers that support the National Government. I had not got them by me when I spoke in the Central
    1530
    Hall, and I was very general. So that there should not be any possible mistake as to what I meant, I instantly sent a copy of this document to the Press to make quite clear what it was to which I was alluding. Here is the "Scotsman," an out-and-out supporter of the National Government, never failing from the very first moment they came into existence:
    "Indeed, I learn that during the initial stage of the recent Anglo-German talks, the German delegates suggested the insertion in the agreement of a clause pledging Germany to support any effort by Great Britain to secure the abolotion of the submarine. Our Government, however, refrained from including such a clause in the exchange of notes, lest it should be resented by France as aimed at herself, as the chief European champion of the submarine."
    That appeared in the "Scotsman." I will give another paper which is quite consistent in support of the Government, and that is the "Liverpool Post":
    "I understand, indeed, that during the critical stage in the recent Anglo-German conversations the German delegates, when discussing the undertaking to refrain from unrestricted submarine warfare, proposed the insertion in the agreement of a clause pledging their country to support any British move for the abolition of the submarine altogether. Our Ministers, however, out of consideration for France, who is the chief European champion of this weapon, did not agree."
    I refrain from quoting other passages from papers which are critical of the Government. Here you have the "Scotsman" and the "Liverpool Post" making these categorical statements. Those two paragraphs appeared six days before I alluded to the matter in my speech. I said that I sincerely hoped that those statements were incorrect, because I still think it was a fatal error not to have postponed assenting to the construction of submarines by the Germans, until, at any rate, another effort had been made to abolish submarines altogether. Six days passed after those statements appeared. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, in his reply in the House, said that everybody knew it except me. When was a contradiction of those statements made? They are both highly reputable newspapers, and I have no doubt that the Admiralty have a full record of every reference to this subject in the Press. They must have a very careful press cutting agency for the purpose of collecting any reference to their work. Therefore, these statements must have been there.

    1531
    Was the attention of the right hon. Gentleman called to those statements? If not, why for six days were they left uncontradicted, seeing that he said, in answer to the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford), that it was most mischievous that foreign countries should be under the impression that we turned down an offer of this kind to suppress submarines. His view was that it was mischievous. Were the statements made by these newspapers corrected? If so, I have not seen the corrections. Six days after the statement appeared in those newspapers. I put my question in reference to it. Lest it should be suggested that I meant that the Germans proposed that if we dropped submarines they would drop them, let me say that that never entered my head. I was discussing the question of international agreement with regard to abolishing bombers, and then I came to submarines. I sent these quotations to the Press to make it clear what I was quoting, and I ask now why was not that statement contradicted if it was so very mischievous?
    But what is far more important than any personal issue between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is that we should have agreed to enter into a Pact with Germany, the master of the submarine, who sunk millions of tons of our ships; that we should have entered into a pact with her not only condoning what she had done, but agreeing to her increasing the number of those deadly weapons, and in certain conditions agreeing that she was to treble the number. I am not surprised that there is no one in this House who has got up to defend those weapons. The right hon. Gentleman, even in his pretty careful reply, admitted that the matter was mentioned at the Naval Conference. According to the "Scotsman," the Germans made the actual proposal that a clause should be inserted in the Agreement for co-operation on the policy of submarines. The right hon. Gentleman does not deny that the Germans were quite prepared to co-operate. Herr Hitler said so in his speech. I am at a loss to understand, with all the recollections that I have of the terrible anxiety this country went through, and the appalling peril at one moment, why the Admiralty and the Government should have agreed to this
    1532
    particular clause in the Agreement, which recreates the same danger we had before.
    5.35 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) brought forward the Amendment ostensibly because of the German Agreement, but in the course of his speech it was evident that his chief anxiety was not so much the German Naval Agreement but that this country would be forced to reconstruct her naval forces and to increase those forces above their present strength. The right hon. Member for Carnarvan Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has drawn the attention of the Committee to the question of submarines and their total abolition. There is no hon. or right hon. Member, there is no one in this country who does not agree that if the abolition of submarines were a practical suggestion, the Government and everybody in the country would do everything in their power to bring it about. But is it not a fact that the French have always stood out against the abolition of the submarine? Have not the French consistently stated that the submarine was not an offensive but a defensive vessel in war, and is it not a fact that the French will not abolish submarines? We all agree in theory about the abolition of submarines. We as a nation have more to lose from submarine warfare than any other nation. We have more to gain by the abolition of submarine warfare than any nation. I ask the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs if he really thinks that it is a practical suggestion, which will be carried out, and that France willl agree to the abolition of submarines.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Having regard to the fact that Germany is beginning to build submarines, it would be a wise step on the part of France to enter into agreement to abolish them altogether. She has far more to lose by submarines than she has to gain, once Germany begins to build. The further answer to the hon. and gallant Member is that before we agreed to allow Germany to build submarines we ought to have made another effort, and have put off this Agreement.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, but the point really is this: have we not consistently stood for the abolition

    1533
    of submarines, and has not France consistently refused to agree to the abolition of submarines? The point is now put forward by the right hon. Gentleman that because Germany has started to build, France may change her opinion. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It might have been worth trying.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: It might have been worth trying, but we have been trying from the first day that submarines were constructed. In 1898–99, when the first Holland submarines were ordered by the American Government, we have been trying to abolish submarines. Up to that time we had stood out against the construction of submarines because we realised that our strength lay upon the surface of the water, and that immediately underwater attack was brought in we should be the nation to suffer most. It was not until the Americans ordered the first submarine that we started the construction of submarines in this country.
    I would ask this question in regard to the Naval Agreement, and particularly in regard to Germany constructing submarines, which we all deplore. What action would the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who take his point of view adopt if Germany continued to build submarines as well as other vessels of war? Germany has constructed an army, and an air force, and she intends to construct a navy. What action would those who are opposed to such construction take in order to stop Germany from doing it? That is a question which deserves an answer from those who oppose this Naval Agreement. It has never been answered. It is no good talking unless behind your talk you intend to act. What action do those who are opposed to this Agreement propose to take? What action could they take? How would they start to take action? There is only one possible way in which Germany could have been stopped from constructing her forces, which she has constructed to such a large extent up to the present time, and that is by going to war with her. There is no other way. She will not listen to argument. She insists on having her forces. She has already got most of them, and nothing
    1534
    but warlike action would have stopped her.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE indicated dissent.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs shakes his head. What action would have stopped her? There is a great deal of argument in the country and in the House about collective security. Collective security is a very good thing in theory, a very excellent thing, but it is not a practical possibility. You will never get the nations to act collectively against any other nation at the dictation of the League of Nations. They will not do it. The whole of the Sanctions Clauses of the League of Nations break down. They will not be put into operation. No nation will do it. Japan on the question of economic sanctions left the League. Germany left the League. If there is any question of economic sanctions, which would have to be backed up by armed force, against Italy, she would at once leave the League. The collective security of which we talk so much, would not be put into operation. Would the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs suggest that this country should go to war with Italy to stop her from doing what she proposes? If not, what other action would he take? What could he do? These are questions to which I want an answer from the Opposition.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not like to interrupt, but I have dealt with that question. I spoke at great length on that question last week. It is very difficult to answer a question in debate in this way, but I am not shirking it. I dealt with that question on the Floor of the House, and I am perfectly prepared to do it again.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has said that. I was present throughout the whole of his speech on that occasion and he was asked categorically by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) what action he would take. He was interrupted and invited to say what action he would take, and he gave no answer. And he cannot give an answer to-day.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the official report of my speech he will see that I gave an answer.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: With all due respect, I disagree.
    Another point in regard to submarines has been brought to the notice of the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman. He said perfectly truly, as all those who were at sea realised to the full—I happened to be one—that the gravest danger to this country during the late War was the unrestricted submarine warfare instituted by Germany in her submarine sinkings of merchant vessels, against the admitted rules of the sea, which up to that time had never been broken in warfare. We were not prepared for that submarine war. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will agree that it was the lack of preparations to counter this submarine warfare that nearly led to this country being forced to sue for peace. That is not the position to-day. I trust that we have learned a lesson from the submarine warfare during the late War. It is true that when you have attack and defence, the projectile and the armour for example, it is always war between the two. First one gets on top, and then the other; one is always a little in advance of the other. Both sides to-day have advanced. The submarine has undoubtedly improved, but the methods of countering the submarine have also vastly improved, and I cannot conceive that we in this country will ever again be placed in the perilous position we were in during the late War owing to our entire lack of preparation for meeting the submarine menace, which no naval authority, or anyone else, had foreseen would be carried out, and which reacted like a boomerang on Germany.
    There is another aspect of these attacks on merchant ships which is very serious, and that is attack by aircraft. There is to-day, at any rate, a convention, not signed by all the nations, that submarine warfare in future shall not be unrestricted, that there shall be some consideration for the people on board. But there are no rules whatever governing attack by aircraft. Aircraft carrying torpedoes, or guns, can do immense damage to merchant ships, perhaps not as certainly or effectively as a torpedo
    1536
    from a submarine, but they can and undoubtedly will attack merchant ships in probably the same way as the submarine attacked them in the late War. There is nothing to stop them, and we know the immense strength and menace of the air forces of foreign Powers. Are we adequately equipped to deal with that very serious menace? My point is this, that it is not only a question of the danger to our merchant craft from submarine warfare, but also the extreme danger from aircraft attack to which the Government will have to pay particular attention. No doubt they have done so; I do not suggest that they have not, but it is a question which is often forgotten.
    The Debate to-day has centred on the position of our naval forces, and very rightly so, but in my opinion there is a considerable danger, due to the propaganda in the Press, and the Debates which have taken place in this House stressing the inferiority of this country in the air, that the public may be led to believe that, provided the air forces of this country are sufficiently strengthened, provided that we have such air forces as are necessary, all is well with us and our security. There is a danger that the public will be led to believe that the air is going to replace the Navy and carry out the duty of our cruisers in the protection of trade. The result is that the urgent need for a reconstruction, and bringing up to date, of our naval forces is likely, so far as the public are concerned, to recede into the background as a question with which to-day they are not primarily concerned. That is a very considerable danger. Of course it is not true.
    The air forces can only be used for certain purposes and within certain limits. There are limits beyond which air forces are perfectly useless so far as the protection of trade is concerned; and, so far as the security of this country and the Empire from invasion is concerned, an air force can never stop it. The only possible way of giving security to this country and the Empire is by having such naval forces as are necessary for that security; it cannot be obtained in any other way. It is true that there must be co-operation between all the three services, but the Navy to-day is the key-stone of Imperial defence, as it has been in the past, and if we are to have security there is not the slightest doubt

    1537
    that we shall never get it, unless we reconstruct our Navy and bring it up to date and maintain it at a strength such as is necessary for the security of this country and the different units of the Empire, and for protecting the sea routes connecting all parts of the Empire.
    The Naval Review to many people may have been a wonderful sight, but I say quite frankly that to me it was a very sad sight. It was a terrible thing for a naval officer to see the ships assembled at Spit-head representing the might and naval power of this great country, which has at all times depended entirely on sea power. Only two battleships and one battle cruiser will be under age on 31st December, 1936—all the others obsolete; the cruisers very insufficient in numbers and not of the design we require—entirely due to the Washington Conference and the London Naval Agreement. We were not able to build the ships we required. We started building 10,000-ton cruisers, which we do not want, because of the Washington Treaty. They are too big to work with the battle fleet, and much too large to put on the trade routes. They are weak in their hull and badly armed. They are poor ships. We did not want them but we had to build them; 10,000 tons was the limit for cruisers and all nations built them. We cut down our numbers. We have had to be satisfied with 50 cruisers, although we know that those who are in the best position to judge have said over and over again that 70 is the minimum number of cruisers we require. We have not got them and so far as I know we do not know that we are going to have them—at least the Government have put forward no programme.
    Public opinion has been mentioned. It has been said that it would not stand for an increase in our naval power. I entirely disagree. I am prepared to stand on any platform in the country, before any audience, and am quite certain that I would carry the majority of the audience if all the facts were clearly put before them and it was known that we had no security now, and that the navy as it is to-day cannot give them security. I am sure you would get an overwhelming majority in favour of this country, not only having a naval force equal to that of other countries, but a naval force of the strength which is necessary for the security of this country and our Empire.
    5.54 p.m.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Before I answer any of the detailed criticisms which have been levelled against the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, let me bring the Committee back to the position under which we are working in regard to the navies of the world. Briefly the position is this. After December, 1936, all the naval agreements under which we have been working for 16 years come to an end, and unless we can put something in the place of these treaties and agreements, all navies for the future will be entirely unrestricted and unlimited. This comes about primarily because Japan has denounced the Treaty of Washington. Many hard things have been said about these naval treaties and agreements, but I do not think that anything but good can be said of the Treaty of Washington. The Treaty of Washington, in my opinion and in that of the Government, and I think also in the opinion of the majority of this House, has conferred enormous benefits on all maritime powers, because it has prevented a race in naval armaments, cut down expenditure and saved the taxpayers of every nation which has a navy.
    But it has done something far more important than that. It has maintained the peace for the last 16 years, and it has maintained peace because the ratio adopted under that treaty provided a standard of defence appropriate to the defence needs of the Powers concerned, and at the same time gave no Power such a preponderance in naval strength above any other as to make it safe for that country to risk aggression. Those are the benefits we have gained under the Treaty of Washington—greatly reduced navies, giving us the defence we require, and peace, because no Government has such a preponderating navy as to make it worth its while to go to war. I am sure that I shall have the whole Committee with me when I say that we must do our utmost to try to perpetuate that state of affairs, to get regulation and restriction in naval armaments, always maintaining the principle that adequate defence must be given to every country.
    Unfortunately, if we are to do this—and I can assure the Committee that we are working heart and soul to do it—we shall have to do it by some means other than the Treaty of Washington. That is because the principle of ratio has had to

    1539
    be abandoned. We have had to give up any idea of ratio for the future because some countries felt it wounding to their national pride to have to accept a naval strength permanently inferior to that of some other country. We, therefore, have had to abandon the principle of ratio and instead of asking naval Powers what the ultimate strength of their navy was going to be, we have to ask, what size navy do you propose to have in 1942? That in fact is the date we have taken. As I say, we have had to abandon all ideas of ratios in trying to perpetuate the state under which we have been living under the Treaty of Washington, and we have gone in for a system of programmes, because some countries think it against their national dignity to accept permanently a ratio much below that of any other country. We, therefore, go to all those countries and say, "What fleet do you intend to have in 1942?" and if we can then, having pooled all the replies, by agreement accommodate all these various naval strengths in such a way as to provide adequate defence for the country, making it, as a corollary to that, exceedingly unlikely that any country can attack another with any chance of ultimate success, we have achieved something of enormous and almost unparalleled beenfit to the taxpayers of all countries concerned. We shall have done far more—we shall have cotnributed very greatly to the general pacification of the world. That is the object in view.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that we are dropping ratios altogether?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Yes, we cannot go on with ratios because some countries do not like them. We, therefore, go in stages—one step enough for us. We, therefore, say: "Let us have another conference in 1942 and try to take it on by stages." The Committee will agree that if by this means we can hold the peace of the world till 1942 it is pretty good.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Is not the arrangement with Germany a permanent arrangement?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Yes, but I have not mentioned Germany. This is the general agreement we are trying to
    1540
    arrive at by the Conference that we hope to have.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Is it with all countries except Germany?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No, Germany is included. With this object in view we have been having bilateral and confidential conversations with a good many countries, with France, Japan and America. These bilateral conversations are not, as some people fall into the error of conceiving, conferences at which you can settle anything which is going to be generally agreed by all. They are bilateral talks which pave the way for the Conference that we hope may be held at the end of this year. My hon. Friend opposite who opened the Debate said: "In putting forward these programmes you must have given some sort of idea of your programme to other countries. Cannot the House of Commons know what that programme was?" Anyone who knows me knows that I have always stood up for the rights of the House of Commons as much as anyone in this House, but I should like to say this: If these programmes that are purely hypothetical and depend upon the programmes of other countries are discussed in this House, if the confidential bilateral talks are openly discussed here, it will be absolutely impossible ever to arrive at a general agreement.
    I do ask for the indulgence of the Committee on this matter. I will not go so far as to say that the public interests of the country are endangered, but I do say that it is against the public interests and the peace of the world to discuss these things, and I do ask the House not to press me in this direction. I would add this: The House of Commons has everything entirely in its own hands. Suppose that we do come to some general agreement at the Conference. The House can turn down that agreement if it chooses. But it has got something much more powerful than that; it has got absolute control of anything that the Government does in this way, because every year the First Lord has to come to the House with the Navy Estimates, and the House has absolute and perfect control of all expenditure and all programmes.
    International agreement is not an easy thing to arrive at. Everyone who has tried it knows that perfectly well. You

    1541
    make it, in the opinion of the Government, absolutely impossible unless we are allowed to have the confidential talks with other Powers. It is exceedingly difficult to arrive at any agreement. I have compared it with putting together the pieces in a jig-saw puzzle. That is especially so with these naval conferences. But it is not the ordinary jig-saw puzzle. It is a jig-saw puzzle in which the pieces are continually altering in shape and size and colour. Until recently it has proved almost impossible to get any two pieces together. I have felt that if only we could get two important pieces together a start would be made towards finishing the whole puzzle.
    For this reason, the Admiralty welcomed the proposal of a great country like Germany to fix her navy for ever at a point in relation to our own which we could view without undue anxiety. We would much rather Germany had not increased her fleet. But we can accept this 35 per cent. without undue anxiety. The Committee must remember that the general agreement which we hope to arrive at by a conference, an international agreement on naval affairs, would not be any good at all unless Germany were in that agreement. I am astonished at what I may call the very internationally-minded Members who are horrified at anything we have done in this direction, and especially at any arrangement come to at all after the months and years of talks we have had. We have done something, and that we have done it quickly seems to have horrified them still more.
    I have tried for the past few years to face up to realities, and I have received the querulous condemnation of a good many persons in this country. The Committee must realise that we have to face up to realities, especially when dealing with dictators. The Committee must not forget, when they talk about allowing Germany to do this or that, that Germany has laid down this programme and that the ships are on the stocks. She has started it. She did not ask us, and we did not give her permission. I want to put a question to the critics who have spoken this afternoon. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) would answer this question: What would he have done? How would he have stopped Germany building? What would he have done if Germany had asked for 50 per cent.?
    1542
    Germany might have done that; she might have asked for a 100 per cent. navy. I ask the Committee to face up to the facts. Suppose that Germany had asked for that, what are the two alternatives before us? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) is the only one who has faced up to the position at all. There are two alternatives. One is to prevent Germany by force from doing it. Is anyone prepared to do that? Is the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs prepared to do it? The other alternative is to carry out a great expansion of our own Navy.
    Let the Committee realise what I believe is perfectly true. Although this country may temporarily forget its Navy—and it has done so—the need for a Navy is bred in the bone of the British people. They know that every source of their national wealth depends on the Navy, and, if they should ever think that our Navy is incapable of fulfilling its duty, they would force an expansion on this country, no matter what Government might be in power, which would be very much more than we want and a wasteful expansion, and that is the very last thing that the Admiralty wish to see done. Therefore, I say that when Germany came forward with an offer of 35 per cent. we could accept it without undue anxiety. I think it was of great benefit to ourselves and to the world in general when we closed with that offer.
    I have been asked: Why was not all this done through the League of Nations, through the Disarmament Conference? It has been said that this is a blow to the League of Nations. I entirely disagree. The Naval Treaties have never had anything to do with the League; they have been entirely outside that body. How then can it be said that we are dealing a blow at the League? The League exists for limitation, if you cannot get a reduction of armaments. Surely anything that is done in that direction, by limitation, must redound to the prestige of the League. It has been said also: Why has not this been done in conjunction with other Powers? That has been said to-day by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and by others. Very hard things have been said across the Channel in this respect, but not by all, not by everyone. The President of the Senate Foreign Affairs Com-

    1543
    mittee pointed out a short time ago that there is nothing in the Franco-British Declaration of 3rd February to prohibit Great Britain from making a preliminary bilateral agreement with Germany, any more than it prohibits Italy taking separate action in Africa, or France doing the same with regard to Soviet Russia. He said further, and this is very important:
    "Have we not perhaps irritated our friends for the last few years with our everlasting mania for linking into a whole all the questions under discussion in order not to solve any of them? If the 'Multilateralism' dear to our bureaucrats has hitherto resulted in nothing but trivial arguments, is it not understandable that the British should prefer less dilatory methods than those which have resulted in the re-armament of Germany on land, not to 35 per cent. but to 130 per cent. of the French Army?"
    I do ask those hon. Members who have spoken to-day as if we had committed a sin by making this Agreement because we did not do everything together, whether they think we should have waited till everything could be done together. My answer is that if we had waited for that, nothing would have been done. What has this "multilateralism," which is not my word, cost Europe? In January, 1934, Germany was prepared to accept 300,000 military effectives and under certain conditions 200,000. To-day it is 550,000. It is the same with the air. I put it to this Committee that we could not afford to have this same sort of thing happen with regard to the Navy. Our responsibilities are too great, responsibilities not only to our own country and Empire, but to the world. There are two things that I have found in my discussions that it is possible to get international agreement about. The first is that no one thinks that the British Fleet can ever conceivably be used for aggressive purposes, and the second is that the ability of the British Fleet to fulfil its historic function in this world is the greatest factor for peace that the world has.
    I now come to the point that has been raised of the superiority that France is given over Germany by this Agreement. In the old days before the War France had an inferiority at sea as regards Germany of 30 per cent. To-day we have given her over 40 per cent. superiority, and it is a permanent superiority, over Germany. The hon. Member for Brox-
    1544
    towe (Mr. Cocks) said that before the War we had alliances. I would ask if Locarno means nothing to our friends over the Channel. Let us look at the figures. We are to have 100, France 50, and Germany 35. This means that under Locarno, France would have 150 to Germany's 35, a superiority of over 400 per cent., which I should have thought security enough. In conclusion of this part of my speech, I would remind the Committee to consider the position of this country if we had turned down the offer that Germany made, and I was standing at this Box defending the rejection. I should be very sorry to be doing that. I should have had the same opposition, and I think it would probably have come from exactly the same quarters. It is not that I should have minded that very much, but what I should have minded is that a Board of Admiralty which gave advice to a Government to reject this offer, and a Government which accepted that advice, would sooner or later stand overwhelmingly condemned by humanity at the bar of history.
    I now come to the point more or less of detail raised by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I have worked for many years with the right hon. Gentleman and I have worked against him. I worked just as hard for him as I worked against him, and even when I have been working against him, I have never been able to repress a feeling of admiration for the right hon. Gentleman. One of the reasons, among very many, is that when he wants to make a thing clear, he is a master of clarity, but when he wants to make a thing a little confused, he is an artist. The right hon. Gentleman's intervention in the Debate to-day has, if anything, by bringing in personal opinions and statements, made confusion even a little more confounded. If the Committee will forgive me, I should like to go back to the genesis of this argument. If we start at the beginning, we see that the right hon. Gentleman on the 2nd July said he was told that Germany offered to abolish submarines altogether and that we were not prepared to accept this: was this true? That was not the statement that was in the "Scotsman" I understand, though I never saw it, and I will make two observations about that. I will use the right hon. Gentleman's adjective. He

    1545
    said it had been called a pernicious statement. I think it is a reasonable word to use, because a statement of that sort is bound to affect our bona fides vis-a-vis foreign countries, and bound to weaken what we are trying to do in the way of peace. That little question at the end cannot absolve the right hon. Gentleman for making that insinuation. I am not a lawyer, but I am told that if somebody says: "I am told Mr. Jones murdered his wife. Is that true? I hope not, but I should like to know if it is true," that does not help him if Mr. Jones goes for a libel action.
    The second observation that I would make is that the insinuation is really entirely without any foundation. We have tried—and we have been laughed at by many hon. Members in the House who have said, "Of course you have tried"—from the beginning, and we are going on trying, we are trying every day, to abolish submarines. It was started, I think, with the Treaty of Washington; it was put in the forefront of the programme that my right hon. Friend who is now Home Secretary made in a speech at Geneva in February, 1932, and, as my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said, it was fought tooth and nail all through the London Conference, and we are going on fighting it. Do not let the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs think we have dropped it. We are going on fighting, and it stands in the forefront of Britain's naval requirement to abolish the inhuman weapon of the submarine. I took the opportunity which was given me the next day of denying very emphatically that statement, and I am rather afraid the right hon. Gentleman thought it was too emphatic.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: He should have been the last to complain of that. I denied it at once. The right hon. Gentleman immediately saw that he had been lamentably misinformed by somebody, and he adopted the tactics that one of our destroyers would undertake when by bad manoeuvring it has allowed itself to come under damaging fire. A destroyer turns away and emits a smoke screen, and the right hon. Gentleman did very much the same thing, hoping that many people would say: "There is no smoke without fire." That same evening, in a statement to the Press, the right hon. Gentleman completely altered his tactics.
    1546
    He now claimed to have definite information that the German delegates expressed their readiness to subscribe to a clause to be inserted in the recently completed agreement, the effect of which would be that Germany would support the British Government in any attempt by the latter to bring about the abolition of the submarine, and that this suggestion was not entertained by the British Government. The Committee will observe the complete change of ground of the right hon. Gentleman. He abandoned the insinuation, as well he might, that we had opposed the abolition of submarines, and the new allegation was that we refused to incorporate the common accord of England and Germany for the abolition of submarines in the recently published agreement.
    The new allegation was equally without foundation. I explained to the Press on the 4th July that at no time was it suggested that any such clause should be inserted in the agreement and that, as I said, had been confirmed by the German delegation. I got their permission to say so. I explained that what the German delegation had done was to express themselves as in accord with us in our desire for the abolition of submarines by international agreement, and with the assent of the German delegation I quoted the relevant passage from the record of our talks:
    "Germany supports the Brtiish Government's desire for the complete abolition of submarines, and if it could be achieved would be prepared to scrap the submarines they might have built or building at the time."
    "At the time" means the time of the International Conference, and I cannot help thinking that there has been confusion of thought on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and also of my hon. Friend who opened this Debate by confusing these bilateral talks which lead up to a conference with the conference itself, because we cannot know until the conference takes place if we can get general agreement on this question, and without general agreement neither Germany nor England is prepared to abolish submarines. We cannot know if we can get general agreement until that conference takes place which these bilateral talks are working up to. The right hon. Gentleman, in a further statement to the Press, continued to assert that, in spite of my statement to the contrary, the

    1547
    Germans had suggested the insertion of a clause of that kind in the recently published agreement, and he again asked why that clause had not been inserted. My answer, already made on the authority of both delegations—and they were the only people present—which I now repeat, is that no such clause was ever suggested or contemplated by anybody. An agreement that set out to deal with one thing, namely, the ratio between the naval forces of Germany and ourselves, was not the proper place for such a clause. We have talked about many things and agreed about many things, while some remain to be agreed or disagreed. Very many important things were discussed, such as qualitative limitation, but all these things, as the result of these talks, can only be put forward when we get round the table with other countries. We are very glad to have Germany with us in our attempt to abolish submarines. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has been misinformed and I am afraid that, having seen that he has rather tried to confuse the issue.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have waited until the right hon. Gentleman finished on that issue before interrupting him because I understood he wanted to make a full statement. With regard to the clause which it is suggested the Germans proposed, that is a definite statement made both by the "Scotsman" and by the "Liverpool Post."
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I am not responsible for what appears in the papers.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I refer to reports in the papers, but the question which matters is this: Did the Germans, either at preliminary talks or at the formal conference, actually intimate to the Admiralty that they were prepared to co-operate with us in any efforts we initiated to abolish the submarine? [HON. MEMBERS: "He said so."] If he said so he can say it again for himself. Did we turn it down on the ground that France and the others would not accept it?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No, it is absolutely without foundation.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They did not offer to co-operate?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I have said over and over again that we raised the question with them, that they said they would co-operate with us, and that we decided to put it forward when we got the general conference, when something could be done.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, after you had agreed to increase the number of German submarines.
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: How would the right hon. Gentleman have prevented Germany from increasing their submarines? Unless he is prepared to answer that question, it seems to me to be futile making a remark of that kind. We made every effort, we are prepared to go on making every effort, and we hope we shall be successful; and we shall have a better chance because we have Germany to help us. Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me if I say again that he has tried to confuse the issue because he knows that there are a great many people in this country who say, if you go on arguing long enough about a thing, there must be something in it. I say categorically—and the right hon. Gentleman ought to take the testimony of both delegations—that there is nothing in any of the allegations he makes, and, I think I am safe in saying, in any allegation he throws out in future. If the right hon. Gentleman will not believe me and will not believe the Germans, but somehow relies on some supernatural source of information, then I have nothing more to say.
    6.35 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The First Lord said the other day on a festive occasion that he had passed a great many years in zones of silence on the benches of the House of Commons, but I think that any of those who have heard him this afternoon will be sure that in those years of silence he was most carefully acquainting himself with all the Parliamentary arts, because certainly the speech to which we have just listened was one of the most successful ministerial utterances that we have heard for a long time. He has for the first time put the case which led the Admiralty into making this Anglo-German Agreement into the public view so that it may be contrasted with the various arguments which have been advanced against it from many parts of the Committee. Let me congratulate

    1549
    the right hon. Gentleman upon his speech, and at the same time say with how much regret we have all heard that it is his intention not to be a Member in the next House of Commons. Perhaps even at the eleventh hour it is not too late for him to reconsider his decision.
    I do not take a very keen or excited part in the controversy between the First Lord and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It is not because the quality of the combatants on both sides and the explosive material employed were not such as to give a prospect of a certain liveliness whenever it occurred, but, frankly that there is a great element of unreality in the arguments about German co-operation in the abolition of the submarine. The Government dwelt upon this as one of the arguments to recommend their agreement to the public, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs turned the argument against the Government by suggesting that they had not gone the full length in meeting the German offer for co-operation. I have never felt that there was very much in this offer which the Germans made to co-operate with us in abolishing the submarine. I should have thought it was a very safe offer for them to make—for any country to make—when the condition attached to it was that all other countries should agree at the same time and when it was perfectly well known that there was not the slightest chance of other countries agreeing. The First Lord says we cannot tell now whether other countries will agree or not. Does he really suppose that at this forthcoming multilateral conference, to which he is looking forward, and which must take place in some form or other before the end of 1936, there is the slightest chance of securing a world agreement on the abolition of the submarine? I should have thought that the French, the Italian, and the Japanese view would all be absolutely averse to it. If that be so, it seems to me that the Germans have not run any great risk of diminishing their facilities for making war at sea by offering to co-operate with Great Britain in securing this abolition.
    Another statement which was made on the subject of submarines was that the Germans were willing to subscribe to the terms of the international agreement
    1550
    which many of the Powers have signed restricting the use of the submarine in such a way as to strip submarine warfare against commerce of its inhumanity. I am bound to say that I feel very great difficulty in being entirely reassured by that. Lord Beatty said the other day that the battle fleet was now practically secure against submarines if properly protected by its flotillas, etc. I believe that to be correct. Submarines are not needed, then, for attack upon the battle fleet. If they are not needed for that purpose, and the Germans are not going to use them, in the only way in which they can be effectively used, against commerce, it seems to me strange that they should dwell with so much reiteration on the importance of having not merely 35 per cent., but 45 per cent., and, in the long run in some cases, up to 100 per cent. If neither of these spheres of activity for submarines is to be used by them, it seems strange that they should attach so much importance to the possession of this weapon, which they have begun to construct in considerable numbers in flat defiance of the Treaty. If we are to assume, as we may for the purposes of this discussion, the hideous hypothesis of a war in which Britain and Germany would be on opposite sides and the British blockade is being enforced on the coast of Germany as it was in the late war, who in his senses would believe that the Germans, possessed of a great fleet of submarines and watching their women and children being starved by the British blockade, would abstain from the fullest use of that arm? Such a view seems to me to be the acme of gullibility.
    I do not want particularly to concern myself with the dispute between my right hon. Friend the member for Carnarvon Boroughs and His Majesty's Government upon that point, but to concern myself rather with the more general aspects which were raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), and which were brought forward in a speech of great calmness and study by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks). I do not entirely find these arguments met by the speech of my right hon. Friend the First Lord. The great argument which has been put forward from many quarters has been that all of a sudden the Government broke away from the course on which they were proceeding in European affairs,

    1551
    namely, Stresa, Geneva, and the collective disapprobation of the breaking of treaties, and made this side arrangement with Germany. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman said at all freed the Government policy from the reproach of inconsistency in that respect. Certainly it was a new method. Hitherto, the right hon. Gentleman was looking forward to a general conference at the end of 1936 of all the naval Powers except Germany, and he hoped that Germany would come, too. He was having tentative bilateral discussions with all these Powers, and no doubt, as each point of agreement was reached, note was to be taken that that part of the jigsaw puzzle would be satisfactory as long as it was not affected by something else. I do not understand why the German bilateral conversations could not have been treated on that basis, and why it could not have been said that in all other circumstances, if everything else fits in, this kind of arrangement will be satisfactory to both sides. The matter could then have been referred to the general conference on naval matters, as it will have to be referred. Obviously, everything is affected by that general conference because, if as a result of it our construction has to be increased, there will be a propportionate increase in the German naval construction.
    Therefore, I do not quite see why Germany should have been singled out for such exceptional treatment in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman asked what would have happened if we had refused? I do not suggest that it should have been arbitrarily turned down and that we should have said there was no question of our ever making any agreement with Germany. The suggestion which is put forward by the critics of this policy is that the proper course would have been to say that this Agreement involves a breach of the treaty, that we have joined with other Powers in condemning breaches of the Treaty and unilateral action, and that we must, while noting all the facts, refer this matter to other nations with whom we have so recently joined in expressing a decided and definite view. I do not believe that if that had been done the position would have been worsened. The position is very bad. Do not let us underrate the position. The German fleet which is to be
    1552
    constructed under this Treaty is to be 35 per cent. of the British fleet. We have seen the first year's programme of its construction, which programme would undoubtedly be described, in our ordinary language in dealing with these affairs, as the programme of 1934, and not of 1935. It is already far on the way; even the battleships are laid down. I am bound to say that I do not know how the Admiralty were without information that even battleships were being laid down, contrary to the Treaty, before the end of 1934. I am astonished at that, astounded at such a thing. We always believed before the War that never could battleships be laid down without knowledge being obtained. [Interruption.] So that there was a slip. The Germans were entitled to build 10,000-ton ships according to the Treaty, but they, by a concealment which the Admiralty were utterly unable to penetrate, converted these into 26,000-ton ships. Let us be careful about gullibility when we see all these extremely awkward incidents occurring.
    It seems to me that we have now before us the first year's programme of the new German fleet. What I want to know is—the right hon. Gentleman probably will not tell us, but I think we ought to know as soon as he can get permission to inform Parliament—in how many years do the Germans propose to complete the building, the laying down, of that 35 per cent. The year 1942 has been mentioned in another connection. I was not clear from what the right hon. Gentleman said whether it was in this connection or not. But it seems to me that if they have four programmes of the size that they announce—the 1934 programme—if they have four successive annual programmes of that size, they will practically come up to 35 per cent. of the British fleet as it exists to-day by the year 1939 or 1940. I do not say we must be told this afternoon, but we must be better informed upon these matters. Nobody wants to hamper the right hon. Gentleman or the Government in having tentative, informal, bilateral discussions and getting as many combinations together as possible and then making the super-combination in a general conference, and nobody would ask that all the offers and counter-offers which are put forward in the course of those negotiations should, while the negotiations are still in an unformed and

    1553
    unsettled condition, be made public. I agree with the claim the Government make in that matter, but in a reasonable space of time we have got to know what is to be the rate of German construction, if that is known to the Government, what are to be the annual programmes which His Majesty's Government consider necessary for the British fleet.
    Take this question of the German fleet. In my view if, in four or five years, the Germans have built or laid down 35 per cent. new construction, we shall in that period have to lay down or build, at the same rate pari passu certainly 50 per cent. replacement of our own fleet. That is to say that in the period during which they will be building 400,000 tons, we will say, of new navy, we shall have to rebuild practically the half of our existing navy. Otherwise our position will be a most perilous one, a most dangerous one, as it is. Let me say one word about France. It is true that if we take mere tonnage the First Lord is able to show a satisfactory arrangement for France in the percentage of superiority which she would possess, but what is to be the position of the French navy if the Germans in the next four years build, by four programmes, a fleet 35 per cent. of the British fleet? The entire navy of France, except the latest vessels, will require to be reconstructed. The new German navy, although somewhat behind the French in the matter of percentages, would undoubtedly be overwhelmingly superior from the point of view of matériel. Therefore, we cannot feel at all reassured about this position unless we know the programmes, and it seems most dangerous to continue month after month, and even year after year, because I gather it may not be till next year we can be told, with the House of Commons not knowing these vital programmes on both sides, although they are known in all Cabinets of the various nations with whom we have had these conversations.
    Lord Beatty said the other day that we ought to be grateful to Germany for not having asked for 50 per cent., and the First Lord indicated that she might have asked for 100 per cent. But would our answer have been the same? I hope not. But the reasons by which it would have been defended would have been the same. You would say: "What could we do? We could not control them. Nobody is going to war to prevent them."
    1554
    Even after hearing the able statement to which we have listened, I must say that I regret that we have condoned this flagrant breach of the Treaty. It would have been far better, even though we could not get complete assurances in regard to the ratio of Germany with ourselves, to have carried these matters forward to the League of Nations and endeavoured to use this further breach of the Treaty by Germany as a means of gathering forces for a policy of collective security among all the nations of the world.
    I do not believe for a moment that this isolated action by Great Britain will be found to work for the cause of peace. The immediate reaction is that every day the German fleet approaches a tonnage which gives it absolute command of the Baltic, and very soon one of the deterrents of a European war will gradually fade away. So far as the position in the Mediterranean is concerned, it seems to me that we are in for very great difficulties. I agree with very much that my right hon. Friend said when he spoke of the position in the Mediterranean. Certainly a great addition of new shipbuilding must come when the French have to modernise their fleet to meet German construction, and the Italians follow suit, and we shall have pressure upon us to rebuild from that point of view, or else our position in the Mediterranean will be affected. But worst of all is the effect upon our position at the other end of the world, in China and in the Far East. What a windfall this has been to Japan—I am not saying the Naval Agreement, I do not put it on that, because it is foolish to blame the evils which come from the growth of German naval power upon the Naval Agreement. But observe what the consequences are. The First Lord said: "Face the facts." The British fleet, when this programme is completed, will be largely anchored to the North Sea. That means to say the whole position in the Far East has been very gravely altered, to the detriment of the United States and of Great Britain and to the detriment of China.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene? I do not follow his thought. At what period of our recent history—modern history—was a great part of our

    1555
    fleet not, to use his phrase, anchored to the North Sea? It was so before the War.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am dealing with what has occurred since the War. The evils that have arisen in the Far East have arisen largely since the War; the injury to British interests has come since the War. Since the War we have certainly had a mobility for the British Fleet, such as it was, consisting, indeed, of old ships, which was very much greater than we possessed during the years of the German danger before the War. But that mobility is going to pass away, and the whole position of our having a great naval base at Singapore upon which a battle fleet can be based, if necessary, to protect us in the Indian Ocean and to maintain the connection with Australia and New Zealand, for that is the purpose, is greatly affected by the fact that when this German fleet is built we shall not be able to have any appreciable portion of the British fleet so far from home. Those are serious reactions. I do not say that they are reactions from the Naval Agreement, but from the fact that Germany is breaking treaties and re-establishing her naval power.
    I regret that we are not dealing with this problem of the resuscitation of German naval power with the Concert of Europe on our side, and in conjunction with many other nations whose fortunes are affected and whose fears are aroused equally with our own by the enormous development of German armaments. What those developments are no one can accurately measure. Have we any measure of those activities? We have seen that powerful vessels, much more powerful than we expected, can be constructed unknown even to the Admiralty. We have seen what has been done in the air. I believe that if the figures of the expenditure of Germany during the current financial year could he ascertained, the House and the country would be staggered and appalled by the enormous expenditure upon war preparations which is being poured out all over that country, and converting the whole mighty nation and empire of Germany into an arsenal virtually on the threshold of mobilisation.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: With British financial support.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is another point, but I entirely agree that if the slightest British financial support is given under present conditions it is absolutely wrong. In the face of that great danger I believe we should do well, by every means in our power, to try to knit up again those connections with the other Powers with which we were associated at Stresa and the other Powers with whom we have been working on the League of Nations at Geneva—to knit up those associations as well as we can and to endeavour to secure a common front as far as possible against infractions of treaties. Let me say that, above all, we ought to take the necessary measures in good time. Face the facts, yes. The facts are that we have to rebuild the fleet with great rapidity. The "escalator clause" should be invoked. Not a day should be lost in getting on, as far as we may, with the freedom we have under present treaties. If we may not build battleships till 1937, it is all the more necessary to bring some of the cruiser construction to the fore in the interval. That step must be taken. An hon. Member opposite spoke about a loan. I am sorry that the Messiah of the New Deal has left, the House for the moment, because I notice that in his programme, which I am giving myself the pleasure of studying, together with the able repartee, there is a proposal for a very large national loan, a very large use of national credit, and I think it very satisfactory at this juncture that the pundits of Liberal financial orthodoxy should be of opinion that no serious damage would be done to our financial structure and no serious violation of the canons of finance would occur if a very large use of the excellent credit we have were put into operation at the present time.
    If that be so, there must be a large measure of agreement on the subject—almost national agreement—of the issue of British credit for British need. Let the defence of the country be the first charge on that loan. Let the rebuilding of the fleet and the necessary steps in the other forces be a first charge upon the use of British credit; and let the necessary measures be taken without the slightest delay, or else you will find that, whether you have an agreement or not, whether you reach multilateral unanimity or have to go on in a fortuitous concourse of bilateral agreements

    1557
    —whatever you may have you will find that the only real security on which you can rely is the secure defence of this country which has not been properly regarded up to the present time.
    7.2 p.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I do not propose to keep the Committee many minutes, but there are one or two things which I and my friends require to be said. Personally, I have no interest in the controversy between the First Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and I should like to join in the compliment that was paid to the First Lord by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). If you want a case in which you believe made good, I think the right hon. Gentleman would take a lot of beating in making it. The other night when we were discussing policy the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) said that he had never listened to a more depressing Debate, and never felt so depressed as he did towards the end of it. I daresay hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will say that it is in the order of things that a person like myself, holding my views, should have felt depressed that night and should feel depressed this afternoon. I should think every man and woman in the Committee to-night must feel that the condition of the world and the condition of our country are very terrible indeed.
    We have got right back to the days before 1914, when everyone had war in their mind. I remember about 2½ years ago the taunt was flung across the Floor to us that we were always thinking in terms of the danger of war, and that by talking about war and preparation for war we were making war inevitable. Today, we have discussed nothing else, and the other night we discussed nothing but preparation for war. When the War ended the people of this country were told that we had won a great victory over German militarism. The German Fleet, or the bulk of it, was at the bottom of Scapa Flow. The Treaty of Versailles had laid it down that Germany was to be disarmed and the whole nation looked forward to a period when that disarmament would be followed by the disarmament of the rest of Europe. Today the challenge has been flung to us, "What would you have done to stop Germany?" That challenge ought not
    1558
    to have been made to my friends here, but should have been made to those who made the Treaty and led the peoples of the world to believe that German militarism was at an end, and who in the years that followed failed to implement the promises made not only to Germany but to the peoples whose sons and fathers had fallen in the Great War.
    The attitude of mind to-day really amazes me—that we can calmly be telling our people that the cost of preparing our defences because of the danger of another war is so tremendously heavy that it must be met, not out of revenue, but by raising a huge loan. That is a confession of abject failure on the part of the Government. They have had four years and I appeal from their own point of view to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who disagree with me about pacifism. How many times have Ministers and hon. Members got up and told us that conferences have been held and that we were on the road towards an agreement which would lead to disarmament? And at the end of these four years we are now confessing that the civilised world must start this, mad race—what Lord Rosebery called "relapsing into barbarism." We are considering it calmly and apparently without any feeling. We are going to hazard the lives of millions of our people. The Government, through the First Lord, tell us that there was nothing else to be done. I join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping in saying that, able as was the defence of the First Lord, he was not able to give us any reason why this agreement extenuating the breaking of the Versailles Treaty by the Germans should have been made at the very time that, after Stresa, a committee had been appointed with other nations to determine what should be done. Someone said, "Go to war." I do not want to be understood on behalf of my friends as asking that we should go to war, but I think that we might have waited a week or two until that committee, which we assisted to appoint, could have reported and the League itself been called together to consider that report.
    To-day proves conclusively that so far as the League of Nations is concerned the Government have given up all faith in the League, all faith in sanctions of any kind, all belief in the validity of that scrap of paper. I am not one of those

    1559
    who want to charge either the Japanese or the Germans alone with tearing up treaties. Governments do that kind of thing when it suits them, and when it suits them they go to war in defence of them. The Covenant of the League has been torn up by the Germans. The Treaty imposed on her has been wiped out. The Germans left the League of Nations and the Covenant has been in effect torn up by the Government. If that is not so, why was not action taken through the League? It is said we had to make haste; we must move swiftly because the Germans were moving swiftly. Could we not, even now, get the representatives of the nations together, the German representatives as well? She is not a member of the League now, and it may not be possible to bring the matter to the League, but why should we not call the nations' representatives together and ask whether we cannot get a standstill in this matter? The Germans have had to have a standstill, or rather a moratorium, with regard to finance. Why cannot this be done? When you ask us what we would do in present conditions, the first thing we should have done would have been that. We should have called together all the Powers who are interested in this matter, and should have put our proposals for disarmament before them.
    I do not believe that the military, naval and air authorities really believe that an agreement for disarmament is a practical proposition. The First Lord says that the Government have tried very hard. I am not going to blame our own Government for all that has been done. They must take their share of the responsibility. The Governments of Europe have failed. We have failed. It is no good the First Lord shaking his head. The
    Committee, when it divides on our Amendment for the reduction, will register the fact that the Government are admitting the failure of the Disarmament Conference, the failure of the League of Nations, the failure of the Versailles Treaty and the failure of the Great War. The Great War was fought to destroy militarism. The Great War, we were told, was a victory won, and Germany was, as it were, put in her place, no longer a dominant Power but simply one of the Powers of Europe. To-night we are going to register the truth of these things, and I say that that is the most depressing message to send out not only to Britain but to the world. This great country of ours is now sure that we cannot uphold peace without tremendous armaments. The Tory Government, masquerading as the National Government, which won a great victory because we could not afford to maintain the unemployed and treat them decently, are now going to embark, whether by loan or otherwise, on a tremendous expenditure. What for? For the defence of the nation. I say the greatest defence of the nation will be found in following the views of the hon. Member for Lowestoft, a Tory Member of this House, given in this House, and taken no notice of by those who replied on the Debate. No one bothered to answer the speech in which he asked the Government to take steps to call the Nations together to consider, not how to prepare for war on a large or a small scale, but to get rid of the economic causes of war. This Vote, I repeat, is a message of despair to the people of this country, and to the peoples of the world.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,129,900, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 247.

    Division No. 281.]

    AYES.

    [7.18 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Gibbins, J.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

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

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

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cape, Thomas

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Thorne, William James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

    West, F. R.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Leonard, William

    Wilmot, John

    Dobbie, William

    Lunn, William

    Edwards, Sir Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Goff, Sir Park

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Albery, Irving James

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

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

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

    Graves, Marlorie

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Greene, William P. C.

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

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Grimston, R. V.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

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

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Baillie, Sir Adrlan W. M.

    Gulnness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Balniel, Lord

    Hales, Harold K.

    Remer, John R.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Rickards, George William

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Hartland, George A.

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Boyce, H. Leslle

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

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

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. Leslie

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Salt, Edward W.

    Brocklebank, C. E. H.

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

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)

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

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

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

    Burghley, Lord

    Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Selley, Harry R.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

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

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Campbell, Vice-Admlral G. (Burnley)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

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

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Levy, Thomas

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Lewis, Oswald

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

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

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Conant, R. J. E.

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

    Storey, Samuel

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Sutcliffe, Harold

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

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Cross, R. H.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

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

    Crossley, A. C.

    Maitland, Adam

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Thompson, Sir Luke

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

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

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Davison, Sir William Henry

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Dickie, John P.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne)

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

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

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

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymg our-

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

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

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

    Whiteslde, Borras Noel H.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Munro, Patrick

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Withers, Sir John James

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingslay

    Fox, Sir Gifford

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

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Ganzo, Sir John

    Patrick, Colin M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Pearson, William G.

    Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Llewellin.

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Peth rick, M.

    Original Question again proposed.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    NUMBER OF ROYAL AIR FORCE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an additional number of Air Forces, not exceeding 12,000 all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United. Kingdom at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, beyond the number already provided in the Air Estimates for the year."
    7.26 p.m.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): This Vote—
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. We have an Amendment upon the Paper to reduce the number of men. I was wondering whether it might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss the whole of the Estimate on this Vote.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understood that the usual course was to be taken. Vote A is, of course, in regard to the number of men, and is separate from the Vote which deals with the machines. Perhaps the convenient course would be to discuss the whole of the subject together, because obviously you cannot discuss men apart from machines or machines apart from men.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. G. Macdonald): If the Committee agree that that will be the best course to take, the Chair agrees also.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am very much obliged for the decision of the Committee. The Estimate provides for the increase in the number of men to which the hon. Member has referred, and it provides also for an increased Estimate in money of £5,335,000. That sum of money is the estimate made of the actual amounts which will be paid out during the current financial year, and the increase in the number of men is, in the same way, the estimate of the additional number of men who will actually be taken into the Air Force during the current financial year. The Estimate necessarily carries with it, however, authority for the full programme, the orders for which will be placed during the current year—for the aerodromes and the stations required—and for the full number of personnel who
    1564
    are included in that programme, and which are necessary for this greatly expanded force. Though only £5,335,000 is estimated to be spent this year, we shall be incurring commitments for a much greater expenditure than that. This programme is, in fact, like the naval programmes which we have considered in the past. It is like the laying down of ships, in regard to which a limited amount of money is spent in one year but a much larger amount is spent in the years following.
    While it is impossible to give precise figures of what is likely to be the amount involved in the whole of this programme in dealing with the next financial year, one may estimate that the total expenditure in the following years is likely to be something in the nature of £35,000,000 or £36,000,000 gross, less whatever may be the appropriations in aid. The House will, of course, have the opportunity year by year, as the Estimates come up, of expressing its assent or otherwise to these Estimates, but it is only fair that I should make it quite plain that we are committing ourselves to-day to, and this is the authority for, the full programme of expansion. The details of that programme were outlined in the speeches made in the House on the 22nd May.
    The basis on which the programme rests is the German Government's statement of their intention to have an Air Force equal to that of France. It is stated in terms of first-line strength, but that, of course, carries with it the provision, on the scales which have hitherto been followed, of reserves and of training machines for the new force. I ought also to add that, in computing the figure of 1,500 first-line strength, we are excluding the squadrons serving overseas—at present 24 squadrons, including 264 first-line machines; and we are also excluding the Fleet Air Arm, which at present has 171 first-line machines. For both the overseas squadrons and the Fleet Air Arm a continuing provision is made in the present Estimates, and will, of course, be made in future Estimates, but both the overseas squadrons and the Fleet Air Arm are excluded entirely from this programme of home defence, which, as I have said, we put at the present day at a first-line strength of 1,500. We have taken that on consideration as being the fair

    1565
    figure on which to work, with all the information at our disposal.
    I do not propose to give to the Committee to-night any detailed figures of the present position. I think the Committee will readily realise that the important figures with which one has to deal, and the important standards of comparison, are the programmes of other countries over a period of time. That is the basis on which we are working, and, indeed, I think it is the only possible standard of comparison and basis of work. Comparisons made at any particular moment, even if you were able to state, which very often one is not, all the information at your disposal—such comparisons, even if they are accurate, are ephemeral, and, if they are not accurate, they may be very misleading. Many superficial comparisons are inaccurate because you are not comparing like with like. Take, for example, the position of an air force with its first line fully formed and fully trained, with its reserves behind it, and with its training reserves. Such a force is obviously not in the least comparable with a force which may exist in the sense of having a number of machines earmarked to squadrons or formations. For instance, in this country we could largely increase our first-line strength at any time by taking reserves and training squadrons, allocating fully trained pilots to them, and then presenting them as a first-line force. When, therefore, I speak of first-line strength, I mean first-line strength in the sense in which we have always used that term, that is to say, meaning fully established squadrons in the first line, with their training establishments and so on behind them.
    The programme on which we are engaged and its method of execution have been discussed very fully with Lord Weir, who has, of course, had access to every person and everything just as if he were a member of the Council, and I want at the outset to express the very deep debt of gratitude which not only the Air Ministry but the whole country is under to Lord Weir for coming to help us at this time. He is working as hard as if he were Secretary of State himself, and he has a fund of knowledge and experience of this industry, as well as of industry in general, which is second to none.
    1566
    The distribution as between categories of machines—fighters and bombers of various classes—will be that which the Air Staff consider best suited for our purpose, taking an objective view of the situation with which we are faced. As regards types of machines, I know the Committee will not expect me to disclose particulars of machines which are coming into being with new performances, but very promising work is being done. Types are being evolved and put into production with which I do not think we shall have reason to be dissatisfied in comparison with other countries. I am going to mention, however, one particular machine, because there we have been greatly assisted by outside initiative. Some 15 months ago or more, Lord Rothermere placed an order with a British aircraft company for a high-performance passenger machine. When that machine was nearing completion, it appeared to the Air Staff that it had features of remarkable interest and value, and I therefore asked Lord Rothermere if we might make a number of tests with it as soon as the makers could deliver it to our testing station at Martlesham. He very generously said, "The machine is entirely at your disposal; make any tests you like with it." It has been through its tests, and the tests have shown that the experience gained in the production of this aircraft will be of the utmost value to the company in producing for the Air Ministry military aircraft with the same general characteristics.
    Although I do not wish, for obvious reasons, to give any particulars of new types, I can give the Committee an assurance which I think they will welcome, namely, that there is a number of old types which in the course of this programme will disappear altogether. For instance, the Virginia will make her positively last appearance. The Atlas, the Fairey general purpose machine, the Hinaidi, the Virginia, and the Wapiti will all disappear from the service squadrons, the Wapiti, however, retaining a position for some time on the Indian frontier. Other machines, like the Bulldog, the Southampton, the Sidestrand and the Horsley will also disappear from service squadrons, although they will be retained for some time as training machines. From what I have heard, while some of these old types will perhaps

    1567
    pass from the stage with honour, we shall be rather glad to see the last of one or two of them.
    I want now to say a word or two about the method of procedure as between the Air Ministry and the firms in regard to design and production. We have been going into that question very closely, and here again Lord Weir's assistance has been of inestimable value. Our object must be to get the best both out of the Ministry and out of the firms, and to get that best as quickly as possible—to apply new knowledge as we get it in design as quickly as possible, so that, as soon as possible after some new improvement has been proved, it may be translated into production, and production is quantity. Specifications are being simplified, so as to get the maximum of initiative and latitude in design compatible with essential fighting requirements and with safety. It will be necessary to adopt a different procedure varying with the degree of novelty both in type and in requirements.
    Those who know this industry much better than I do as yet will, I think, agree that all aircraft construction is mobile. It never stands still. You will seldom, if ever, repeat exactly what you have done before. It is moving on all the time, and it moves, in a sense, on two planes. You may get a development and improvement of something in design and technique which has already been proved sufficiently to enable the new improvement to be put into production with the certainty that you will get definitely prescribed results within a reasonable margin of error, and obviously, in cases of that kind, you can go forward much more quickly than in cases which are completely experimental. In experimental cases, on the other hand, you have some wholly new element; indeed, you are really in a new plane of construction. Surely what you have to do there is to get this new feature proved as rapidly as you possibly can and indeed you may be justified—and we are feeling justified in certain cases—even while you are going into a new dimension, so to speak, to place orders before the prototype has been fully tested. I do not propose to give a dissertation on the ideal type. What I think we have to do is to get in each case the most effective instrument
    1568
    for our purpose and to get it as quickly as possible. In the fighter speed is absolutely vital. In the bomber speed may be equally important but you may have to weigh the value of adequate defence against slightly decreased speed. No air force can ever be wholly of the most advanced design. I think we have perhaps made mistakes sometimes in the past. Perhaps it was inevitable that there should be delay when you were trying to produce a machine which was going to be equally useful in this country or for different purposes overseas. There also may have been a tendency, when we started on a design, to think "I am now going to make an improvement." All that means delay, and if ever there was an industry in which the maxim ought to apply, "Do not let the better be the enemy of the good," it is this air craft industry. Get your results quickly.
    There is one other consideration which I am sure would be generally accepted and that is that strategy must be governed by scientific and technical developments. It would be hopeless if we were to attempt to make the great technical advances which may come fit in to any preconceived idea of strategy. You find the new developments that are coming on. You have to try to use those that are there to foresee what is coming presently adapting your strategy to all those new possibilities. Our problem is not only to get the best types we can and to get them as rapidly as possible; we have to be sure that we have the best structure in the industry itself, and there you face two problems which, though related, are really entirely distinct, the organisation in time of peace and the organisation for war. In our peace organisation we want an industry of sufficient size and efficiency to meet all the Government calls that may be made upon it and to meet all non-Government demands whether home or foreign. The industry as it exists and is developing to-day should prove competent for that. I think the Committee would be interested to know—those who are keen students of the probelm know already—that the structure of the aircraft industry has been the subject of a very exhaustive inquiry by the Federal Aviation Commission in the United States, and it is interesting to refer to their findings. I quote two passages. They say:

    1569
    "The general purpose in the relations of the Government to the industry engaged in manufacturing service aircraft should be to maintain units sufficiently stable and sufficiently well organised so that they would be available for expansion in the event of war. The strength and efficiency both in design and in production of the individual manufacturing units, rather than the number of independent units existing, should be regarded as the test of the nation's industrial preparedness."
    They go on:
    "We have gone into this matter at some length because of a curious argument that has been called to our attention, that the adequacy of the nation's military aircraft industry can be gauged by the number of independent units that it contains. It has been asserted that a country with 40 manufacturers living from hand to mouth is inherently in a better position than one with half-a-dozen well organised plants able to turn to any type of work and to carry on and expand their operations without exclusive dependence upon any one individual's supervision. We do not agree While a monopoly and restriction of competition are of course to be shunned, we believe that a reasonable degree of concentration of manufacturing capacity is desirable for stability and to provide an integrated organisation for emergency expansion."
    I think that lesson learnt in the States is of importance to us here. There is also this to be considered. There is a limited number of highly skilled men—drawing office staff for example. There would be a risk, if you expanded this industry into a much larger number of units, that you would intensify this shortage and not get the best that you might. There will, I hope, be closer co-operation in the industry in research than there has been perhaps in the past—I think that is coming—and in that research it is of the greatest importance that it should be twofold. This will certainly always be borne in mind in the research for which the Government are responsible. You want research in the practical immediate problems which confront us to-day. You want no less a long range research. Unless your research establishments are looking forward to the problems with which the aircraft industry is going to be faced the day after to-morrow—an industry where the problems literally come out of the sky—you will find that you are caught unawares. That long range research which does not appear to be of immediate value, if undertaken now, is going to give you the answer to the problem that is going to meet you to-morrow, and will
    1570
    in consequence be most useful to the technical people in the industry.
    Dr. ADDISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me who is going to be responsible for this long range research?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A great deal of it is being done at Teddington now, and in the Government research establishments. There is the Aeronautical Council of Research Committee where work of this kind is continuously undertaken. The Government research people are very closely in touch with the firms and it is our object to combine to get the best out of both. That I conceive to be the right peace time organisation for the industry so that it is able to take all that comes upon it from Government orders, coupled with large-scale orders from outside, and it is also an organisation aiming at providing a proper basis for expansion if ever unhappily that is necessary.
    The war organisation is something quite distinct. The war organisation means an almost complete turnover of the peace industry of the country, and it means a turning over of the firms doing civilian work to doing military work. It means that you have to have plans ready in advance so that your industry can turn over to meet the demands not only of one service but of all three services and also to meet the necessary demands of things like shipbuilding and domestic demands which must also be met in time of war, and what is necessary is that those plans should be carried forward and should be prepared so that industry should be planned for a turnover, if ever it becomes necessary, and that that should fit into the peace-time organisation. That work is of course going on all the time. It is vitally necessary that it should go on. It is essential that it should be ready if it should ever unhappily be required. But you do not want, above all, to confuse the two, and nothing could be more unfortunate, particularly when you are anxious to keep the maximum of trade and to ensure the maximum of output, than to mix the peace-time organisation and the war-time organisation, creating a dislocation which would be unnecessary and which would inevitably be involved.
    I turn from that to the problem of recruiting. The numbers required for the whole programme are estimated at 2,500 pilots and 20,000 other personnel. This

    1571
    year we are proposing a supplementary increase in Vote A of 12,000, of whom 1,300 will be pilots. What we need is to have a steady intake of both throughout the period of expansion. I was very much struck when I first went to the Air Ministry by the efficiency with which the recruiting organisation had been rapidly developed. It was a subject about which I felt that I knew a little because I had been Secretary to the Ministry of National Service at the end of the war. I thought probably here, at any rate, was a Department in which I could make some useful suggestions, but I really could not make any. There was no recruiting organisation in the country and headquarters were inundated with inquiries. I was greatly impressed with the rapidity with which the staff, hastily increased, dealt with these inquiries and applications as they came in. Very soon the machine had been extended and recruiting was being decentralised in the country. Ten new recruiting offices were opened, in Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Plymouth and Portsmouth. They are all staffed by men who are ex-officers of the Air Force and who therefore know the whole life of the Service and can deal with knowledge, sympathy and understanding which will be invaluable to recruits as they come along. I should like to acknowledge, also, the help and co-operation which we are getting from the Ministry of Labour. The response is distinctly good. I shall not give the Comittee just figures of general inquiries, because it is ineffective to deal with anything until an inquiry has become what we call a definite application—something that you can consider on its merits. There has been an enormous amount of work in sifting the inquiries before getting to the definite applications.
    Of pilots there have been definite applications from 4,500. We have accepted 75 in the past month, and we expect to take them at a rate increasing up to 150 a month during the rest of this year. In ground personnel there are definite applications from 11,000, and we were able to accept in the last month 1,330. There is not only the taking-in. There is the training of this greatly increased force, and that would present a very difficult problem if we had to do it entirely
    1572
    through newly-created Service stations. We are increasing the number of Service training schools from five to ten, but here we find that civil aviation can make a very great contribution to our need. There are civil schools established at the great civil aerodromes, manned by officers who have passed through the Air Force, some of whom we had specially recommended for their posts, upon whom we could place as much reliance as trainers as we could on serving officers in the training schools. These 13 civilian schools will be utilised, if I may use the expression, as preparatory schools for the pilots who are being taken, with the confident assurance that we shall get all their preparatory training done as well there, and on just the same lines, as if we were training them in our own Service training stations. Having passed through the preparatory school stage in the civilian schools, the pilots will come to the Service training stations. The Committee will appreciate the great value of the passage of officers through this Service at a high standard of efficiency. They know what they have seen at the Royal Review and year after year at Hendon. They know that there is a high standard of efficiency in the officers and non-commissioned officers of this force. We have all realised and appreciated that in the past, but now we see the value of that training and efficiency as the core and training school of expansion.
    I pass from recruiting to the new ground stations. We shall have to establish something like 50 new stations in all. That involves 41 aerodromes and various ranges and certain stores depots. The location of these stations must be governed by strategic considerations. I have received a good deal of correspondence—indeed, I think there is hardly a Member of the House who has not written to me to say that there is some very convenient ground in his constituency for an aerodrome.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Not from me.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I suspect my right hon. Friend knows that somewhere in his area we are almost bound to come into the picture. The siting of these stations must be governed by strategic and meteorological considerations, and broadly they will come in East Anglia, Lincolnshire, Huntingdonshire,

    1573
    Yorkshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hampshire, Sussex, Wiltshire, Shropshire and Forfarshire. I am afraid those who are outside that list will not get such great direct advantage. We shall also be materially assisted in this by the Act which the House was good enough to pass with such rapidity the other night, and which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to support, enabling us to deal rapidly with the land as soon as we get on to it.
    The Committee will not think I am taking any credit for myself, as almost the latest joined recruit, when I say that the whole of the work involved in the great expansion programme, the recruiting, the work in connection with these stations and so on, has thrown the most abnormal amount of work on to both the Service and the civil side of the staff. They have all been overworked, and they have done extraordinarily well. I would like to pay that tribute, in which I am sure the whole Committee will join, whatever their views may be about the programme.
    I want to turn to a point about which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) would certainly expect me to speak and about which I owe it to him to say a word or two; that is about the financial terms of the contracts. We all agree that firms are entitled to fair treatment from the Ministry, but the Government are entitled to a fair deal from the firms—fair treatment all round. The House already knows that I have secured the assistance of Sir Hardman Lever, Mr. Ashley Cooper and Mr. Judd. Sir Hardman Lever had experience in the War as Financial Secretary to the Treasury and before that was the particular adviser on finance to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon, and it will be agreed we could not have a man of greater experience for this work. Mr. Judd was one of his right hand men and Mr. Ashley Cooper is a man whose business experience commands universal respect. I have also obtained the assistance on much special work of Mr. Reeve, the Chairman of the Associated Equipment Company, than whom you could not have a more able and experienced man to deal with this contract work, and I think we all owe them a great debt.
    1574
    When you are dealing with a variety of firms and types of contract of almost infinite variety, it is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules and say that the same conditions are going to apply to every contract. You may have a perfectly straight contract of the most ordinary kind. You may have a contract involving enormous technical chances or risks, and you cannot, obviously, have the same conditions apply. One thing above all others that we want to avoid is getting into the awful time-and-line business which was carried on in the War. If you saw in a man's books that he had honestly spent £700,000 you paid him £700,000 and £70,000 profit. If you had another man who had done the same type of work for £600,000 you paid him £600,000 and £60,000 profit. We do not want to get back into that kind of bog again.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon has said most persistently: "You have a very good team, but they cannot possibly do their work unless you give them special statutory powers." My answer was that I should not hesitate to ask for powers if I needed them, but I much preferred to work by agreement if I could get it. Sir Hardman Lever and his colleagues have been working steadily on the whole of these contract questions for a number of weeks now, and I have their authority to state that they are satisfied that all the information about costs and so on which they or we can require for the whole of this business will be forthcoming voluntarily from the firms. I hope on hearing that assurance that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon will withdraw some of the aspersions which he has been casting on these firms.
    Dr. ADDISON: I have not cast any aspersion on any firm at any time. It is your system on which I have cast aspersions.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman will obviously withdraw about the system, unless he means the whole system of private enterprise. I did not know we were going to argue "Socialism in our time." Most of us have been here at Question Time and the right hon. Gentleman has continually attacked me when I said I believed I would get a square deal out of these people. I have got it, and I hope we shall

    1575
    not hear any more from him of this kind of suggestion.
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: You must wait and see. We shall not be so mealy mouthed then.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I never mind being attacked personally, but, if people are not here to answer for themselves, when they are playing the game, one ought to acknowledge it, even if you do oppose the existing system. The right hon. Gentleman also said that we ought to encourage State manufacture, and he asked me to consider carefully what had been the experience of the War. I am not going to say for a moment that there was not a, great deal of State manufacture done in the War in certain directions. I imagine it was done by getting business men who had grown up in private enterprise and putting them in charge.
    Dr. ADDISON: Why not?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Exactly, but I thought you said it was such a hopeless system.
    Dr. ADDISON: The system, not the men.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I see. We should have to turn to private enterprise in order to get the men to run the Socialist State. I have made my inquiries into what happened over aeroplanes, which is the subject with which we are now concerned. That certainly was not very successful. Various Government factories were established to make aeroplane frames.
    Dr. ADDISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when these Government factories about which he is now talking were established?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that they were established in 1917, but I can verify the date. I will have it looked up so that the information can be given. I was about to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there was a programme of production which they themselves anticipated they would be able to carry out over a period of time. That programme was, I think, 4,000 machines, and the output was 693. On the question of price they were certainly not very successful. I gave him the wrong place by mistake the other day. The place was Aintree. I will give him both places; I have them both now. It was at Aintree
    1576
    where we produced fighters at a cost of £5,000 a machine, when we were getting a similar machine from a private firm, an ordinary manufacturing firm, for £1,250. At Heaton Chapel which I quoted last week—I was speaking from memory—the price in the Government factory was two or three times as much as the comparable price from private firms. I do not think that we were very successful in respect of engines. As a matter of fact, during the War, we never made complete engines, except experimental engines at Farnborough, but there was a Government factory making engine parts at Hayes, and that factory turned out parts at a cost of £534,000, and the comparable price for similar parts obtained in the trade was only in the region of £350,000, so that we were not terribly successful in that respect. There was also a tendency, so I am told, to stereotype design when you come to the Government factory. If there is one industry above all others where you do not want to stereotype design but to encourage firms to go feeling and designing ahead always to get the new thing, it is in this industry. At any rate, there is no need for us to go into State manufacture in order to get our requirements fulfilled, and I certainly think that we should be very ill-advised to do so.
    I have only one more word to add. This programme is our bounden duty, and I do not believe that any Government in our position to-day in the present state of the world would advance a programme other than that which we are now proposing to the Committee. It is our plain duty in the interests of this country. We will go on. We are going on, striving to get an air pact, a limitation of air armaments, and what is incomparably more difficult, even if people are agreed in principle, the limitation of air warfare. We will go on, and we are going to try for those objectives, but I am quite sure that neither in a pact where you give and receive mutual security, nor in the limitation of air armaments should we stand the faintest chance of getting either the one or the other if we remained disarmed while other people were armed. I certainly think that the programme I am submitting to the Committee is vital and necessary to our own security, and that it is the best way of getting collective security, limitation and world peace.
    8.20 p.m.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That an additional number of Air Forces, not exceeding 11,000, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."
    We have all listened to the explanation of the Estimates by the Air Minister, and, in justification of the view which we take of these Estimates, I have moved the reduction in the number of men, so that we can express not merely our criticism during the Debate of the increased Estimates, but also show by our going into the Lobby that we are determined to take exception at a time like this to the squandering of so much money upon the enlargement of the Air Service in this manner, quite needlessly, as we think. The Minister in his statement made it perfectly clear that the intentions are not confined merely to the Estimate that is before the Committee at the present time. He has stated definitely that what we vote to-day will commit us to a further programme not yet set out, but which, he says, will be brought in next year, and will amount approximately to a total of £35,000,000.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Memorandum with the Estimate—I published that, so as to put everything before the House—he will see that it shows the full programme, and it is on the execution of that programme that there must fall an increased amount on next year's Vote.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I quite understand, but the point in which the country is interested is that in voting this sum in additional payments to the men, in the provision of a certain number of machines, and in the training of a certain number of pilots we are committing ourselves to an expenditure which next year will amount to £35,000,000. We are committing ourselves to the total amount of money stated by the Air Minister, and we contend that there has been no justification for this increased expenditure. There has been a great deal said in Debates on the Air Estimate and in discussions in the House about—
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I made a mistake as I had not the figures in front of me. I gave the figure of my Estimate next year as gross, and it should have been net, and I apologise.
    Mr. MANDER: £36,000,000?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: £ net.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The Minister was not quite definite upon the point and, therefore, I said approximately. We will not quarrel over the figure as expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, but we do object to this country being committed to the air race that is going on, and to the explanation made by the Air Minister about the uses that can be made of the machines for civil aviation and not for war aviation. That explanation leaves me quite cold, because a civil aeroplane, as has been demonstrated before now, can very rapidly be transformed into a death dealing war machine. Whatever use may be made of these machines during the period when there is no war between different nations, we appreciate the fact that the potential use of these machines is for war purposes, and we have a right to ask the Air Minister which nation he has or the Government have in mind as the potential enemy. The right hon. Gentleman said that Germany was trying to get parity with France and that because Germany wanted parity with France the Government of this country had determined to increase the numbers of our air fleet and the personnel of those who man it.
    Is it because Germany has said that she wishes to have the same number of machines as France that this country has said that we are compelled to arm? Compelled to arm against whom? By inference, against the particular nation that says it wants parity with a nation the number of whose machines we know. The only logical conclusion that anyone with reasoning faculty can arrive at is that the enemy in the mind of the Government is Germany. We have done everything we could to placate Germany. We have ignored the methods by which, if our secret service is an adequate secret service, we could have been informed of the re-arming of Germany long ago. That knowledge must have been in the possession of the Government long ago. Now we have this excuse put forward. I say to the Air Minister and to the Government when they talk about increasing the air service of this country, and they say that it is for the purpose of defence, that no nation has ever set out to arm itself with the published object of being an aggressor. They have always made it clear to the world that

    1579
    it is because somebody else may become an aggressor against them that they are arming, and for defensive purposes only. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the projected air fleet is for defensive purposes? Is it not the case that this country wrecked the projected air pact by its refusal to discontinue the use of bombing planes upon unprotected natives?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member heard a speech by the Minister for League of Nations Affairs the other night, when that suggestion was completely exposed. There was not one word of truth in it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I understand that the Air Minister objects to my statement that the projected air pact was ruined because this nation's representatives refused to agree to the discontinuance of the use of bombing planes upon native races. Let me quote a speech of the Noble Lord the Marquis of Londonderry in another place, on the 22nd May, 1935. He said—
    The CHAIRMAN: it is against the rules of the House to quote words used in another place during the current Session.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I accept at once your ruling that I cannot read what has been said in another place during the current Session. The speech of the Noble Lord is here, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that the Noble Lord stated that he was impressing upon his colleagues the necessity of continuing the building of aeroplanes, and that he was also insisting upon the maintenance by this country of the use of those aeroplanes for bombing native races when circumstances in the opinion of the Government made it necessary. If the Air Minister thinks that I am misquoting the gist of the speech, he can quote the exact words or the gist of them. He does not rise.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not like to interrupt, but the hon. Member invites me to rise. I have not the least idea what is in that speech. The hon. Member has made the allegation once again, and I am amazed that he has done so after the speech the other night of my right hon. Friend, that the Arms Limitation Convention failed because of
    1580
    our reservation about bombing. I would refer the hon. Member to the long and full answer given by the Minister for League Affairs, which was made only last week, and if he reads that speech he will see that there is not one word of truth in the allegation that he is making.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am not concerned with what the Minister for League Affairs said in this House last week. What he said last week does not contradict what appeared in black and white in the published Debate that took place in the other House, in the speech of the Marquess of Londonderry, who was then the Minister for Air. He occupied the position now occupied by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is a denial of that speech that I want. It is all very well for a Government speaking with half-a-dozen voices to say that so and so, speaking on such and such a night, said such and such a thing, and so and so, speaking on another occasion, said something else. Here are the words in black and white, uttered by the former Air Minister, and I have yet to learn that any Minister of the Crown has repudiated that speech or that the Marquess of Londonderry has on any occasion said that he was misreported or that he did not intend to use the words that are published in the House of Lords Official Report. The speech was delivered on the 22nd May this year—I think I am in order in mentioning the date.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will probably know that this is one of those cases which sometimes puts the Committee and the Chair in a position of some considerable difficulty, but there are reasons for the Rule and, so far as those reasons apply, it has been the practice of the Chair not to relax them. But where these reasons do not apply the Rule has been relaxed, and, therefore, when it comes to a question of a statement of policy by a Minister in the other House a reference to that has been allowed, but when it comes to a question of the utterances of one particular individual in another place and the correctness or otherwise of the report, that is a matter which we ought not to discuss here, and that limitation of our Debate is based on the reason that the individual in question cannot reply in this House.
    Mr. MACLEAN: May I draw your attention to the fact that this was a speech delivered by a responsible Minister of the Crown, the Minister for Air, in the other place, not the speech of a private Member, setting out the Government's air policy on the 22nd May of this year.
    The CHAIRMAN: And that is why I hesitated when I interrupted the hon. Member earlier but I did so because I thought that he was going on to dangerous ground and that I should remind him of the rule. It is for that reason also that I have allowed him to discuss the effect of the speech as a whole as a Minister's statement of Government policy but when it comes to a question of the correctness of otherwise of the report I think he is going a little too far. So far as it is a statement of policy by a Minister of the Crown it is legitimate to refer to it so long as the hon. Member avoids dealing with questions as to the actual words.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The Minister for Air has again denied that the British representatives insisted upon certain bombing rights being retained. Is it not a fact that the Disarmament Conference set up an Air Committee in 1933 which met once, and because of the resolution put forward by the British delegates, which included the reservation of a right to use bombing planes on subject races, to which objection was taken by other nations, the Committee has never met since. Is it not a fact that the Italian Commission submitted proposals in January, 1934, that the bombing of civilian populations should be prohibited? Is it not the case that in January, 1934, the French Government in proposals on the British Memorandum, said that she not only accepted the abolition of aerial bombardment on the conditions defined in the Disarmament Conference Resolution of the 23rd July, 1932, but also was prepared
    "If such a general reduction is accepted by the principal air Powers and is accompanied by effective control of civil aviation and aircraft factories"—
    I want the Committee to mark those words—
    "accompanied by effective control of civil aviation and aircraft factories, to accept a proportional reduction of 50 per cent. of her aircraft now in commission. The final object of these reductions should be the suppression of all national military air forces
    1582
    and their replacement by an international air force."
    It is rather peculiar that the Government should go back on the statements made and recommendations suggested by their representatives before these various conferences and commissions. On 11th June, 1934, the Disarmament Conference passed a resolution calling upon the Air Committee which was set up in February, 1933, and had not met since March of that year, to resume work. There was much for it to do. Neither the British Draft Convention of March, 1933, nor the British, French and German proposals of January, 1934, nor the German proposals of 16th April, 1934, had ever been discussed by it. That resolution was not acted upon, the committee has not met yet. Can the Minister tell us why? Can he inform us Why the committee has not met for over two years? Probably it was because of a speech made by the then Minister for Air on the 27th June, 1934, in which he said:
    "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 to provide adequately for the air defence of these shores."
    That is 13 months ago. This has all been thought out. The Air Minister has stated that the plans were all ready by 1933, and he is now putting them in operation. I suggest that when the Government comes before this House with all the statements they have made regarding the necessity that has forced them to begin this air race and build up air armaments, we have a right to ask for the reasons why they have not allowed the Air Committee set up in 1933 to meet again to discuss what they were set up to discuss, the limitation of air armaments. We want to find out the real reason why that committee was never called together again in spite of the subsequent instruction by the Disarmament Conference that it should meet with little or no delay. The Prime Minister was greatly concerned about what was likely to happen to the civilian population in case of air raids should hostilities break out between this and any other country. He pictured what might happen, and wondered why after 2,000 years of Christianity we should be thinking of all manner of schemes to prevent the civil population being choked to

    1583
    death with noxious gases rained upon them from the skies.
    What is the nation that the right hon. Gentleman expects to hurl these gases upon the people? Why cannot some convention be held? Why cannot some conference of representatives of the nation discuss these matters? I am convinced that there is no man in the House or outside it who would willingly subscribe to anything that was likely to bring nearer the day when the horrors that some of us witnessed during the last war will be reenacted in this or any other city. I am including Members of the Government in that statement. I am not questioning their good faith. What I am questioning is the blundering methods that seem to have been adopted by them in getting us into this particular pass. The situation in which the country is now could have been avoided if some other method of approach had been adopted by the Government.
    We have a Queen Bee plane which is evidently looked upon as something calculated to help us if any trouble arises in this country. Experiment has shown that in shooting at the Queen Bee, the new robot machine which was demonstrated at the Naval Review, gunnery is ineffective, even if the Queen Bee flies at a low speed. Throughout the fighting services, where the Press campaign about the Queen Bee is viewed with a certain amount of cynicism, it is believed that she has done more than anything else to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of antiaircraft gunnery. It must be pointed out that the Queen Bee is in any case a very much better target than can ever be expected in wartime, and this factor only serves to enterprise the ineffectiveness of anti-aircraft defence. Yet we are supposed to be building this addition to our air fleet for purposes of defence.
    We are to build shelters to protect the civil population. The civil population are being asked by circular to provide themselves with gas masks. It would be interesting to know whether the Government are prepared to introduce a Supplementary Estimate to enable the Unemployment Assistance Board to give additional payments to the unemployed, to enable them to purchase these gas masks. It is becoming a little far fetched when the civil population are told that they
    1584
    must protect themselves against the blunders of the Government. The whole course of the transactions during the past few years before the various committees that have been dealing with this question of the Air Force, the limitation of the Air Force and the protection of the civil population against bombs, seems farcical. It makes us wonder who is the enemy. Germany is looked upon by some as being a possible enemy, but according to Herr Hitler Germany looks upon Russia as being her particular enemy. In a book written by Herr Hitler, which has been revised, there is still the original statement. He points eastward towards Russia and her dependent republics as being the likeliest line along which Germany can expand, because she has no further desire for colonisation outside Europe. Russia and Germany therefore look upon each other as potential enemies, and they build up additional air fleets.
    So it goes on. Each nation looks upon some other nation as a possible enemy, and each nation enters into the race, addings to its army strength or naval strength or air strength. It is madness raging throughout the world. In 1918, at the Armistice, the cry throughout the world was "Never again," and we believed it absolutely. Here we are arming for "Once again" or perhaps "Several times again," for no one can tell. Yet the politicians, the statesmen and the Governments of the nations are supposed to have within their hands the well-being of the people whom they rule. They allow the lives or well-being of their people to be so mismanaged as to bring death and destruction upon them. These rulers merit the fate that has overtaken rulers in the past; they merit being deposed and sent as criminals into some place where they can do no further harm by wilfulness or neglect or ignorance.
    That is our justification for moving this reduction. We are sick to death of all this mad talk about re-arming. Every time you come before this House asking for additional sums to help build up armaments, you are betraying every woman whose husband perished in the last War. It is a betrayal of the children who were left orphans during the last War, and it is a gross betrayal of the men who are still walking the streets, maimed, blinded and shattered, as a

    1585
    result of the last War. Before you think of entering into another war, or arming for another war, let a sufficient number of years pass so that the horrors of the last War may be forgotten. As long as the horrors of the past War remain in the memory of those who suffered, drop all this mad race, and, instead, invite other nations to confer with you in one further effort to arrive at some means whereby armaments can be reduced instead of being increased.
    8.55 p.m.
    Captain GUEST: I have listened to practically every word that has been spoken since the Supplementary Estimate was presented by the Secretary of State for Air, and I have listened almost with horror during the last half-hour. I will try to disentangle some of the impressions created in my mind by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), who has just sat down. I would like, however, to commence by saying how glad the House of Commons is that the Secretary of State for Air is in the House of Commons. That does not mean that we have not appreciated the efforts and work of the late Secretary of State, but we feel that we have been handicapped by his not being here himself to defend his Department. However, he has been extremely well represented, but it is never the same thing, and an Under-Secretary cannot speak with the same authority as a Secretary of State, so those of us who are keen about this subject welcome the new Secretary of State for Air and are glad we still have our friend the Under-Secretary of State with him. The Secretary of State has only been a very few weeks in charge of a very big office, an office which at this moment is being forced to undertake a tremendous labour, the labour of expansion for national defence. I think the hon. Member who has just sat down will not complain if I say that a good deal of his speech should have been directed at a Foreign Secretary, not at an Air Minister. Whether or not the Government have handled their international policy, their League of Nations policy, their Geneva policy, with perfection is not really the responsibility of the Air Minister.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The failure to continue the work of the Air Commission and the statements made at the Disarmament Conference by the Air Minister were surely apposite to this Vote.
    Captain GUEST: I think the hon. Member will not mind if I do not pursue that point any further. At the end of his speech, he took the line that the Government were responsible for the race in armaments. To an ordinary listener it sounded as though that was the general impression which he wished to create, and that he wished to create it outside the House of Commons, that the Government was a belligerous Government, doing all they could to stimulate the race in armaments. I submit, with great respect to him—he is as old a Parliamentarian as I am—that that is a very unfair charge and only worthy of the hustings.
    Mr. MACLEAN: It is borne out by their statements.
    Captain GUEST: I say it is quite unworthy. We are here to give approval to a Supplementary Estimate almost as big, I think, as any Supplementary Estimate that has been presented to this House since the War, and I am surprised to find so small an attendance of Members. I think it is pathetic that such a vast sum of public money should be just turned over like this without very close inspection. That does not mean to say that the Secretary of State's statement was not a very able and clear statement. The only excuse I can find for the Committee letting it go through this evening is that I understand it is agreed that in October a better opportunity will be given to the House to consider it in detail. I am glad of that, because it will give the Minister more time to get into his stride and to be in a better position to answer the detailed and technical questions which we would direct to him.
    But while the months of August, September, and October are going by—the House, I presume, will rise next week—I wish to draw his attention to what I consider to be the most important side of aviation. On the military side it is simple, it is cut and dried, it is expensive, it is efficient, but there is something much more important than that, and that is—if you are prepared to admit that you live in a world where air control is very nearly the dominating factor, and activity, movement, and transport—to implore him to give some of his time in the next three months to the study of civil aviation. It is a subject on which I feel I may get friends on the other side of the Committee. It cannot be denied that the

    1587
    flying machine has come, any more than it can be denied that the bicycle has come. Therefore, let us become a nation of people who understand it. That does not mean necessarily that we should abuse it, but at any rate let us understand it, and let us be as air minded as any other country in the world. Years and years ago it was said that civil aviation must fly by itself. I have said in this House before, and it has never been contradicted—it is like crying Free Trade in a Protectionist world—that if other countries subsidise, we must do the same or else we shall get left behind. I wonder if the Committee realise how far we are left behind? If they do not mind our being left behind as much as we are to-day, they ought to know exactly how far we are behind, and then perhaps a little more British esprit de corps will stimulate them to say to the Minister, "Study this question of making the nation air minded on the civil side."
    I will give a few examples of what I mean, and I know the Committee will be patient if one does not talk nonsense and is careful in what one says. I submit that both the military and the civil side are so closely interlocked that you cannot separate them. First of all, you have the ground organisation, secondly you have the pilots, thirdly you have the research, and fourthly you have the mechanics; and I feel that I shall carry everybody with me when I say that the great thing in an advanced, civilised country like ours is to have the great bulk of the population trained in the highest degree in the most important skill which the country may ever need should war come. If only civil aviation were stimulated, encouraged, and subsidised it would not be necessary to develop quite so seriously the military side, because we have always been a race that could spring to attention, a race that could rapidly improvise, and largely because our knowledge was spread widely and because, to take the Navy alone, we had such a grand merchant service that we were able to supply our fleets when war came with trained and valuable men. If we apply the same simile to civil aviation, I think we shall find that we should need to spend less money on military development.
    I must touch for a moment on a military word. The bomber is the backbone of the Air Force. Many of us know the
    1588
    difference between the bomber, the fighter, and the reconnaissance plane, but a great many do not. As I say, the bomber is the backbone of the Air Force. What is the bomber? It is a civil development. If you look at the great civil planes of to-day, a great many of which I have been in myself, you will find that with the greatest ease they can be converted into bombers. That does not suggest that they were built as civil machines for the purpose of conversion, but at the same time I must admit that convertibility is too easy for words; and after all those hon. Members who have taken part in our Debates in the last six months must know that the origin of the air scare came from the preponderance of civil air transport possessed by Germany. Everyone knows that the German "Lufthansa" machines of various types are, and were, capable of conversion, and probably by now are converted and form part of the military air fleet of that country.
    But what impresses me is that every country in the world has a better one than ourselves. If you take the American machines, the "Boeing," the "Douglas," and the "Lockheed," you will find that they are superior at present, with very little conversion, to our own best military bombers. Every other country has remarkable long-distance transport machines, and we have not. We are definitely at an inferiority both as regards civil transport and as regards possible convertibility for purposes of war. I suggest that the Minister might give a good deal of attention to the question of at least bringing us up to a level of other countries that surround us. It has been argued that the alteration of these liners would mean loss of efficiency. That can be overcome by additional horsepower. It has been argued that it is extravagant to have a large horse-power with small carrying capacity. Let me give an example of where it has been worth while to do that. Take the great German Heinkel machine that flies from Berlin to Barcelona and that has a small carrying load and immense speed. It has succeeded in taking half the South American mail away from the French. We must not shut our eyes to what is happening round us.
    Let me say a word about the South American mail. What I am saying deals

    1589
    with the civil side; I am not saying anything that can affend the pacifist. I want to enlist him, because I believe that he is as proud of this country as I am. At present the mails are carried to South America by three lines—from America by the Pan-American Line and to Europe by German and French lines. We have more money invested in South America than all other countries put together, yet we are paying a subsidy to these German and French air lines to carry our mails, and are thus, in fact, subsidising potential bombers. I do not know why nobody seems to have spotted that fact. I do not know what the reason is. It must be due to a lack of grasp of the fact, firstly, that civil aviation is the foundation of military and national defence, and, secondly, that civil aviation cannot fly by itself. There is a race for development not only for military purposes, but for civil expansion.
    Talking about South America almost takes one back to the days when admirals in the British Fleet—privateers they might be called—went round the world, and in some cases founded colonies. Wherever they went they took the British flag and British trade. Why are we not doing it in the air? Is there any answer? Is there any reason why I should fly to the West Indies in American machines and why no English machines are there at all? Last year I went to Trinidad and through the West Indies in American machines. There were no signs of British aerial activity of any sort. That is because there is no stimulus from this end. It is from here, from the Treasury Bench, that the stimulus should come. It has failed to come only because the Government have not so far realised that the backbone of any military and national defence, if it is ever required, is that there should be a great foundation of civil development.
    I want to come to a point which is also said in not an unfriendly way, because I do not want to say anything unfriendly to a new Minister. He must have his chance and the critics must be patient. I have listened to speeches in this House in the last nine months by the Under-Secretary of State dealing with the development of Imperial air routes and by the Postmaster-General dealing with air mails. Both speeches were admirable. We were told, as a result of the race to Melbourne, that we were to go to
    1590
    Australia much faster, and that mails would be carried all over Europe to most of the capitals much more rapidly than in the past. These speeches are now nine months old, and the reason the services have not improved is that there is no ground organisation. Without ground organisation we cannot fly by night. It may be said that the development of night flying is elaborate and expensive. Why is there nothing more in this Supplementary Estimate than £500 for civil aviation, in spite of the two speeches to which I have referred, which were delivered less than nine months ago? It is because it is not appreciated that unless we fly by night we cannot accelerate air mails or the great Imperial services. It may be asked, who else does it? From Sweden, a little country with not very much money, in the last six years there has been an air service from Stockholm to Malmo and Copenhagen. That meant expensive ground organisation with beacons, radio beams and all the necessary equipment. They do not take passengers, but only mails. Germany has been night flying for 11 years on the London to Cologne and the Berlin-Hanover and Berlin-Copenhagen route. The House of Commons would gladly vote money for such development. I would sooner support a Vote of that nature that even the Vote that has been put before us. It is only because I have been convinced from what I have heard from the Prime Minister when he was Lord President of the Council and from the Foreign Secretary that it is vital that we should take care that I am supporting this Vote, but I would in many ways sooner support a big expenditure on civil aviation.
    The problem of the monopoly granted to Imperial Airways is, I think, ready for reconsideration. I will not say that it has not served its purpose. I was pretty well conversant with the original stage in the granting of that monopoly. We had a period of three companies not very well able to pull sufficient weight by themselves and it was, therefore, obviously better that they should amalgamate and produce a good national service. I think that they have done it very well. The chairmanship has been in admirable hands, and the company owes a considerable debt to Sir Eric Geddes for the way in which he has controlled it. I think, however, that the

    1591
    new Secretary of State might give a little time to considering whether the moment has not come when the octopus must not be allowed to strangle smaller individual efforts. I know a little about individual efforts, and at this moment, on a rising tide of what might be called a boom in aviation, a good many companies of repute are making a great effort to get more business. The more business they get the more mechanics and pilots they produce, and the richer becomes the country in aviation experience. But I see signs of strangulation, signs of really good enterprises struggling against an almost impossible obstacle. I will give an illustration. We have Imperial Airways State-aided by money voted in the House of Commons year by year, and there has now been formed Railway Airways, which was created by the five great railway companies to serve the country by air lines in close conjunction with Imperial Airways.
    There is thus almost a double stranglehold—there is the immense backing of the railway companies, and the State-aided support of Imperial Airways. I do not see how a small company has any hope of competing, and yet small companies are struggling to compete. I give them tremendous credit for trying. I know of one case in particular which will fly you return to Paris for £2 cheaper than Imperial Airways, and 35 minutes faster. That company is run at a loss, and quite obviously it cannot go on. The smaller companies are terribly handicapped by this octopus, and I am hoping that the Secretary of State will give a good deal of attention to this point, because if he agrees with me that what we want is the widest possible civil foundation of experienced men as mechanics and experienced men as pilots, in case the time of trouble should ever come, he will not allow—and I hope the House of Commons will not allow—any State-aided organisation such as Imperial Airways to kill small businesses of this type upon which England has all her life depended.
    The case I am going to give the Committee is almost unbelievable. If you go to Cook's agency in Berkeley Street and ask them to sell you a ticket to Paris by Hillman's airline, which is a line which is running from just north of the river, they say, "No, we cannot sell you
    1592
    that, though we can sell you an Imperial Airway's ticket, or a French or a German or a Belgian ticket. We cannot sell you Hillman's ticket. We are not allowed to do so by the agreement between the railway companies and Messrs. Cook's Agency." It may be that there is an answer to that state of affairs, but the answer has not been given yet, I hope the Minister will find time to look into that position, because it cannot be right that the ordinary ticket agencies, when selling tickets, are not allowed to sell them for some of our own air lines which are out to help England if also, incidentally, to make something for themselves.
    The last thing I have to say is that this problem of making the nation air-minded must not be regarded as a militaristic adventure. I do not think it is fair that the moment the word "air" is mentioned one should think in terms of bombs. It is tree that aeroplanes can be turned into weapons of war capable of destruction, but we in the House of Commons should get into our minds that the value of rapid inter-communication in a far-flung Empire like ours is of the greatest possible importance. We can only establish such communication if we vote a good deal of our money to the subsidising of lines in the initial stages. I remember the time it took during the War for the Ministers from the Dominions to come to England to help to discuss vital problems of Imperial safety and defence. That problem is being overcome, but the conditions are not stable. We have a line which wanders slowly along to Rangoon and other places, and eventually gets to Australia. But we must not wait; we do not know what the future holds, we cannot tell whether we are safe to leave this problem to take care of itself, and I cannot feel that anybody would object to there being in this Vote to-night a much bigger grant to civil aviation. There are many programes that could be submitted to the Secretary of State for him to study during the coming long Recess, and I do hope that he really will give his mind and his ability, which is undoubted, to the study of the problem—that civil aviation is what we have got to master, and that we have got to be equal to any other country in the world.
    9.19 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: I do not think there could be a greater measure of the disastrous failure of the Government's foreign policy than the fact that they are obliged to bring forward to-night a gigantic Supplementary Air Estimate. I do not say that it is a result which they have willed or that they are unappalled at the situation, but I believe, none the less, that it is true to say that by lack of courage and leadership during the last three years, by failure to seize favourable moments at the Disarmament Conference—I am not referring to the particular example which my hon. Friend dealt with just now, for there are others—they bear a very large share of the responsibility for the race in armaments taking place in the world to-day. But we have to deal with the situation as it is, and not as we should like it to be. In approaching consideration of this issue one is bound to be influenced by policy, by the way in which it is proposed by the Government to use these new air forces. If the Air Force is going to be used, all against the aggressor, as part of the collective system, that is one point of view; if it is going to be used under the old system, all against all, that is an entirely different point of view.
    If the late Government, before its reconstruction, had been in power at the present time I should not have had the slightest hesitation in coming to the opinion that it was not going to use these increased forces for the collective system. It was made perfectly clear by many speeches by Ministers, by the present Prime Minister and the late Foreign Secretary, and the Government's White Paper on Disarmament, that they had practically abandoned all hope of using our air forces as part of the collective system, and I must say one is left in considerable doubt to-day. The Secretary of State, although at the end of his speech he did make some reference to the Air Convention, did not once envisage the possibility of the use of these new forces as part of the collective system. That is a very remarkable omission, which discloses only too clearly the point of view of certain Members of the Government. All the same, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) said that a new Minister was entitled to a fair
    1594
    opportunity before he was condemned, and I am not without hope that the Government, in its reconstructed form, with its new Prime Minister and its new Foreign Secretary, may take a different attitude with regard to collective security; but I am not too hopeful. Still, I think one ought to hold one's judgment in suspense on that point for the moment.
    After all, the test is coming very quickly. One cannot debate it to-night, but it is coming in the matter of the willingness of the Government to press, if the situation arises, that all our forces should be used, with those of others, for the collective security of the world in the case of the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia. If they make no effort to do so then very large numbers of those who are willing and anxious to support the Government in a collective policy will be turned into bitter antagonism against them both in this House and throughout the country, and, I believe, at the General Election also. I hope that situation will not arise. Then there is the question of the western security pact, which affects very closely the Estimate we are considering to-night. One cannot help feeling considerable disappointment that all these weeks have gone by without the Government having yet succeeded even in initiating, so they told us, negotiations and discussions with the other countries as to the possibility of carrying it through. That, again, is bound to cause the greatest anxiety as to their earnestness and sincerity regarding the using of our air forces solely for the purpose of collective security.
    On the assumption—for the sake of argument let me admit it—that the Government intend to use these forces on the collective basis, and that they have arrived at the lowest limit which it is possible to reach as a result of pressure and negotiation at the present time, I fully agree that our Air Force must be of the highest possible efficiency, and I believe it is, so far as it exists to-day, more efficient in personnel, in daring, in skill, than any other air force in the whole world. In so far as we are to make a contribution to general air action it is clear to me that our contribution must be worthy of this great country. In the Draft Convention of the Government in March, 1933, the basis was fixed at a parity of 500 each for the Powers. I do

    1595
    not see how it is possible that this country can be represented in a system of collective security on a basis of less than parity too. But it is up to the Government to see that limitation and parity itself are fixed at the lowest possible level.
    If we do not play our part worthily in collective security, it simply means that we are relying for our protection on the forces of other countries, and that from every point of view seems to be undignified, wrong and of no service to this country and the world. If our contribution is to be of the highest efficiency, surely it is necessary that we should have worked out in common with the air forces of other countries some basis of action. Clearly it will have to be done in the case of the Western air pact of five Powers. There will have to be contact between the staffs of the various air forces, every kind of co-operation will have to be envisaged, and areas worked out in case of having to deal with an aggressor. But we do not have to wait for that; there are our obligations under the League Covenant. Just as before the War there was contact between the British and French military staffs as to the action that might be taken, although no agreement existed, so now, when we have obligations which are patent to the whole world to act in certain contingencies, it is the duty of the Government and the Air Ministry to be in contact with the air staffs of other countries, so that if the necessity arises we can play our part without any delay in taking action against an aggressor.
    If you are going to work for this system efficiently, you require that there should be not only limitation but international inspection; otherwise, you get the dreadful nightmare that while there is parity of 1,500 machines you get a Press campaign alleging that certain States have got 2,000 machines, and that will be used to urge further expansion of our force. If you are to arrive at any basis of stability, with a view to ultimate reduction, surely it is essential that there should be international inspection, so that we may all know how far it is true that we have got the machines we all say that we have got. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say that we do attach great importance to that, and that he will press it in connection with the negotiations of
    1596
    a Western air pact. The Secretary of State said that the reason for the increase in our force was the development of the German air force, and the fact that we and our old allies are so largely responsible by the folly of our policy since the War for Hitler Germany and the present situation does not make it any the less dangerous. Germany to-day has made it perfectly clear that she is opposed to the collective system, and that she is not willing to work loyally with the rest of the nations of Europe and the world, and one can have no confidence whatever in the German point of view.
    While the race in air armaments between the two countries has been going on, there has been a mutual visit of the Legions of ex-service men of the two countries. It is very desirable that good feeling should be promoted in this way, but do not let it be misinterpreted. Do not let anybody in Germany think that it means that we approve of their attitude to other human beings or other races. There are ex-service men who can regard themselves as being honourable antagonists in past wars and possibly in future wars, or ex-service men can meet with the desire to do all that is in their power to see that war does not break out again. There has been very little evidence as to the latter desire on the part of the German ex-service men.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): It hardly seems to me that that arises on the Air Estimates.
    Mr. MANDER: I will abide by your Ruling. The Secretary of State made some criticism of State factories. I am very sorry that the Government have not seen fit to set up some State factories. The argument that it is uneconomic to do so and possibly Socialistic is entirely destroyed by the fact that they exist for the Army and Navy. If it be wrong to have them in the Air Force, it must be wrong to have them in the other two. That a certain number of State factories should be set up is in accord with the feeling of the people of the country. It is not merely a matter of rigid control of the prices, but that enormous contracts are being given out, and even if the profit on each aeroplane is small the profits are large in the aggregate. I hope that the possibility of development on these lines will not be altogether overlooked.

    1597
    The main part of the new force which we are being asked to vote for to-night consists of bombers. There are some who feel that it is desirable to try and restrict the areas and the people that should be bombed when they are used. I submit again that that matter is governed by the purposes for which you are using your air force. If it is simply going to be run on the old pre-war system of one nation against another, I should have thought that any attempt to restrict bombing was not only impossible but undesirable. Old-fashioned war is not a gentleman's game; it was pure savagery. It is no use trying to dress it up in anything else, and if all are in it the sooner it will be stopped. The mere horror of the war weapon will make it certain that sooner than later human beings will make up their minds that they will not tolerate this thing any longer. On the other hand, if you are using your air force on the collective basis, then, solely for the purpose of maintaining world order, you are acting on police lines and you will want to use, as police always do, the minimum of force and to do the least possible harm consistently with attaining your object. The test one has to apply in considering this estimate to-night is the purpose for which the increased air force is to be used. The fact that the Government have contributed to the present situation, as I maintain, by their failure to act in the last two years, does not make it any the less necessary that we should do our best for our country and for the world in the present situation.
    We do not feel confident; we have very considerable doubt not unmixed with hope, that the Government are going to work courageously the collective system. For that reason, we could not vote against them; but there are elements which make us feel very doubtful, and for that reason we could not vote for them. [Interruption.] It is a perfectly clear and logical attitude, and I am trying to put it clearly. In the past we have had very good reason to doubt the sincerity of the Government in regard to the collective system, but since then there has been a reconstruction of the Government, and the new Ministers have not been in their offices very long. We think it is only fair that they should have the fullest opportunity of showing where they stand. If they show that there has been no change in the attitude which 1598
    the Government have taken up during the last few years, you may be quite sure that we shall take every opportunity of voting against them in this House, as being unfit to control the affairs of this country in any way whatever.
    9.37 p.m.
    Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: As I do not propose to trouble the Committee for much more than five minutes, I hope that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the various political avenues which he explored so admirably. Earlier to-day we discussed a subject which, as I hope to show in a sentence, is not unconnected politically with that which we are now considering. Had I been able to catch the eye of the Chair during that Debate, a thing which I did not achieve, I might have taken the opportunity to comment upon the unfortunate innuendoes of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and I would have liked also to mention the odious and dangerous Nazi régime with which we have recently made the first agreement for limitation.
    I come now to the question of air limitation. I would like the Government to reassure the Committee that we are aiming as a first step at a Western air pact of mutual guarantee, and that there is no intention in their mind to make any bilateral agreement with any single Western Power on the question of the air. If the Government can give me that assurance later, I shall be extremely obliged. If I had spoken earlier in the day, I might also have said how sinister I regarded the possible raising of the total tonnage of German submarines to 100 per cent. of our own submarine craft, because the submarine is a weapon which, more than any other single cause in the last War, threatened our existence. To-night we are discussing a weapon which has grown into being an incomparably more terrible and destructive force even than the submarine; one which is able, and, indeed, certain, unless the policy of Europe is mended, to bring death and destruction in their swiftest and most inexorable form, right on to the very hearths of every innocent male and female non-combatant.
    As I am proposing to consume only three more minutes of the time of this honourable Committee, I wish to spend

    1599
    them in asking the Government two questions, asking them and perhaps amplifying them with one or two sentences. The first question is a rhetorical one to which I therefore expect no answer; indeed, I am sure that no answer can be given. It is this: Is it not difficult for a man who tries to examine the position of the Government objectively and candidly to understand their air policy? Is it not almost impossible for one to make up one's mind about the air policy of the Government? We have been constantly assured—conclusively and decisively assured—by the Prime Minister that the lack of a solution of this pressing problem of the air can only mean, sooner or later, the end of our civilisation; on the other hand, we have had the noble predecessor of the new Minister for Air stating—I am paraphrasing what he said—that he regarded it as a ground for satisfaction that he had successfully resisted the public outcry for the abolition of the use of the bombing aeroplane. It is indeed difficult for a man to make up his mind upon the Government's air policy.
    I now come to the second question, which I hope will be answered later to-night by the Under-Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air used the words: "In our position as it is to-day." It is owing to that appeal to realism that I am putting this second question, and I earnestly beg the Government to answer me. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton, who has now left the Chamber, it is upon the answer to this question that I shall determine the way I shall vote to-night. I do not enjoy voting against the Government. It is not a particularly pleasant thing to feel inside one a tug-of-war among several conflicting loyalties. This is the question that I wish to put to the Government: What is their long-range air policy? Are they or are they not in favour of and aiming at an international air police force? Everybody in this Committee knows, whatever detestable forms party propaganda may take in the constituencies, that the Government want war no more than anyone else, and yet war can only be finally destroyed if the policies which have been pursued in Europe become fundamentally different. I know that a strong case can be made out for showing the terrible Hitler and those few men who now determine the misfortunes
    1600
    of Germany that, in terms of short-range policy, we are not going to allow them to outbuild us in the air, and I should not have objected to the increase, the almost mountainous increase, of £5,000,000 which we are discussing, had it been clear that the Government intend to pursue, as their ultimate objective, the only policy which can destroy war in Europe for ever.
    More and more supplementary Estimates will be asked for in one or other of the three Services; more treasure is going to be squandered; more sums of £5,000,000 will be taken from the taxpayer through the medium of the House of Commons, and more sums will be spent on all types of arms until the day when Europe finally makes the League strong. The House of Commons is entitled to ask the Government to support the pooling of security instead of both setting and following the example of aggravating insecurity.
    9.44 p.m.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: The hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) is known to all hon. Members as perpetually sitting on the horns of a dilemma. While we regret that he still has this mental trouble with him to-night, we know that he will not expect me to follow him in his particular purview. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) however raised some question to which I would like very briefly to refer. He spoke of his hope that the Government would press forward with an Air Pact—a hope which, I am certain, is echoed by all Members on the Government Benches, for it is by no means the sole prerogative of the party below the Gangway to encourage the Government in this respect. But there are ways and there are means, and it would appear that the Liberal party below the Gangway are pressing the Government to go forward in exactly the path that will inevitably lead to disaster. That path was laid down with chapter and verse at the League of Nations Union Conference only a fortnight ago, when His Majesty's Government were bidden to proceed energetically and immediately for two things—first, the abolition of military aircraft, and, secondly, the international control of civil aviation. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) urged the Government not to attempt too much,

    1601
    and it is because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen was advocating the right policy, and that the League of Nations Union was advocating the diametrically opposite and wrong policy, that I want to say a word on that subject.
    If we are to achieve anything in the Western Air Pact, we have to fight for that which seems practical. It is obvious that to endeavour to obtain the abolition of military air forces, at a moment when throughout the world they are being increased, would only lead us to that dismal failure which we have witnessed at Geneva during the last few years. Again, the international control of civil aviation seems, unfortunately, to have become the very touchstone of orthodoxy to those who believe in the collective system of security. They speak as though the whole of the problems of international aviation will be solved the moment that civil aviation is internationalised or controlled, but, as those who have read the reports of the Disarmament Conference at Geneva will know, there is no problem that bristles with thornier difficulties than that of the international control of civil aviation. And even if we could achieve that end, would it be worth anything?
    A few weeks ago I saw a suggestion that the position of civil aviation vis-à-vis the military air forces was parallel with that as between the Mercantile Marine and the Royal Navy. But the tonnage of the Mercantile Marine is 30 times that of the Royal Navy. Lest my argument should be voted out of court on account of the small size of the British civil air fleet, let me take France. The French air forces are 30 times the size of the French civil air fleet, so that the comparison of the Mercantile Marine and the Royal Navy with the civil air fleet and the air forces is incorrect in the ratio of 900 to 1. Therefore, this problem of the control of civil aviation is entirely beside the point if we are endeavouring to face realities. On the other hand, it is a vast problem full of the greatest difficulties. That ratio of 900 to 1 will change, and many of us hope that the increase in civil aviation will make it change all the more rapidly, but the process can only be a gradual one, and, therefore, it would be fantastic for His Majesty's Government to expend their efforts in that direction when we have an opportunity of achieving, not abolition, which is impossible, not inter-
    1602
    nationalisation of civil aviation, which would be useless at the moment, but the useful procedure of going forward and attaining, as we have attained in the Naval Pact with Germany, an agreed limitation. It is in the hope that an air pact will constitute an agreed limitation of air forces and avoid the difficulties and dangers of stressing the unreal problem of the control of civil aviation that I suggest the Government should proceed on those lines.
    Many of us in this House have endeavoured for some years to impress upon the Government and upon those who sit with us on these benches the deplorable state of our Air Force, both numerically and, to a certain extent, qualitatively, in comparison with the air forces of foreign Powers, and thus it is with some sense of approval that we see these Estimates to-night. It is not that we would not have wished that the results of the Disarmament Conference had been such that any increase in our awn Air Force and every other could have been completely avoided, but that, unfortunately, was not to be. The Government have faced the resulting issue squarely, and I believe they have behind them the almost unanimous opinion of people throughout the country who are not tied to a party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Little skirmishes may occur, but, if you take the opinion of the average man in the country, it is no part of his policy that we should be defenceless against air attack.
    Having approved of the decision of the Government to increase our air forces, this Committee has another duty, namely, to see that the money which it votes is well spent, and perhaps I may be allowed to call attention to this aspect of the matter. I do so because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) has drawn attention very often to this point during the last two weeks. He has suggested that the cost, or perhaps it would be better to say the value of the money that we shall put into this development, represents a continual struggle between the Air Ministry on the one hand, as representing the taxpayer, and, on the other hand, the aircraft industry and the aircraft manufacturers. Seeing that I have, at one time and another, been a member of both those bodies politic, I may perhaps express one or two recollections to the Com-

    1603
    mittee. At one time I was in the Technical Department of the Air Ministry, and at another I had the honour of manufacturing British aircraft. Needless to say, if I were not able to-night to take an entirely impartial attitude, I should not dream of standing up and addressing myself to this question.In the first place, it is not the fact that the aircraft industry can fix prices in any way. I believe there is more competition among the various units in the aircraft industry than in almost any other industry in the country. The whole crux of the matter is: "What is the official policy?" One of the first suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon advanced, which has been re-echoed elsewhere, is that we ought to have a national aircraft factory. I believe that to be wrong. The whole atmosphere during the War was reeking with suspicion as between the industry and the Air Ministry because the Government were at the same time the judge of the products of the industry and its competitor. I believe that to be an impossible position, and I heartily congratulate the Secretary of State that, as long as the industry does its duty, he is standing foursquare against this development.
    As I look back over the years, what do I suggest are the particular points that the right hon. Gentleman should watch? First, I think we need a little more radical thought in this development. Is this expansion that we are voting to-day to be a mere multiplication of what we have had in the past or is the extra money that we are about to vote to be utilised to face the whole problem on a new and a wider and a better scale? I can put my thoughts into words, because I saw a very interesting analogy not long ago. It was stated in the Press that the Chief of the London Fire Brigade had made a vital departure from practice in taking his firemen from sitting along the side of the fire engine, out in the cold and the rain, and providing them with a shelter and a hood in the front of the chassis. It is fantastic that, all these years after the invention of the motor car, when everyone else rides about under cover, we should have kept our firemen sitting along the side of the engine. But that is the type of persistent anachronism that goes on unless some great mind comes along and com-
    1604
    pletely changes the whole manner of thinking about a particular problem Secondly, I would suggest that, if he could get some great brain, such as Mr. H. G. Wells, who 20 or 40 years ago told us exactly the type of machine that we should be having on our roads and in the air to-day, to give him a specification of the aeroplane that we ought to have in five or 10 years time and he then gave that specification to the practical engineers in the aircraft industry, we should have much finer aeroplanes and much better value for the money that the Committee is asked to vote than if we take up, as we are unfortunately doing, the specifications that we have used for so many years, merely adding 50 miles per hour in speed or a few hundred feet a minute in climb.
    I sincerely trust that the Air Ministry, with the aid of these gentlemen who with such public spirit have come in to help them, will plan a little more ahead than has previously been the case. In spite of the fact that the Secretary of State requires aero engines at a much greater rate than he can obtain them, there is one aero engine factory in the Midlands which is scarcely producing engines at all, and that is because there had not been planning—there were not air frames, the part of the aeroplane other than the engine, coming forward which would take the engines produced by that factory.
    The Air Ministry, as a great technical public service, is clearly divided into many watertight compartments. Each technical officer has his own particular aspect of the problem to guard jealously and with care, and, as a result sometimes and, as I believe, all too frequently, the decisions of these technicians rule the ultimate policy to much too great an extent. I will give the Committee an example of what I have in mind. Some of the Air Ministry technicians a few weeks ago were discussing with other engineers, on a body which has been set up in order to standardise certain dimensions and sizes, a particular aspect of the problem and the attitude of the Air Ministry technicians was definitely this: "We want a certain improvement, and we cannot worry about what it will cost." Some amazement was expressed by the engineers from the industrial side, but that was the point that was maintained. If the Air Ministry insist on technical changes

    1605
    without relation to cost, this programme is going to be much more expensive for the country than it need be, and I hope that all these decisions of a technical nature, by people well down in the Air Ministry hierarchy but nevertheless having a big financial effect in the long run, will be most carefully watched.
    My right hon. Friend stressed his intention of pressing forward research both in the Government establishments and in the industry. If I may separate the two problems, I believe there is not so much need at the moment for research as for specific experimentation. As the result of Air Ministry apathy, this country was left hopelessly behind in the development of the retractable undercarriage, which is now at last being developed even here. We are still behind in the development of the variable pitch air screw, manufactured with success in America, France and Germany. That is the type of problem—a specific engineering problem rather than a general research problem—which we need to investigate. I was delighted that the Secretary of State referred to the generosity of Lord Rothermere in lending the Air Ministry a civil aeroplane, not so much for his Lordship's generosity, as that it definitely stamps the importance to this country and to the air defensive position of the interest that she takes in civil aviation. For too long I believe we have felt that the responsibilities of the Government and of this House ended when we gave Imperial Airways a monopoly for the Empire services. That was a long time ago and it is impossible for anyone to maintain that in 13 or 14 years that system is still imperative for the salvation of British civil aviation. On the contrary, we know that there are many non-subsidised companies who have started, in spite in some cases of the opposition of this great subsidised company, Imperial Airways.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am bound to point out to the hon. Member that there is only a very small vote for civil aviation, and I hardly think that is a new service.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: I only proposed to make a very brief reference to this subject, but it does follow very clearly from what the Secretary of State for Air has said that civil aviation is a material part of the whole of this Vote. He is going
    1606
    to spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds on the Service aircraft developed from this civil aircraft of Lord Rothermere. Therefore, while bowing to your Ruling, I do hope that the Secretary of State for Air will bear in mind this fact which has come to his notice so early in his career at the Air Ministry and that it will enable him, as previously no Air Minister has done, to put development of civil aviation in the forefront of Service policy.
    I should like to express, on behalf of those of us who have fought somewhat for the increase in the Royal Air Force, our indebtedness to the predecessor of the present Secretary of State for Air. Lord Londonderry had a very difficult task during the period he was at the Air Ministry. There is not the slightest doubt that he was endeavouring to bring public opinion and the Government to a realisation of the need for air defence, and I would like, while he is no more there, to thank him and the Under-Secretary of State for Air for all they have done to make this expansion possible. [Interruption.] Yes, I would not be at all ashamed to say that if we had not had this expansion we should have been in a much worse position to maintain our European and world position and to bring to bear such forcefulness as is necessary to back up our spoken word. I was saying when I was interrupted from below me that we are content to leave the matter in the hands of the present Secretary of State for Air.
    10.8 p.m.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: If the Government really needed any justification for the unfortunate steps they are compelled to take at the present time by this very large expenditure, that justification would have been amply found in the two speeches to which we have listened from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander), in seeking every ground to attack the Government, was obliged to turn on the Secretary of State for not having stated on this occasion that we were pledged to support collective security. Surely that point is clear. In view of repeated pronouncements of the Government on this general line of policy, really it was not necessary for the Secretary of State in introducing a Supplementary Estimate with great brevity to underline that particular point yet again.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I did it at the end.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: I omitted to notice that the right hon. Gentleman did it. The other attack was much more unfortunate because the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), speaking for the official Labour Opposition, never appeared to come to grips with realities at all, but instead repeated the charge that this Government stymied air limitation by refusing to abandon the reservation in respect of police bombing. It is amazing that after this specific point was dealt with at great length and in great detail by the Minister for League of Nations Affairs last Thursday afternoon the hon. Member for Govan should have had the nerve to base an attack on that idea. He can refresh his memory from column 616 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of last Thursday's Debate.
    Mr. MACLEAN: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that I was not quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I was about to quote, when I was restrained by the Chairman, the late Secretary of State for Air in another place when he was stating the air policy on 22nd May.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: That is precisely my complaint. There was the Debate last Thursday in this House which he could quite easily have quoted had he wanted to do so.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I had the precise statement of the late Secretary of State for Air. It was only relevant to the point I was making, backed up by the statement of the Government policy at the first meeting of the Air Commission, from the report of which I read and of which, if he was sufficiently interested, the hon. Member might have made a note.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: A lot of water has passed beneath the bridges since then, and that matter was dealt with last Thursday.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The water seems to have wrecked the whole of their peace plan.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: It is obvious that the hon. Member does not mean to deal with realities so I leave it at that. Those of us who do not intend
    1608
    to allow this particular fabrication to pass for honest currency will—
    Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask for your permission, Captain Bourne, to read the extract from the report in the other place to justify the statement I made here? I cannot have it said that I am making a fabrication in this House.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I must adhere to the rule that we cannot quote speeches made in another place during the same session, but I think the hon. and gallant Member had better not use the word "fabrication." Obviously, we cannot debate here what was said in the same session in another place, and it is desirable that Members in all parts of the House should remember that rule, and not transgress it.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: I bow to your Ruling, and if the word "fabrication" was misunderstood, I withdraw it at once. I was referring, not to any statement the hon. Member has quoted, but to the general insinuation—I use that word instead—which is being widely used by the Opposition, and if the hon. Member for Govan refuses to answer that point, all I can hope is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that bench will take an early opportunity of stating their view on this matter. It is intolerable that this insinuation should go on.
    Mr. WILMOT: It is a statement of fact.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: We have had the facts stated clearly in the OFFICIAL REPORT last Thursday, and by that we can agree to abide. For the moment, I leave it at that. I want to refer briefly to one particular point—the possibility of air limitation by agreement. On Thursday last, in anticipation of this Vote, a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) complained that the Government had failed to take advantage of Germany's offer either for limitation or the possibility of the abolition of the air arm. It is true that as long ago as 1933 at the Disarmament Conference, Germany claimed that she was ready, if other people would do the same, to aim at the abolition of air bombing. It is quite true that in his speech of 22nd May Herr Hitler stated in no fewer than six separate paragraphs, some of which were very precise, that he was prepared to aim at the abolition of the air weapon. I never

    1609
    doubted that Herr Hitler would make that pronouncement, and I do not doubt his sincerity in this respect, for the reason that it is clearly wholly in the interests of Germany, if her intention is bad, to secure the maximum limitation of the air arm, or indeed its total abolition. Nothing could suit the German Government better.
    There are a number of reasons for that with which I have not the time to trouble the Committee, but one very great and pregnant one is the geographical position of Germany. Whereas before 1914 Germany, with her paramount Army and her interior lines, was in a position to bully Europe as she wished, that position is totally reversed with the advent of the air arm. Her interior lines and proximity to her frontier of her industrial areas makes Germany, more than any other country, open and susceptible to air attack. If the intention of Germany is bad—and I am not prepared to assume that under the present regime it is otherwise than bad—then it is wholly to the selfish advantage of Germany if she can secure the abolition of the air arm. Therefore, I most earnestly hope that the Government, while making their ultimate objective the total abolition of all armaments, will not be so unwise as to agree to any measure of air disarmament unaccompanied by compensating disarmament in other directions. Do not let us throw away the one great lever that we have of securing general disarmament by weakening that weapon and by frittering it away piecemeal. We all want to secure the abolition of air bombing and air armaments, and the right way to set about it is to couple with it general disarmament, and not to proceed separately.
    10.18 p.m.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am sure that every Member of the House must feel to-night that this is a very shameful business. I do not believe that the Prime Minister or any citizen of this country belonging to any party can fail to contemplate with horror all that is involved in this proposal. I see that in a speech which he made in 1932, discussing this subject with his usual frankness, the Prime Minister said—and I should think that probably from that point of view he said truly—that the only defence is in offence, which means that you have to kill women and children more quickly than the enemy if
    1610
    you wish to save yourself. That may be true. I am quite sure that there is no man or woman in any town, village or city in England, nor, I believe, in any other country, who wishes to smother, destroy and cover with odious and blistering gases the citizens of any other nation. This Vote is the outward and visible sign of the bankruptcy of statesmanship.
    If the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) will attend to me for a moment, I will say, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), that I do not accept that his statement as to the grave responsibility that attaches to the Government for the position into which we have drifted and which has culminated in this horrible Vote, was an insinuation. It was not. It was a statement of fact, and it can, unfortunately, be proved. Whatever share others may have to bear for this dreadful result, all these years after the War, it is undeniable that the action of the Government, by losing one or two precious opportunities of furthering the abolition of the air arm, has eventuated in the present position. The hon. and gallant Member opposite gave us a glimpse of his mind. I believe that had it not been for Service pressure, the Government would have taken a much more definite line with regard to police bombing than they have taken. The hon. and gallant Member's speech was an indication of the attitude that we are not prepared to abolish police bombing until we get a reduction in many other things.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: The right hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I said nothing with reference to police bombing. I was talking about air operation in general.
    Dr. ADDISON: Not about bombing?
    Wing-Commander JAMES: No. I did not refer to police bombing.
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. and gallant Member's speech was a little narrower than I thought. He was referring to the use of aeroplanes, which are the active and offensive part of this business. It was to the abolition of that, that the hon. and gallant Member was objecting, until we get abolition extended into other fields. If you take that line you will not

    1611
    get abolition in anything. I have no doubt that it was the Service pressure that made the Government lose such opportunities as they had, and which gradually has pushed us into this deplorable condition. The Secretary of State was good enough to refer to some criticisms that I have been putting forward, in questions and elsewhere. In dealing with that matter I hope that he will not take my criticism of the methods that are in contemplation and those that have been pursued, as implying any acquiesence in the deplorable policy which has resulted in this Vote. The point of my criticism is that if you are going to spend public money in this way, certain things should apply. The right hon. Gentleman forecast two positions—the peacetime position and the wartime position. With great respect, he was irretrievably wrong in both. He said that his peacetime position—I will try not to misrepresent him—was that we must have an industry strong enough and compact enough to meet Government requirements, and to supply overseas demands.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: All civil demands.
    Dr. ADDISON: All demands. You do not want too large a number of suppliers. That is the method which is being adopted, and in the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee, on 14th May, by the Secretary to the Ministry it appears that the Minister is now proposing to depend for the most part, if not exclusively, on 14 or 15 firms which are included in what is known as the Society of British Aircraft Constructors. The right hon. Gentleman said that they must be able to meet his needs in peace time, as well as oversea orders. Last year only 15 per cent. of the Air Ministry's requirements were obtained on a basis of competitive tender, and it is anticipated, I see, that the forthcoming orders, to use the words employed before the Public Accounts Committee:
    "Will require the whole maximum possible output of all the firms in the industry."
    That, I suppose, would be the case, except that there would be a margin for oversea supplies. I challenge that method of doing this business, deplorable as it is. The right hon. Gentleman—I am not going to imitate his adjectives or
    1612
    adverbs—prefers what he calls a friendly business arrangement, and suggested that I have some hostility to some or all of these firms. I have no hostility to them at all. While they are engaged in the business of making aircraft, they naturally and reasonably expect to make aircraft for a profit, and nobody can complain if they do. I have never said a word against any of these firms, and I do not propose to do so. It is not the firms we are discussing; it is the system. The right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that, somehow or other, by an elaboration of friendly arrangements, these firms will be doing the work practically on a non-competitive basis, that by the advice of these distinguished gentlemen, with some of whom I worked years ago, he is going to get the best terms available.
    When I suggest that he should have powers to investigate costs, I am not talking in the air, because if the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to inform himself, he is now creating the very same position which nearly landed this country in disaster during the War. There was then a small group of firms upon whom the war Services Ministries were accustomed to rely. They took the whole of their output, and they endeavoured to arrive at prices by friendly arrangement—exactly the position which the right hon. Gentleman is now recommending the country to adopt. What happened? Some of the gentlemen whom the right hon. Gentleman has now got with him were not satisfied. In the investigation of costs we were necessarily arriving at a clear statement of fact. For instance, there is a question of overhead charges.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me, or to mislead the Committee. I am quite well aware of the desirability of investigating overhead charges and costs. What I informed him was that Sir Hardman Lever and his colleagues were perfectly satisfied that every one of these firms was going to give to the Ministry the fullest facilities for investigating overhead charges and costs.
    Dr. ADDISON: I sincerely hope that in six months' time they will be satisfied that they have got them. But there are one or two other considerations to bear in mind before the Minister gets into

    1613
    that position. These firms, like every other firm of this type—it is their business and I am not blaming them in the lea—maintain considerable overseas organisations to sell aeroplanes and aeroplane engines. We had the other day the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that some hundreds of aeroplanes and 583 aeroplane engines were sold abroad. I can produce advertisements in foreign journals by British firms which are advertising their wares. I am not blaming them for it. But those things enter into the overhead charges. They also enter into the capacity of the firms to produce. I want the Committee to bear in mind that a good many of the types that are now being produced—all honour to the draughtsmen and ingenious people and the experimentations of the firms themselves—are being developed by the assistance of the Air Ministry and its officers at the experimental stations and so on. I do not fancy developing a system whereby our own Air Ministry at public expense helps to develop efficient types, and then we find a firm that manufactures these or other types encouraged by the Secretary of State to go for overseas orders.
    Mr. DICKIE: Civil aircraft. Why not?
    Dr. ADDISON: Do not let the hon. Member be too sure. We had some very interesting observations from the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake division of Plymouth (Captain Guest), who spoke of the adaptability of civil aeroplanes to military purposes. I do not like it, and I am certain the country does not like it—that our money should be used to assist a monopoly group of private firms in developing types, some of which anyhow are advertised and sold abroad. I am not saying by whom they are sold. It is a very undesirable system. I am not criticising on that ground so far as this Vote is concerned. What I am criticising is the Government making use of this system in the way they are doing. I come now to what actually occurs. I shall not bore the Committee with many details but I will refer to an actual return which was made by the successor of Sir Hardman Lever when he went to the Treasury—Sir John Mann—and I will quote what he actually said to the Treasury in a report to the Treasury on this particular point in April, 1917. This report was asked for, I well remember, by Mr. Bonar Law, who was then
    1614
    Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will refer to what was said about national factories in a minute. This is what Sir John Mann said on the question of cost examinations:
    "Cost examination.—Investigations have been made into the cost of certain goods and services carried out by contractors for the Ministry. Between four and five hundred of these investigations have taken place and are of inestimable value both in negotiating with contractors and for the purpose of forcing prices down."
    He gives an example of a brass stamping investigation which resulted in a saving of £300,000 a year. He goes on:
    "In our estimates for 1917–18 we have taken as the cost of gun ammunition a total of £413,000,000. If we had estimated the cost of the same quantities of this ammunition at the prices ruling in March, 1916, the total would have been £456,000,000"—
    March, 1916, was after the original application of this system had brought about the great reduction in prices already. He continues:
    "—which shows a reduction of £43,000,000. This saving is notwithstanding the increased cost of labour which on a very, very rough calculation is estimated to represent another £28,000,000."
    So that in addition to an additional cost of labour of £28,000,000, by this process which the right hon. Gentleman scorns to adopt, they saved £43,000,000. I claim that the conditions there were absolutely identical with what they are going to be now when the right hon. Gentleman fills up these firms with orders to the maximum of their capacity. There is some collateral evidence which supports my contention, and while I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in obtaining a friendly arrangement—I hope he will have better luck than we had—do not let us forget that when we were trying to make a friendly arrangement on the same basis for exactly this kind of thing, although not for aeroplane engines, this country was engaged in a life and death struggle for its existence, and there was every stimulus in those days to make a friendly arrangement with the utmost expedition. The results I have just quoted from Sir John Mann's report were obtained under those circumstances.
    What does the Stock Exchange think will be the results of this friendly arrangement? We have had some rather illuminating observations on their mind anyhow lately. I see that this is what the "Daily Express" says—and I do not

    1615
    suspect them of being partial to my views—with regard to certain flotations on the 26th June, by a group of underwriters, I suppose:
    "A firm of stock brokers purchased a large number of shares that were being issued by the Bristol Aeroplane Company and others and they resold them. Thus one firm of brokers expects to make £200,000 out of this little deal."
    That was only one item, and I see, judging by a calculation made as late as the 19th July by Mr. Francis Williams of the "Daily Herald" that aircraft flotations inspired by the Government programme, has already resulted in seven new aircraft issues, raising from the public a total of round about £6,450,000, of which about half appears to have gone in profits for the promoters, stock exchange firms, etc. I have no doubt that that is a correct statement. We have seen in the papers every day, more or less, for weeks what is happening about these shares and the enterprising flotations that have been going on. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the capital and sinking fund charges of that £6,000,000 are going into this account. Are Sir Hardman Lever and his friends to be allowed capital and sinking fund charges on £6,000,000 or on £3,000,000? I say that the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled in view of the tragic experience of this country in this business to take the line he is taking. He is setting up a gigantic monopoly and taking the whole of their produce for what is said to be an agreed price. Just as we felt under more dreadful experiences that we had to get more extreme powers, so ought the right hon. Gentleman now—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has now called to my mind powers which will require legislation, and they must not be discussed to-night.
    Dr. ADDISON: The Secretary of State referred to my criticisms and justified the reasons for his not taking these powers. I am sorry that he was out of order, but I was replying to his disorderly speech. Among other disorderly things that the right hon. Gentleman did was to animadvert upon my criticism of this form of expenditure without it being spent through the media of national factories. I will return to that point.
    1616
    The right hon. Gentleman is proposing to spend these millions of pounds—£5,000,000 to-night and £36,000,000 next year on the Air Force Vote—and goodness knows how much it will be after that if this Government happens to be successful at the next election, which, pray God, it will not be. I propose to continue both inside this House and out to point out the assistance which he could gain by the national factory system. I never heard of the little place which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the other day, but it appears to have been very expensive. When he was making his speech I took care to interject a question when these factories about which he talked were built. He said that he thought it was about 1917, and I gathered that some were later. Everybody who knows anything about factory construction knows perfectly well that if you are to make a factory to construct aeroplane engines, you will not get it functioning at an economical rate in a smooth fashion in a year's time. I cannot accept his statement with regard to any one of the three factories which he mentioned without further information. Here are some of the oncosts of one national factory. The actual producers of aeroplanes in this factory were 33 per cent. of the total personnel. There were draftsmen, tracers, wireless testers, wind and water tunnel testers, the publication department, printers, experimental flight officers, experimental engine test stations and all the rest of it. The report goes on to say these were included in the incost of this factory,
    "not forgetting the policemen who search the pockets of the workmen for anything they may have in them and salute every Austin seven that comes along."
    If all these things are included in the oncosts, of course the costs were very large, and I am not prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's glib account of these factory costs. It is no good laughing. I will give the right hon. Gentleman some more facts. The testimony I am now going to give is that of one of the men he has now got. This relates precisely to the national factories. This was what they found out about national factories. This relates not to three factories but 86 national factories. It was by the examination of the costs of production in these factories that we were enabled to bring down the immense prices which had previously

    1617
    been paid to monopolistic firms. It is because of that that I want the right hon. Gentleman to have a few test factories of his own, and it may be well worth his while. This is the official report on these 86 national factories. The capital expenditure of this group was £25,000,000,
    "Goods have been produced at the cost of £33,000,000 which, if they had been bought at contract prices, obtained after the application of the costing system, would have cost £42,000,000, representing a saving of £9,000,000."
    It goes on to say, with respect to a group of 11 factories which cost £1,500,000, that they produced at a cost of £3,500,000 goods which at contract prices would have entailed an expenditure of £6,000,000. In these cases, and these factories had only been built one year and 10 months, the saving was very much in excess of the total cost of the factories. That is to say, the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel, was paid for, and more than paid for, in one year and 10 months. The right hon. Gentleman happens to have some of these people in an advisory capacity. I want them to have something more than advisory powers. I want them to have the same kind of powers as produced these results, but I am afraid he is so overcome by his prejudices in favour of the system of private enterprise that he really has never given this subject fair consideration. I have not exaggerated. Every statement I have made is an under-statement. They were not Socialists the men who devised this system. So far as I am aware they did so because they found it was the businesslike and sensible way of doing it.
    Here let me refer to another question which the right hon. Gentleman dismissed as a somewhat airy aside the other day. I can tell him that I shall not be put off by that sort of thing, either here or outside. I made a suggestion in a question that there should be some pooling arrangement with respect to the purchase of materials and machinery. The right hon. Gentleman would not have it. As a matter of fact, one of the greatest contributing factors to the economy was the centralised system of purchase of supplies, a centralised system for production and distribution, and the order of priority of materials and machinery. If the right hon. Gentleman is taking the whole of the output of these firms, what is wrong with such an arrangement as that? It is
    1618
    a businesslike way of doing it. I also think that if this machinery is to be paid for at this prodigious cost, it should not be used for the manufacture of aeroplanes for people in other countries. We want some assurance on that point. All that the right hon. Gentleman said about that was that there was an adequate system of safeguarding our interests. That is not good enough. If we are to employ the whole of the capacity of these firms, it is the whole of their capacity. Let them be controlled establishments in the same way as they were—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Again, the right hon. Gentleman is going on to matters which would require legislative action to deal with.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid that I am going rather beyond the licence afforded me by the irregularities of the Minister himself. I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman one final word. [Interruption.] I am not going to apologise for taking up the time of the Committee on this matter. We are voting £5,000,000 extra now, and there will probably be many millions more to vote in the future; and when the right hon. Gentleman is beginning this type of expenditure he owes it to himself as well as to the country to investigate without prejudice what was learned when other people had this job to do. He cannot pass it off by flippant answers to questions. That will not do. The right hon. Gentleman has got on his own staff the man who under my instructions pooled the whole thing. When manufacture was scattered and disorganised and being done in a lot of separate places during the War this country had a very indifferent and inadequate supply. It was only under the system which I recommend that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt—if he wants to save public money—urder the direction of Lord Weir in 1917, that we obtained efficient and abundant supplies, with all the powers that I have been talking about. We are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give much closer attention to this matter than he has evidently given to it hitherto. If he does not do so, he is going to establish in this country a very powerful monopoly, trading not only at home but abroad, which will mean that in this deplorable business we shall have growing up a group of powerful vested interests which will make

    1619
    it more and more difficult for the State in the time to come to do its duty by the taxpayer, while at the same time being fair to the manufacturer. It is a very serious thing to contemplate the immense monopoly which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to establish and strengthen in this country. It is wrong—apart from the fact that the whole Vote represents a deplorable failure of policy. I should be glad, although I am not so vain as to think it, if the exhortations and experiences of a small Opposition like ours could make any difference to the right hon. Gentleman. I think it right that Parliament at this time, when it is embarking on this prodigious expenditure, should have recalled to it the terrible misfortune that arose when we pursued this system in time of war.
    10.56 p.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I feel that this subject has been dealt with so exhaustively, both by my right hon. Friend in his speech and now in the speech to which we have just listened, that the Committee will not wish me at this late hour to deal with it at any very great length. Listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison), in which he had not a good word to say for this system, I was reminded that we are dealing to-night with a programme of expansion which, we hope, will be concluded within a couple of years. If state factories were to be put up, whether they were good or bad, quite apart from the dislocation that Would be caused to the industry by removing so many of the skilled craftsmen who are so difficult to come by nowadays, the factories would never be set up in time to carry through the programme which we are discussing.
    Describing the way in which firms are allowed to sell machines to foreign countries, the right hon. Gentleman criticised the system and said it was not good enough; but it was good enough for his Government. We are following exactly the same plan and the same principles as were followed by his Government when we sell machines to foreign countries in exactly the same way. If foreign countries are going to buy aeroplanes, we feel that they might as well buy aeroplanes here and give employment to our people. The right hon. Gentleman
    1620
    has not yet realised what my right hon. Friend said in his speech, that we now have complete powers for the investigation of costs. We have every facility for the inspection of all books, and that we have got those powers by agreement, and not by compulsion, is a good thing.
    I was interested to notice that the right hon. Gentleman was himself advocating this method in one of those numerous and interesting volumes which emanated from his fertile pen during the last few years. In commenting on the powers which he took to investigate costs independently and to prescribe fair prices—under conditions, I would remind the Committee, very different from what they are to-day—he makes in his diary this entry:"I have instructed Lever to keep this in the background, because if we can get what we know are just prices, with reasonable allowances for a fair profit by friendly efforts, it will be all to the good."
    Dr. ADDISON: That was when we had the statutory powers. The fact that you have powers is often one of the best reasons for not requiring to use them.
    Sir P. SASSOON: We have the powers now, but not by compulsion. I turn now to the speech which was made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest), in which he regretted that more money was not being taken in this Vote for civil aviation. He said that although we were embarking on a programme of expansion, civil and military aviation were so closely interlocked that if we took money for civil aviation we should not have to spend so much money on military aviation. As I think we have heard before in this House, the Government, while they are desirous of developing as much as they can the future of civil air transport, are also anxious as far as possible to avoid entangling military with civil aviation. We have adopted that policy, not only on grounds of principle, but because we think it would be definitely detrimental to this great new form of transport if it were subordinated to military aviation, and also on the practical ground that the programme upon which we are now embarking may be called a short-range programme, and, that, therefore, looking ahead for the next five years, to expend the funds at our disposal on civil aviation

    1621
    now, with a view to achieving military ends, would be the most extravagant way of laying out those funds.
    In saying this, however, I am not seeking in any way to controvert the thesis that, in the more distant future, a flourishing aircraft and engine manufacturing industry and a far-reaching system of commercial air transport would have a very definite defence value. That proposition is unchallengeable, and we may hope to see one day, instead of being, as it is to-day, a relative bagatelle, commercial aircraft plying in ever-increasing numbers over all parts of the globe, and vastly outnumbering military aircraft. But, unfortunately, that day is not yet, and to-day we have to face the problem of our defence with an eye to the immediate future; and, with that in view, I think the best way to allocate the funds at our disposal is as is done in this Estimate. Nevertheless, we are determined in other ways to push on the development of civil aviation by all means in our power and within the limits imposed on us. I hope to see Vote 8 rising steadily in the course of the next few years.
    My right hon. and gallant Friend has commented on the fact that we have only taken £500 for civil aviation where we should have taken a larger sum for developing ground organisation and night flying; but I would remind him that in the Estimates presented in March last Sub-head C of Vote 8 showed an increase from £11,000 to £127,000, which I think is a very good and definite sign that this year these very necessary questions of ground organisation and ancillary equipment for which he has so wisely pressed will be dealt with. Then we have the survey, as a result of which we hope, as my right hon. and gallant Friend knows, to get more aerodromes; and I am glad to say that in this matter we have the help of Mr. Frank Pick, than whom no one in this country knows more about questions of transport. We have still another committee sitting to co-ordinate the efforts of the Survey Committee, and its chairman is Sir Henry Maybury, to whom I think we all ought to be grateful for giving the necessary time to this valuable work.
    The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) asked me about the Western Air Pact, and whether we were going into bilateral
    1622
    pacts. Our aim is at the earliest possible moment to achieve this Air Pact, and here I may also answer another question of the hon. Member for West Leeds about our long-range policy and what we are doing about an international police force. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that an international police force is a very visionary thing at the moment. If we could only succeed in getting the Western Air Pact established, that would mean for the moment the international Air Force of Europe.
    The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) said the projected Air Pact had been brought to naught and our discussions at Geneva rendered futile because of our insisting on police bombing. I am glad to have this opportunity, which should not be necessary, of giving a categorical denial to that statement. There is not a shadow of foundation for it. We have pursued this policy of police bombing for the last few years because in outlying parts of the Empire where we have to maintain peace and protect life and property we have considered that we can do it in this way in a cheaper and a more humane manner, but we have always made it perfectly clear—
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the late Secretary of State for Air expressed himself as being glad that he had been able to retain the bombing of native races—I am not quoting his exact words because I dare not—for punitive purposes?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I was just saying that we were anxious to retain this policy of police bombing because we consider that in those parts of the world where we have to maintain peace and order we can do it in a cheaper and more humane manner, but we made it clear that we would give way over the question. May I quote the words of the rapporteur of the Air Committee. In his report he says:
    "The United Kingdom delegation announced that in the event of general agreement on the convention the police bombing reservation would be withdrawn."
    Mr. MACLEAN: What date?
    Sir P. SASSOON: It was in 1934 I think. [Interruption.] What has that to do with it?
    Mr. MACLEAN: If that is in 1934, it does not come from the Air Commission since the Air Commission has not met since 1933.
    Sir P. SASSOON: As a matter of fact I am not sure about the date but this is the latest report, It was quoted only a few days ago by the Minister for League of Nations Affairs and in those circumstances I should not have thought the statement would have been made again to-day and I am glad of the opportunity I now have of contradicting it. [Interruption.] It may not be contradiction to the hon. Member. I do not suppose he wishes to use it as such.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I was about to quote a definite statement made by the late Secretary of State for Air on 22nd May, 1935, but I was not permitted to do so because it meant reading a Debate in another place. This House is being regaled with statements of 1934 and 1932 which have nothing whatever to do with the statement made by the Secretary of State two months ago. I am asking you, Sir, how I can best go about the matter of getting the speech of the late Secretary of State quoted in the House in order to make the statement that I was actually about to make when I was ruled out of order.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know of any method that the hon. Gentleman can use at this moment of quoting
    a speech delivered in another House this Session. As regards quotations from documents on previous dates, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to put what importance on them he likes.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I can only repeat that it has never been our intention and it is not our intention to-day to prevent by any insistence on this Clause any possible limitation of air armaments. We are increasing our air armaments to-day so that we can play our proper part in that system of collective security, and we could not do that while we were so weak. We could not play our part if we were relying on others to protect us, and all we could do was to send them a message wishing them the best of luck. Also it is important to realise that the military forces in the collective system must be sufficiently strong to act as a deterrent against a possible aggressor. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) said that by increasing our air armaments we were betraying the mothers of England and those who suffered in the last War. We would be betraying the people of this country much more if we allowed it to remain unarmed.
    Question put, "That an additional number of Air Forces, not exceeding 11,000, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 224.

    Division No. 282.]

    AYES.

    [11.13 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Dobb e, William

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Edwards, Sir Charles

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

    Gibbins, J.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

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

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Buchanan, George

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cleary, J. J.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Cove, William G.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lawson, John James

    Wilmot, John

    Daggar, George

    Leonard, William

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Answorth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Albery, Irving James

    Bateman, A. L.

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

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

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

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Apsley, Lord

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Burghley, Lord

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Bossom, A. C.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Ba e, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Boyce, H. Lesl e

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Carver, Major William H.

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Remer, John R.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Rickards, George William

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Rosbotham, Sir, Thomas

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montross)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'ts de)

    Copeland, Ida

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Salt, Edward W.

    Crott, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Leckie, J. A.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

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

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Sandys, Duncan

    Cross, R. H.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

    Cu verwell, Cyril Tom

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

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

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

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

    Dickie, John P.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

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

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Maitland, Adam

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Storey, Samuel

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

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

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

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

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Stuart Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

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

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Graves, Marjorie

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Greene, William P. C.

    Munro, Patrick

    Train, John

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Tree, Ronald

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    North, Edward T.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Grimston, R. V.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Turton, Robert Hugh

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Pearson, William G.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Penny, Sir George

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Petherick, M.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torguay)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Powell, Lieut. Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    He lgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Lieut.-Colonel., Sir A. Lambert

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Ward and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Rankin, Robert

    Original Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 41.

    Division No. 283.]

    AYES.

    [11.23 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bossom, A. C.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Albery, Irving James

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Apsley, Lord

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Conant, B. J. E.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred, George

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Ba e, Sir Adrian W. M.

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

    Copeland, Ida

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Burghley, Lord

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Bateman, A. L.

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

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

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

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Cross, R. H.

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Leckie, J. A.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Sandys, Duncan

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

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

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

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

    Maitland, Adam

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Graves, Marjorie

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

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

    Greene, William P. C.

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

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Storey, Samuel

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Strauss, Edward A.

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

    Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Hales, Harold K.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

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

    Harbord, Arthur

    Munro, Patrick

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Harlington, Marquess of

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Pearson, William G.

    Train, John

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Penny, Sir George

    Tree, Ronald

    Heneage, Lieut. Colonel Arthur P.

    Petherick, M.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Horsbrugh, Florence

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

    White, Henry Graham

    Howard, Tom Forrest

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

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Rankin, Robert

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Reid, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

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

    Remer, John R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Rickards, George William

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Ward and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Gibbins, J.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Buchanan, George

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cleary, J. J.

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

    Wilmot, John

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Lunn, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Dobbie, William

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    Edwards, Sir Charles

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Motion made, and Question put:
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,335,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
    the 31st day of March, 1936, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 284.]

    AYES.

    [11.32 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ba e, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Albery, Irving James

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Apsley, Lord

    Bateman, A. L.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Aske, Sir Robert William

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

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Bossom, A. C.

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

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Burghley, Lord

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Rankin, Robert

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Remer, John R.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Rickards, George William

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Colman, N. C. D.

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

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

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Copeland, Ida

    Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

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

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Sandys, Duncan

    Cross, R. H.

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

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

    Cu verwell, Cyril Tom

    Leckie, J. A.

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

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

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

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

    Dickie, John P.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

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

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

    Storey, Samuel

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

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

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Maitland, Adam

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

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

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Train, John

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Tree, Ronald

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

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Graves, Marjorie

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Greene, William P. C.

    Munro, Patrick

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Wells, Sidney Richard

    Grimston, R. V.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

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

    Pearson, William G.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Petherick, M.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pike, Cecil F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Harbord, Arthur

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

    Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel

    Sir A. Lambert Ward.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Edwards, Sir Charles

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

    Gibbins, J.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen

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

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

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Buchanan, George

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cleary, J. J.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

    Wilmot, John

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Lunn, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Dobb e, William

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendments of ss. 2 and 3 of 24 & 25 Geo. 5. c. 54, 25 Geo. 5. c. 12.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    11.42 p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I was informed earlier in the day that if I dared say anything more about cattle I should be prosecuted for cruelty to animals. In these circumstances we had better let the Bill go through.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

  AGRICULTURE (EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN).
  AGRICULTURE (EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (MARRIED MEN).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (MARRIED MEN).
  FIELD TRAP INDUSTRY (WAGES, SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE).
  FIELD TRAP INDUSTRY (WAGES, SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE).
  MIGRATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  MIGRATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (STATISTICS).
  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (STATISTICS).
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AGE PENSIONS.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AGE PENSIONS.
  BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CLERICAL CLASSES).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CLERICAL CLASSES).
TRANSPORT.
  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (CLAIMS).
  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (CLAIMS).
  HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS (ADVANCES).
  HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS (ADVANCES).
  COAL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS).
  ON-LICENSED PREMISES AND CLUBS.
  ON-LICENSED PREMISES AND CLUBS.
  POLICE (RETIREMENT).
  POLICE (RETIREMENT).
  NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS (PLAYGROUNDS).
  NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS (PLAYGROUNDS).
  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES (WOMEN).
  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES (WOMEN).
  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands upon the Paper in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being suspended, and that for the remainder of the Session all Government Bills which are entered for consideration on the Minutes of the Day shall have precedence over other Bills and Notices.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS CONSOLIDATION ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Leith Harbour and Docks, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7), deemed to have been read 2a and to have been reported from the Committee.

AYR COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Ayr County Council, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private

641
Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7), deemed to have been read 2a and to have been reported from the Committee.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CROYDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EASTBOURNE) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HARROGATE) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HUNTINGDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (METROPOLIS WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MORLEY) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CRIMINAL LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFI CATION (DECLARATION OF LAW) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CREDITING OF CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill it will not be necessary to crave more than a very few minutes of your Lordships' time. It is a short Bill; a little technical, but very simple. It seeks to amend in one particular the Unemployment Act of last year which has since been incorporated in the Unemployment Consolidation Act of this year. When I moved on behalf of the Government the Second Reading of last year's Bill in your Lordships' House I said that "the Bill makes the terms of insurance much more generous," and I added inter alia:
"It wipes out the present gap between the school-leaving age and the beginning of the insurance age."
Later in the same debate I used these words:
"Provision is made by which juveniles under sixteen who continue in whole-time education voluntarily, for at least a year, may receive a free credit of contributions."
I ask your Lordships to notice specially those last few words.
Again on the following day, on the resumed debate in your Lordships' House on the same Bill, my noble friend Lord Sankey, speaking from beside the Woolsack, said:
"The problem of unemployment is one which, it is to be feared, will engage not only many Governments but many countries and for many years to come. In such circumstances it is best to endeavour to settle a structure which will stand the test of time, but to be quite prepared to fill in or

643
alter details according to needs and situations which may arise."
Such a course therefore as we are pursuing now is almost foreshadowed in those words. I think it is common knowledge that previous to the introduction of last year's Unemployment Bill, when proposals for lowering the insurance age to the school-leaving age were under discussion, it was the general view, and one held particularly strongly by the local education authorities, that if the age were to be lowered there ought to be a "credit" of contributions for attendance at school beyond the school-leaving age of fourteen years. As your Lordships are aware, this was conceded and the concession is represented by Section 75 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, under which regulations have to be made for crediting with contributions juveniles who voluntarily continue their education after reaching the school-leaving age.
The Act provides that the regulations shall not come into force until September 3, 1935,
"but as from that date shall apply to persons who, having previously (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) attained the age aforesaid, have continued and are then continuing to receive whole-time education."
That provision was in a slightly different form when the 1934 Bill, which first contained the provision in question—the 1935 Act, as I have said, is a consolidating Statute—was going through the House. The relevant clause provided that the regulations about crediting contributions should not come into force until the expiration of twelve months after the coming into operation of the provision lowering the age of entry into insurance, and the date fixed for this latter provision to come into operation was September 3, 1934, or such earlier date as the Minister might by order direct.
When the Bill was going through Parliament, in response to an appeal made by the Party represented by my noble friends opposite, an undertaking was given in another place on behalf of the Government in the following words:
"Children who leave school in July, 1935, will have the advantage of this particular section of the Act. In spite of the fact that they will not have been in school for two years, but only one year, after the coming into force of the Bill, they will become entitled to the full credit of contributions."
644
At that time it was hoped that the lowering of the age of entry would be effected at the beginning of July, 1934. Had that been the case the regulations about crediting contributions would have applied to children who, twelve months from that date—that is, early in July this year—were continuing their education. Subsequent events, however, resulted in the date for the lowering of the age of entry becoming September 3, 1934, instead of the first week in July, 1934. A consequence was that the regulations about crediting contributions could not come into operation until the corresponding date in 1935, and accordingly, on a strict interpretation, those children who finish their continued education at the end of the 1935 school year—that is, in July, 1935—would not be covered. I may say in parenthesis that actually schools in the West of Scotland close down in June. These children would not have been covered even had the earlier date been possible. The present Bill covers them as well as the others, so that noble Lords from Scotland will appreciate that there is no injustice to Scotland here.
It has been suggested that by a generous interpretation of the words of the Statute the making of a regulation would cover the children in question. That, we are advised, is impossible. Benefit is not payable before the age of sixteen and, moreover, in order to qualify for benefit boys and girls must pay actual contributions—ten or more—sufficient to bring their total of contributions up to thirty. But some of them will have reached sixteen before leaving school this summer, others will be approaching that age, and it is certain that unless the law is altered the pledge will have been broken by the early autumn in some cases, and in an increasing number of cases in succeeding months. With that explanation I am sure your Lordships would desire the appropriate credits to be given to boys and girls leaving school this summer. In all the circumstances it has been decided to put the matter right by a brief Bill which is obviously uncontentious.
Perhaps I should just say a word in explanation of the expression used in lines 14 and 15—namely, "the period of four months ending with the said third day of September." It has been thought desirable on the whole to include in the scope of the Bill all children who have been at school at all during the summer

645
term of this year. The expression "term" or "school term" is not regarded as sufficiently established to be used for this purpose. An alternative would have been to mention a fixed date, say, June 1, but on the whole it was thought that the expression actually used in the Bill would have a less arbitrary appearance, and consequently it has been adopted. I would only add that the Bill involves no Exchequer charge. Any expenditure which may arise from its provisions will fall upon the Unemployment Fund and such expenditure, while it cannot be precisely estimated, will certainly be quite inconsiderable. I am glad to have the opportunity of submitting this Bill to your Lordships before the difficulty which it seeks to remedy has caused any hardship to the boys and girls concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a Bill which affects a large number of the working classes, but as it is largely concerned with finance and as, moreover, it has been welcomed as far as it goes by all Parties I think it would be unnecessary for me to give more than the broad outlines of what it does. Your Lordships may remember that in 1931 the Third Report of the Government Actuary revealed that there was a grave danger of the financial breakdown of the whole scheme of national health insurance. A number of measures had been passed previous to that year designed to keep within insurance a number of the unemployed who, because of their unemployment, were unable to pay their contributions; but as unemployment rose it became increasingly obvious that some more drastic step had to be undertaken. Accordingly, in 1930, 1931 and 1932 Bills were passed which relieved the approved societies, partly by putting a limit on the time during which the unemployed could draw benefits without making any contributions and partly by increasing the burden on the Exchequer.
646
These Bills were admittedly emergency measures, and it was contemplated then that a further review of the situation would take place before the year 1936. This review has now been made. If no Amending Bill were passed about 200,000 people would go right out of insurance at the end of this year, and about 5,000,000 would suffer reductions or suspensions of cash benefits unless they paid up their arrears. Fortunately to-day the economic position of the country is much stronger than it was in 1932, and so is the position of the approved societies. The income of these approved societies in 1934 was greater than was the income of the same societies in 1932 by reason of the increased contributions to the extent of £2,375,000—or put in another way 30,000,000 weeks more work was done in 1934 than in 1932.
Briefly, this is what the Bill does. Firstly, it maintains the existing provision whereby all insured persons who become unemployed and cannot pay their contributions by reason of unemployment may continue to enjoy full pension and insurance rights for a period of twenty-one months. After the expiration of the twenty-one months they are differently treated according to how long they had been insured before becoming unemployed. Those who have a period of ten years full insurance to their credit continue to enjoy for a further unlimited period all their pension rights and all their medical benefits; all they lose are cash benefits connected with sickness or disablement. Those who have only four years insurance and 160 contributions to their credit are entitled after the first twenty-one months to a further period of one year during which their pension rights are maintained. I need hardly mention that all persons who get work again during these periods and pay the statutory number of contributions are immediately restored to full insurance and pension rights.
There remains a further class of persons who, by reason of the casual nature of their employment or for other reasons, become in arrears with their contributions, although they do pay when they can. At present half these arrears are excused, but unless the other half is made up either by the insured person or his society cash benefits are reduced on a sliding scale. Now it is proposed, as from June, 1934, to excuse all arrears in

647
full. This concession will ensure, firstly, that any person who remains unemployed throughout a pre-insurance period will suffer no reduction of benefits during that period by reason of unemployment; and, secondly, prevent any reduction from the benefits of the very large number of persons who, though in fairly regular employment, have varying periods of unemployment in the course of a contribution year. That is a very rough sketch, but I think it indicates the nature of the major provisions of the Bill. There are other minor amendments in the existing law.
I have one addition to make, which has arisen owing to the debate in another place. I must refer to a question relating to the powers of the referees under the Contributory Pensions Act, which, as I said, was raised in another place. It was there stated that the effect of an alteration by this Bill of the phraseology which has appeared in previous Acts was to withdraw certain types of cases from the pension referees. The representations made have been considered, but the matter is not so simple as was suggested. A question of interpretation is involved, and the English referees have adopted one interpretation and the Scottish referees another. It is obviously desirable that the Act should be applied in the same way in the two countries. The interpretation adopted by the English referees is in accordance with the intention of the framers of the Contributory Pensions Act of 1925, and the changes in phraseology to which exception was taken in another place were adopted to make the legal position conform beyond question with the intention. I think it will be seen from an examination of the Bill that it is a Bill which bristles with technicalities, and in offering to answer any questions that may be put I do so with a certain reserve. I think I have said enough to show that, even if the position of the unemployed from a health insurance point of view is not yet ideal, it is immensely better than it was, and in those circumstances I confidently recommend the Bill for Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH (WATER AND SEWERAGE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the object of this Bill, which is a very short one, is to extend the maximum period of repayment of money borrowed by Scottish local authorities for the purpose of water supply and sewerage schemes. Under the general law contained in the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, the maximum period of repayment is at present thirty years. This Bill proposes to extend that period to sixty years, subject to some degree of Departmental control. Schemes are now being developed in the interests of efficiency and, ultimately, of economy, on a regional basis, and the present period of thirty years is often unnecessarily short, especially as the effective life of the capital work under regional schemes is considerably in excess of that period. Certain local authorities that desire to proceed with important and much needed schemes have made representations that the restriction to thirty years is proving a barrier to the carrying out of their proposals. The Bill will give Scottish local authorities substantially the powers that local authorities have in England and Wales, and it will give to the authorities by general legislation powers that a number of authorities have in fact obtained under Local Acts. The Bill proposes in the interests of future ratepayers that the Department of Health for Scotland shall fix the actual period of repayment in excess of thirty years. The position of local authorities under existing legislation is not, however, altered in any way. If a local authority does not desire to borrow over more than thirty years it will not require to come to the Department at all. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona, and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 9 [Licences to mark bottles]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move, in the proviso in subsec-

649
tion (1), to leave out "for the purposes of this subsection," in order to insert the words "by virtue of this section. "This is a drafting Amendment. The word "subsection" at the top of page 10 should obviously read "section" and I am advised that the proper way to amend this word in order to get the sense that is required is to move the Amendment which I have just indicated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 9, page 9, line 41, leave out from ("prescribed") to ("shall") in line 1 of page 10 and insert the words ("by virtue of this section").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments (Privilege) made.
Bill passed, and seat to the Commons.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order)
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 13
Duty of local authority to secure redevelopment of areas in certain cases.
13.—(1) If a local authority are satisfied, as a result of an inspection carried out under Section one of this Act or otherwise, that their district comprises any area in which the following conditions exist, that is to say,—

(a) that the area contains fifty or more working-class houses;

(b) that at least one-third of the working-class houses in the area fall within any one or more of the following categories, that is to say—

(i) overcrowded and with less accommodation than three apartments;

(ii) unfit for human habitation, and not capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered so fit; and

(iii) so arranged as to be congested;

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out sub-paragraph (i). The noble Duke said: The effect of this Amendment would be that a working-class area could be scheduled for redevelopment on account of one-third or more of the houses in-eluded in it being unfit for human habitation, and being so arranged as to be congested, but not merely because one-third of the houses are one- or two-roomed houses which are overcrowded according to the standards of the Bill. That would seem to be unreasonable. They may contain every up-to-date convenience, they
650
may be in the best of repair, but if at the time that they are inspected the persons living in them exceed by the smallest number those permitted under the Bill, the whole of an area of not less than 50 working-class houses must be scheduled for redevelopment, and the local authority are to be compelled to do this however uncrowded and however up-to-date and admirable in all other respects the other houses in the area may be. I think the Government, in an. Amendment to Clause 14, desire to make it possible that some of the houses in an area proclaimed for redevelopment should be retained for their existing purpose instead of all of them having to be pulled down as appeared formerly to be the purpose of the clause. Even so, Clause 13 will surely provide an inducement to an extravagant authority to embark upon schemes that are not really necessary, and are extremely costly to the Exchequer, to the ratepayers and to the owners concerned.
If one-third of the houses in an area are overcrowded surely the most sensible thing to do is to move the occupants at the earliest possible moment into bigger houses and then to offer the one-roomed or two-roomed houses to single persons or old couples. Our main problem is a shortage of houses, and although the chief demand may be for three-roomed or four-roomed houses, we cannot afford to give local authorities the temptation to pull down one-roomed or two-roomed houses that may be in excellent condition and quite up-to-date. The Government, I know, made a concession on this subsection in another place so that it only refers now to one-roomed and two-roomed houses, but if there were good reasons for making that alteration in another place I think there are equally good reasons for doing the thing handsomely. Even now the Government can oblige local authorities to embark on numerous schemes of redevelopment. I hold that all house property in good condition is so valuable to the community that no inducement—still less an obligation—should be placed on anyone to destroy it.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 4, leave out ("sub-paragraph (i)").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Duke referred to the Amendment made in another place

651
which secured that the houses we are now concerned with should not only be overcrowded but should have not fewer than three rooms. I cannot help feeling that that—as he has admitted to a certain extent—should remove his fears. As the paragraph now stands it must be shown by the local authority that redevelopment is necessary for the reason that the houses are too small to accommodate on an uncrowded basis the families who because of the social and industrial conditions of the locality must continue to live there. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, because to eliminate overcrowding as a factor in the determination of a redevelopment area would to a very large extent wreck the purpose of the whole redevelopment provisions of the Bill. It would reduce the basis for determining a redevelopment area to one containing only unfit and congested houses. But the aim is not merely to clear away unfit and congested houses. If it were, local authorities have already sufficient powers under the clearance area provisions of the 1930 Act for that purpose. The aim is to secure redevelopment of an area on lines which will adequately meet the industrial and social requirements of the district.
That is made clear by the following paragraphs in the clause, paragraphs (c) and (d), under which a, local authority is required to show, before redevelopment can proceed:
"(c)that the industrial and social conditions of their district are such that the area should be used to a substantial extent for housing the working classes; and
"(d)that it is expedient in connection with the provision of housing accommodation for the working classes that the area should be redeveloped as a whole."
For this reason overcrowded houses must be included in the redevelopment operations. If overcrowded, they are manifestly too small to provide accommodation according to the standard for the families who on account of the industrial needs of the district roust continue to live in that area. The only solution, therefore, is to replace them by larger houses more suited to the needs of the families in question. Our object is to get rid of the small, badly arranged, insanitary houses, and if we accepted this Amendment our object would be put back.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am not at all satisfied with the reply given by the noble Lord. It does seem absurd to pull down small houses which can house small families properly. It is perfectly ridiculous to say that every family in a rural area is a large one. As I have said, I am quite certain that the proper thing to do is to put the bigger families in the bigger houses and the smaller families into smaller houses which are quite big enough for them. There are quite a lot of rules and regulations to ensure that they are good and sanitary houses. It is only waste of public money to pull down these houses, and it is bad luck for small families, when the household consists perhaps of only husband and wife and no children, that houses which would suit them are to be pulled down. I must ask your Lordships to divide upon this Amendment.
On Question, Whether sub-paragraph (i) shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Denman, L.

Stanhope, E.

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

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Strafford, E.

Greville, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Mersey, V.

Newton, L.

Northumberland, D.

Playfair, L.

Alness, L.

Polwarth, L.

Bath, M.

Alvingham, L.

Rennell, L.

Bayford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Breadalbane and Holland, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Munster, E. [Teller.]

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Morton, E.

Lamington, L.[Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Sandys, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rothes, E.

Lindsay, E.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.) [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amend-merit disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Redevelopment plan]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: All the Amendments to this clause are purely drafting and consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 38, leave out from ("indicating") to the end of the subsection and insert ("the manner in which it is intended that the defined area should be laid out and the land therein used, whether for existing purposes or for purposes requiring the carrying out of redevelopment thereon and in particular the land intended to be used for the provision of houses for the working classes, for the erection of shops, for streets, and for open spaces")
Page 10, line 18, leave out ("to the redevelopment indicated by the plan")
Page 11, line 10, after ("redeveloped") insert ("or used")
Page 11, line 20, after the first ("redevelopment") insert ("or use")
Page 11, line 21, after ("redevelopment") insert ("or use").—(Lord. Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Purchase of land for the purposes of redevelopment.
(2) It, shall be the duty of the local authority within the appropriate period specified in this subsection either to enter into agreements with the approval of the Department for the purchase, or to make and submit to the Department orders for the compulsory purchase, of all land in the redevelopment area other than land in respect of which the local authority have within that period made arrangements with other persons for the carrying out of redevelopment in accordance with the redevelopment plan.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (2), after the second "redevelopment," to insert "or for securing the use of the land." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is practically consequential. The subsection as drafted enables the local authority, instead of acquiring a piece of land in a redevelopment area, to arrange with other persons to carry out the proper redevelopment. The Amendment extends this provision to cover the case where redevelopment is not required and all
654
that is necessary is to secure that the existing use of the land continues unchanged.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 9, after ("redevelopment") insert ("or for securing the use of the land").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 42, after ("redeveloped") insert ("or used").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
"(6) When the Department's approval of a redevelopment plan has become operative and the plan comprises any land of the local authority, the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to that land as if it had been land in the redevelopment area purchased by the authority under this section."
The noble Lord said: The powers of a local authority to deal with property in a redevelopment; area are expressly related to land in the area purchased by the authority, by Clause 15 (4) and Clause 16 (3). There will often be cases where a redevelopment area contains property already belonging to a local authority, and, unless the authority have the same powers—for instance, of closing streets and removing pipes, cables and so on—in relation to the land already belonging to them as they have in relation to the land they purchase, they would be hampered in carrying out the redevelopment. This Amendment therefore puts all the land in the redevelopment area belonging to the local authority, whether by purchase under the Act or by previous acquisition, on the same footing.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 43, at end insert the said s bsection.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Application of certain provisions of the Acts of 1925 and 1930 for purposes of redevelopment provisions]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to insert at the beginning of the clause:

655
"(1) The provisions of Section thirty-two of the Act of 1925 (which relates to expenses incurred in connection with certain orders) shall have effect in relation to a redevelopment plan and to a new plan and to the Department's approval of any such plan and in relation to a compulsory purchase order made under the last foregoing section, as they have effect in relation to the orders mentioned in the said section."
The noble Lord said: Section 32 of the Act of 1925 enables the Department to award expenses to objectors who have appeared at public local inquiries in connection with clearance orders and compulsory purchase orders and whose objections have later been sustained by the decision of the Department on the order. It is desirable that the Department shall have a similar power to award expenses in the case of a person who successfully objects against a local authority's proposals in regard to redevelopment, and this Amendment gives the Department that power.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 1, at the beginning insert the said subsection.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: These are two drafting Amendments.:
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 23, after ("mentioned") insert ("and to publication of notice thereof under that Act")
line 27, at end insert ("and to publication of notice thereof under this Act").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Scottish Housing Advisory Committee.
22.—(1) The Department shall appoint a Committee, to be called the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, for the purpose of—
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"(d) considering the operation of the enactments relating to housing and making to the Department such representations with respect to matters of general concern arising in connection with the execution of those enactments as the Committee think desirable."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It is designed to give the Advisory Committee some initiative. As the Bill is drawn, I am advised that the Committee can only deal with matters referred to them and cannot exert any initiative in enquiring into conditions other than those referred to them. Therefore, if the Committee are to have any real use in looking into questions of housing in Scotland and also advising the Department on the various points that come along in relation to this Bill, it is necessary to have this Amendment included.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, lima 11, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The appointment of advisory committees is a familiar feature of modern legislation, and in fact much use has been made of these committees by the Government in Scotland. The functions of the Advisory Committee have hitherto been limited to the giving of advice on matters Which are specifically referred to them for consideration. The Amendment, which seeks to give the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee to be set up under the Bill the power to initiate recommendations, therefore raises an entirely new principle. After careful consideration, however, the Government are prepared to accept the principle, but they would like to have an opportunity of considering the exact wording of the Amendment. If, therefore, the noble Lord will withdraw it, the Government will undertake to put down another Amendment for consideration at the Report stage which will embody the proposal that he has in mind in a more convenient form.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: I thank the noble Lord for his consideration, and under the conditions which he has mentioned, I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I beg to move the next Amendment on behalf of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. I think his object is explained by the words in print.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 11, at end insert:
("(d) reporting to the Department as to the effect of this Act on the housing of rural workers who occupy houses as part of their remuneration").—(Viscount Mersey.)
LORD POLWARTH: I hope the Govern-merit may see their way to treat this Amendment in the same way as the preceding one. If so, it will be quite unnecessary to say anything in support of it. It is pretty well admitted that the position of the rural workers occupying their houses as part of their wages is exceptional and that it is not provided for in the Bill.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The Government appreciate the object of this Amendment and the anxiety of those noble Lords who support it to secure that the very difficult problem of dealing with the tied houses under this Bill will be adequately provided for. This matter was raised on a similar Amendment moved in another place. The Government could not accept that Amendment having in view that it was already covered by the general terms of paragraph (c) of the subsection which enables the Department of Health to refer to the Advisory Committee any question whatsoever arising in connection with the administration of the Housing Acts. What the Government did do, however, was to go even farther than is now proposed, and amend the Bill to provide for the appointment of a special Sub-Committee which would deal with the rural housing problem in all its aspects. This provision is to be found in subsection (2) of the clause. With this explanation, and with the assurance that it is definitely the Government's intention to seek the advice of the Committee at an early date with regard to the further steps which should be taken in connection with rural housing, including the housing of farm servants and others living in tied houses, the noble Marquess will probably see his way not to press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Definition of housing association]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to leave out "For the
658
purposes of the three next succeeding sections of this Act the expression 'housing association' means" and insert "For references in the Act of 1925 and in the Act of 1930 to a public utility society shall be substituted references to 'housing association,' that is to say."
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 21, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("any") in line 23, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Power of local authorities to make arrangements with housing associations]:
LORD HUTCHI SON OF MONTROSE LORD HUTCHI SON OF MONTROSE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"(5) If a housing association represent to the Department that they have submitted to the local authority proposals for arrangements under this section and that the local authority have unreasonably refused to make arrangements in accordance with the proposals, the Department may require the authority to furnish them with a report as to the matter stating the reasons for their refusal."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is a simple Amendment. It deals with the question of a housing association which has been unfairly met by the local authority when it asks to make certain arrangements. The Amendment allows the association to appeal to the Department for adjudication on the matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 43, at end, insert the said subsection (5).—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The Government accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after Clause 26, to insert the following new clause:
"Unification of conditions affecting housing associations' houses.
27. Where the Department have undertaken to make in respect of any houses under the management of a housing association contributions under more than one enactment and the association are required

659
to observe in the management of the houses varying special conditions or terms imposed by those enactments, the Department may, on the application of the association and after consultation with any local authority who are under obligation to make grants or contributions in respect of any of the houses, make a scheme specifying, as conditions to be observed in the management of all the houses in substitution for the conditions or terms imposed as aforesaid, such conditions as they think fit, and in specifying the conditions to be so observed the Department shall have regard to the provisions of Part IV of this Act with respect to the conditions which a local authority are required to observe in relation to their houses."
The noble Lord said: This new clause will enable housing associations to obtain the advantages of consolidation of subsidies and unification of rent conditions, which the Bill confers on local authorities. The consolidation and unification are not compulsory, as in the case of local authorities, but are to be effected by a scheme made by the Department on the application of the association, and after consultation with any local authority making contributions to the association. In framing the scheme, the conditions which attach to the unification of local authorities accounts will be applied to the association as far as feasible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Amendments of the Act of 1925, as to public utility societies, etc.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The first Amendment to this clause is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 5, leave out from ("association") to the end of the subsection.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 23, leave out from ("persons") to the end of line 26, and insert: ("the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2):
('(2A) An advance for any of the purposes specified in subsection (1) of this section shall be secured with interest thereon by a heritable security over the land
660
and dwelling-houses in respect of which that purpose is to be carried out and of such other land and dwelling-houses (being houses which have been constructed or made suitable for the working classes by the company, society, association or person receiving the advance) if any as may be offered as security for the advance.')
(5) In the said Section seventy-three the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (5):—")—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My other Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 42, leave out ("a heritable security over any land or dwelling-houses") and insert ("such a heritable security as is mentioned in subsection (2A) of this section").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Review of Exchequer contributions in case of new houses provided at future times]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 35, leave out ("alterations") and insert ("alteration").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33:
Amendments of 16 & 17 Geo. 5 c. 56. 21 & 22 Geo. 5c. 22.
33.—(1) Subsection (2) of Section two of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926 (which relates to the power of local authorities to make grants or loans under the said Act), as amended by the Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Act, 1931, shall have effect as if the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, were therein substituted for the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, and Section four of the said Act (which relates to Government contributions to expenses of local authorities under the said Act) shall have effect accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight" and insert "the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty."
The noble Marquess said: I propose by

661
this Amendment that the duration of the Act of 1926, the Rural Workers Act, shall be extended from June 24, 1938, to October 1, 1940. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill told us last week that the appointed day is a very long way off and he also told us that the grants are being continued for an extended period up to June, 1938. It does not sound a very long extension, especially if the appointed day is not going to be for a long time, and it seems to me a great pity that the advantages of the 1926 Act should not be continued during the whole time before the appointed day arrives. I rather gather also that June 24, 1938, is not quite consistent with the statement of the noble Lord that the appointed day is a very long way off. I therefore suggest that we should get the advantages of the Rural Workers Act of 1926 up to October 1, 1940, which practically gives us five years from what will be the passing of this measure.
I do not like the suggested date, Jane 24, 1938, which has no sense at all in Scotland in relation to building operations in Scotland. Obviously October 1 is a far more satisfactory date for completing buildings in the course of construction, in time for the term day. My main point is that the period during which the 1926 Act enables authorities to help the improvement of existing houses shall be extended at any rate as late as the appointed day, and as the appointed day cannot be very soon I suggest 1940 instead of 1938. I am aware that this involves more expenditure by the Government, but. I venture to think that if the principle is accepted in this House the Government would have no difficulty in moving consequential Amendments in another place.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 20, leave out ("the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight" and insert ("the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty ").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. As the noble Marquess has just stated, the grants under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act were instituted in 1926, their operation was continued in 1931, and the Bill as it stands proposes a further extension till June, 1938. Undoubtedly, as noble Lords would all agree, the grants have been of the utmost
662
benefit for the improvement of rural housing, but the Government could not at this stage undertake to continue their operation until a date so far ahead as October 1, 1940. Perhaps I may remind the noble Marquess that the whole question of the revision of subsidies under this Bill is to come up for review in any case in 1938, and in that year the position will be reviewed in respect of subsidies payable for slum clearance and decrowding as well also as for the improvement of rural housing. The noble Marquess will, I hope, agree that, having regard to the proposals for the consolidation of subsidies under the Bill, any review should extend to the whole field of housing finance, which should be dealt with as a whole at the same time. The Government have made no financial provision for this proposal, and a new Financial Resolution would be necessary for this purpose. In these circumstances, I hope the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I thank the noble Lord for his sympathetic reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"(In paragraph (e) of Section eight of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, there shall be substituted for sub-paragraphs (ii), (iii) and (iv) the following:—

(ii) If at any time within the period during which conditions apply by virtue of this Act in relation to the dwelling, compensation becomes payable by the landlord to the landholder under the said Small Landholders Acts in respect of permanent improvements including the dwelling, such compensation shall on the application either of the landholder or of the landlord or of the local authority be assessed by the Land Court;

(iii) In assessing such compensation the Land Court shall fix the proportion thereof, if any, which is in their opinion attributable to the grant, and the proportion so fixed shall not be payable to the landholder, but shall (a) if the holding is let to a new landholder be treated as a grant to such new landholder, or (b) if the holding is to be held otherwise than by a new landholder be treated as a grant to the landlord.

Provided that—

(a) If the holding is let to a new landholder who has not paid the compensation payable by the landlord to the outgoing landholder the new landholder shall be

663
entitled notwithstanding the rent agreed between the landlord and him, and notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of Section six of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, and subsection (6) of Section seven of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, as amended by the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, to apply to the Land Court to fix the rent payable for the holding and the Land Court in fixing such rent shall not during the period during which conditions apply by virtue of this Act in relation to the dwelling allow any rent in respect of such proportion of the compensation as is attributable to the grant; or

(b) If, and so long as, the holding shall be held otherwise than by a new landholder, the dwelling shall be subject to the conditions prescribed by Section three of this Act."

The noble Marquess said: I think this is an important Amendment. Clause 33 seeks to amend in certain regards the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, as amended by the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1931. That Act relates, among other matters, to the power of local authorities to make grants or loans to owners of a certain class of dwelling houses in order to permit the improvement of the house on account of which grants are made. Under paragraph (d) of Section 8 of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, when the occupier of the dwelling is a statutory landholder it is for such landholder, and not the landlord, to apply for a grant from the local authority, and for all other purposes in question the landholder or his statutory successor, and not the landlord, is deemed to be the holder of the dwelling. "Statutory successor" means any person who has succeeded, or may succeed, to a holding as heir-at-law or legatee to the landholder.
The matter to which this Amendment is directed arises only when the person to whom a grant is made by the local authority is a landholder. Even then, so long as the original landholder to whom the grant was made or his statutory successor remains in occupation of the holding, no difficulty arises, but when the landholder or his statutory successor renounces the holding, then the question may arise of compensation by the landlord to the landholder on account of permanent improvements effected during his occupation. But, a part of such improvement having been paid for by the grant made by the local authority to the outgoing landholder, plainly such outgoing
664
landholder is not entitled to claim compensation from the landlord for that part of the improvement for which he, the landholder, has paid nothing.
As the matter now stands, and as it will remain if this Bill as at present drafted becomes law, the position is governed by Section 8 (e) of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. That Act provides that where a landholder or his statutory successor renounces his holding, and compensation to the landholder falls to be paid by the landlord, the amount of such compensation shall be fixed by the Land Court, which has also to determine the proportion of the compensation attributable to the grant. The Act further provides that the landlord is not to pay such proportion to the landholder, but then, surprisingly enough, the Act goes on to say that where the local authority demands it, that grant shall be paid forthwith by the landlord to the local authority. Those of your Lordships who may be unfamiliar with the matter will now see what may occur, and is in fact already occurring, and will understand the grave injustice that is being done and will continue to be done in increasing degree unless Clause 33 of this Bill is amended.
Without reference to the landlord, and often enough without even his knowledge, the landholder in occupation goes to the local authority, submits his proposal, obtains a grant and carries out the improvement. In course of time the landholder renounces his holding and the landlord finds himself mulcted in the extent of the grant, given not to him but to the landholder, which the landlord is forced to pay back to the local authority. That kind of thing is going on to-day, and, having regard to the large number of grants made to landholders, it will be realised that landlords find themselves confronted by very heavy contingent liabilities which, if they mature, may inflict severe financial straits upon those who have done nothing to deserve them. By this Amendment I am not seeking to make a present to the landlord of the values represented by the work paid for by the grant. What I propose is, in effect, that the grant, or rather the improvement by which the grant is represented, shall continue to be enjoyed by the person for whose benefit Parliament and the local authority

665
authorise the making of it—namely, the occupier of the dwelling. In other words, it is almost true to say that I am suggesting that the grant should be given, not to any landholder or other person, but as it were to the house itself—that it should be attached to the house.
Let me summarise quite briefly the contingencies which may arise if this Amendment is accepted, and the manner in which they would be met. First of all, if a new landholder can be found to take over and pay for the outgoing landholder's improvement, he will pay for the loan a proportion attributable to the grant, that is to say he will get the benefit of the grant in the same way as if the grant had been made to him. Or again, if the landlord is unable to find a new tenant to take over and pay for the improvement and has, as a consequence, to let the holding as an equipped holding, then the landlord will pay for the improvement, under deduction of the proportion attributable to the grant, and the new tenant can immediately demand to have the rent fixed by the Land Court who, in fixing the rent, are to disregard any improvement attributable to the grant. In this way again, the new tenant will get the full benefit of the grant. Again, if the landlord cannot let the holding under the Small Landholders Acts then the position is this. He will have to pay the outgoing tenant for his improvement, under deduction of the proportion applicable to the grant, and the grant will be regarded as having been given to the landlord, and the house, if let, will be a controlled house under the previous Housing (Rural Workers) Act.
There remains one further contingency which, although I do not think it likely in practice to arise, is one with which I think I ought to deal. What will be the position if the landlord himself takes over the holding? Under such circumstances it will appear there are but two ways in which the croft could be farmed. Either the landlord will live in the dwelling-house himself and farm the croft, or he will put into the dwelling-house a, servant who will farm the croft for him. If the landlord occupies the croft, and if he is not in the financial position of an agricultural worker, then under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act he would require to repay the loan, so the position there is secure. If, on the other hand, the landlord puts in a servant to farm the
666
croft, such servant would certainly be, one would imagine, of the agricultural class, and therefore a perfectly suitable occupant for a house in respect of which a grant has been made.
If the Bill, as drafted, becomes law, two things will, I submit, happen, neither of which ought to happen. The first is that in certain cases grants that have been properly and lawfully given will, for no sufficient reason, be withdrawn, and to that extent the declared policy of Parliament will be stultified. The second is that a real and substantial injustice will be done. I have in this Amendment suggested what I consider is a reasonable and practicable manner of removing that injustice. I hope very much that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will be able to say he can meet me by accepting this Amendment, or by making some suggestion perhaps at a later stage of the Bill to deal with a situation which I am perfectly certain is not at this moment in this Bill in a condition at all satisfactory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 23, insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
THE EARL OF BREADALBANE AND HOLLAND: I should like to support what the noble Marquess has so ably said. This is a very important Amendment, particularly to the North of Scotland, and unfortunately certain noble Lords who intended to speak in support of it have not been able to get here. As the noble Marquess said, the gist of the Amendment is that the grant should be attached to the holding and not to the man who happens to be there for the moment. If this Amendment is not accepted it will throw a very heavy and very illogical liability on the proprietor, because at any moment the landholder may give up his holding after statutory notice and, as things stand at present, the Land Court may call on the proprietor to refund to the local authority the grant that has been made, but in the genesis of which he had no say and in the details of which he was not necessarily consulted. I hope very much that noble Lords will support this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I should like to add my support to this Amendment.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The speech delivered by the noble Marquess in moving this Amendment will have revealed to your Lordships the extraordinarily complicated state of affairs which exists regarding this question in Scotland. I cannot, I am afraid, accept the Amendment as it stands, for various reasons into which I need not enter because I want straight away to assure my noble friend, first of all, that the Government are grateful to him for moving this Amendment and for drawing attention to this anomaly. As he stated at the end of his speech, it is quite obvious that something has got to be done to remedy this state of affairs. The Government recognise that the application of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in relation to the cases of small-holders requires revision, but they feel that the Amendment of the noble Marquess would leave the position still unsatisfactory in that the conditions imposed under Section 3 of the Act of 1926 cannot possibly be applied in these cases. This is equally true in the case of all cottages where no rent is paid by the occupier, as, for example, farm servants' cottages.
The Government, however, intend to take the earliest opportunity of making the necessary Amendments in the law for the purpose of clearing up the whole position and putting the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, so far as these matters are concerned, on a proper footing. In the meantime they do not anticipate that very real hardship will result to landowners, since the cases involving the return of grants under the Acts to local authorities and the Exchequer are few in number and the sums at issue are small. With this assurance that the Government realise the urgency of this problem, I very much hope that the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I am most grateful to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for his reply. I should like to say this in parentheses, that I am not attracted by the excuse that the injustice is likely to be confined to a few cases and the sum involved is small. I greatly hope that the Government will see their way to expedite the legislation required to correct this matter, and I hope they will carefully consider the practicability of making
668
such provision retrospective in order to ensure that the injustice already done, or which may be done between now and the time the legislation becomes effective, will be remedied. With these words, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"() Where assistance has been given by a local authority under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, and the local authority are satisfied that the dwelling-house is maintained in an adequate state of repair no further works shall be required to be executed by the owner during the remainder of the period during which the conditions laid down in Section three of the said Act of 1926 apply to that dwelling-house."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is very similar to the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Polwarth on Clause 1, but it is considerably wider in scope. That Amendment affected only tied farm cottages. This Amendment applies to everyone who has taken advantage of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. These Acts have been, as was pointed out on the Second Reading, of immense benefit to Scotland, more especially in the Lowlands and the Central Highlands. Under these Acts, owners and owner-occupiers can receive from the local authority grants or loans or grants and loans in order that they should recondition their cottages if the cottage does not exceed a value of £400. For these privileges these houses are "thirl," as we say in Scotland, to the local authority for twenty years. The local authority can fix the rent, if rent is payable, and they can decide the class of occupant, who must be a rural worker or a worker in similar circumstances; and it has been held that that definition, which is a very wide one, includes miners. It will surprise some of your Lordships to know that under these two Acts miners are held to be rural workers.
In any case for twenty years the houses belong practically to the local authority. The local authority have to see that they are kept in good repair. The loans are repayable generally in twenty years by instalments of interest and capital. Surely it is not fair to ask the owners of these cottages, who have spent considerably more on reconditioning their houses than they have received by way of grants and

669
loans, to undertake additional expenditure in providing extra accommodation until the twenty years have elapsed and the houses are coming back to the owner. That, simply stated, is the object of my Amendment, which I hope my noble friend in charge of the Bill will see his way to accept.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Mar and Kellie.)
THE EARL OF LINDSAY: I should like to add my support to what my noble friend the Earl of Mar and Kellie has said. The Rural Workers Act has been of great benefit in Scotland and has been largely made use of by many of your Lordships, including myself. When we undertook to spend money on our cottages we had no idea that they might at some future date, within twenty years, be interfered with, and that we might be called upon again to spend more money. The noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, sought to extend it for a very short period, namely, to 1940. I think that is all too short; indeed twenty years is quite short enough for the owners of these houses to be free from interference. The whole trouble seems to arise upon the question of the appointed day, which is like the clay of judgment, a very unknown quantity. If only we could get some statement or assurance from the Government as to when that day is likely to come about, it would be of great assistance.
All the criticism that has been made against this measure, your Lordships will have noticed, really hinges on the question of farm labourers' houses and estate cottages. It seems to me it would have been much better—and I make this suggestion—if they could have been excluded from this Bill altogether and have been left to be dealt with under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act of 1926. The work of improvement is going on in Scotland as fast as it can. In my own County of Fife some cottages cannot be repaired and reconditioned because the work has been going on so fast that there is a shortage of labour, and the owners of the houses cannot get on as fast as they would like with the work. One must also remember nowadays that proprietors in Scotland—I dare say it is the same in England—are living in very difficult times. These are very difficult days indeed for farming. With all the
670
expenditure that landowners are called upon to bear and with concurrently reduced rentals, it is very difficult for them to find the money for improvements. I very much hope that the Government will give every consideration to the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend.
LORD POLWARTH: I should also like to support the Amendment which is now under consideration. It has been rightly said that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act has been a very great help in improving the conditions of housing in Scotland, but this is a Bill dealing with overcrowding. I think your Lordships must remember that the grants which have been given were grants from national funds as well as from local rates, and that in almost all cases they have been grants for house; of either two rooms or three rooms. In my own county we began very early, and we have improved some 1,400 houses under the Act and only some 200 remain to be done. We made a stipulation that in the case of a farm to which several houses were attached one half were to be of three rooms and the remaining half might be of two rooms; but, if you consider the standard laid down in this Bill, you will see that many of these houses on which public money has recently been spent with the approval of the Department will inevitably be overcrowded under the standards of the present Bill. I do not say that a larger proportion will be overcrowded than in the urban areas, but a considerable proportion will, under the standard of this Bill, be overcrowded, and somehow or other some of thorn will have to be enlarged.
If the owner has already received a grant under the Rural Workers Act he cannot, as the law now stands, receive another grant, while the counties and the owners who have not yet acted may possibly receive grants enabling them to increase the number of rooms in a house. The cost bas been so heavy that in most cases the owners have not been able to provide additional rooms beyond three or, in some cases, four. But immense improvements have been made, for in most cases not only have additional rooms been provided and the condition of the rooms improved, but a bathroom and water closet have generally been added

671
and water introduced into the house, so that in all respects these houses are up to the level of or even better than many that can be obtained in the cities. The rural workers, and their wives particularly, have abundantly testified to the improvements which they now enjoy.
I support this Amendment because I do not think that as it stands it would preclude assistance from being given for further improvements to the houses that have already been improved. It says that the owner is not to be called upon to execute further works, but no doubt if, by future legislation, additional grants can be given for the provision of additional rooms, I do not think this Amendment would bar that from being done. If it did I should like words to be added to prevent it being a bar. Unless an additional grant is forthcoming for the purpose, I do not see any way in which this problem of increasing the accommodation in these rural houses can be solved. It can only be solved, in my opinion, by giving some additional grant enabling the owners to make the additions. Owners have spent in almost every case much more than they have received by way of assistance, and to ask them to spend another £100 or so in adding to these houses would, I think, be unreasonable. I hope sympathetic consideration will be given to this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to add one word to what we have heard on this question. I can perhaps better than anyone give your Lordships the origin of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. I know a village, a relic of the time of Charles II, in Scotland, which was very beautiful but perfectly impossible from a sanitary and habitable point of view. A lady Member of another House spent every penny she got of her payment as a Member of Parliament in trying to improve the houses in that village, especially in bringing sanitation to houses which had no sanitation at all. She was so successful in what she had done that a very prominent member of the Government some years ago—and he is still in the Government—came to look at the village and, as a result, I believe what eventually became the Rural Workers Act was born.
This village had had no sanitation. The rooms were of all shapes and sizes, without sculleries or sanitary arrange
672
ments of any sort. By degrees, not only were they made habitable, but the people living in them were delighted with their rooms. It surely is wrong for the Government to encourage people to do things of that kind and then let them down immediately afterwards, an excuse for which my noble friend in charge of the Bill will have to find in a moment. It does seem rather hard when we have done this, and have been told how wonderfully good it is, that we should then be told a little later that there is overcrowding and that the people are living in pigsties when we have made really nice houses for them. They are houses which are not really overcrowded. We may perhaps be told that there is no need to fuss about it because it does not really mean anything, and that it will not be brought into force; but if that is the case why bother to put it in?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I can say with complete honesty that like those noble Lords who have supported this Amendment I fully appreciate the value of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, and I have also some conception of the difficulties under which landlords in Scotland are carrying on. I wish, however, to assure the noble Earl that it is impracticable to give the degree of immunity suggested by the Amendment, without regard to the standard of habitability to be achieved by the reconstruction, the extent of the repairs effected, and the period during which they are likely to remain effective. A grant may be obtained under the Act if the total cost of the works, shared by the State, the local authority and the owner, is not less than £50. But an expenditure of this small amount might well not be sufficient to put a house into such a condition as to warrant immunity from further works for so long a period as twenty years. Preferential treatment of rural areas in this matter is the less justifiable for the reason that rural owners have already the advantage of being able to obtain grants for reconditioning which is not open to owners in urban areas. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: I am sorry that the noble Lord's answer is so unsatisfactory. He has not even offered to make a concession. If he had offered a concession of some period less than

673
twenty years we might have felt inclined to accept it, but as it is I think we had better go to a Division.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved to insert after subsection (4) the following new subsection:
"(Assistance may be given under and subject to the conditions of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, for the erection of houses or buildings to replace those which in the opinion of the local authority are injurious or dangerous to health by reason of their situation or unsuitable for reconditioning."
The noble Marquess said: In the absence of the two noble Earls who put down this Amendment I beg leave to move it. Under the Amendment it is proposed that grants should be made available for the replacement of existing houses by new houses where the former are so situated as to be injurious or dangerous to health or unsuitable for reconditioning. Representations have been made by many people for a sounder policy where houses are badly situated or badly constructed. The policy, they say, should be to build new houses rather than tinker with old ones. These old cottages are often very badly placed, in a damp hollow or too close to a byre. In the old days they were erected as a shelter from the weather near other houses, which would not be considered desirable to-day.
It does seem right, however, that in order to enable good houses to be put in good positions when existing houses are
On Question, Whether the proposed new subsection shall be there inserted
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Morton, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Rothes, E.

Lamington, L.

Breadalbane and Holland, E.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Polwarth, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Rankeillour, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

St. Levan, L.

Lindsay, E. [Teller.]

Exmouth, V.

Stonehaven, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Bayford, L.

Lytton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwillilam.

Vane, E. (M Londonderry.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Munster, E.

Peel, E.

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

Plymouth, E.

Greville, L.

Northumberland, D.

Stanhope, E.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Newton, L.

Bath, M.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Playfair, L.

Salisbury, M.

Halifax, V.

Rennell, L.

Seaton, L.

Feversham, E.

Alness, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal. L

Iddesleigh, E.

Alvingham, L.

Templemore, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

declared to be unfit or in an undesirable position, there should be an opportunity for the owner, with the help of the local authority and the Exchequer, to replace them by houses in a desirable position and, of course, up-to-date in other respects. That is all that this Amendment asks for, and I suggest that if under the Act you require unfit houses which are necessary for the rural workers to be demolished or rendered uninhabitable by being closed or cleared, then it is only reasonable to give opportunity for those rural workers to be put into houses in places where their work is. In other words, their bad houses should be replaced by new houses with the same assistance as that which is given when you improve a house which is in a satisfactory position and surroundings and which by its position can be made better still. When you have a house which is not able to be made fit, then surely, in order to keep your rural workers on the land, you should encourage the building of new houses in place of those which are declared unfit under this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 23, insert the said subsection.—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD POLWARTH: I should like to support this Amendment in a few words.

675
Until the Act of 1930, or 1931, it was competent for local authorities to give a grant for the construction of new houses below a certain rent, and it was our practice to give grants of £100 towards a new house. That proved a very useful feature indeed in providing houses rather than reconditioning where they were too bad to make it worth while. It was really better sometimes for an owner of a house which was condemned by the sanitary authority to build a new house altogether at a cost of perhaps £300, of which he got £100 from the public funds, rather than to recondition the house at a total cost of perhaps £320 of which he had to spend over £200. Even if it was less, it was better economy for him to spend £200 on a new or good house rather than spend £150 on his own behalf and get the other £100 from the local authority. That power was taken away, and was a very great loss. I saw a case in the country where an owner was given a grant of £100 under the Rural Workers Act to recondition a house, but when he set to work on the repairs the walls turned out to be so rotten that they fell down completely, and he got this grant practically towards a new house, as only the foundations of the old one remained. That is not what the Act contemplates, and I think it would be a very real power if this grant could be given towards a new house instead of a grant, as under the Act, for reconditioning.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The conditions which this Amendment seeks to remedy are known to us all, and the Government are quite aware of those difficulties, but I am afraid, for reasons which I will state, that I cannot accept this Amendment. First of all, the Government have made no financial provisions for the proposal contained in this Amendment, and a new Financial Resolution would be necessary for the purpose. This course was taken deliberately in view of the policy adopted by the Government so recently as in 1933, when an Act was passed to terminate the payment of grants to private owners for the erection of new houses for the working classes. The Government are, therefore, unable to accept the Amendment, which would involve a reversal of that policy. They quite recognise, however, that in asking county councils to erect houses for farm
676
workers who, under existing agricultural arrangements, live on the farms and are given the occupancy of houses as part of their remuneration, raises a difficult question. Admittedly to build such houses off the farms may frequently not be very practicable, and it remains to be seen whether, when these special circumstances arise, the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in their present form will meet the need.
In view of the difficulties which are involved the Government propose, immediately after the passing of the Bill, to refer the whole question of rural housing to the new Rural Sub-Commitee of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, who will be asked to consider the matter and make recommendations for the solution of these difficulties, though the solution may not necessarily involve a reversal of the policy which has been so salutary in the development of private building through the cessation of grants to private enterprise. In view of this assurance I hope that the movers will not press the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I do not think that is at all a satisfactory answer. Under the existing Rural Workers Act you can get up to £100 if you put down £100. Surely you are only allowed to use that in renovating the house. The noble Lord said that it would cost a lot more money to the country. Why should that be? If a proprietor is prepared to put down £200 or £300, why should he not get up to £100? It means exactly the same to the country, and I cannot see where the excuse comes in. It is rather a pity that the noble Lord was not able to accept the Amendment. As he talked about workers who sometimes did not live on their farms, I should like to point out that, unlike the position in England, there are no villages where the ploughmen live; the men have to live near their horses. That is the great difficulty that comes in here. But I do not Appreciate why, if a proprietor is stupid enough in the financial sense, or goodhearted enough, to wish to rebuild the whole house at his own expense, he should not receive the whole sum which he would have got under the new Housing Bill—though it is pretty inadequate—for reconditioning it.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I am rather disappointed with

677
the noble Lord's reply, but I understand that he is prepared to give an assurance that this matter will be referred to the Rural Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee which is going to be set up. If he could assure us that this Committee will be set up before the end of this year, and if he will also say that the Government will give very serious attention to basing legislation on the advice of the said Advisory Committee, we should feel rather more happy; but we should like to be a little more certain before we definitely give up all rights to contesting this Amendment. I admit of course that it is a privileged Amendment, and if the Government were sympathetic I should have no hesitation in asking leave to withdraw it.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Perhaps I may repeat the assurance that I gave just now, that the Government propose immediately after the passing of this Bill to refer this matter to the Scottish Rural Housing Advisory Committee, and as soon as the Bill is through the work will be taken up.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Credits and debits in Housing Revenue Account.
39.—(1) In the financial year beginning on the sixteenth clay of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and in each subsequent financial year a local authority who are required by virtue of the last foregoing section to keep a Housing Revenue Account shall carry to the credit of the account amounts equal to—
and shall debit to the account amounts equal to—
(i) the loan charges for that year in respect of monies borrowed by the authority for the purpose of the provision by them after the twelfth day of February, nineteen hundred and nineteen, of having accommodation for the working classes under Part III of the Act of 1925, or under any enactment relating to the provision of housing accommodation for the working classes repealed by that Act, or for the purpose of the execution of works in respect of which the Department have undertaken to make a contribution under Section thirty-four of this Act;
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, at the beginning of para-
678
graph (i) in subsection (1), after "the loan charges," to insert "which the local authority are liable to pay." The noble Lord aid: This Amendment should be read together with those which follow. Their object is to cover the case where there has been a transfer of houses from one local authority to another, consequent, for example, on an alteration of boundaries. The local authority now owning the houses may not be the authority which originally borrowed the money, but the liability to pay the loan charges will have been transferred with the houses.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 10, after ("charges") insert ("which the local authority are liable to pay").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 11, leave out the first ("the") and insert ("a local")
Page 33, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert ("borrowed moneys in respect of which the authority are required to debit loan charges to the Housing Revenue Account").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 30, leave out ("the Housing Revenue") and insert ("that").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Housing Repairs Account]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 30, leave out ("Except as in this section provided") and insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act"). (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 42 to 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Conditions an sale of local authorities' houses]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 12, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, after Clause 48, to insert the following new clause:
". For the purposes of any enactment relating to valuation or rating the gross annual value of any dwelling house in respect of which a contribution out of monies provided by Parliament is payable under the Housing Acts, 1925 to 1935, shall not exceed the rent (exclusive of occupier's rates) under deduction of rebates charged in respect of that house."
The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment is perhaps a little complicated. It is to clear up any doubts which may arise as to entry in the valuation roll of houses provided under this Bill. This Amendment refers to subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 46. Subsection (5) states that in fixing the rents the authority shall take into consideration the rents ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes in the locality, but may grant to any tenant rebates from rent, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a view to ensuring that rebates are granted only in such cases and of such amounts as may be necessary having regard to the financial circumstances of the tenant; and subsection (6) provides that the authority shall from time to time review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require.
At first sight it may seem that this is a matter of comparatively little importance or interest, but I am assured, after making careful inquiry, by those in my county who are responsible for the financial working of the Housing Acts, that it is really a matter of very considerable importance. We have to consider with regard to new houses the rent ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes in the locality. I have had that examined, and I found that the rents ordinarily payable may be taken as, say, £16 for a three-room house and £20 for a four-room house. We have
680
found already under the 1930 Act, when moving people out of slum dwellings, that while many of the dwellers are comparatively well off, others are so poor that we have had to let houses at a very great reduction in rent. Quite a number have been let at £8 to £10 per annum, whereas the rent which we have to fix under this Bill would be £16 for a three-room house and we are required in future to give rebates according to the means of the people.
Under the 1930 Act, we fix our rents by imposing a means test, reckoning the number of persons in the family, and we have reduced rents down to about £8 and £10. The occupier's rates vary from 4s. 6d. to 7s. in the pound, including water rate. For the purpose of calculation, let us say 5s. in the pound, and I think I shall best make my point if I endeavour to give a concrete case. I thought myself at first that the rent to be entered in the valuation roll would have to be the standard fixed rent. In Scotland the valuation roll is made up every year at the end of May, and therefore there is no difficulty in changing the entry in that roll according to the actual letting of the house. I would further remind your Lordships that the Act of 1930 provided that the actual rental is to be the rental entered and I would like to see that precedent kept up now.
The Government will perhaps say that the rent to be entered shall be the standard rent and that the tenant is to be given a large rebate to enable him to meet the rent. I would point out this. Supposing the rent is £16, and a man can only pay £10, and the rates are 5s. in the pound, you will find that the rent will have to be brought down to about £6, because 5s. in the pound on £16 makes £4. Therefore you will have to make the rent £6, because the tenant can only pay £10 in all, and I am sure you would never in Scotland be able to collect rates based on what for the tenant is a fictitious rent. If, by reason of the size of his family, we have to give him a four-room house, to prevent overcrowding, the absurdity of the thing became even more apparent, because on a similar calculation if you give a four-roomed house and you have to take off 5s. in the pound on £20, you would have to let him a four-room house at £5 a year. I think it will be far better to enter the actual rent at which we let the house, after reduction by rebate.
I fancy that in practice we do not change the rent more than once a year. Circumstances may vary a little, and even if we had to give a little smaller or a little larger rebate there would be no great hardship. The man or even the local authority may get a small benefit, but it is not practicable to be always changing the rent according to circumstances. For instance, a man may come and say that his daughter, a servant girl, has come home and is living with him, that she is another person in the house, and that his rent must be reduced. He does not tell them when the daughter goes away again and say, "I ought to pay more rent again." It is impossible to work changes on such a footing as that and we must base a really workable system upon an annual rent fixed in accordance with the means of the person concerned. Otherwise it will be impossible to work your budget in a county like mine. Your valuation will be largely fictitious; you will have hundreds of houses entered in a valuation roll at £20 or £15 and you will be getting a much smaller rent. It will put a burden on the Housing Act which will make it altogether bankrupt.
I regret to have to move an Amendment on a somewhat complicated matter like this, but I hope the Government will give it serious consideration. I can assure your Lordships that it has been considered very carefully by the officials who have to deal With this matter, and that they strongly feel that the entry in our valuation rolls should be the actual rent paid, not the nominal rent from which a large rebate has been taken off. I do not know what the attitude of the Government is, because it is not explained in the Bill one way or the other.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 48 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I think my noble friend has apparently overlooked the provisions already in the Bill on this subject. On page 78, at line 6, it is proposed to amend Section 43 of the Act of 1930 to make it read as follows:
"For the purposes of any enactment relating to valuation or rating the gross annual value of any dwelling-house to which the requirements of Section 46 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, apply, shall not exceed the rent (exclusive of occupier's rates) charged in respect of that house."
682
That is to say, the Bill proposes that the rent to be shown in the valuation roll for rating purposes will be the market rent and not the rent as reduced by rebates—contrary to what is proposed by the noble Lord. I think it would be an unworkable arrangement to take the rent as reduced by rebates in individual cases as the basis of rating.
Take, for example, a case where the market rent of a house is fixed by the local authority at £15 and where it is decided to give the tenant a rebate of £5. Under the noble Lord's clause the figure to be entered in the valuation roll for rating purposes would be £10 and this would be the rent upon which the occupier would pry rates for the year to which the valuation roll applies. But in the course of that year the circumstances of the tenant might so change as to induce the local authority either to increase or reduce the rebate or to withdraw it altogether. In these circumstances the figure in the valuation roll would cease to have any relation to the precise amount of the rates which the occupier should pay. Alternatively, the house might be let in the course of the year to another tenant or even to a succession of tenants. If these tenants were able to pay the market rent of £15 it would be the duty of the local authority to charge that rent but, nevertheless, rates would be payable in respect of only the reduced rent of £10 shown in the valuation roll—an anomalous result which, incidentally, would be unfair to the general body of ratepayers who would require to make good the deficit in rates.
The Government feel that it is better to show the market rent in the valuation roll, that is, that the rateable value of the house should be fixed in relation to the house itself, and not in relation to the circumstances of the tenant for the time being. On this basis, taking the same example, the figure which would be entered in the valuation roll would be the market rent of £15, and if the local authority felt that the payment of rates on this figure would impose too heavy a burden on the tenant it would be open to them to increase his rebate by whatever amount might be necessary. Instead of giving him a rebate of £5 as before, they might, for example, give him a rebate of £6 which would provide an additional £1 to meet the extra rates

683
payable on the £15 level, leaving the tenant's net position the same. I think the great merit of this method is that it attaches a definite rateable value to the house which is not disturbed by the accident of changes in tenancy or in the financial circumstances of a particular tenant, while at the same time it provides a flexible means through the rebate system of dealing with these changes as they arise. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD POLWARTH: I quite recognise that it is a very difficult matter, and there are points on both sides.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50:
Exclusion from Part V of premises in clearance or redevelopment area.
50.—(1) The provisions of the last foregoing section of this Act shall not have effect in the case of premises comprised in a clearance order or compulsory purchase order confirmed by the Department under Part I of the Act of 1930 or in the case of premises comprised in a redevelopment plan approved by them.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (1), after "1930", to insert "or in the case of premises comprised in a demolition order thereunder which has become operative." The noble Lord said: This is not much more than a drafting Amendment. Clause 50 (1) is intended to provide that where the future of property has been definitely settled by action already taken under the Housing Acts, the owner cannot claim to reopen the matter under Clause 49. In enumerating the various forms of action which settle the fate of property, the case of the demolition order was omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 20, after ("1930") insert the said words.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 26, leave out ("such an order or plan") and insert ("a clearance or compulsory purchase order or redevelopment plan").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.
Clause 54:
Application of certain provisions of Acts of 1925 and 1930 to resolutions for demolition under this Part.
54. The following enactments in the Acts of 1925 and 1930 shall, subject to any necessary modifications, have effect in relation to a resolution passed under this Part of this Act and to a building or part of a building to which such a resolution applies, as they have effect in relation to a demolition order under Part II of the Act of 1930 and to a house, building or premises to which such an order applies, as if the references therein to a demolition order included references to a resolution passed under this Part of this Act, that is to say—

(a) Section one hundred and twelve of the Act of 1925 (which excludes the appliation of the Acts relating to rent restriction);

(b) Section twenty of the Act of 1930 (which relates to appeals against orders and the date of coming into operation of orders); and

(c)Section twenty-seven of the Act of 1930 (which relates to the recovery of possession of buildings), except subsection (2) thereof.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to leave out "in the Acts of 1925 and 1930." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the other two Government Amendments on Clause 54 are to be read together. The Act of 1925 contained provisions with regard to obstructive buildings which were repealed in 1930 and are now being reenacted in a modified form in Clauses 51 to 54 of the Bill. Their re-enactment necessitates the application of certain provisions in Sections 23 and 25 of the 1925 Act on the subject of notices, appeals, etc., which were applicable under the previous code relating to obstructive buildings and also of provisions in Section 29 of the Act of 1930 dealing with the power of the Sheriff to determine leases in certain cases. The application of these provisions is effected by the three Amendments on the paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 3, leave out ("in the Acts of 1925 and 1930").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The other Amendments to this clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 44, line 12, leave out ("that is to say") and insert ("and the references

685
therein to Part I of the Act of 1925 or to Part II of the Act of 1930 included references to the foregoing provisions of this Part of the Act, that is to say,—

"(a) Section twenty-three of the Act of 1925 (which relates to notices and to applications to the Sheriff in relation to demolitions);

"(b) Section twenty-five of the Act of 1925 (which relates to remedies of owners for breach of contract);")

Page 44, line 21, at end insert ("and (f) Section twenty-nine of the Act of 1930 which relates to the power of the Sheriff to determine leases in certain cases).").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55:
Amendment as to premises in clearance area on ground of bad arrangement, &c., and repeal of provision for reduction of compensation.
55.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in Part I of the Act of 1930, there shall be excluded from a clearance order made thereunder any dwelling-houses or other premises properly included in the clearance area only on the ground that by reason of their bad arrangement, or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, they are injurious or dangerous to the health of the inhabitants of the area, and, if a compulsory purchase order is confirmed with respect to any such dwelling-house or other premises the compensation to be paid there for shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Third Schedule to the Act of 1930.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE moved, in subsection (1), after the first "arrangement," to insert "in relation to other buildings." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which I move on behalf of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, affects urban property only. Under the 1930 Housing Act it was possible for a property in itself perfectly sound to be condemned and paid for at site value merely, only because it was unfit for human habitation on account of other obstructive buildings. As a matter of fact, in practice it has always been arranged by administrative effort to pay compensation a market value, and not merely at site value, for these particular properties, and I am informed that the Government, in drawing up this Bill, wanted to bring the law into line with practice in these particular circumstances. It is the old question which is known in Scotland as the "bad neighbour grievance." I think this clause goes
686
too far. "Bad arrangement" in subsection (1) will mostly certainly be interpreted as referring to internal bad arrangement, and not to external bad arrangement. The reason for this Amendment is to avoid making an unnecessary payment to the owner of a really bad slum property and giving him compensation which he does not deserve to get. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 28, after the first ("arrangement") insert ("in relation to other buildings").—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, but I should just like to make it clear that "bad arrangement" in Clause 55 refers only to bad arrangement of the whole house in relation to other buildings on the site. That was the intention of the Government, and there is therefore no objection at all to these words being inserted which make the original intention clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after Clause 55, to insert the following new clause:
"Obligation of the Department to state reasons for deciding that a building is unfit for human habitation.
56. Any person who objects to a clearance order on the ground that a building included therein, being a building in which he is interested, is not unfit for human habitation, or who objects on the like ground to a compulsory purchase order made under Part I of the Act of 1930, or under Part I of this Act, and who appears at the public local inquiry in support of his objection, shall, if the building is included in the order as confirmed as being unfit for human habitation, be entitled on making a request in writing to be furnished by the Department with a statement in writing of their reasons for deciding that the building is so unfit."
The noble Lord said: This new clause has been put down to implement an undertaking given by the Secretary of State in another place during the Report stage. The new clause gives to any owner whose property is to be compulsorily demolished, or is to be compulsorily purchased at site value, the right to know the reasons of the condemnation of his property, provided that he appears at the public local inquiry.
Amendement moved—
After Clause 55, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56:
Payments in respect of well-maintained houses.
(2) A payment under this section shall be of an amount equal either—

(a) to the amount by which the aggregate expenditure which is shown to the satisfaction of the local authority to have been incurred in maintaining the house during the five years immediately before the date on which the order was made exceeds an amount equal to the rateable value of the house, or

(b) to one and one-fifth times (or, if the house is occupied by an owner thereof and has been owned and occupied by him or by a member of his family continuously during the three years immediately before the date on which the order is confirmed, two and two-fifth times) the rateable value of the house, whichever is the greater.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The first Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 12, after ("order") insert ("whether").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "if," to insert" at that date." The noble Lord said: Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) determines the amount of the allowance to be made to an owner-occupier in respect of the good maintenance of his house. It is necessary, however, to fix a date by reference to which the fact, or otherwise, of owner-occupier-ship is to be determined. The Amendment has the effect of determining the matter in relation to the date on which the order affecting the house is made, which seems an appropriate date for the purpose.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 33, after ("if") insert ("at that date").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 37, leave out ("the date on which the order is confirmed") and insert ("that date").—(Lord,Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
"Provided that a payment under this section shall not in any case exceed the difference between the full value of the house (that is to say the amount which would have been payable as compensation if it had been purchased compulsorily but not as being unfit for human habitation) and the site value thereof (that is to say the amount which is payable as compensation by virtue of its being purchased compulsorily as being unfit for human habitation? or which would have been so payable if it had been so purchased), and any question as to such value shall be determined, in default of agreement, as if it had been a question of disputed compensation arising on such a purchase."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to prevent the owner of a property which has been condemned getting more than the market value. Under subsection (2) of Clause 56 an owner may recover the moneys expended on the property by way of maintenance for the last five years. That may be, in some of the bad areas, largely in excess of the real market value of the house. For that reason we move this Amendment. I do not press the Amendment very strongly, but I think there is a chance here of the undeserving getting out of the public authority what they ought not to get.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 40, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am informed that this Amendment is really unnecessary. The object is already achieved by the terms of the clause itself, since clearly no owner or owner-occupier would spend more in the maintenance of a house than he would expect to get out of it in its use either by himself or by the sale of it to some other person. Accordingly the sum spent on repairs in excess of the rateable value of the house can in no case be more than what the noble Lord proposes by his Amendment to limit the payment to. In these circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: I thank the noble Lord for his observations, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57:
Arrangements where acquisition of land in clearance area found to be unnecessary.
(2) Where an agreement has been entered into with the local authority for the purposes of this section, the authority shall have the like power to enforce it as they would have had by virtue of Section ninety-one of the Act of 1925 if they had sold the land to the other party thereto.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is introductory to the Government Amendment to insert a new clause after Clause 66. The two Amendments are little more than matters of drafting. The subsection which the present Amendment proposes to leave out secures that where an agreement has been entered into with a local authority for the purposes of the section the authority shall be in a position to enforce it against the persons deriving title from the person who has entered into the obligation. This is achieved by applying Section 91 of the Act of 1925. It has since been noted that there are two other clauses in the Bill—namely, Clauses 58 and 15 (2)—for which a similar provision is required, and consequently the subsection should be given a wider application. In order to avoid legislation by reference this is effected by omitting the subsection and inserting a new clause which will cover all the various cases and will repeal and replace Section 91 of the Act of 1925.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 5, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 [Power to exchange clearance area land in lieu of sale under s. 4 of Act of 1930]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 19, leave out ("exchange") and insert ("excamb").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Amendment of Act of 1925, s. 51, with respect to statutory undertakers]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 17, leave out ("statutory") and insert ("public").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 63 to 66 agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after Clause 66, to insert the following new clause:
Power of local authorities to enforce obligation against owner for time being of land.
"(1) Where—

(a) a local authority have sold or excambed land acquired by them under the Act of 1925, or any enactment repealed by that Act, or under the Act of 1930, or this Act, and the purchaser of the land or the person taking the land in exchange has entered into an agreement with the local authority concerning the land; or

(b) an owner of any land has entered into an agreement with the local authority concerning the land for the purposes of any of the provisions of the said Acts;

then if the agreement has been recorded in the appropriate register of sasines, it shall be enforceable at the instance of the authority against persons deriving title from the person who entered into the agreement: Provided that no such agreement shall at any time be enforceable against any party who has in bona fide onerously acquired right (whether completed by infeftment or not) to the land prior to the recording of the agreement as aforesaid or against any person deriving title from such party.
(2) Section ninety-one of the Act of 1925 shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: This is the new clause which was referred to in connection with the Amendment to delete subsection (2) from Clause 57 of the Bill. The clause is really consequential on that Amendment. It repeals and substantially re-enacts Section 91 of the Act of 1925, dealing with the enforcement of agreements entered into between local authorities and owners in connection with the sale and exchange of land. The clause avoids legislation by reference which would otherwise be necessary.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 66, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67:
By-laws.
67.—(1) A local authority may, and if required by the Department shall, make, with respect to houses used or intended to be used for human habitation, by-laws regarding any of the following matters and applying as follows, that is to say—
(iii) by-laws applying to new houses and, so far as is reasonably practicable, to existing houses, regarding—
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved at the end of paragraph (iii) of subsection (1), to insert "(n) the height of ceilings." The noble Earl said: This is a clause which deals with the power given to local authorities to make bylaws in connection with the erection of houses, to ensure that they are properly erected, sanitary, well ventilated, and satisfactory in every way for human habitation. It deals with a large number of points to effect this, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that one of the most important points in the planning and construction of a house is to ensure that the ceilings are of a proper height. There is no mention of this. That is the purpose of my Amendment—namely, to give power to local authorities in making these by-laws to put in a limit which would be considered satisfactory for the height of a ceiling. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 21, at end insert ("(n) the height of ceilings").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment because, if it were inserted at the place proposed, it would enable local authorities to make by-laws regarding the height of ceilings for application to new houses and, so far as is reasonably practicable, to existing houses. The Government take the view that this would not be a suitable provision to apply to existing houses. They are, however, prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment so far as concerns new houses and, if the noble Earl will withdraw the Amendment, the Government will undertake to move an
692
Amendment on the Report stage for this purpose.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I thank the noble Lord, but I am sorry the Government cannot agree to the principle that, where practicable, it should be applicable to existing houses. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68:
Provisions as to caravans and other movable forms of shelter.
68. The provisions of Part I of the Act of 1930 relating to buildings included in an area. to which a clearance order relates, and of Part II of that Act relating to dwelling-houses, shall have effect in relation to any hut, tent, caravan or other temporary or movable form of shelter which is used for human habitation and has been on the same site or a site in the immediate vicinity for a period of two years next before action is taken under those provisions, in like manner as if it had been a building or dwelling-house.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE moved to leave out "or a site in the immediate vicinity" and insert "and continuously lived in." The noble Duke said: By leave of the Lord Chairman, I have extended the Amendment that stands in my name on the Paper. My object in doing so was to draw attention to the fact that this clause seeks to give compensation in respect of dwellings or forms of dwellings which are of a purely temporary and movable nature like tents, caravans, and huts. I feel that unless we can attach some idea of a proper habitation to them it is really an extravagance. The words "or a site in the immediate vicinity" indicate mobility. A hut or caravan may be here to-day and gone to-morrow. That is mobility. If it can be moved, it is very little more trouble to move a hut a mile than to move it 500 yards, and it seems to me an extravagance. Unless you can give the shelter some form of fixture I think we ought to alter this clause. I think also we ought to indicate that these huts or tents or shelters must be properly inhabited. A few weeks of the simple life in summer time ought not to qualify them for compensation. Therefore, if my Amendment is accepted, it will mean that the temporary shelter or hut must be actually occupied on the

693
same site for a period of two years. The effect of my Amendment will be that a movable shelter which has been on the same site for two years should be eligible for compensation.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 5, leave out ("or a site in the immediate vicinity") and insert ("and continuously lived in").—(The Duke of Montrose.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I had not seen the noble Duke's Amendment in its new form, but I take it that its purpose is still the same—namely, that the period during which all these huts and so forth should stand should be still further reduced to one of six months. The Government's view is that this is too short a period for the purposes of the clause. The fundamental basis of the clause is that the structures with which it is desired to deal have become permanently rooted to their sites. It would be too soon, and in many cases we think unreasonable, at the end of so short a time as six months take action for the demolition of a structure on this basis. Having in view the fact that the period has already been reduced as far as in the Government's opinion it would be equitable to do so, I hope the noble Duke will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Interpretation]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The Amendment in my name on this clause is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 41, at end insert:
("'Housing Association' has the meaning assigned to it by Section twenty-five of this Act").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Number of persons permitted to use a house for sleeping.
For the purposes of Part I of this Act the expression "the permitted number of persons" means, in relation to any dwelling-house, either—
694

(a) the number specified in the second column of Table I in the annex hereto in relation to a house consisting of the number of rooms of which that house consists; or

(b) the aggregate for all the rooms in the house obtained by reckoning, for each room therein of the floor area specified in the first column of Table II in the annex hereto, the number specified in the second column of that Table in relation to that area,

whichever is the less:
Provided that in computing for the purposes of the said Table I the number of rooms in a house, no regard shall be had to any room having a floor area of less than 50 square feet.
ANNEX.

Table 1.

Where a house consists of—

(a) One room

…

2

(b) Two rooms

…

3

THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Duke of Atholl has handed in a manuscript Amendment. It is on page 65, line 25, leave out ("3") and insert ("4").
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in Table 1, in reference to a house consisting of two rooms, to leave out "3" and insert "4." The noble Duke said: I am sorry that, probably owing to my own fault, the Amendment as originally put down was inaccurate, and there was not time to get it printed again. The two Amendments appear to be similar in character, but really they are very different. I had originally an Amendment on the Paper dealing with rural areas only, but, on making inquiry in the usual way as to whether this was likely to be accepted, I gathered that the official view in some quarters was that overcrowding was more injurious to health in rural areas than it was in town areas, and that, therefore, it was absurd to have a law that was more lax in country areas than in town areas. The reason alleged was that town children apparently are supposed to have a great advantage as far as fresh air is concerned over country children because they can always go to the cinema in the evening and thus leave the house to get properly ventilated. This may be all right in theory, but probably in practice every window would be shut up in the town and every door locked in case burglars got in while the family were at the pictures. I still have to learn that the possibly polluted air of the cinema

695
and the general morale of its surroundings are better as regards fresh air than is the case in the country, but that no doubt the noble Lord who is to reply can explain.
There is not one of us here that does not know that four people, say, a husband and wife and their small girl over ten and her still smaller sister, do not mean overcrowding in the country in a good two-roomed house, with possibly a small bed closet as well, and realising from the Scottish Office that the differences in size are apparently better in town than in the country, I thought I would give the Secretary of State for Scotland or his representative here an opportunity of putting into practice what are apparently the views of the Scottish Office in opposing this Amendment. That is why, frankly, I put the Amendment down in spite of the views of the Scottish Office, though I do not think it is probable they are likely to accept my Amendment however good it may be, because it would mean accepting an Amendment which would be quite wrong under present circumstances. Further, I understand that generally speaking there is a desire in the Scottish Office not to have differences, and, as I have another Amendment down to deal with the rural areas, I thought it was only right to put this Amendment down first for the sake of obtaining the official uniformity which is so necessary in cases of this sort, although to my mind the circumstances are different. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 25, leave out ("3") and insert ("4").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD ALNESS: I hope my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill will not accept this Amendment, for, in effect, though of course not in intention, it constitutes a frontal attack upon the basic principles upon which the Bill is founded. I think that can be demonstrated very shortly and very simply. In the first place, the Amendment which the noble Duke has moved seems to ignore entirely the fact that the standard of overcrowding which the Bill contains is based first upon separation of the sexes and secondly upon space considerations. This Amendment entirely ignores the first of these considerations, and it seems to me that, as the Government have
696
announced that the Schedule which they have propounded contains in their considered judgment the minimum provision which will ensure that sex separation, anything which interferes with the Schedule as it stands will render that separation very difficult, if not indeed impossible. Such would be the effect, as I see it, of the Amendment which the noble Duke has just moved.
But that is not all. In addition to that, the Amendment which has been moved clearly postulates that the standard which the Bill contains relating to overcrowding is too high. I very respectfully but very emphatically desire to dissent from that view, especially when. one remembers that the standard which the Bill contains is not one which is for to-day or to-morrow merely, but for the next fifty or sixty years, during the lifetime of the houses which are to be constructed, and when one also remembers that overcrowding in Scotland, as I ventured to remind your Lordships on Second Reading, is ten times worse than it is in England. If these things be so, as they undoubtedly are, and if further I remember that four or five responsible public bodies in Scotland which were referred to by the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place, having full knowledge of housing conditions and housing requirements in that country, were all for stiffening rather than relaxing the standard which the Schedule of the Bill contains, then I feel that my humble opinion receives support which makes it much more valuable than if it were an opinion expressed by myself alone. Further, I remember that in England the pressure brought to bear upon the Minister has been in the direction of raising the standard rather than lowering it, and I remember also that in England, where rooms are smaller, generally speaking, than in Scotland, this standard will press more heavily on this side of the Border. It appears to me therefore that no case has been, or can be, made out for lowering the standard which the Bill contains, which is a minimum standard and would be accurately so described.
The noble Duke's second Amendment seems to me objectionable on quite different grounds, which I shall presently express. On this particular Amendment I would like to add that it

697
seems to ignore what the Secretary of State said in another place with reference to the interplay of the subsidy and the standard. As I understood the Secretary of State's observations, they came to this—that there is a direct relation between the standard in the Bill and the subsidy payable under the Bill. Any tampering with the standard, any lowering of the standard might logically be followed by a lowering of the subsidy, which I venture to think would be entirely deplorable it the view of every responsible public body and private person on the other side of the Border. For myself I shall be no party to adopting a standard in this particular matter for Scotland which is lower than the standard adopted for England. In that view I resist the Amendment, and I would respectfully urge the noble Lord in charge of the Bill not to accept it.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Duke has altered the form of his Amendment but I hope he will allow me to make my answer to the original Amendment because by so doing I shall cover both his Amendments. As he has already anticipated the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment. Apart from temporary modifications of the standard which may be necessary in particular areas in the early stages, for which provision is made in Clause 4, it is essential, as the noble Lord, Lord Alness, said, that the standard should be nation-wide in its application. From the point of view of health, decency and comfort there is no reason for enacting a lower standard for two-apartment houses in the country than is to apply to houses of the same size in the towns. The rural community is entitled to as good a standard of housing accommodation as the urban.
The noble Duke referred to the opportunities that exist in the country for enjoying fresh air, but I would like to point out to him that the Bill is not merely one to regulate sleeping space but also living space. In bad weather and in the winter time—and no one who has not been to Scotland can realise the dark nights in the winter in the country—country people are obliged to live more indoors than people in the towns to whom amusements and methods of spending their time outside their homes—but under cover—are available. From this point of view it is
698
important that living space in rural houses should be at least as great as that in town houses. The Amendment would however operate in the other direction.
Apart from these considerations there is the very strong objection to the Amendment that it would not adequately secure the fundamental principle of sex separation upon which the standard is based. The standard in the Bill is the minimum standard which, in the Government's view, will permit the proper separation of the sexes in all cases. As that standard is lowered, sex separation becomes increasingly more difficult or impossible. It would be impossible, for example, under the Amendment if a two-apartment house were occupied by a family consisting of a father, mother, a grown-up son and a grown-up daughter. The fact that rooms in country houses are sometimes large—and this is by no means the general case throughout the country—does not in any way affect this aspect of the question. For purposes of sex separation it is not the size of the rooms that matters but their number.
On the general question the Government are firmly opposed to any proposal which would have the effect of lowering the standard in the Bill. They take the view that it stipulates the minimum accommodation which must be provided for reasons of health and decency and for the provision—especially in the smaller houses—of adequate space to working-class families in which not only to sleep but to live and move about. The Government have, indeed, received representations that the standard is too low. This view is held by the Scottish branch of the Society of Medical Officers and the Institution of County and Municipal Engineers. Similarly, the Royal Sanitary Association of Scotland have urged that if any change is to be made it should be in the direction of raising the standard rather than of lowering it. These opinions show that the views of responsible bodies in Scotland, in close touch with the housing requirements of the country, are averse to any alteration of the Bill such as is proposed in the Amendment.
The standard in the Bill is admittedly not an ideal one and, looking to the demand for better living conditions among the working classes, the trend in the future will almost certainly be towards something better. But in the meantime the Government think that the standard

699
proposed is a reasonable and practicable basis for the improvement of housing conditions at the present time. The financial assistance which is to be given to local authorities for the provision of the additional accommodation necessary is based on the standard contained in the Schedule, and if that standard is lowered a subsidy at the high level contemplated in the Bill would not be required. On the other hand, any proposal to reduce the subsidy would not meet with the approval of local authorities or of Scotland as a whole. For these reasons the Government cannot accept the noble Duke's Amendment. I might repeat what I have said on other occasions that the standard will not come into operation until after the appointed day and that there are provisions in Clauses 4 and 5 which will permit it to be relaxed temporarily to meet exceptional circumstances.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in Table I, in reference to a house consisting of two rooms, after "3", to insert "in rural areas 4". The noble Duke said: I have had the advantage of hearing the considered reply of the noble Lord to what I am going to say and I have also, of course, had the great advantage of listening to the eloquence of a great lawyer, who has, if I may say so, taken up the brief of the Government and is here as a special pleader. The noble Lord, Lord Alness, and I are good friends and so he will not mind my saying that. I regret that the Amendment which I now move is not printed on the Paper; it is, after "3", to insert "in rural areas 4". That is to say four would be the number in big roomy rural houses, consisting of two large rooms and possibly a bed closet.
My last Amendment was moved to show how ridiculous the situation can be under this Bill, and I think that the noble Lord who spoke against it was quite able to prove that point. This Amendment is to show how serious the position is. My opinion is exactly the oposite of that which pertains in the Scottish Office, and of what was said by my noble friend Lord Alness. While I think that the suggestion that more than three people mean overcrowding in a two-roomed house in an urban area, is in most circumstances possibly exaggerated, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying
700
that four people in a fairly spacious two-roomed house in a country district is not overcrowding, more especially when the question of the sexes can be properly adjusted. On the question of overcrowding, I think the noble Lord who is moving the Bill said, touching the question of the sexes, that you might have a father, a mother, a daughter and a grownup son in the same house. There does not seem to be much reason, as they are pretty old, all of them, by this time, I take it, why the father and the grownup son should not sleep in one room and the mother and the grown-up daughter in the other. Still, that shows how very little the Government know about the shifts to which people who are hard-up are going to be put.
I have been given various reasons why the Bill has been drafted in this way. The first, and one that leaves me perfectly cold, is that there is an English Bill, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Alness, and it must not be said that Scotland is less careful of her "weans" than England. Probably, if the English Bill had never been started, this one would not have ended where it is now. This is an inferiority complex in the minds of certain people who are not quite sure of themselves. The second reason is in order to force proprietors to add a third room to all these houses under the Rural Housing Act, which will not be allowed to operate in future unless this condition is made. It is unnecessary to point out to your Lordships that it is more than likely that the amount of money allowed under the Rural Housing Act to be given in assistance will not be sufficient, and that the proprietors will then be forced to pay a contribution which is entirely out of proportion to the scale at present laid down. Failure to do this will cause a house that is otherwise perfectly good to be condemned, and the farm will have to do without the ploughman's cottage, although perhaps a little renovation to make the house watertight, a water supply, sanitary arrangements, and perhaps better ventilation, would have been good enough.
The third point is that it is intended to use all possible Departmental pressure to do what they call "force" people not to sleep in the living rooms, which is a general custom in Scotland. That room probably contains the only fire in the

701
house, and certainly the only fire that the inhabitants in certain cases can afford to light. It is all very well for the Secretary of State for Scotland. to propose that the future holders of that high office are to live at Government expense in a centrally-heated house in the Castle at Edinburgh, but it is a very different thing for a ploughman with a family on a so-called living wage of thirty-five shillings per week to furnish a house, and provide light and fire in three rooms, and feed and clothe his bairns as well, during the rigours of a Scottish winter. We were told, however, in making this protest that nothing would be done until the appointed day, which, as far as I can make out, is as distant as the Greek Kalends. They tell us, which I think is absurd, that we need not be alarmed at all, and that it will not be enforced at once. That being the case, what on earth was the good of putting these tied houses into the Bill? We are told that it will get the people accustomed to the future proposals—what I may call "parlour-minded"; but it will also be the means of setting up nervousness and irritation all over the country, and a feeling of insecurity. It is not only a waste of your Lordships' time; it is also politically dishonest.
I cannot quite make out why the noble Lord in charge of the Bill states one case—that this thing will never happen, it is a long way off—and then at another moment he says that it is the first thing they are going to do when the flag drops. He cannot have it both ways. It would be far better to say that in the meantime these houses do not come under the Act, though it is hoped that special legislation may be introduced with regard to them later on. The Rural Housing Act as it at present exists is quite sufficient to deal with these cases, and should be continued indefinitely. Possibly it needs to be strengthened and urged in some respects, but it is unnecessary to put these rural tied houses within the Bill for the purposes of this Act. In any case, if they do have to be put under the Bill for the purposes of what I may term "English symmetry," let it remain there, and let us allow in the meanwhile that it is not an actual or potential offence for four people to live in an airy two-roomed house in a. country district. If you stated which of the two rooms they were to sleep in, we might understand something about
702
it. The two rooms are of exactly the same size in most cases, yet it is lawful to sleep in one and unlawful to sleep in the other—I am assuming that the sexes are correct. The bed closet at the back of the house is not to count as a place to sleep in unless has an area of fifty square feet, but if it is properly ventilated I am not at all sure that it is not the best place in the house for sleeping purposes.
I hope that noble Lords will support this Amendment, upon which I am going to divide, because it is perfect nonsense to say that the two children of a working man cannot sleep in one room, provided they are of the same sex, and that is what this Bill says. The reason given for it by my noble friend Lord Alness is that we must copy England. I venture to say that our rooms are, as a rule, rather bigger in Scotland than in England. But there it is. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, is going to blaze the trail, I suppose, for the English platoons that are to follow him into the Lobby; every Scottish Peer here, with the exception of one, whipping up the rear. He is going to lead them on, while the whole of the other Scottish Peers—and they are very knowledgeable, most of them, on this subject—have spoken against, it. It seems very strange that this Amendment, if it is rejected, is going to be rejected by English Peers, who know absolutely nothing, or very little, about these conditions in Scotland. They are doing a very ill turn indeed to the people of Scotland in the country if they do not support this Amendment. It makes no difference to the Bill at all. I am not in the least ashamed of being inferior to England. on something which I feel rather strongly about, and I suggest that noble Lords here from England should leave Scottish Peers to settle this business themselves, without having to be tied to what I may term my noble Lord's tail on this occasion.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 25, after ("3") insert ("in rural areas 4").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE EARL or MAR AND KELLIE: The noble Duke has said that no other Scottish Peer is against this Amendment, but I may say what I said on the Second Reading, that it is very undesirable that

703
we should have in Scotland a lower standard than that which prevails in England. If the noble Duke goes into the Division Lobby I shall vote against him.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Supposing in the English Bill they said you were only to have two people in a house, I suppose the noble Earl would do the same.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Wait and see.
LORD LAMINGTON: I speak with some knowledge of Scottish housing in rural districts, and I know that there they bring up large families in health and strength, without any illness, and I do not consider that the standard will be lowered by the Amendment of the noble Duke, whereas I believe that hardship will be entailed on many families if the Schedule is adopted as it stands. I trust that the Committee will accept the Amendment.
LORD ALNESS: Before we proceed to a Division, I hope I may be allowed to say two things. In the first place, it seems to me extraordinarily difficult to set up and apparently stereotype differential treatment of two sections of the Scottish community—those on the one hand who live in the towns, and those on the other hand who live in the country—and to impose on the former a higher standard of comfort, decency and health than is imposed on the latter. Secondly, so far as I can judge from a study of the Bill, all the elasticity and all the relaxation for which the noble Duke pleads will be found within the four corners of the measure, if he will read Clauses 4, 5 and 83.
LORD POLWARTH: Before we divide, I would like to say a few words. I agree that the question of sex separation is essential. So far as I understand the Amendment, there is no proposal to alter the provisions which deal with the sex question; but surely it is quite absurd to say that supposing a husband and wife are living in a house with two children over ten, a little child over ten is to be counted as a grown up person, and the parents may not put two children to sleep in the same room. It would be quite absurd to make such a strict provision as that. There is another point which has not, I think, been referred to. The noble Lord spoke about a higher standard of comfort and so on, but
704
is it giving a higher standard of comfort to compel a working woman to keep a house with many more rooms than are required, or than she and her husband are able to furnish? I have again and again found in two-room houses that the tenants were not able to furnish more than one, and have stored potatoes and the like in the other room.
Then with regard to the standard differing from that in England, I deplore this attempt to make everything Scottish fit in and follow what is done in England. We in Scotland have our own customs and habits, which are ingrained in the people, and you cannot change them. Why should you do so? It is not many weeks since owing to a motor breakdown we went into a cottage and the woman there who knew me, although I did not know her, gave us a most excellent tea, and it was none the worse because there was a bed on the other side of the room. It does not make it inconsistent with comfort or cleanliness that you have people occasionally sleeping in the kitchen. I support the Amendment, and I do not think, having regard to the much larger rooms we have in Scotland as compared with those in England, that by accepting this Amendment we shall be lowering the standard in Scotland. The conditions are different in the two countries, and I therefore think that we ought to have different regulations.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: As the noble Duke allowed me to give my answer to his Amendment, I will not repeat it, but I only want to reaffirm the view of the Government. I would also like to say that it is very difficult to come to any satisfactory definition of rural areas. If the noble Duke means county areas lying outside burghs, there are areas falling within the jurisdiction of county councils which are definitely industrial and urban in character. In Lanarkshire, for example, there are areas like Cambuslang and Bellshill, with populations between 10,000 and 20,000. It would be anomalous to permit two-apartment houses in these places to be occupied on a lower standard than similar houses in many small burghs which are little more than villages, with populations of only some hundreds.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Provisions as to the compulsory purchase of land in connection with redevelopment in accordance with a redevelopment plan]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: There is a consequential Amendment to this Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 42, leave out ("the redevelopment") and insert ("redevelopment, or for securing the use of the land, in accordance with the redevelopment plan").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Local Authorities' contributions]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: There are one drafting and one consequential Amendment to this Schedule.
Amendments moved—
Page 74, line 42, leave out ("paragraphs") and insert ("paragraph").
Page 75, line 6, leave out ("paragraphs") and insert ("paragraph").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.[Teller.]

Strange, E. (D. Atholl)[Teller.]

Kinnaird, L.

Lamington, L.

Polwarth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Exmouth, V.

Morton, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Faringdon, L.

Plymouth, E.

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

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)(L. Privy Seal.)

Stanhope, E.

Greville, L.

Strafford, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Northumberland, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Newton, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Bath, M.

Halifax, V.

Rennell, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Mersey, V.

Rushcliffe, L.

Reading, M.

Sanderson, L.

Alness, L.

Seaton, L.

Breadalbane and Holland, E.

Arnold, L.

Snell, L.

Feversham, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Stanmore, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Bayford, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Berwick, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Darcy (do Knayth), L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine)

Templemore, L.

Munster, E.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Fifth Schedule [Consequential, drafting and minor Amendments]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 31, column 2, insert:
("In Section seventy-three, in subsection (3) for the word 'same' there shall be substituted the word 'advance'; and in subsection (4), in paragraph (b), the word 'solely' shall be omitted, and in paragraph (c), the words upon the security of any land or houses solely' shall be omitted after the words 'proposed to be burdened there shall be inserted the words 'in pursuance of subsection (2A) of this section and for the words the houses on the land burdened' there shall be substituted the words 'houses or other work on land so burdened')." (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment; moved—
Page 80, line 18, after ("be") insert ("and always to have been").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Enactments repealed as from the commencement of this Act]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: There are two consequential Amendments here.
Amendments moved—
Page 82, line 45, column 3, at end insert ("Section ninety-one")
line 48, column 3, at end insert ("In Section one hundred and nineteen, the definition of 'Public utility society' ").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

THE MINISTER FOR LEAGUE OF NATIONS AFFAIRS.
LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government for information as to the distribution of activities and responsibilities between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Minister in charge of relations with the League of Nations; whether those of the Minister are limited to issues which have been referred to the League at Geneva, and if not, what latitude he can exercise in his submissions to and exchanges of views with foreign Governments.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper was not prompted by any desire to provoke a discussion on the Ethiopian question which is occupying so much public attention at the present time. I, on the contrary, esteem it much more advantageous not to run the risk of prejudicing any new discussion which may be impending by the possibility of indiscreet utterances in either House of Parliament. But I cannot at the present time pretend that my Question is altogether unassociated with that issue, because it was the recent submission of certain tentative proposals for a settlement to the Chief of State at Rome which led me to ask for this information. The nature of these proposals has given me and, I gather, a very considerable number of other people, some reason to suppose that there may have been a lack of coordination between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister entrusted with negotiations which have encountered, as in my opinion they were foredoomed to do, an unwelcome negative reception.
Let me explain briefly my reasons for such a presumption, which I may, of course, be told is wholly erroneous. In the first place our Foreign Office could hardly fail to have been in possession of ample knowledge regarding the preparations for an African campaign on
708
a very extensive scale which had been in progress for many months before the particular frontier incident of December last and certain subsequent ones to the investigation of which the activities of the Conciliation Committee at The Hague have been restricted. That Ethiopia might be induced to contemplate cession in return for access to the sea of certain areas in the South which were not an integral portion of the old historic Ethiopian Kingdom was, in the actual circumstances, no doubt conceivable. What, however, was not conceivable to those who know something of the character of the Abyssinians was that the Emperor could make any concession which would satisfy demands as to the extent of which there has for some time past been no concealment; nor, as it seems to me, could our Foreign Office well ignore that the offer to Ethiopia of a rival landing place on the African coast only a few miles from Jibuti, which has for some fifty years enjoyed almost a monopoly of the export and import trade with the interior of Abyssinia, would hardly be welcomed by France any mole than by Italy, which has recently acquired an interest in the Jibuti railway.
The northern boundary of what is known as British Somaliland marches with the frontier of the French Colony, and this might seem to have suggested an additional reason for not proposing, without a previous understanding, the transfer to less accommodating neighbours of an area in which border incidents will be liable to arise. The sentiments of the fixed population at Zeila, would no doubt be regarded as a secondary condition. They number, I believe, only some seven thousand; and the hinterland towards Gildessa and Harrar is mainly waterless, and occupied by nomadic tribes. But news, often exaggerated and distorted, travels mysteriously fast down the African coast, and rumours of our intended withdrawal from areas of administration must involve a risk of fomenting unrest there. Transfers of native population may, of course, be necessary under certain special conditions, such as those which led to the transfer to Italy of Kismayu and a section of Jubaland. But the propositions presented by the cession of Juba and the proposed Zeila transfer are not analogous, and the latter presents, to my mind at any rate, other potential complications.

709
In making the cession of the Juba to Italy, we were clearly within our rights, and had only to think of ourselves. The old East African Protectorate along the coastal zone was, in 1920, annexed to the British Crown, and thereafter, except for a section which is held as a, Protectorate under lease from the Sultan of Zanzibar, became part of the Colony of Kenya.
The position with regard to Zeila, however, is different. There has recently been some correspondence on this subject in the Press in which its antecedent history has not always been quite accurately or, at any rate, completely stated. Harrar, which stands where the high lands begin, some one hundred miles from the coast, had been occupied by Egypt in the period of expansion under the Khedive Ismail. When, under the menace of bankruptcy, it became necessary to withdraw all the Egyptian garrisons from the Soudan, Harrar was evacuated. That was in 1882, and an independent Emir was established there as Ruler. He was, however, shortly after dispossessed by Ethiopia, and Ras Makunan, nephew of Menelek and father of the present Emperor, became Governor of Harrar, where there were not many Abyssinians established when I was there more than thirty-five years ago. The Somali coast zone, at that time valuable to Aden as a source of meat supplies, was then administered as a British Protectorate by the Government of India. The control was transferred in 1897, after the British Mission to Abyssinia, to the Foreign Office, and subsequently, in 1905, to the Colonial Office. Somaliland, however, always remained nominally a British Protectorate. If British protection were to be withdrawn from any part of it, the question might arise: To whom would that section revert? There is, I believe, no generally accepted definition of the status of Protectorates, and the question of their transfer by the withdrawal of the protecting Power might obviously lead to complications into which it would probably be more prudent not to enter. What, however, would be of interest would be to know if such issues had been carefully considered and studied before the proposal under discussion was contemplated.
For the reasons I have submitted, and perhaps others, your Lordships may wish to have some assurance that there has
710
not been lack of co-ordination among the various authorities now entrusted with the handling of foreign affairs. It is true that when, or if, these matters were deliberated, there had only recently been important administrative changes, and the new machine, it is quite possible, had not yet found itself. However that may be, it is difficult to refrain from asking why, if so delicate and, to my mind, so unpromising a proposition was to be advanced, resort should not have been had to the normal course of feeling the way tentatively through our Embassy at Rome rather than by the publicly advertised method of a Ministerial progress to the Italian Capital, with all the inevitable repercussions attending want of success.
One of the legacies of the Great War, at any rate in this country, has been the institution of what is known as the New Diplomacy. It means, as I understand it, that the discussion of issues which present themselves with foreign countries has been largely taken out of the hands of the experts, who have spent long years in studying the temperaments, susceptibilities, and aspirations of the various nations among whom they have been appointed to reside. The influence they might be able to acquire is necessarily diminished by so large a transfer of their former duties to Ministers, who may enter into office with little or no previous foreign experience, and who, moreover, having to advise His Majesty's Government on issues arising all over the world, can ill spare the time from the ever-increasing work of already overburdened Departments, supplemented by their Parliamentary duties. I have been told in explanation of these things that it has been found difficult in certain posts, especially what I may call dictatorial pests, for the Ambassadors to see a very great deal of the Head of the State, whereas, of course, a Minister going specially for the purpose has no difficulty. I cannot quite accept that as an adequate explanation. If there is a difficulty I think it could be managed; but it seems to me to create a vicious circle.
You send a special Minister out to see the Head of the State, and the man on the spot ceases to have any influence, and the Head of the State has less reason to see him. The publicity attend-

711
ing these journeys and the inevitable preliminary discussion of their object by critics of the Government do not always tend to create a more favourable atmosphere for deliberation, and the finality of pronouncements by a responsible Minister may easily enough prematurely close the door to reconsideration or revision. While I am not convinced that the position of Foreign Secretary is really strengthened by his being his own emissary and thus becoming responsible for errors of judgment in the methods of approach, I should be the last to contend that there may not be advantage in occacasional interviews of Ministers with those holding similar responsible positions in foreign countries. But I hold very definitely that such colloquies should be exceptional in exceptional circumstances and not, as they are tending to become, a general rule. Nor should I be disposed to dissent in principle from the appointment of a special Minister to deal with. issues at the League of Nations, so long as his attributions are clearly defined and understood.
The position may indeed before long become a very important one. For if the League is to survive its insuccesses and the withdrawal of several of the most important Members who dissent from collective decisions, if it is to free itself from the suspicion of becoming an instrument for the perpetuation of inhibitions imposed under exceptional circumstances, and if it is to regain the universal confidence we desire it to have, it is evident to me that it will have to be in certain respects considerably remodelled. In the meantime, as we are henceforth to have two Ministers and two Under-Secretaries dealing with foreign affairs, and as it is conceivable, if not in the present instance, that in future combinations there might well be a lack of co-ordination and unity, it therefore appeared to me to be legitimate to seek information as to their respective activities, responsibilities and limitations. Therefore, in no critical spirit but really with an honest desire for information, I have put down the Question which stands in my name.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the Question put down by my noble friend is a Question relating to the respective duties of the Foreign Minister and his new colleague, and he has taken the opportunity, which is often taken in this House, of
712
delivering a very interesting and instructive speech on foreign affairs generally. I do not propose to follow him in that direction, but to confine what few remarks I have to make to the Question which appears on the Paper. I should like to say at once without any hesitation that, with regard to this new appointment of envoy accredited to the League of Nations, I do not feel inclined to extend any welcome to it at all. To my mind, and I am rather reluctant to say so in the presence of my noble friend Lord Cecil, I think in the past, and at the present moment, we hear a great deal too much about the League of Nations. Personally, I am getting very tired of the constant protestations of Ministers and of public men of their entire devotion to the principles of the League of Nations and their firm determination always to act in consonance with that body. It almost seems to me that Ministers are afraid to admit that we possess any foreign policy of our own whatsoever.
That is not the only objection. The other objection which I have is that these statements about undying confidence and devotion to the League of Nations only give an opportunity to our critics to denounce what they are pleased to call our British hypocrisy. They say: "Is it not the fact that the League of Nations suits you admirably? You are a satiated Power. You have everything you want. Naturally you do not want to make war with any other nation. All that you desire is that peace should be kept somehow or other. Therefore, the League of Nations suits you admirably. But we are in a different position. We have not got all that we want; we should like to obtain a good deal more, and there are other nations who say they have not the smallest intention of allowing anything to be taken from them. Therefore you cannot expect us to look upon the League of Nations in the same light as you do." They might also add, if they are inclined to be ill-natured, that upon the whole there seems to be a certain amount of lip service about all these protestations "because," they might say, "when you have got any really serious business on hand you go straight to the parties concerned and you make arrangements with them quite independent of the League of Nations or anybody else." I quote, for

713
instance, the recent Agreement with Germany, and the attempt—the highly unsuccessful attempt—to come to an agreement with Italy. For that reason I do not welcome the appointment of this new Minister, or in fact the other appointments which have been made, but I dislike it also for another reason.
For a long time past there has been no more fertile subject of discussion than the continual growth of Ministries and the creation of fresh Ministers in this country. I do not know whether the fact is realised that since the War no less than sixteen different new Departments have been created. Two have gone. They went automatically. They were the two Irish Offices. That leaves a balance of fourteen. This outcry for the diminution of Departments and the stopping of the eternal creation of fresh posts and so forth had this effect, that some years ago the Prime Minister at that moment—I cannot remember now whether it was Mr. Ramsay MacDonald or Mr. Baldwin—actually made a definite promise that three Ministries should be abolished. Nothing of the kind has happened. Those three Ministries are still going and there is not the smallest prospect of their being abolished. If there is any change at all they will probably get larger.
But the mania for inflation starts, unfortunately, from the top. Look at the Cabinet. There must be noble Lords present who can remember, as I can remember well, the time when the Cabinet consisted of twelve. There are now, if I am not mistaken, twenty-two or twenty-three, and of these three or four Ministers have no definite duties to discharge. In the days when Cabinets were smaller the position of a Cabinet Minister was very different from what it is now. I remember the feeling of reverential awe with which I discharged those duties in the Foreign Office which drove the noble Lord opposite eventually from that office. They were distasteful to me. But I can still remember the feelings of reverence which I entertained for a Cabinet Minister. But who does entertain such feelings now? I do not like to appear disrespectful to noble Lords sitting upon the Front Bench, but I suggest that if they were to go out into the street and ask the first person they saw to name half-a-dozen members of the Cabinet, that person would be
714
perfectly unable to do so. He would probably say: "Oh, I suppose Lord Derby, or Lord Lonsdale, or Mr. Lloyd George or Mr. Baldwin." That is a question which does not interest him. The result of this multiplication of Cabinet Ministers is that their influence and their distinction have largely diminished.
The tendency to inflation has, unfortunately, now reached the Foreign Office, and I regret it very much, because the Foreign Office, contrary to general belief, is a highly efficient Department. I do not believe there is a more efficient Department. With a very small staff its duties were always admirably performed. But look what has happened now. The Foreign Office has been duplicated. Nobody has yet sucessfully defined the distinction between the Foreign Secretary and the gentleman who has just been accredited to the League of Nations. I should have thought myself that if it were necessary to do anything of the kind it would have been very much simpler to have appointed an Assistant Secretary, as was done during the War, when I think the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, acted in that capacity, and I fancy there was no friction at all. Of course it will be said: "Oh, these two Ministers are devoted to each other. They see eye to eye on every possible subject." Very likely they do, at all events for the time being, but I should be sorry to guarantee the future. I think it is quite conceivable that in a future Administration two gentleman with very different views might be called upon to work together.
Then there is to be still another instance of inflation in the appointment of another Under-Secretary. In former days when, as I say, the Foreign Office was just as efficient as it is now, the Foreign Office was represented by two men, one in your Lordships' House and the other in the House of Commons, and as long as there was a representative in each House things worked perfectly well. As a result of the new arrangement there will be no fewer than three representatives of the Foreign Office in the House of Commons. In addition to them there are Cabinet Ministers who have no definite work of their own and who are always on the spot to assist them, and there are other Departments also represented in Parliament which are closely allied to the Foreign Office and are in frequent communication with it.

715
I know we shall be told that these appointments are absolutely essential and that they are very small in number. That is what is always said, but the one thing of which you may be perfectly certain is that when such appointments are once made they become permanent whether they are required or not. It is almost impossible to dislodge a Department when once it has established itself. I was once head of a modest Department myself and there was considerable difficulty in get, ting rid of us. It is only in human nature. What I ask your Lordships to bear in mind is that every fresh Minister you create himself creates additional work, and it is not only a question of additional work but a question of additional staff and additional expense. In fact when appointments of this sort are being made it really seems to me that it is perfectly futile to talk about economy at all. As a matter of fact I do not believe that anybody here or in another place or outside cares a fig about economy. I did not rise, however, for the purpose of advocating economy. My main object in intervening in the debate was to express the hope that we shall get an assurance from my noble friend who replies for the Government that what I venture to call peripatetic diplomacy will now come to an end.
What I say is in no way meant to be hostile to Mr. Eden. I think if you want a gentleman of that kind he probably would fill the bill better than anybody else. He is already a sort of legendary figure, and in the Press and in the public imagination he appears as a sort of political Perseus who literally flies off to rescue incompetent British diplomatists from perfectly imaginary dangers. It is hardly necessary for me to point out that the ordinary British diplomatist is a competent man perfectly well able to look after himself and to discharge his duties if you give him a chance of doing so. I should like to ask anybody to tell me any single thing that Mr. Eden has done that could not be done equally well by the man on the spot. If the man on the spot is not capable then remove him, but for the life of me I cannot understand the frame of mind of people who think that a long-standing difficulty can suddenly be set right by sending a man out on a visit for twenty-four or forty-eight hours. It is about as sensible as to imagine that if you are
716
suffering from a serious internal disease you can cure yourself by putting on a new suit of clothes. There is nothing to be said for it at all.
Mr. Eden, as I have already remarked, is a man who has great qualifications, but what has been gained by sending him about in accordance with these new ideas? If you are going to have a peripatetic Minister you ought to ascertain before he goes anywhere that he is perfectly certain to succeed. If you are quite sure he will succeed you can pride yourself afterwards on what you have done, but if you are not sure and he fails then your failure is all the more clear, and we had an unfortunate instance of that in connection with what happened recently in Rome. What puzzles me is to know who is at the back of, and who originates, these ideas of sending these people abroad. It cannot be the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is far too sensible a body to imagine that any good can be done by it. It cannot be the present Foreign Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare, because he has announced that in the future lie intends to use the regular officials in connection with all questions that fall within the scope of their duties. Who is it? I can only imagine that there must be some person or persons in the Cabinet who have an insatiable appetite for sensationalism and for playing up to the so-called popular Press. I cannot account for it in any other way. By this time the idea must have been thoroughly exploded. I hope my noble friend will give me the assurance I ask. If he does I am perfectly certain that there will be many thousands of people in the country beside myself who will be only too thankful to hear that the present sensational method has been abandoned and that we shall relapse into our old methods.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend who asked this Question based his inquiry chiefly on the offer made in connection with the Ethiopian question of the Zeila district. I am not going to discuss whether there was any prospect of that offer being successful, but I feel quite certain that however low you may rate the intelligence of Cabinet Ministers—and I am aware that my noble friend Lord Newton does not put it very high—
LORD NEWTON: The public do.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I cannot believe for a moment that they made any such offer without some ground for believing that it would be likely to produce an alleviation of the present very serious situation. I do not desire to express any opinion as to the wisdom or otherwise of that offer, because I do not think that, without knowing much more accurately than I can pretend to know the circumstances under which it was made, it is possible to form any judgment as to whether there was any prospect of success or not. But what I do say is that, if it had been successful, I have not the slightest doubt that my noble friends, both of them, would have welcomed it warmly—at least I hope they would—as an infinitely small price to pay for the liquidation of the extremely dangerous situation in which we now find ourselves. I hope that my noble friends will excuse me if I venture to say that, right through both of their speeches, it seemed to me that there was rather an inadequate appreciation of the very serious nature of the present situation. I am not going to say a word about it, for fear that even casual observations of mine might aggravate it, but I feel most strongly that the Government were fully justified and absolutely right in taking any steps they thought necessary, and I trust that they will continue to take any steps they think to be necessary, or to have any probability of success, to avoid the outbreak of war between Italy and Abyssinia.
I believe that war in itself will be a very serious matter, particularly for all those who have any possessions in Africa, but, quite apart from that, I hold that unless we can maintain the efforts we have made since the War to organise peace, the future for this country and for the world is very dark. Therefore I am prepared personally, for what little value my support may be, to give my whole support to any steps that the Government may think necessary in order to avert war between Italy and Abyssinia. I cannot believe for one moment that my noble friend Lord Rennell is right in his fear that there was a want of co-ordination between Mr. Eden and the Foreign Office. I cannot believe for one second that an offer of that importance was not made after full consideration by the Cabinet and with full Cabinet authority, and cer-
718
tainly with the full authority and support of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I quite agree with my noble friend that, if there is any doubt about that, it shows a most serious condition of the administration of this country, and one which would require the strongest possible condemnation by this House or the other House. But I cannot believe that there was any such want of coordination at all. The step was taken as a Government step; it has been supported and defended by all the members of the Government, and I have no doubt it was fully considered and authorised—I should think, before Mr. Eden left England, and certainly before he said anything to the Italian Government.
But my noble friend went on to complain of what he regards as the New Diplomacy. I am not quite sure whether I know what is meant by the New Diplomacy. I understand, of course, that the negotiations at the League of Nations itself are carried on under different conditions from the discussions and negotiations which have, before the existence of the League, been necessary for international affairs. In that sense there has been, no doubt, a New Diplomacy. But beyond that I know of no novelty in diplomacy except the practice which has no doubt grown, particularly in recent years, of sending Ministers—Foreign Ministers, usually—to various capitals to interview other Foreign Ministers. That practice both my noble friends deprecated in. the strongest way. I find myself much more in sympathy with them over that. I feel that there are grave objections to what my noble friend Lord Newton called the "peripatetic" action of Ministers. I see great difficulties about it. No doubt, to begin with, not the least difficulty, as. I shall show in a moment, is the immensely exhausting character of that work. Ministers of the Crown have, in my judgment, far too little leisure and far too little strength as it is; they want all the leisure and all the strength they can conserve in order to deal with the immense responsibilities which lie upon them, and particularly upon anyone connected with foreign affairs. I cannot think that it is a good preparation for those efforts that they should be sent, often under very difficult conditions, from one end of Europe to another to interview foreign Ministers in different capitals.

719
And there is this difficulty: that if you once begin it, you have to extend it. If you go and see the Foreign Minister in Paris, you will have to go and see the Foreign Minister in Rome, or there will unquestionably be a suggestion that you think more of French assistance and French opinion than you think of Italian assistance and Italian opinion. The same applies to Berlin, and the same applies ultimately to Moscow. Therefore, if you once begin this system, you are driven by the course of events to extend it first to one capital and then to another. That means a very great addition to the exhaustion of Ministers, and on that ground I hope that it will be confined to the narrowest practicable limits.
Then there is another difficulty about it. If a Minister goes from here to a foreign capital, it becomes "news" at once. Something is going to happen, some great move is impending, and the newspapers—very properly, from their point of view—treat it as a matter of great importance. Headlines are printed and all the rest of it, and a great anticipation is excited in the public mind that some new departure is going to take place which will have a great effect on international relations. If, as the result, nothing much happens—and that, after all, is the result which we must expect out of conversations of that character in most cases—the disappointment is extreme. You add to the depression which previously existed, you increase the impression that the difficulties are insoluble, and the situation is worse than it was before. In the same way I cannot exclude the fact that, owing to that very circumstance that the matter becomes a matter of great public interest, there is nearly always a considerable misunderstanding as to what has recently taken place. There are always the communiqués at the end, saying that much more cordial relations have been produced, and all the rest of it, which in fact means nothing at all; and definite understandings are sometimes arrived at, which are published. Those are clear enough, but in addition to those there is always a whole crop of rumours as to the assurances that have been conveyed, if not explicitly uttered, as to the attitude of this Minister or that Minister, and so on, all of which are exploited by the agencies of public information and, again,
720
usually cause considerable misunderstanding at the time and disappointment later on. Therefore—and I believe that every Minister of the Crown would agree with me in saying it—the fewer of these expeditions that can take place, the better.
At the same time, I recognise—as think everybody must recognise—that there are considerable advantages in the close contact of those great officials who are chiefly responsible in each country for foreign affairs. If I may venture on a personal recollection, I remember that when the late Lord Salisbury was going to the Conference at Constantinople, he broke his journey, if it can be called breaking it, by going round to the various capitals in order to see the responsible Ministers before he began his discussions at the Conference, and I have always understood that he found that a very useful and almost necessary preliminary to such a conference. That is only one of the examples when it is desirable for Ministers to see their opposite principals in foreign capitals. To my mind it is one of the advantages of the Geneva system that such meetings can take place within the ordinary routine of the Assembly of the League without exciting great anticipations or great movements of opinion, because they are just ordinary routine meetings, and I should have thought that, granted these opportunities of personal conversation, it was the less necessary to have special journeys and meetings on additional occasions. I feel quite sure, however, that both Mr. Eden and Sir Samuel Hoare would not desire—I cannot imagine anyone in his senses desiring—to make these journeys unless they felt them to be absolutely necessary, and I trust they will confine them to the narrowest limits in the future.
As to the main matter which is raised by this Question, namely, the creation of the League Minister as a separate Cabinet Minister, I find myself in considerable disagreement with both noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships. Lord Newton based his objection first upon his general dislike of the League. He did not, so far as I made out, desire to destroy the League, but he wished it to be kept in its proper place and to have very little said about it, and in any circumstances that the Government should express no desire for their policy to be framed in accordance

721
with the principles of the League. I do not agree with him. If the League exists it must exist as the sheet anchor of our policy, and it is certain that the more strength you give it the more probability there is that it will be able to discharge its duties. If your Lordships hold, as I do, that its efficiency is absolutely essential to the maintenance of peace, then I cannot agree that there is any undue attempt to exalt its position in the national sphere. I therefore cannot accept that as a good argument against the creation of a League Minister.
There is the other argument, that it is quite unnecessary, which my noble friend put forward. He said, in effect: "Why do you want a second Minister? We used to have fewer Ministers and got on very well." My Lords, the truth is that the work has increased enormously, particularly in the Foreign Office. I have not the figures, but the number of papers which go in and out of the Foreign Office is immensely greater than it was when I was young. I dare say my noble friend could give us the figures, and although I am a strong advocate of the League of Nations I do not deny that it must increase the work of the Foreign Minister, and must involve great additional exertion. Personally I have felt for a very long time that it would be desirable to have two Cabinet Ministers in the Foreign Office, in order to make it easier to discharge those duties.
May I just remind your Lordships of one fact, which seems to me of some importance? Since the War we have had a number of Foreign Ministers, and I think you will be shocked to recall how many of them have broken down in their health while they have been discharging those duties. In the case of Lord Grey unquestionably the serious evils to his health were largely due to overwork. Lord Balfour was continually ill while he was at the Foreign Office. I happen to know, because being in the Foreign Office I often had to take his place. When he was at Paris he was very seriously ill, and I have not the slightest doubt it was due to the very hard work which the Foreign Office involved. Then Lord Curzon died, undoubtedly, in a large degree as a consequence of the wear and tear of the Foreign Office, although he was not at the Foreign Office when he died. Then my old friend, Sir Austen
722
Chamberlain, while in the Foreign Office, had a very bad breakdown and had to be away for months. I do not want to deal with people who are now alive, but I think it is generally recognised, with regard to the Lord President of the Council, that the work at the Foreign Office—made much more severe by the fact that he was also Prime Minister—was one of the causes which led to the regrettable want of health from which, unfortunately, we are now told he suffers.
For all those reasons I think it is folly not to recognise that you must strengthen the staff of the Foreign Office if it is properly to discharge its duties. I believe strongly that you must have a second Cabinet Minister, not only because you want to send him to Geneva and elsewhere, where he ought to have the authority of a Cabinet Minister if he is to speak, as he must speak, in international councils, but also because if the Foreign Minister goes abroad it must be a great convenience and assistance to have another Cabinet Minister ready to take charge at home. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I venture to remind you that during the War a somewhat similar circumstance occurred, when the Foreign Office had to discharge, beside dealing with its ordinary duties, the duties of dealing with the blockade, and it became necessary—I think Lord Grey demanded it—to have two Cabinet Ministers in the Foreign Office. Various experiments were tried. At first the new Cabinet Minister was simply called an Under-Secretary, then Minister of Blockade, and then he became Assistant Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
If I may venture to express an opinion—I do not think any of the plans worked badly—I think the last one worked best. It emphasised the fact that the second Minister was, as he ought to be, strictly under the Secretary of State—not a coordinate authority in the Foreign Office but distinctly subordinate to the Secretary of State. It emphasised also that the Secretary of State must be responsible for all the great decisions, whether in the Department of the Assistant Secretary or not, and Secretary of State had always the right to take over from the Assistant Secretary any matter which he thought sufficiently important for him to deal with as principal Secretary of State. I believe that the system worked well, and although I do not wish to make

723
any criticism about it, because it appears to me to be a matter of terminology, I confess that I a little regret that when the new appointment was made the new Minister was not called Assistant Secretary of State in charge of League of Nations Affairs, or something of that kind. I think that would have relieved the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Rennell to a large extent, and would have been an improvement of the actual organisation.
I am afraid I have detained your Lordships for too long, but I wish to say, both with reference to the recent conduct of affairs—even the Zeila incident—and with reference to the arrangement that the Government have made for the conduct of foreign affairs, I do not desire to express any criticism, but merely to express my earnest hope that they will not be discouraged by any criticism from going forward with a really vigorous and energetic foreign policy, for I am quite certain that, without that, we may be plunged into the most serious and dangerous difficulties that we have ever endured.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, may I express my general agreement with the noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships, on practically all the points which have been raised? I must say I deprecate the growing practice of journeys of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs abroad. I agree entirely with all the three noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships, but I agree also with what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said that there is an advantage in the Secretary of State getting in touch with his colleagues in other countries, not necessarily to negotiate agreements of the first importance, not necessarily for him to visit first Paris and then, in case it might be thought more polite, Rome, and—in case that gave offence—Moscow and Berlin; but that he should have an opportunity of meeting the Foreign Ministers of other States.
When I was in the Diplomatic Service I remember the gathering which used to take place at Marienbad. In those days his late Majesty King Edward VII used to visit Marienbad every year, and it became quite a general practice for the Foreign Secretaries and Prime Ministers of this country—Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was one—and others to go
724
to Marienbad. There they met one another and I remember perfectly well talking not only with members of our awn Foreign Office but also with my foreign colleagues, and hearing what advantages were obtained for the Prime Minister and other Ministers from the interchange of conversation which passed with Foreign Ministers of other States. That Marienbad intercourse, which was entirely informal and depended upon whether any particular Minister chose to go there or not, has become stereotyped in the Assembly of the League of Nations, which takes place every September. Possibly there may be too many of them there—that I do not know. But at any rate it has been very highly developed since that date. But I do most strongly deprecate the Foreign Secretary being his own Ambassador. I do not think any worse system could be devised.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, will correct me if I am wrong, but I remember reading in the most interesting Life of the late Lord Salisbury that Lord Salisbury said that there is only one really important Minister in this country, not excluding the Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary is the Minister upon whom the real safety of the country depends, and therefore to get the right man to fill that post is the most important duty of any Prime Minister. Well, what are the duties of the Foreign Secretary? I conceive that they are primarily to keep in touch with the Cabinet, to keep in touch with your Lordships' House and another place, and to keep in touch with the country, to understand how they are willing to be led, what their desires are, and what their conception of foreign policy may be, and to lead it as his wisdom suggests. It is the duty of members of the Diplomatic Service to carry out his instructions and. to keep him informed as to the state of affairs in the foreign country to which they are accredited. Those seem to me to be the paramount duties of the Foreign Secretary, and to carry them out he must, be constantly here in this country at the Foreign Office and in touch with the Cabinet and Parliament and with the country at large. He cannot, therefore, conduct his own foreign policy and his own diplomacy by travelling abroad.

725
To turn to another subject, I would like to ask what the actual organisation of this new system is going to be? The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has pointed out that the second Minister must be subordinate to the Foreign Secretary, even though he be in the Cabinet. If two men ride a horse one man must ride in front. That is obvious, and I hope that my noble friend will make that perfectly clear to your Lordships when he addresses you. But there is another point on which I should like to ask for information. How is the old Department to be reorganised? Is the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, who, as your Lordships know, ranks in the Foreign Office above the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, to be the Permanent Under-Secretary of State to two Departments, the League of Nations Department and the Foreign Office proper or is the Foreign Secretary to be the head of the whole thing and the Minister for League of Nations Affairs to be his Deputy-Foreign Secretary and Minister for League of Nations Affairs—I suppose deputy in that too if the Foreign Secretary is to direct the whole policy—and then the Permanent Under-Secretary to follow, and then the two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries to run behind in a couple? I wonder if that is the organisation which is contemplated. If not, perhaps my noble friend when he addresses your Lordships will tell us.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, nobody could have been better qualified to raise the Question that is on the Paper than the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, whose distinguished career in the Diplomatic Service makes him an authority on these questions. I feel that it is very pertinent at the present time that the organisation of our diplomacy should be examined very closely, because undoubtedly it has been one of the weakest spots in the Government, and since the reconstruction of the Government we seem to have an entirely new system, which it is right that Parliament should examine very closely. It has produced a certain amount of bewilderment, both in this House and in another place, and we are asking questions to-day, as they asked questions the other day in another place, in order to try to understand how this organisation is to function and why it came about.
726
My reading of it is that the present Prime Minister—who, as Lord President of the Council, as your Lordships will remember, made a most moving and eloquent speech about two years ago on aerial warfare, what it meant to civilisation, and how there was no possible adequate defence against it, and then two years afterwards had to make another speech in which he advocated large additions to the Air Force as a defence of this country—felt that such a volte face on his part would condemn him as a bad guide and that he must see to it that the Foreign Office was overhauled. His first idea, apparently, was that it should have a qualitative change, and for that purpose he asked Sir Samuel Hoare, who had made a very great reputation for himself over his handling of the Government of India Bill, to take the reins at the Foreign Office. Nobody has a greater admiration than I have for Sir Samuel Hoare's abilities, but a Minister who has been devoting the last five or six years to the most careful day-in-day-out, year-in-year-out examination and study of the problem of Indian government is not necessarily somebody who can be pitch-forked into the Foreign Office to deal with the complications of foreign affairs which, unlike any Bill or Act of Parliament, unlike any domestic duties which have to be undertaken by the Ministers, is not a matter which can be "mugged up" in a week or a month or a year. It is a matter that has to be studied very closely, with a very close knowledge of foreign countries and foreign character. However that may be, the qualitative change was made, and then it occurred to the present Prime Minister that he should also make a quantitative change.
He proceeded to appoint Mr. Eden as Minister for League of Nations Affairs. I agree with What has been said by my noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood that the League of Nations, and the attention given to it, is a question of the very greatest importance, but I think it should be done by an assistant. This idea of coordinating two Foreign Secretaries really seems to be a sort of Spenlow and Jorkins arrangement, because it comes to this, that in the House of Commons, if you put down a Question to the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for League of Nations Affairs gets up and says: "This does not actually concern my Department, but I shall answer as best I can,

727
as the Foreign Secretary is not here." Then you put down a Question to the League of Nations Department, and the Foreign Secretary answers and says: "This is really not my concern, but as my right honourable friend is away, I shall do my best." It is a very convenient way of getting out of the difficulty of Questions in the House of Commons. I know how difficult they are. I happen to have gone through the three various processes—of drafting answers to Questions as a clerk in the Foreign Office, of asking Questions as a private member in the House of Commons, and of answering Questions as a Minister—and the last function was the least pleasant of the three.
But this quantitative method is to be carried a step further. Two Under-Secretaries are to be appointed. I do not know if they are going to be turned into "The Lords Commissioners of the Foreign Office," but there are now four of them, and I am uncertain how they rank. But it is not going to end there. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for League of Nation Affairs are both going to fly to Geneva quite shortly. Who is going to be in charge? We could all wish that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, would be in charge, but he will not be in charge, because, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, he ranks below the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office for some mysterious reason, because in the Colonial Office that is not so. Therefore, the noble Earl cannot be in charge. The noble Lord, Lord Cranborne, who will shortly be appointed, will not be able to be in charge either. I am a little uncertain as to the respective ranks of Lord Cranborne and of the noble Earl who is Under-Secretary in your Lordships' House. I do not quite know who is the senior. It will be a very difficult problem for the noble Earl to settle whether he will get up from his seat and go into Lord Cranborne's room, or whether Lord Cranborne will get up and talk to him. That is a problem which is before him. But, however that may be, who is going to be in command of the Foreign Office?
There will be four Ministers, and yet no one will be in command unless it is the Permanent Under-Secretary. What is going to happen is that probably the Prime Minister will take over the Foreign Office in the absence of the two Foreign
728
Secretaries, so that there will be five in command of the Foreign Office. I do not believe for one moment that this method of multiplication in the Foreign Office makes for efficiency. I disagree with the noble Viscount when he thinks that the failure of the recent negotiations about Zeiler was not due to want of co-ordination. I am perfectly certain it was. I am perfectly certain that the matter was not fully discussed. I am convinced that if it had been more carefully gone into this impetuous flight would have been stopped. When you have got four or five Ministers who are going to arrange foreign affairs, what you lack is a central, personal, single authority, which is the one thing that is wanted in foreign affairs, the one thing that is respected by foreign Governments It makes a difference when a foreign Government thinks that not only is it going to have a call from our Ambassador and a telegram from our Foreign Office, but may see Mr. Eden arriving over their heads, and they are not sure that some other authorities are not going to come and interview them as well.
I am perfectly convinced that the ease with which we travel now, the ease with which we can communicate with one another, is tempting us to multiply offices, to produce a lack of co-ordination in the various duties, to get a duplication and overlapping and a consequent confusion. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, when he wants to put an end to this spectacular and sensational form of diplomacy. I believe, with other noble Lords who have spoken, that our Diplomatic Service is quite efficient. The great tradition in the Diplomatic Service has always been that they have been self-effacing, they have kept themselves out of the newspapers, they have not been heard of, they have only been satisfied because the work was done. Now we get a series of headings in the evening newspapers, we get flights, we get failures, we get confusions. At a moment like this, when our attention must be drawn with the very greatest care to the intricate difficulties which beset Europe and the world, I feel it is of the very utmost importance that this country should feel assured that our diplomacy is being conducted in such a way as to inspire real confidence.
I do not want to pepper the noble Earl who will answer for the Government with

729
a lot of questions of detail. He knows better than I do how all these questions of detail will arise; not only questions of rank, but questions of rooms. It has always been a difficulty in the Foreign Office to find a room for anybody. How room is going to be found for all these people I do not know, unless the enormous rooms in the Foreign Office are going to be divided, not only perpendicularly but horizontally too. That might be a way out. However that may be, I do not want to question the noble Earl with regard to the smaller details, but I do hope he will give us some assurance that there is going to be a Head, a responsible Head, of the Foreign Office, and that whatever subordinates and assistants he desires shall be all subordinate and assistant to him; that this one individual is to be the responsible Foreign Secretary and that through him the negotiations with foreign countries are to be carried on; that these negotiations are to be carried on by Ambassadors, and that he is not to travel about the world doing what is the job of other people. If the noble Earl can give us that assurance, it will make us feel there is some system in all this change, and some determination on the part of the Government not to allow the confusion of offices to interfere with the successful conduct of our diplomacy.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I confess that I attempted to get a member of the Cabinet to reply to this Question, because it seemed to me somewhat difficult that I, an Under-Secretary in the Foreign Office, should have to make remarks in regard to two Cabinet Ministers who are obviously my superiors in my own Depart-merit. However, I understood that the Question would concern itself a good deal with detail in the Department itself, and therefore I have to do my best to answer the questions which have been put. May I start by saying that there is no doubt whatever as to who controls the foreign policy of this country. It is the Cabinet and nobody else. I was amazed that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, should have thought that on an occasion such as the recent visit of my right honourable friend Mr. Eden to Rome, he should have gone out without any instructions apparently from anybody. Of course he went not only after
730
full discussion with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but he went to carry out the instructions of the Cabinet. That always happens, at any rate it does under this Government, when any Minister is sent out or an Under-Secretary is sent out to deal with a matter abroad. In my own experience at Geneva I went out to carry out the instructions which I had been given.
In regard to Mr. Eden's visits in this particular case, I can at any rate say from my personal knowledge that we had a conference in the Secretary of State's room at which both Mr. Eden and I were present, with several of the officials of the Foreign Office whose names, obviously, I cannot mention. The matter was fully discussed before the visit was paid. As regards the visit itself, what originally happened, as I think your Lordships know, is that the signing of the Naval Agreement between this country and Germany led to a considerable amount of misunderstanding both in France and in Italy, and it was felt advisable that my right honourable friend Mr. Eden should go over to Paris and explain, he having been present here when these conversations were taking place leading up to the Agreement, knowing exactly what bad been done and why is was that the Agreement was signed. It is, I think, obvious that as a result of that visit a good deal of misunderstanding was removed. The French Government and the French people began to realise that we were acting not only in our own interests but in the interests of Europe and in the interests of peace as well. That would have been much less effective if it had had to be dealt with at second hand through an Ambassador, however able he might be. To have someone who was present at the discussions and knew what was going on, who had been in touch throughout at the Foreign Office, to be able to go over and explain personally was, obviously, a much more effective thing to do than to have had it done second hand through anybody else.
For the same reason he went on to Rome. It was decided that, as lie was going to Rome, it was a suitable moment to put forward this proposal with regard to Zeila. The noble Lord went into the question of Zeila at some length. I am bound to admit, as was said by the noble

731
Lord, Lord Newton, that it is a very long way outside the terms of the Question on the Paper, and I am certainly not prepared to go into it. I do know, however, that the matter was only put forward in a provisional way, and that if it had found any acceptance in Rome it would then have been discussed fully with the French in regard to Jibuti and in regard to the natives who inhabit that part. I believe the population is a good deal less than the noble Lord said. There is a maximum of some 7,000 in winter, but during the rest of the year it is much less than that. That, however, as I have said, is outside the Question on the Paper.
LORD MELCHETT: May I ask the noble Earl, could not Mr. Eden have mentioned this Abyssinian project when he passed through Paris?
EARL STANHOPE: I believe that it was not mentioned until he got to Rome because, obviously, the proposal had to begin to be made somewhere and it was of no use discussing it with anybody else until it was found whether it was likely to be acceptable to Italy. Perhaps I might also explain, though it really needs no explanation, that the Foreign Office is not in a position to give away sections of British territory, or even a British Protectorate. Quite obviously such a matter would have to have a very full discussion with the Department concerned. The Colonial Office, of course, knew all that was going to be done before the visit was paid. I am bound to say that I think the criticism that has been made should have been directed not so much against the Government or even against the Foreign Office as against the Press. What has really happened in this case, as the noble Lord has said, is due to the headlines and the publicity.
But the question of visits by Secretaries of State abroad is no new thing. I am not an historian, but I do happen to know something of the history of my own family. The first Lord Stanhope, when he was Secretary of State, visited, I think, most of the capitals of Europe during the seven years for which he held the position of either Secretary of State for the North or Secretary of State for the South, and he succeeded in making peace with most of those countries. Not only his biographer, but also a great historian like Professor Trevelyan, described him
732
as not the worst Foreign Secretary we have had but as one of the best, and as having laid the foundation of the peace of Europe on which, subsequently, Walpole was able to build the whole financial reorganisation of England and the subsequent prosperity of this country.
The same is equally true, I believe, of an ancestor of my noble friend who leads the House, the great Lord Castlereagh. I think I am right in saying that he also travelled abroad on various occasions with great success and with great advantage to this country. Then there was the mission of the father of the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) to Constantinople which your Lordships will remember. If we are to be asked to give a pledge that such a thing should come to an end for ever, that is something which I am not prepared to do. The Secretary of State made it quite clear in another place that the addition of a new Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office was not going to entail additional visits, and that he was very conservatively minded in that matter, and felt that those visits should be exceptional, as in fact they usually have been.
There is another point I should like to clear up. It seems to have been thought, not by your Lordships but by some of the public, that it is quite a new thing to have two Cabinet Ministers at the Foreign Office. It is nothing of the kind. My noble friend on the Cross Benches is too retiring in his disposition to explain, but he himself was working at the Foreign Office, and I think sitting in the same room as I now sit in, from 1924 to 1927 or 1928, and then, when he retired from that position, he was succeeded by the late Lord Cushendun. Therefore, for the whole period from 1924 to 1929, the Government had two Cabinet Ministers working in the Foreign Office.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My noble friend is not quite right. When I was in that position, though I was working for the Foreign Office, I was not, to my regret, allowed to sit in the Foreign Office. I Always thought it a great pity, because I was not really able to get in full touch with the Foreign Office, though working for the Foreign Office. I was a Cabinet Minister—my noble friend is right in saying—during the War. I sat in the Foreign Office as an Under-Secretary in

733
the Government, and secondly as Minister of Blockade in the Cabinet, and, thirdly, as Assistant Secretary in the Cabinet, and during that period, which extended—I am afraid I forget dates—from somewhere in 1915 to the end of the War, there were two Cabinet Ministers in the Foreign Office, but afterwards, though I was working for the Foreign Office as a Cabinet. Minister and doing very much the kind of work Mr. Eden is supposed to do now, yet I had not a. room in the Foreign Office. I always thought, with due respect to my chief, that that was a mistake. It hampered me and the Foreign Office in the work done.
EARL STANHOPE: I appear to be right except that the noble Viscount's poste de commandement was not in the Foreign Office. The work he did was connected with the Foreign Office.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I had a room in the Treasury, oddly enough. I do not know why.
EARL STANHOPE: The room is not of consequence. It is the work done that is of importance. Really in the previous Government my right honourable friend Mr. Eden was working there as Lord Privy Seal. He was not a member of the Cabinet, but he was at any rate going on with exactly the same kind of work as he is doing now. Therefore the only difference is that he has gone into the Cabinet instead of being outside it as he was before. I think your Lordships will agree that in view of the importance of the questions now arising in various parts of the world in relation to foreign affairs it is no disadvantage to the Cabinet that there should be two Ministers who have these matters at their fingers' ends and who can advise the Cabinet as to the situation and as to what should be done.
The Question on the Paper asks what would be the distribution of activities and responsibilities. The Minister for League of Nations Affairs will normally be the representative of His Majesty's Government at Geneva when the presence of a Minister is necessary. Of course that often is not necessary. As your Lordships know, we often have as representative there some member of the Diplomatic Service from the Foreign Office to represent His Majesty's Government on special questions. That does not mean, of course, that the Secretary of State himself will never go to Geneva.
734
In fact, as your Lordships know, it is proposed that he should go there in September. That is quite customary. The Secretary of State has usually gone to Geneva for the Assembly as well as some other Minister and usually two or three Under-Secretaries. The reason for that is that when the Assembly is sitting there is a large number of Committees also sitting and unless you have three or four Ministers there it is really impossible to have a representative of this country attending these various Committees which meet at the same time. Certainly I have found it, during the few times I have been in Geneva, an immense disadvantage when the meeting of a Committee had to be postponed because some other country had not a sufficient number of representatives. We have had to postpone a meeting of a Committee perhaps until the next afternoon so as to enable the representative of a country to finish one Committee before going to another. That has delayed procedure even longer than normally, and those who know Geneva know that the procedure is quite long enough.
The Minister for League of Nations Affairs when in London will normally concert with the Secretary of State in all matters that come before him, paying particular attention, of course, to anything that comes before the League, but keeping generally in touch with foreign affairs and indeed with home affairs also, because if the representative of this country at Geneva is to do his work adequately the more he knows about the general situation and about all matters necessary for a Secretary of State to know the better will be represent this country. I think there is no doubt as to who would control policy. My right honourable friend Mr. Eden has made that quite clear. He has said: "There are not two Kings in Brentford. The Secretary of State is King." Therefore, obviously there will be no question of lack of direction or lack of control, because the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will control policy and will get the very valuable assistance, as I think your Lordships will agree, of Mr. Eden to help him.
My noble friend Lord Newton referred to a statement made by Mr. Baldwin in regard to the abolition of Ministries. My recollection of what happened is that there was a tremendous outcry from

735
everybody because certain Ministries had been selected for abolition. Everybody agreed that the number should be reduced, but when it came to the point as to which Ministry should be abolished then at once everybody got up and said that that was the one Ministry which should be preserved. Eventually the agitation apparently was such that the abolition, certainly in one or two cases, could not be carried out. Then the noble Lord remarked that an appointment once made is liable to become permanent. The Prime Minister has said that he looks on this as a purely temporary arrangement, and I think it is obvious that it is likely to be so. The noble Lord said also that he thought that possibly hereafter there might be friction. If you get a Prime Minister who chooses his team badly and selects two incompatible personalities undoubtedly friction will occur. But at the present moment, with the two individuals he has selected, those who have seen them at work together realise that friction is quite out of the question and that they will definitely pull together. It may not be always easy in the realm of foreign affairs to find those who will have the same kind of personality and who will pull together, so for that reason only this is likely to be a temporary arrangement.
In any case the reason for it at the moment is obvious. Most difficult questions are coming up before the League of Nations very shortly and they really require that a Cabinet Minister should attend to represent this country. Everybody agrees that it is unfortunate if the Secretary of State himself is out of the country except on very rare occasions, and therefore the only alternative is to have a second Cabinet Minister. Normally, when questions are not of such complexity and difficulty as they are at this moment they will very likely be adequately dealt with by an Under-Secretary. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, talked as if the Secretary of State spent his whole time abroad.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Not all of it.
EARL STANHOPE: The greater part of it. As a matter of fact since June, 1929, there have been only fifteen visits abroad by the Secretary of State or by the Under-Secretary of State, and during that time ten capitals have been visited, so that the visits abroad have not been
736
very many and still less have they been prolonged. It may comfort the noble Earl to know that five of those visits were paid during the time that the Labour Government was in office. Who will be the senior of the two Under-Secretaries I have not the slightest idea, but I think we shall probably run in couples. If horses are properly harnessed in pairs they run together and neither gets in front of the other. I can assure the noble Lord who leads the Opposition that there is not likely to be the slightest difficulty as to who visits which room, because we shall probably quite often be going into each other's room. The incident he had in mind did not occur under a National Government or a Conservative Government. I know the occasion to which he refers and I can tell him the names of the two Ministers afterwards if he would like to hear them. I know the case quite well.
As to who will answer Questions in the House of Commons, I do not know whether the arrangement has been finally settled, but I think that what is likely to be done is what happened during the term of office of the previous Government when the Secretary of State answered questions on Mondays and Wednesdays and the present Minister for League of Nations Affairs on Tuesdays and Thursdays. That was what happened under the last Government, when Mr. Eden was Lord Privy Seal. I do not know whether that is going to be the future arrangement but I know it is being discussed. It is obviously an advantage that the Secretary of State himself should be present on certain days. It is customary in another place for Ministers to have definite days when questions relating to their Departments are directed to them. But with the Foreign Office the questions are so numerous that actually they have been directed to the Foreign Office at any rate four days a week, but Ministers have taken them on alternate days. I believe this is the policy which will probably happen again in the future.
I think I have nothing further that I can tell your Lordships on the matter. Certainly I can give one very definite assurance: that there will be no lack of co-ordination of any sort or description under the present arrangement. Visits are likely to be fewer rather than

737
more numerous. I entirely agree with those who say that the strain on those who hold the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is a very heavy one indeed; and it is not likely that the Foreign Secretary's Cabinet colleagues or
738
anybody connected with him will allow him to expend himself unnecessarily by making visits overseas which can be done without.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL.
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CHICHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments. The said amendments considered, and agreed to.

LONDON BUILDING ACT (AMEND MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
MILFORD DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
STOURBRIDGE NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments. The said amendments considered, and agreed to.

ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
BECKENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.