Sitting of 1 April 1936

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Coventry Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.
Southern Railway Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  SUEZ CANAL COMPANY.
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount paid in English currency to each of the official and unofficial British directors who serve on the board of the Suez Canal Company for the 12 months to the last convenient date; and how many meetings each of these directors attended?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I regret that the information desired is not available.
  Mr. DAY: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say what is the amount that these directors receive?
  Mr. EDEN: The information is not available.
  Mr. DAY: Was not a statement made in this House in answer to a question by me, that they receive 2 per cent. on the profits of the company, and is the right hon. Gentleman not able to tell us what the amount is in currency?
  Mr. EDEN: If it is a question of calculation, I will not vie with the hon. Member.

  GERMANY AND LOCARNO TREATY.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of making it clear to the German Government, in any negotiations arising out of Herr Hitler's proposals concerning the colonial question, that as long as the German Government persecute their own citizens for political, religious, and racial reasons no agreement to place further human beings under their control is likely to be reached?
  Mr. EDEN: I would remind the hon. Member that the Prime Minister gave an assurance on 18th December last, in reply to a question by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), that no British territory and no territory under British protection or mandate would be transferred from British sovereignty or authority without the fullest regard being had to the interests of all sections of the population in the territory concerned.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not very desirable that this matter should be clearly understood in any negotiations that may take place?
  Mr. STEPHEN: Is it intended to transfer any British territory?
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inquire from the German Government why, in view of the fact that the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Kellogg Pact are permanently binding peace treaties, the proposal recently made by Herr Hitler is only for a period of 25 years; and what additional value it possesses not provided by the above-mentioned treaties?
  Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member may rest assured that in any discussions with the German Government points of this kind will be carefully borne in mind.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that 25 years is a considerably shorter period than eternity?
  Mr. EDEN: It is also a longer period than ten?
  Sir PERCY HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received the alternative

  1971
  proposals of the German Government; and, if so, whether he can communicate them to the House?
  Mr. EDEN: Herr von Ribbentrop arrived in London last night and called on the Lord Privy Seal and myself this morning, when he communicated a document on behalf of the German Government. This document is naturally undergoing careful examination, and I am not in a position to make a statement about it at present.
  Mr. MANDER: When will it be published?
  Mr. EDEN: I understand it is to be published this evening.

  EGYPT.

    ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONVERSATIONS.
    Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who are the legal advisers to the British delegation now taking part in the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations?
    Mr. EDEN: The discussions now taking place in Cairo are not formal negotiations but preliminary conversations, and the stage has not been reached when legal formulas need to be drafted. It is proposed, however, to send a legal expert to Cairo to advise the British delegation as soon as his presence appears necessary.
    Mr. DONNER: Is it not a fact that there are several legal advisers of the Egyptian Government there?
    Mr. EDEN: I am afraid I do not know.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Ahmed Maher and Nekrashi Bey are members of the Egyptian delegation now taking part in the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations in Cairo?
    Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Is it considered altogether desirable that one person at least, still held by the British Government officially to be guilty of complicity in murder, should be a member of the Egyptian Delegation?
    Mr. EDEN: I should like to see that question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. DONNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the High Commissioner, Lord Lloyd, issued a proclamation, with the consent of His Majesty's Government, that the British Government would never again negotiate with any of these persons?
    Mr. EDEN: I understand that both these persons were associated with the Delegation in 1930. I think these very grave questions should be put on the Paper.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Nay we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will not negotiate with Hitler and Goering?
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement regarding the progress of the Anglo-Egyptian treaty negotiations?
    Mr. EDEN: The preliminary conversations with a view to negotiations for an Anglo-Egyptian settlement are still in progress, and it is too early as yet to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who are the military advisers to the British Delegation taking part in the Anglo-Egyptian treaty negotiations?
    Mr. EDEN: The military advisers to the British Delegation taking part in the present Anglo-Egyptian conversations are the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Station, or his deputy, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, British troops in Egypt, and the Air Officer Commanding Royal Air Force, Middle East.

    MURDER OF SIR LEE STACK.
    Mr. CARTLANDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the members of the Wafd party tried by the Court of Assize in Cairo in 1926 for complicity in the murder of Sir Lee Stack, the Governor-General of the Sudan and Sirdar of the Egyptian Army?
    Mr. EDEN: The trial of the persons charged with complicity in the murder of Sir Lee Stack took place in May, 1925. Of the nine persons brought before the Court of Assize on this charge, one Shafik Mansur, was a member of the Wafd party.

    UNITED STATES (VISITORS).
    Mr. LEACHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will use his good offices to secure a modification of the long lists of useless and vexatious questions which intending visitors between England and the United States of America have to answer?
    Mr. EDEN: The questionnaire which intending visitors to the United States are required to answer is, I understand, a part of the machinery of the United States Immigration authorities for the control of aliens entering the United States. This is a matter solely within the competence of the United States authorities and is not one in regard to which His Majesty's Government would feel able to approach the United States Government.
    Mr. LEACH: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that a long string of useless questions are also put on this side and that the chance is there, if we care to take it, of opening negotiations for their abolition?
    Mr. EDEN: I am not sure by whom these useless questions are asked. Is it by the United States authorities?
    Mr. LEACH: By us.
    Mr. EDEN: That is a matter for the Home Office.

    HARAR (ITALIAN AIR BOMBARD MENT).
    Mr. DALTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa a report of the bombardment of Harar by Italian aircraft; and whether Harar is an open town?
    Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa reported on 29th March that he had been informed by the Abyssinian Government that Harar had been heavily bombed that morning by a number of Italian aircraft. On the following day, His Majesty's Minister, who had by that time received a report from His Majesty's Consul at Harar, telegraphed that the raid had been carried out by 18 Italian aircraft, flying about 6,000 feet over the town between 8.45 and 9.30 a.m. According to this report, the machines circled wide
    1974
    three times, and in all approximately 300 bombs fell in the town and a few on buildings outside the town limits. Three bombs fell in the Swedish Mission compound, 50 in that of the Egyptian Red Cross, 14 on the Catholic Mission, four on the French hospital arid Agency, and four on the Harar Red Cross, destroying a ground sign five yards square. The apparatus of the wireless station was destroyed and the telephone lines to the British Consulate damaged; the Catholic church and the Abyssinian church of St. Xavier were also badly damaged. Some 10 fires were started, chiefly in the native quarter, and burnt fiercely, but it is believed that the number of casualties was fortunately small, as the town was evacuated at 6 a.m. and the approach of the hostile aircraft notified by minute guns.
    As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Minister at Addis. Ababa has also reported that on 28th March the Abyssinian Government issued a communiqué denying reports from Italian sources that military preparations had been made in the town of Harar. In this communiqué reference was made to the official Abyssinian notification to the League of 2nd December last, in which it was stated that in order to spare the civilian population and resident foreigners from the effects of possible air bombardments, the Emperor had decided that all Abyssinian combatants should leave the town, which would in future be used solely as a depot for wounded from the southern front, and not for any military purpose whatever.
    Mr. DALTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British public opinion is increasingly stirred by these horrible atrocities which are being perpetrated, and when are His Majesty's Government going to take any further step to end it, at least by refusing to supply British oil to these murderous airmen?
    Mr. EDEN: I would ask the hon. Member to realise that His Majesty's Government are just as anxious as he can be to bring this war, and the miserable suffering consequent upon it, to an end, and I think the record of His Majesty's Government will show that quite plainly. As I have already indicated, we desire that the task on which the chairman of the Committee of Thirteen is engaged

    1975
    should be pursued as speedily as possible, and I can assure the House that we are watching that ourselves.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether any warning had been issued by the Government of Italy to the Government of Ethiopia that this bombing would take place?
    Mr. EDEN: I have no information of that.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Would not the speediest conclusion to these horrible atrocities be secured by a return on the part of the British and French Governments to the proposals of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare)?
    Mr. SORENSEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable pleasure at the result of the raid has been registered by many supporters of the Government, who are also readers of the "Daily Mail"?
    Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member does not suppose that I like these raids any more than he does.
    Mr. MANDER: Are these the people who are now going to police the Rhineland?

    AGGRESSION AND SANCTIONS.
    Mr. DALTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has given to the representatives of any European States outside the Locarno group ally assurance that, in the event of an aggressive attack upon such States, His Majesty's Government would interpret their obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations more strictly than they have interpreted them in relation to the Italian-Abyssinian war?
    Mr. EDEN: I would remind the hon. Member that I stated in the course of the Debate last Thursday that, beyond the area covered by the Locarno Treaty, the obligations of His Majesty's Government are the obligations of the Covenant, which are shared by all Members of the League. His Majesty's Government remain fully determined to fulfil these obligations in company with their fellow members of the League, and have given no assurances to any State which limit, qualify, or extend them.
    Mr. DALTON: Are we then to assume that States outside the Locarno group may expect similar treatment to that which the Ethiopians are receiving at present, and that the British Government will sell oil to the aggressor in this case also?
    Mr. McGOVERN: May we have an assurance that this country will not be driven into war by the Labour party?

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS COUNCIL.
    Sir P. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Council of the League of Nations will next meet; and whether it will be in London or Geneva.
    Mr. EDEN: A further meeting of the ninety-first Extraordinary Session of the Council which was adjourned on 24th March has not yet been fixed, but the Council has decided to hold any such meeting at Geneva.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    VEGETABLE CONTRACTS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the contracts for supplying potatoes and other vegetables, which are supplied to the Admiralty for the victualling of the Royal Navy, stipulate that the supplies are to be home-grown produce; and has there been any recent difficulty in the delivery of these supplies?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): Admiralty contracts for potatoes and other vegetables do not stipulate that supplies are to be home-grown produce, and it would not be practicable to ensure that such a condition, if inserted, would be in fact fulfilled. In all such contracts placed by the Admiralty a paragraph is included informing contractors that they are relied upon to supply home-grown produce so far as it is reasonably obtainable without sacrifice of quality. No recent difficulty in obtaining supplies of homegrown vegetables has been reported to the Admiralty.
    Mr. DAY: Has the noble Lord any information of potatoes delivered from abroad for the Admiralty?
    Lord STANLEY: No, Sir.
    Mr. DAY: Will he make inquiries?

    SABOTAGE.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to several cases of sabotage which have occurred in His Majesty's ships; and whether, in view of the general uneasiness caused by this new and disturbing state of affairs, he will make a statement on the subject, and especially as to the steps taken to detect the malefactors and to guard against such incidents in the future?
    Lord STANLEY: The Admiralty is, of course, aware of the cases of damage or suspected sabotage which have recently occurred in His Majesty's ships when in hand in the dockyards. Beyond saying that suitable preventive measures are being employed, it is not desirable to discuss them, as publicity would obviously tend to defeat the objects in view.
    Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Have any of these cases of sabotage occurred in other than cases when the ship was in dockyard hands?
    Lord STANLEY: As I have informed the House, there was one suspected case of sabotage in a private dockyard.

    ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS (RECRUITMENT).
    Sir ROBERT YOUNGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to recruit young men of the ages of 19½ to 21 years to serve as fifth class engine-room artificers; what is the reason for this recruitment; and whether this arises from the scarcity of skilled men seeking to join the Navy as engine-room artificers?
    Lord STANLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The reason for this recruitment is to meet increasing future requirements due to Fleet expansion and the abnormal wastage to pension now occurring.
    Sir R. YOUNG: Are these to be semiskilled men or those withdrawn from their apprenticeship?
    Lord STANLEY: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Noble Lord give the House, and through the House the engineers, an assurance that there will be no attempt to introduce dilution of labour?
    Lord STANLEY: The question of dilution of labour does not arise.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory reply, I will raise the question on the first available opportunity.

    PORT EDGAR, SOUTH QUEENSFERRY.
    Mr. MATHERSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the property, including workshops and other buildings, at Port Edgar, South Queensferry, is still available for sale for commercial purposes; and, if so, what conditions are imposed by the Admiralty upon any purchaser?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, as the Admiralty propose to retain the property for Naval purposes. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    WELFARE CONFERENCES.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the date of the last welfare conference when naval ratings were able to put forward requests for improved conditions; and, as the first review of service conditions under the new scheme is now more than six months overdue and unlikely to be held for a long time, whether the Admiralty will arrange for welfare conferences to be held to deal with lower-deck requests on the same lines as the conferences held from 1919?
    Lord STANLEY: The last welfare conference was held in 1932. Orders were given on 4th July, 1935, for the first review of service conditions to be held lit September or October of that year. Owing to the altered disposition of the Fleet, it has not yet been possible, except in the Royal Australian Navy, for the review to be carried out, but this will be done so soon as naval dispositions permit.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: May we be assured that these conferences will be on the old lines?
    Lord STANLEY: There is a considerable difference between the old welfare conferences and the proposed new service conditions. I will send the right, hon. Gentleman a copy of the proposals.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MALTA (IMPORTS).
    Sir REGINALD CLARRYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what preference is shown by the Government of Malta towards British goods, particularly the importation into that country of coal; and whether his attention has been called to the unfair competition of subsidised Polish coal against exports from South Wales?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): A system of preference is in operation in respect of most imports into Malta, but coal is on the free list. As most of the coal imported is destined for re-export or for the coaling trade, I am satisfied that it would be of little benefit to British coal exporters if foreign coal was subjected to a duty. The Government of Malta itself purchases British coal for its own use whenever possible.
    Sir R. CLARRY: Does that apply to the military authorities as well?
    Mr. THOMAS: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question to the Secretary of State for War?
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not quite easy to discriminate between coal for re-exportation and coal retained for internal use?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am told by those who know most about it that it would be fatal to the coal trade to impose a duty.

    SEYCHELLES.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of the Seychelles has granted a monopoly to the London firm of Treatt and Company for the purchase and marketing of all Eugenol producing essences; that this monopoly includes not merely these essences but all essences; why the Government Gazette has been utilised to push the interest of this private firm; and what protection will be given to the producers of the island, in view of the fact
    1980
    that they will practically be compelled to deal with the firm in question, owing to the abolition of competition?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The firm in question have, with the consent of the producers, been appointed sole selling agents for those oils; they are not concerned as principals. The object is to benefit the Colony.
    Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the growers and distillers view the creation of this monopoly with alarm, and are very much afraid that their interests will suffer as a consequence?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have looked carefully into the matter and I find it very analogous to the cod trade. That is to say, when those who produce coal find that it is being produced at an uneconomic rate they do not get any benefit. I find that these oils are produced in the same way, and this is a selling agency to benefit the producer, and not injure him.
    Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his analogy with coal is quite wrong, and that this scheme is not an effort for co-operative selling so much as the creation of a monopoly for the benefit of a British firm?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is not a monopoly in the sense that this firm is a principal. This system was introduced because oil was being sold at ridiculous prices, with a loss to the producers and with no benefit to the Colony at all.
    Mr. PALING: If representations are made, will the right hon. Gentleman consider them?

    DENMARK.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make in regard to trade negotiations with Denmark?
    Captain WALLACE (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): The proposals which were submitted to the Danish delegation at the beginning of March have been discussed in detail in Copenhagen. I understand they are now being considered by the Danish Government, but I am not yet in a position to make any further statement.

  KENYA.

    INTOXICATING LIQUOR (NATIVES).
    Mr. SORENSENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the contradictory character of the recent liquor legislation in Kenya, which provides for the employment of natives in the sale and supply of intoxicants and even in the sole charge of liquor bars, while inflicting penalties of as much as four years' imprisonment on those who supply intoxicating liquor to a native; and whether he will take steps to put an end to liquor ordinances which permit white men in this Colony to supply intoxicants to African natives or employ them in the supply?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The Kenya Ordinance imposes heavy penalties on the supply of intoxicating liquor to any native. It does not prohibit the employment of a native as a bar attendant, and when it was fully reviewed by a local committee in 1934, they saw no reason for any such prohibition. I am not prepared to disturb so recent a conclusion without clear evidence of abuse.
    Mr. SORENSEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is fair to place these natives, to whom intoxicating liquor is prohibited, in this position, where obviously they are involved in the sale of drink and are tempted to consume it? Further, would the right hon. Gentleman himself care to receive intoxicating liquor in Kenya from a native to whom liquor is prohibited?
    Mr. THOMAS: As to the last supplementary question, I would not like to say at this moment. As to the first part of the question, this matter was fully investigated by a committee which came to a decision, but if the hon. Member has any evidence of abuses, I shall be glad to receive it.
    Mr. SORENSEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter in view of the inconsistency of the position, and also in view of the fact that numbers of people in Kenya have been making representations on this matter in recent years?
    Mr. THOMAS: If the hon. Member will send me any of these representations I will consider them.
    Mr. LOGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us at what stage he would take a drink from a native in Kenya?

    TAXATION.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report on the finances of Kenya Colony is expected; and whether it is to deal with the hardships of the poll tax and the taking of native women as hostages for its payment?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am unable to to say when the report is likely to be available. The allegations to which the hon. Member refers are being investigated by a commission appointed by the Governor.
    Mr. LEACH: May we have an assurance that the statement in the latter part of the question will be thoroughly discountenanced in regard to its operation by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. THOMAS: If the report proves that abuses of this kind take place I will certainly deal with them, but I do not want to anticipate the report.

    PALESTINE (PRISONER).
    Mr. GALLAGHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that I. Z. Koltun, a Jewish writer, is being held in prison in Jerusalem; that no charge has been made against him; that he is suffering from ill-health and that his illness is being aggravated by the prison conditions; and will he take steps to secure his liberation?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am asking the High Commissioner for Palestine for a report.

  AVIATION.

    FLIGHTS (POPULATED AREAS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to two aeroplanes which flew over the West-end of London at about 1 p.m. on Friday, 13th December, 1935, carrying long streamers attached to ropes; and whether, in view of the danger to the civilian population

    1983
    he will consider introducing regulations that will prohibit aeroplanes from flying over populated areas in this manner?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am aware of the incident referred to, but am advised that no danger to the civilian population was involved. Provided the existing regulations are complied with, such flying is not considered dangerous and no need is, therefore, seen at present for further regulations.
    Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Baronet see that flying over London for these purposes is prohibited altogether by the regulations?
    Sir W. BRASS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any limit to the height at which aeroplanes can fly over populations?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, there is; at sufficient height to enable them to land on an aerodrome outside the town.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Although the regulation of 2,000 feet may be complied with, does not my right hon. Friend think that, in view of the increasing number of aeroplanes and the proximity of aerodromes to populated districts, these regulations should now be reviewed?

    AERODROMES.
    Mr. ROLAND ROBINSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, whether he is aware that the provision of aerodromes for civil aviation is being hindered and that there is a danger of certain municipalities and private persons being forced to abandon existing aerodromes for want of financial assistance; and whether he will consider the advisability of obtaining powers to grant financial assistance in suitable cases?
    Sir P. SASSOON: This question falls within the purview of Sir Henry Maybury's Committee, which is expected to report at an early date.
    Mr. ROBINSON: In view of the fact that most municipal aerodromes are working at a loss, does my right hon. Friend not consider that, in the case of those serving the main trunk routes, the loss should be borne by the Government rather than by the local authorities?
    Sir P. SASSOON: All these considerations are under review by the Maybury Committee.

    COMMERCIAL LINES.
    Mr. R. ROBINSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many commercial air lines in Great Britain ceased operations during the last 12 months; over what routes they were operating; and what steps he proposes to take to see that an adequate system of air communications is maintained in Great Britain?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Three companies ceased operations during the last 12 months, but the interests of two of them have, I understand, been acquired by other concerns. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate a list of the routes in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the last part of the question, the matter will be one for consideration in the light of the report of Sir Henry Maybury's Committee.
    Mr. ROBINSON: Does my right hon. Friend not consider that it would be wise to extend the principles of Part I of the Air Navigation Bill to internal air lines?
    Following is the list:
    Routes previously operated by the three companies:

    Croydon — Southampton — Plymouth —Penzance.

    Croydon — Leicester — Nottingham —Hull.

    Nottingham—Leicester—Le Touquet—Paris.

    Croydon — Portsmouth — Bournemouth—Guernsey.

    Heston—Leeds—Newcastle—Edinburgh.

    IMPERIAL AIRWAYS (LONDON-SINGAPORE ROUTE).
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the time allowance which Imperial Airways makes for the journey to Singapore from London, also from Singapore to London, and also the official time allowance for the same route by the Dutch line?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Making adjustments for changes in standard times, the time allowances shown in Imperial Airways time-tables for the journeys London-Singapore and Singapore-London are 188 hours and 204 hours respectively. The corresponding times by K.L.M.

    1985
    services throughout for the journey to and from London are 144 hours and 148 hours respectively. I should add that under the new Empire scheme announced some time since, the fleet for which is already under construction, it is contemplated progressively to reduce the time taken between London and Singapore to under five days.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is not the right hon. Gentleman a little unhappy about the general position of Imperial Airways, and does he not realise that it is almost a national disgrace that we are so behind other countries?
    Sir F. SANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the cause of Imperial Airways failing to adhere to published schedules in its flights between London and Singapore; and the average number of days per flight they have been late during the last 12 flights?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The loss of the "Sylvanus" in Brindisi harbour by fire last November necessitated the use of "Calcuttas," which are of lower cruising speed. This fact, coupled with exceptionally bad weather in the Mediterranean and the resultant destruction of the slipway at Alexandria, dislocated the company's repair overhaul programme, rendering occasional variations from the published time-tables unavoidable. The average delay on the last 12 flights is less than one day.
    Sir F. SANDERSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the same month of February the Dutch line flew seven outward voyages, and that they arrived to time? In view of the fact that the Dutch line does the journey in five days, while Imperial Airways take eight days, does he not regard this as very serious?
    Mr. BOSSOM: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the speed of Imperial Airways?

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (RATIONS).
    Mr. LEACHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that at least 14 county councils and 24 large municipalities have lately abandoned margarine for butter in their homes, hospitals, and public assistance institutions; that many of them already note an improvement in the health and happiness of the inmates since tinned
    1986
    milk and margarine were given up; that the dietary practices of the defence forces' authorities are now falling seriously behind those of the local authorities; and will he, in the interests of the Air Force, make this reform in diet?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The present arrangements in regard to the supply of margarine are under review. No decision has yet been reached.
    Mr. JAGGER: Shall we get it in the spring?

    DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
    Sir R. YOUNGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the Air Commission of the Disarmament Conference last met; whether it is likely to meet again; and, if not, are any steps being taken by the responsible authority to table a plan for the supervision of civil aviation?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The Air Commission last met on 17th March, 1933. As to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) on 4th February. My Noble Friend does not consider that any progress could be made at the present time in regard to the supervision of civil aviation, proposals for which were included in the Draft Convention submitted by His Majesty's Government to the Disarmament Conference.
    Mr. BENSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the Government propose to ask for a meeting of the Air Committee of the Disarmament Conference?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given to the hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancaster (Sir R. Young), and to that given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) on 4th February.
    Mr. BENSON: Are we to understand from that reply that the policy of the Government is still as announced by the late Secretary of State for Air in another place, namely, the preservation of the use of bombing planes?

  TRANSPORT.

    DUAL CARRIAGEWAYS.
    Sir GIFFORD FOXasked the Minister of Transport whether he has approved the schemes for road improvements involving the making of dual carriageways separated by a central reserve on the Harrow to Kingston Road, on the Kingston by-pass, on the London to Portsmouth Road, and on the proposed Crawley by-pass of the London to Brighton Road; and whether, as a result of the experience of this form of road construction on the Great West Road and other roads in Middlesex, he will in all cases take care that each of the dual carriageways has a width of at least 28 feet?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I have approved the construction of dual carriageways, each 20 feet in width, on the Harrow-Kingston Road between Western Avenue and Ruislip Road, and the construction of dual carriageways of similar width, with cycle tracks, on the Crawley by-pass. The width of carriageways is, of course, properly determined by the density and nature of the traffic. For the appropriate layout I would refer my hon. Friend to the recent circular issued to highway authorities on standard widths. I will send my hon. Friend a copy.
    Sir W. BRASS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dual carriageway on the Great Western Road is far too narrow at the present time, and is it not a waste of money?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that they intend to put down cycle tracks there so as to relieve the congestion.
    Sir J. NALL: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that where there is no service road for standard vehicles, these 20-feet tracks are much too narrow? Would he see that the 20-feet width is only allowed as a service road for standard vehicles?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We are doing our best to get wider and wider tracks, and I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the circular from which he will see that we intend to implement that pledge.
    Sir J. NALL: In the meantime, is it not a fact that this 20-feet scheme is making them narrower and narrower?

    TRAMWAY SHELTER, VICTORIA EMBANKMENT.
    Mr. GOLDIEasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether and, if so, when it is proposed to remove the tramway shelter on the Embankment adjacent to Temple Gardens which completely obstructs the view of on-coming traffic for passengers descending from tramway cars, and to which the attention of his Department has been called on several previous occasions;
    (2) whether the final decision as to whether the existing tramway shelter on the Embankment, adjacent to Temple Gardens, constitutes a danger to the public is to be taken by him or by the local authority; and, if by the latter, will he make representations to such authority for its removal forthwith?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The tramway shelter in question was erected under statutory powers. It has now been altered at my request, plain glass being substituted for wood to enable passengers leaving the cars to see approaching traffic. My engineers are discussing with the City Corporation the provision of guard rails and traffic light signals in order further to improve the situation.
    Mr. GOLDIE: In view of the fact that the shelter is a little more dangerous than it was before, will the Minister, in the interests of the unfortunate inhabitants of the Temple, arrange for an accident black spot notice at this point?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I agree that some of the inhabitants of the Temple are unfortunate, but this is a matter for the City Corporation. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, I have been doing my best to arrange with them some improvement in the situation of which he so rightly complains.
    Mr. GOLDIE: I am obliged. Will the Minister do his best to have an accident black spot notice arranged for at this point?

    LEVEL CROSSINGS.
    Lieut.-Commander TUFNELLasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the recent inquest at Sandwich on Mr. George

    1989
    Bates, who was killed by a train while riding his motor-cycle over a level crossing, and to the urgent need that such level crossings should be done away with; and how many level crossings remain in the country where the side wicket-gate is left open when the main gate is closed?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, and I have repeatedly intimated to highway authorities my readiness to give Road Fund grants up to 75 per cent. in the case of approved schemes for replacing level crossings by bridges. I do not know how many wicket gates are left open in the country as a whole.
    Captain H. BALFOUR: Arising out of that reply, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this level crossing is at a point where a very deserted road runs over a railway, and where it would be quite unecenomic to build a bridge? Is he also aware that there are much more heavy casualties in Cambridge than there are in the Isle of Thanet?

    ROAD ACCIDENTS (RETURNS).
    Sir HENRY JACKSONasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether, with a view to providing a broader indication of the relative incidence of road casualties in certain police districts than that, based on fatalities only, now given in his weekly statistics of road accidents, he will substitute a statement showing the number of persons killed or injured per 100,000 of the population;
    (2) whether, in future, he will include in his weekly statistics of road casualties a comparison of the aggregate numbers of persons killed or injured in each police district from the beginning of the year and for the corresponding weeks of the previous year?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have adopted my hon. Friend's suggestions and propose to show, as from next Thursday, 9th April, the number of persons killed and injured per 100,000 of the population where hitherto the number of persons killed only has been shown. It is also proposed to include in the weekly statistics a comparison of the aggregate numbers of persons killed and injured in each police district from the beginning of the year and for the corresponding weeks of last year.
    Miss RATHBONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider distinguishing in the weekly return between casualties in areas where there is a speed limit, and casualties in areas where there is no speed limit?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is already a rough indication of the distinction between the built-up and the non-built-up areas.
    Sir W. BRASS: Would it be possible to indicate in the return the number who were actually killed in the week concerned, as distinct from those who died as a result of accidents which occurred in the previous week?

    PARLIAMENT SQUARE (TRAFFIC CONTROL).
    Mr. GOLDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the danger to Members of Parliament and pedestrians generally existing at the uncontrolled crossing in St. Margaret's Street between the Houses of Parliament and St. Margaret's Church; and whether, in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House, he will arrange for police control similar to that provided at the other crossing in Parliament Square, so that safe access may be afforded to those proceeding to the Houses of Parliament?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My right hon. Friend has been in communication with the Commissioner of Police who informs him that at present eight policemen are employed on points in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster when the Houses of Parliament are in Session. Only one slight accident involving personal injury has occurred on the crossing in question since 1st January, 1935, and while further control at this crossing is not considered necessary from the point of view of traffic danger, the Commissioner has decided that, in order to facilitate the passage of hon. Members, this crossing shall in future be controlled by a policeman while Parliament is in Session.
    Mr. GOLDIE: May I thank my hon. Friend for his reply?
    Mr. STOREY: Will the Home Secretary also have attention paid to the crossing at the junction of Abingdon Street and Old Palace Yard?

    PETROL DUTY.
    Lieut.-Commander TUFNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has during the current year examined representations of road transport interests in this country as to the burden imposed on British industry by the present level of the tax on petrol; and whether, in view of the fact that part of the present tax was imposed during the financial emergency of 1931, he will give an assurance to those concerned that this part of the tax at least will be removed as soon as practicable?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; with regard to the second part, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

    TAX OFFICE, LEWISHAM.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the First Commissioner of Works whether plans for new accommodation for the office of His Majesty's inspector of taxes and staff at Lewisham have now been approved; and whether, in view of the unsatisfactory accommodation at the present office at 263, High Road, Lee, S.E.12, the building of the new premises will be commenced without delay?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Plans have not yet been finally approved, but a scheme is under active consideration and will be pressed forward as quickly as possible.

    BRITISH ARMY (RECRUITS UNDER AGE).
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will undertake to see that no boys are taken into the Army under 18 years of age, and that copies of birth certificates are either produced or copies purchased in every case?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): A recruit presenting himself for enlistment has to declare his age, and the greatest care is taken to impress on him that a wilfully false statement is an offence punishable by imprisonment. No boys who declare their age as being under 18 are taken into the Army without the
    1992
    production of a birth certificate and the consent of their parents to enlistment. Where boys under 18 are of mature physique, however, it is impossible to detect mis-statement of age without insisting on the production of a birth certificate in every case. This proposal has been raised in this House on more than one occasion, and I. see no reason to depart from the view expressed by my predecessors, that it is impracticable and undesirable to do so.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I was 17 I enlisted in the Navy, and that the recruiting officer went a distance of five miles to get my birth certificate before he. allowed me to go to Chatham; and will he see that that practice is also followed in the Army as a large number of youths go away some distance from home to enlist?

    COASTWISE SHIPPING (FOREIGN VESSELS).
    Mr. PETHERICKasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that a considerable proportion of foreign motor coasters engaging in the inter-port trade of the United Kingdom are carrying stone, granite, cement and other materials for road-making, public works and housing schemes of local authorities; and whether he can state the number of local authorities that now stipulate in their forms of tender that where materials intended for their use are carried coastwise they shall be carried only in ships of British nationality?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The reply to both parts of the question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend will, however, he glad to consider any information which my hon. Friend may wish to submit to him in this connection.

    CONSCRIPTION.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Prime Minister whether he can give a guarantee that a conscription Measure will not be introduced so long as peace prevails?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Yes, Sir, so far as the present Government are concerned.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I am delighted to have that assurance.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long the present Government will last?

    STAFF CONVERSATIONS.
    Commander LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the official announcement by the German Government that the knowledge that the general staffs of Belgium, France, and Great Britain are drawing up plans for mutual protection has destroyed the confidence necessary for Herr Hitler to put forward further peace proposals; and whether he has any statement to make?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen Press reports to the effect that a semiofficial statement in the sense indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend was issued in Berlin some days ago. The views of His Majesty's Government regarding the proposed staff conversations were made clear by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the course of last Thursday's Debate, and I have nothing to add to what he then said.
    Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that England does not take her marching orders from Germany under Herr Hitler? [HON. MEMBERS: "Or France."]

    EUROPEAN SITUATION (BROADCASTS).
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Prime Minister whether he would consider approaching the British Broadcasting Corporation with a view to a broadcast being made on different dates in French, German, and Italian, giving the British Government's point of view on the present European situation, so that the people of France, Belgium, Germany, and Italy, the other signatories to the Locarno Treaty, may hear at first hand the reasons for the attitude agreed to by His Majesty's Government on this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have given careful consideration to my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, but I do not
    1994
    believe that in present circumstances it would be either desirable or possible.
    Sir W. BRASS: Could my right hon. Friend not make representations to the Ministers of other nations to the effect that facilities should be given for broadcasts in the various languages to the peoples of other countries, because I am sure the peoples do not wish to fight each other?

    RATING SYSTEM.
    Mr. LECKIEasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the dissatisfaction which exists with regard to the present system of local rating, he will consider the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the whole question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not consider that such criticism of the rating system as there may be in certain quarters would justify the appointment of a Royal Commission at the present time.

  DEFENCE.

    HERRING INDUSTRY.
    Sir EDMUND FINDLAYasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, whether he will consider taking special steps to safeguard the herring industry in view of the importance of its personnel and products to national defence?
    The MINISTER for the CO-ORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): As my hon. Friend is aware, the Herring Industry Board set up under the Herring Industry Act, 1935, is taking certain measures for the benefit of the herring industry. Should the necessity for further measures arise, I will bear in mind the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.
    Sir E. FINDLAY: Is my right hon. Friend in agreement with the latest report of the Herring Industry Board; and does he not consider that further steps should be taken?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I said in my answer that consideration would be given to the necessity for further steps when the results of the 1935 Act had been observed.
    Mr. CARTLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that this is only

    1995
    one aspect of the question of food supplies and defence; and will he be prepared to make a statement at an early date, not only with regard to herring but with regard to all food supplies.

    TRADE UNIONS (CO-OPERATION).
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, whether any talks have taken place, or invitations have yet been issued, to Trade Union Congress leaders to co-operate in the furthering of the defence programme?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) on 25th March.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is there any truth in the statement that the members of the Independent Labour party have also agreed to co-operate?
    Mr. McGOVERN: May I ask whether any developments have taken place since the date mentioned?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I would not like to say that no developments have taken place.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I mean in connection with invitations being issued, or the consideration of invitations to the trade union leaders to co-operate on the promised basis?
    Sir T. INSKIP: No invitation has been issued, and if the hon. Gentleman reads my answer I think he will see that the position is open at all times to anybody who wishes to see me or the industries concerned.

    WARSHIPS (AIR, ATTACK).
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether any civilians will be appointed to the sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which is to consider the result of experiments concerning the vulnerability from the air of capital ships; and whether the names of the sub-committee will be announced?
    Sir T. INSKIP: The membership of this sub-committee is confined to Ministers, with the Chiefs of Staffs concerned acting as technical advisers. In accordance with the usual practice it is not proposed to announce the names of the members.
    Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Is it the case that this House may be asked to vote money for the construction of two battleships next year while in ignorance of the names of the gentlemen who have recommended that battleships should still be regarded as a necessary part of our defences?
    Sir T. INSKIP: The committee was not appointed to consider any recommendations of that description. It was appointed to consider the questions which I mentioned to the Rouse two days ago.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the Air Ministry have received from the Admiralty all the facilities they have at any time asked for in order to carry out experiments regarding the vulnerability of warships from the air; whether the Air Ministry have been enabled to carry out such experiments under the precise conditions and circumstances which they requested; and whether any agreed joint report of the Air Ministry and Admiralty upon this subject exists?
    Sir T. INSKIP: As the hon. and gallant Member will be aware from the reply which I gave to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on 25th March, a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence has been appointed to consider the experiments that have taken place or are proposed in connection with the defence against aircraft and the vulnerability from the air of capital ships. This sub-Committee will, of course, review all past experiments, the circumstances in which they were carried out and the nature of tape reports rendered upon them. I cannot prejudge the findings of this sub-Committee.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: Is it within their terms of reference, either to conduct experiments themselves or to order that experiments shall be conducted?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I have read out the terms of reference.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: But can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is within their terms of reference? I was unable to appreciate that from the answer which he gave.
    Sir T. INSKIPIf the hon. Gentleman looks at the terms of reference, I think he will be able to satisfy himself.

    MILK (INVESTIGATION COM MITTEE'S REPORT).
    Mr. ALEXANDERasked the Minister of Agriculture on what date it is proposed to publish the report of the committee of investigation in connection with the complaints made by the central milk distributive committee and the parliamentary committee of the co-operative congress regarding the contract terms for the supply of milk prescribed by the Milk Marketing Board for the milk year from 1st October, 1935?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): My right hon. Friend has not yet received the report referred to, but he understands that it will be presented very shortly. I am sending to the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the reply given by my right hon. Friend to a similar question by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) on 24th February.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the public proceedings of the committee of investigation ceased seven weeks ago, and that this is a very urgent matter?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman will also know that the committee sat for 36 days and that the transcript of the shorthand notes of the evidence covers more than 3,600 pages.

  SCOTLAND.

    MILK MARKETING.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the committee of investigation which recently dealt with the complaint of the milk distributors in Scotland against the decision of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board had placed at its disposal for guidance evidence on the costs of distribution and evidence as to the costs of production?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Evidence on the cost of distribution was
    1998
    submitted to the committee, but no evidence was given as to the cost of production.
    Mr. LEONARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his decision refusing to give countenance to the results of the committee of investigation gives protection to that side of the investigation which refused to give competent evidence, and, if so, will he reconsider his decision?
    Sir G. COLLINS: We have no evidence at the moment as to the costs of distribution, but active steps are being taken in different quarters in Scotland to get the facts.
    Mr. LEONARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what factors he considered in making up his mind to flout the decision of the committee of investigation?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I took all the relevant facts into consideration before coming to a decision on this very difficult case.
    Mr. LEONARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what the facts were?
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the grave dissatisfaction amongst Scottish milk distributors at the prices being forced upon them by the Scottish Milk Board and the possibility of such resentment taking the form of contracts being resiled as from 30th April; and whether he proposes to take steps to obviate the disorganisation in the milk supply such a step would entail?
    Sir G. COLLINS: My attention has been drawn to a printed letter circulated by the Scottish Milk Trade Federation to the effect suggested in the first part of the question and to a Press report of a meeting of distributors. The information before me does not confirm the necessity for considering action on the lines indicated in the last part.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether or not the Scottish milk distributors did sign the contract subject to the reservation that they would have the right to resile?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have no doubt the right hon. Member is well aware of the terms of the contract which they signed.
    Mr. LEONARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is within the power of the distributors to give notice on the 10th of this month to resole from their contract, to take effect on the 30th, and, if so, will he consider that matter in order to obviate that possibility and disorganisation?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am well aware of that power, but I hope and believe that the decision which I gave—a difficult one in all the circumstances—will be accepted in the best interests of the milk industry and the consuming public.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Are we to understand that in future the decisions of impartial and legal tribunals set up under Acts of Parliament are to be overridden by Ministers like himself?
    Sir G. COLLINS: A Minister must accept full responsibility for his decisions. A committee of investigation investigates the matter and reports to the Minister, but the Minister would be shirking his duty if he did not accept full responsibility for his actions.
    Mr. LEONARD: In view of the immense indignation which has been created in Scotland over this question, I give notice that I will raise it at the first opportunity.

    PRISON SERVICE.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of members of the prison service who through an alleged act of misconduct having during the last 15 years been retired, dismissed, made to resign, or reduced in rank, and, if possible, give the details?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The number during the last 15 years is 18, of whom 15 were allowed to resign and three were reduced in rank. Of those who resigned, 10 were charged with trafficking, and five with other offences. The reductions in rank were in consequence of irregularities in the performance of duty. These numbers do not include temporary or probationary officers.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new
    2000
    houses for the officers are to be erected at Barlinnie Prison in the next financial year?
    Sir G. COLLINS: A scheme for the provision of approximately 52 new houses for warders at Barlinnie Prison, at an estimated cost of £35,000, is in course of preparation, and building operations will be commenced as soon as plans can be drafted and the other initial work completed.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland I the reasons for which the Governor and several warders at Dumfries Prison have been retired?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The Governor of Dumfries Prison is retiring on pension on grounds of ill-health. One warder retired in March, and another will be retired in August next ender the age limit.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Ate these all the officials who have retired during the last 12 months?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, so far as I am aware.

    ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (COMMITTEE).
    Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the proposed appointment of a. committee to consider questions affecting economic development in Scotland?
    Miss HORSBRUGHasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state what steps have been taken to set up an advisory committee on Scottish industry; and, if so, whether he can give the names of those constituting the committee and state what are the functions?
    Mr. ERSKINE HILLasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make any statement regarding a Scottish advisory committee on industry?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir. The Scottish National Development Council after discussion with myself have appointed a special Committee representative of Scottish industry, finance, transport, travel, and labour, of which the Chairman is Sir James Lithgow. The Committee will examine the possibilities of

    2001
    improving economic conditions in Scotland. It will also consider questions affecting the extension of existing, or the creation of new, industries that may be referred to it by industrial, commercial, or public bodies, or by the Commissioner for the Special Areas (whose efforts on behalf of these areas it will seek to assist and supplement), and will suggest measures that could usefully be undertaken through the council. In addition, it will consider such questions affecting Scottish economic conditions as I may refer to it. The Committee will receive a grant-in-aid from the Commissioner in respect of its work for the Special Areas, and arrangements have been made to maintain close contact between it and the Government Departments primarily interested in industry. With the hon. Members' permission, I will circulate the membership of the Committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. MATHERS: Will the setting up of this Committee enable the Secretary of State for Scotland to interest himself in the question, for example, of the Forth road bridge, regarding which he has denied any responsibility up to the present time?
    Sir G. COLLINS: No. That is a matter for the Ministry of Transport.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many members are on this Committee?
    Sir G. COLLINS: About 15, representative of all interests.
    Following is the Membership of the Committee:
    The Committee, which will have power to co-opt additional members and to form sub-committees for specific purposes, will consist of the following members:—

    Sir James Lithgow, Bart., M.C., Chairman.

    Sir Steven Bilsland, Bart., M.C., Vice Chairman.

    Earl of Elgin, K.T., C.M.G., LL.D., T.D., President Scottish National Development Council (Ex-officio member).

    Mr. John Ballantyne, O.B.E., J.P.

    Mr. W. Lindsay Carlow, J.P.

    Mr. Andrew Clarke.

    Mr. W. A. Collins, D.S.O.

    Mr. Robert Crichton, J.P.

    Mr. Frank J. Donald.

    2002

    Mr. N. F. Graham Donaldson.

    Mr. N. W. Duthie, C.A.

    Bailie William Elger, J.P.

    Mr. William Gallacher.

    Mr. C. N. Gallie, J.P.

    Dr. A. M'Cance.

    Dr. J. Donald Pollock, O.B.E.

    Sir John Sutherland, C.B.E., LL.D.

    Mr. William Whyte.

    Secretary-General—Sir William Good child, C.M.G.

    BRACKEN.
    Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the spread of bracken is causing serious damage to agricultural arid pastoral land in Scotland; and what action he proposes to take to deal with the matter?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir. In view of the urgency of the problem as affecting sheep farmers in Scotland, I have approved a scheme for providing financial assistance in 1936 and succeeding years for cutting bracken by machines of two types which have been tested by experiment.

    HIGHLANDS (DEVELOPMENT).
    Mr. LECKIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has seen the pamphlet by Mr. Hugh Quigley, chief economic adviser to the Central Electricity Board, in which he advocates the setting up of a statutory corporation endowed with adequate funds to develop the Highlands and to control all waterpower developments there; and whether he will give the proposal his favourable consideration?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have just received the pamphlet referred to. As indicated in the reply to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) on Thursday last, all aspects of the economic development of the Highlands receive my attention, and I will give due consideration to the suggestions contained in the pamphlet.
    Mr. HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, since last I put a question, there has been any further consideration with regard to that part of Scotland which was turned down under a private Bill, and has he approached the Government to have something done in that regard?

    HERRING INDUSTRY BOARD (MEMBER'S RESIGNATION).
    Mr. GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the resignation of Mr. Eric W. H. Brander from the Herring Industry Board on the ground of dissatisfaction with the work of the board; when it was discovered by the board that Mr. Brander was ineligible for membership; and whether he will ascertain whether the discovery of Mr. Brander's alleged ineligibility has any connection with Mr. Brander's discontent with the operations of the board?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The only communication I have received is a letter from Mr. Brander resigning his membership of the Herring Industry Board, but without giving any reasons. In reply to the second and third parts of the question, I am informed that the question of Mr. Brander's eligibility for continued membership has not been determined by the board, although, in consequence of doubts which had been expressed as to his being duly qualified, the board took the step of obtaining a legal opinion on the question early last month.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the alleged cause of disability for membership was a technical one and was capable of immediate rectification, and, that being so, does he not consider it incumbent upon him to make some inquiry as to the real reasons for the resignation of this important member of the board?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Mr. Brander resigned, but did not see fit, in his letter of resignation to myself as Minister, to give any reason for his action. As he has resigned, I have therefore no alternative but to accept it.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman content to accept the resignation of an important member of a board which he has set up, and to fold his arms without inquiring, when that member resigns, why he resigns?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have no doubt that if Mr. Brander thought he was unfairly treated or that there was any legal question being determined, rightly or wrongly, he had his natural chances of appealing to the board and for the board to hear his case, if he so desired.

    BRITISH-BORN WOMAN (NATIONALITY).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a British woman who recently was induced to go through a form of marriage with a Dutchman in Holland by misrepresentations; and whether he is prepared to allow her to reside in this country without registering E s an alien and to retain possession of her own property?
    Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend's attention has already been directed to this case. A British-born woman married to an alien is not required to register as an alien in this country. The question of this woman being able to retain possession of her own property is one on which I cannot advise.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Could my hon. Friend bring to the n Alec of the Government that it is really a dreadful injustice to British-born women, and that as soon as they follow the recommendations of the Colonies in giving women equal citizenship with men, they will be doing a great service?

    SUMMARY JURISDICTION (MEDI CAL REPORTS AND TREATMENT).
    Mr. TURTONasked the Home Secretary in how many cases since 20th April, 1934, have courts of summary jurisdiction remanded a defendant for a medical report in the manner recommended by the Home Office circular of 20th April, 1934?
    Mr. LLOYD: Separate figures for the last eight months of 1934 are not available. The number of persons remanded to prison for a medical report during the whole of that year was 2,596 (1,945 men and 651 women), and during 1935 it was 2,703 (2,035 men and 668 women).
    Mr. TURTONasked the Home Secretary whether, with a view to making appropriate provision for the accommodation of such cases, he will issue a circular to magistrates asking them to give an estimate of the number of cases each year that corm before them where medical or psychological treatment, as recommended by the Departmental Committee on Persistent Offenders, would in their opinion be of value?
    Mr. LLOYD: I am afraid it would not be practicable to obtain in the manner suggested estimates which would be of value, The question whether a, particular offender is suitable for treatment of the kind indicated is often one of difficulty and may require skilled investigation over a considerable period. It would be impossible to obtain from each of the 1,000 courts of summary jurisdiction estimates framed on a common basis or forming a reliable guide to the probable number of offenders for whom some form of medical or psychological treatment would be appropriate.
    Mr. TURTON: As it is now nearly four years since the committee reported and made this recommendation, will my hon. Friend take into account that fact and the grave dissatisfaction which exists at the delay in carrying it out?
    Mr. LLOYD: The Home Secretary has sent a circular to the courts. It may have arrived at different times, but there is no reason to suppose that the courts are not acting on it.

    IRELAND (CATTLE EXPORTS).
    Sir G. FOXasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give any estimate of the number of cattle imported into this country from Ulster in 1935 which had been smuggled across the Irish Free State border?
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I am unable to furnish the estimate desired by my hon. Friend.
    Sir G. FOX: Can my hon. Friend say whether this smuggling is increasing or decreasing?
    Mr. MORRISON: I cannot say.

    CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN).
    Miss CAZALETasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of women holding posts in the Civil Service whose salaries are less than those of men whom they are supervising?
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I regret that the information desired by my hon. Friend is not immediately available, and the extensive investigation which would be necessary in order to obtain it would not
    2006
    be justified. The cases which my hon. Friend has in mind must, I think, be rare.
    Miss CAZALET: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, apart from the unfairness to women, it is against the general interests of the Civil Service to continue this practice?
    Mr. MORRISON: There is to be a Debate on that question to-day, and we had better leave it until the Debate arises.

    SPECIAL AREAS (COMMISSIONER'S POWERS).
    Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWARTasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the Commissioner in his report states that he cannot make grants towards any scheme to which a Government Department has the power to contribute and that in some cases this is a serious disadvantage, he will consider giving powers to the Commissioner for special areas to enable him to make grants towards schemes submitted to him by local authorities even if a Government Department has the power to contribute, so that he can deal more effectively with a problem which is admitted to be special?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the statutory duty of the Commissioners to make recommendations to the Government Departments concerned in cases such as he has in mind. Full and effective use is made by the Commissioners of this power of recommendation and further statutory authority does not appear to be necessary.
    Mr. STEWART: Is it true to say that schemes which have been submitted by local authorities for many years have been held up for lack of money, and that they could have been got under way if the Commissioner had had power to make grants?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I cannot say that.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    James Griffiths, esquire, for the County of Carmarthen (Llanelly Division).
BILL PRESENTED.

  AUCTIONEERS AND HOUSE AGENTS (PROTEC TION OF PUBLIC AGAINST ABUSES) BILL,
  "to amend the law relating to auctioneers, house agents, and valuers, to make further and better provision for licensing and registration, and to establish a fund as a guarantee to the public against defaults and malpractices," presented by Sir Reginald Clarry; to be read
  a Second time upon Tuesday, 28th April, and to be printed [Bill 84].

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)"—[The Prime Minister.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 108.

  Division No. 13O.]

  AYES.

  [3.47 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Denville, Alfred

  Leighton, Major D. E. P.

  Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

  Donner, P. W.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Agnew, Lleut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  Lewis, O.

  Albery, I. J.

  Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

  Liddall, W. S.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

  Dugdale, Major J. L.

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Apsley, Lord

  Duggan, H. J.

  Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Assheton, R.

  Dunne, P. R. R.

  Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

  Astor, Vlsc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Ellis, Sir G.,

  Lumley, Capt. L. R.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lyons, A. M.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)

  Emery, J. F.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Balniel, Lord

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  MacAndrew. Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Ersklne Hill, A. G.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  MacDonald. Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

  Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

  Findlay, Sir E.

  MacDonald. Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm n)

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  McKie, J. H.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Furness, S. N.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Macnamara. Capt. J. R. J.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Ganzonl, Sir J.

  Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Gledhill, G.

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

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Markham, S. F.

  Brass, Sir W.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Maxwell, S. A.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Goldle, N. B.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Brockiebank, C. E. R.

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

  G rattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

  Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

  Bull, B. B.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

  Munro, P. M.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Nail, Sir J.

  Burton, Col. H. W.

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

  Butler, R. A.

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Hamilton, Sir G. C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Hanbury, Sir C.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Cary, R. A.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Owen, Major G.

  Cautley, Sir H. S.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

  Harbord, A.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Peake, O.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Petherick, M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Pilkington, R.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Holdsworth, H.

  Pownall, Sir A. Assheton

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Clarry, Sir R. G.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Radford, E. A.

  Clydesdale. Marquess of

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Cobb, Sir C. S.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

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

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

  Hunter, T.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

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

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Dufl(W'st'r S.G'gs)

  Jackson, Sir H.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

  James, Wing-Commander A. W.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Crooke, J. S.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'qt'n)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Cross, R. H.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

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

  Rowlands, G.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A

  De la Bère, R.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Russell, A West (Tynemouth)

  Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

  Wallace, Captain Euan

  Salt, E. W.

  Storey, S.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Wells, S. R.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nalrn)

  White, H. Graham

  Scott, Lord William

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Shute, colonel Sir J. J.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Titchiield, Marquess of

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Klngslsy

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Touche, G. C.

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Sir George Penny and Lieut. Colonel

  Sir A. Lambert Ward.

  NOES.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Groves, T. E.

  Potts, J.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Price, M. P.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Hardie, G. D.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Quibell, J. D.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Hopkln, D.

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Banfield, J. W.

  Jagger, J.

  Rlley, B.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Rltson, J.

  Barr, J.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

  Benson, G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Broad, F. A.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Rowson, G.

  Bromfield, W.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Brooke, W.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Shinwell, E.

  Burke, W. A.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Short, A.

  Cassells, T.

  Lathan, G.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhlthe)

  Chater, D.

  Leach, W.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lee, F.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Leonard, W.

  Stephen, C.

  Compton, J.

  Logan, D. G.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'na)

  Daggar, G.

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Dalton, H.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Thorne, W.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  McGovern, J.

  Thurtle, E.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  MacLaren, A.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Maclean, N.

  Viant, S. P.

  Day, H.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Walker, J.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  MacNeill, Weir, L.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Ede, J. C.

  Mander, G. le M.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Marklew, E.

  Westwood, J.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Marshall, F.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Mathers, G.

  Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

  Gallacher, W.

  Maxton, J.

  Williams, E. I. (Ogmore)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Montague, F.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Garro-Jones, G. M.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Muff, G.

  Woods, G. S. (Flnsbury)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Paling, W.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Parker, H. J. H.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1936.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. SPEAKER do now leave the Chair."—[Captain Margesson.]

    CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN, PAY).
    3.58 p.m.
    Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "in the opinion of this House, the time has come when the Government should give effect to the Resolution adopted by the House on the 19th May, 1920, and forthwith place women employed in the common classes of the Civil Service on the same scales of pay as apply to men in those classes."
    This Amendment is a very simple one, and I am particularly anxious that the Debate should be kept to the very simple issue which is raised, and that is the question whether women in what are known as the common classes of the Civil Service should be paid an equal rate of wages with men for what is admitted to be equal work. That is the point on which I wish the Debate to be concentrated, because in debates of this kind it is always easy to draw a number of red herrings across the path. Therefore, the organised women, of whom there are very large numbers, and the men, too, are very anxious to have the Debate kept to this point. The Government cannot deny, and as far as I know they have never attempted to deny, that the work these women do is, in fact, the same as that done by men. Various questions on this matter have been put in this House. In June of last year the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) asked the Postmaster-General, with regard to women counter-clerks, whether he would have an inquiry into the relative value of the work that was being done by them and by men clerks, and the reply was that there was no need for such an inquiry as the evidence in possession of the Post Office indicated that the relative output of men and women engaged on this work showed no difference at all. Yet a man's wage for
    2018
    that work is £5 1s. 6d. a week and a woman's wage £3 10s.
    But the very best test of all is the test of interchangeability. If men and women are engaged in the same office, sitting side by side and working side by side, and in fact are frequently interchanged, that is surely the best test of all that the work they are doing is regarded as equal. I would remind the House that admission to these common classes is made on the same examination or the same competitive interview, and that as far as the examiners are concerned it is a matter of indifference how many men or women actually get the necessary number of marks. Because the actual equality of the work is not denied, the Treasury mind, which is a strange and wonderful thing, has adopted a theory of lesser value which, like a good deal of Treasury dicta, does not mean terribly much but sounds very impressive. I do not want to blame the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, because all of us here are looking for great things from him. I want only to call to his mind as more or less a warning the experience of his predecessor. But in this case we cannot blame even his predecessor, because the real villain of the piece is that prim monument, the Treasury.
    The Treasury made the hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor say that one of the reasons why the theory of lesser value was maintained was that the sick leave of women was 50 per cent. higher than that of men. That really does sound terrible. Of course, one would never dare to doubt one single figure of the Treasury; if one did the British Constitution would be wrong. I pay the Treasury the compliment of saying that they are artistic in knowing how to produce figures and to place them artistically in the right light. This 50 per cent., of which a great deal has been made, has been in fact an artistic Treasury production, because when you get down to the actual figure what does it mean? It means that women's average sickness leave is 12 days, to the men's eight days. It is perfectly true that that is a 50 per cent. difference in sick leave, but for that average many highly skilled and competent women have to lose anything from £50 to £85 a year, which seems a rather heavy reduction. I do not think I am

    2019
    unfair in referring to the Treasury's artistry in figures because, leaving out, as we are all very willing to do, the figures of the War-disabled men and arriving at that figure of 12 days for the sick leave of women, all the women employed in the Civil Service are included The figure includes the charwomen and the elderly attendants, whose sick rate is always very high. For none of those is this claim being made. When we take the women for whom the claim is being made, that is the women of the so-called common classes, their average rate over an average of three years is sick leave of 2.1 days. Lord Tomlin, Chairman of the Royal Commission of 1929–31, gave a very definite opinion on this question of sick leave and said it was "negligible and not of any assistance one way or the other."
    While we are on the question of Treasury figures there is the question of the Treasury estimates of the cost of this concession. If I was not terribly anxious to be extremely conciliatory there would be a delightful story to be told of the different estimates that the Treasury has given from time to time. I think we are on fairly common ground in accepting figures which show that it ranges from just under £1,000,000, on a certain basis, to £3,750,000 when it is assumed that all women are on the maximum or are to be raised to it. But I make the point that if only men succeeded in the examinations for any year they would be paid at the men's rate automatically. I am not so much concerned as to these various differences in cost, because we are discussing the principle. It is the Treasury's business, if the House decides on the principle, to provide for the cost.
    Another point that is made is that women are on the whole less valuable to the Service over a period of years because of what is known as marriage wastage. Is it not rather hard lines on the women to use this argument against them? After all, retirement on marriage has been made compulsory by the Treasury itself, and therefore to blame the women for it is just going on the usual principle of blaming the women for anything anyhow. As a matter of fact the Treasury in practice is really better than its own theories, as is so often the
    2020
    case, for it is found that in the case of certain very highly skilled women who are necessary to the Department the Treasury prefers to keep them after marriage. A few cases of that kind have occurred. But the curious thing is that the Treasury does give equal pay to women in precisely those years when it might be argued that the marriage risk is high, that is the earlier years, and the divergence in pay increases as what might be known as the marriage risk recedes.
    With regard to wastage, which is an odd way of putting it, take the wastage of the men. It is always assumed that every man who enters the Civil Service enters with the grim determination to stick there till he dies. As a matter of fact, taking 100,000 men in the administrative and clerical classes, 14,000 men withdrew voluntarily from the service as compared with 7,900 women. That is a pretty high relative wastage. No one would suggest reducing the men's salaries all round because of it. But in any case the greatest wastage is not in the higher skilled common classes at all, but in the routine grades, the telephone service and the lower clerical grade, for which this claim is not being made. Actually in the grades for which this claim is being made the average wastage is only 1.9 a year, which I think disposes of another of the Treasury arguments.
    Then we come to the question of dependants. Here we can leave the Treasury and deal with the cave man, so to speak. It is a firmly rooted idea in the minds of a very large number of men and a still greater number of wives that most men have wives and families to keep, or are about to take unto themselves wives and families to keep, whereas the single woman wage-earner has no one but herself to keep. That is one of the convenient theories which do not stand a detailed examination. It is quite remarkable the number of single women who now have dependants. There was a time when in the large middle class there were reserves of unearned income or dividends or savings which were put by to provide for widowed mothers, elderly ladies and so on. For various reasons during the War, and reasons with which we are all familiar, those reserves have been used up. It is a fact that to-day a very large number of salaried women and wage-earning women, especially elder

    2021
    salaried women, have others dependent on their salaries. There is a greater tendency in the case of sons who marry to regard their wives and children as their responsibility and to leave the unmarried relatives to be looked after by the unmarried daughters.
    This is really a serious problem. I am always interested when men emphasise the fact that their wives are purely dependent on them. I appeal to the Noble Lady the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) to say that surely to-day, or at any time I should imagine—I speak subject to correction by those who know more about it than I do—surely to-day a wife is an asset. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad to have such warm approval from a large number of husbands present. Whether it is the working man, whose wife cleans his home and provides his food and mends his clothes, and greets him with a smile, and soothes him after the trials and troubles of the day, or the wife of the middle class who performs what I think is the most useful function that can be performed in these worrying days, the wife who can meet her husband and discuss the trials of the day and at the end of it say, "My dear, you were perfectly right." Think how that adds to the efficiency of the man.
    Now I want to turn attention to the women's case. There are many cases of elderly relatives or sick relatives who are not able to perform those functions for them. Very often the salaried woman, having finished her day's work, has to look after an. old mother, an elderly aunt or some other person. There is also the question—this is where I want to speak to those who feel that this standard should be accepted—of the single woman who has nobody else but herself and who, therefore, receives a very much higher standard of living than a man who has a wife and family. I would meet that quite legitimate argument by saying that to have women working with men, and doing work which is admittedly equal for very much less money, is a real menace to the standards of men. We have found that to be so over and over again. I urge those who are impressed with that argument to look at the case of the women to-day. We are not arguing here for equal pay for women's work. The Postmaster-General has put great pressure upon women in his Department to under-
    2022
    take night work, but, after voting on the question, they have refused to do so. I asked one of the leading women in the Post Office Workers' Union about this matter, and she said that the women did not want the men who are now on duty dismissed and to take their places at lower rates of pay. I do not think that that is the official point of view of the staff side, but it is a feeling held very strongly among the women who are affected. The fact that the Postmaster-General is putting pressure upon them means that the work would be done at very much lower rates.
    The House of Commons, when it had to face the same problem in its own ranks, did so with great commonsense and strength. When women were elected to this House, there was no question of their being paid anything but exactly the same as the men. I do not claim that women Members of Parliament do equal work with the men; they do a great deal more than the men. If the average woman here did not do a great deal more—[Interruption.] This, I gather, is where I am not being tactful but I want to pay hon. Members the compliment that they not only gave equal pay without question but granted equality to the women Members from the first, and every hon. Member would admit that the arrangement has worked extremely well. When the House has dealt with the question of women's work, as for example in the Sex Disqualification Act and various Acts, with the one small exception of the Married Women (Nationality) Act, it has done its best to make women equal before the law. This House was elected by men and women alike, and, as controller of the public purse, it represents the employers of the civil servants.
    I would draw the attention of hon. Members to a statement made yesterday by one with whom no one in this House would venture to disagree, the Prime Minister. At 10, Downing Street, speaking of the subject of Newnham College Building Fund, he said, in a reference to women in the Civil Service:
    "Many of these women are in a position in the course of their daily work to amass secret information. Secret information has a way of leaking very often."
    Hon. Members really must listen to this:
    "I have never known a case of such leakage being due to a woman. I have

    2023
    known cases of leakage coming from men who ought to have known a great deal better."
    There we have the Prime Minister making it clear that where men and women are engaged on the same work, the women, far from being of lower value in those extremely important positions, are often of more value than men. I am not, however, making that claim. The claim I make is that this is a comparatively small problem, in which the Government admit the case, and where the actual conditions of work admit of practical interchangeability. There is no doubt of the job being there. The Civil Service Federation for Men and Women are backing this Amendment. The federation is composed of members of all parties and of none. Hon. Members who have taken a leading part in this House on the question have done so irrespective of party. This is a question in which the whole House as employers are being asked to make a decision. I plead with the House not to go back on the principle which it asserted as far back as 1020. I regret that nothing has been done in the intervening 16 years. Women have proved their value. There was a time when there was no question that they were not as efficient as men, because they had not the training, the tradition or the education. They have had to make that good in a comparatively short Lime, and the younger women are now in a position to offer magnificent service to the State. I plead with the House to meet the generous, ardent desire for service on the part of these young women with an assertion that where the work is equal the pay shall be equal, too.
    4.24 p.m.
    Mr. JAGGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Mover of the Amendment has covered a great deal of ground. I would like to add that ounce of fact which is generally conceded to be worth a ton of theory. I am the head of an organisation which, for 30 years at least, has accepted unquestioningly in every grade absolute equality of remuneration. One of the things of which I am most proud is that when the hon. Lady who has just spoken came into the same service as that in which I was engaged, she came
    2024
    at the same rates and on the same conditions of employment as were enjoyed by her male colleagues. It is not an insignificant organisation, but is the fifth or sixth largest trade union in Great Britain. It has, if not the largest, one of the largest staffs of any trade union in this country, and we extend the principle very much further than the terms of the Amendment. We extend it to every grade of service, from the most junior and most routine to the highest ranks in the organisation. The system has worked admirably, without the friction which I have observed in trade unions and in business organisations where different standards of remuneration prevail.
    There is the question of the relative amount of fitness. My own experience does not bear out the figures quoted by the Treasury. It may be a fact, and I think it is, that the conditions of employment, office accommodation, ventilation and other amenities that we supply are of a higher standard than those supplied by some hard-up, very careful Government service. In actual fact there is no noticeable difference in our commonly employed male and female staff in the ratio of fitness. In the routine work of the office, in the administrative work and in the more skilled work of negotiation no person knowing the work of the organisation would contend that men or women were superior in their execution of those duties. The hon. Lady spoke of the classes for whom this equality of remuneration is sought as the common classes. The word "common" in this connection means that they are recruited by the same successful examination, whether they are male or female, that they are employed on exactly the same kind of work and that in the grades for which standards of output are set, the output standards are the same for both sexes.
    We have here a very suitable opportunity of starting to bring into operation the terms of a very much wider Resolution which was unanimously passed by the House, in, I believe, 1920, and which envisaged equality of remuneration for both sexes throughout, the Civil Service. In the Amendment to-day we say that here is a section of the Civil Service where the claim is as strong as it can possibly be from whatever point of view it is examined. The claim cannot be

    2025
    contested either on equitable or moral grounds, on grounds of efficiency, standard of output or anything else. The differentiation cannot be justified. In this clearly marked case where the position is so obviously unjust we should make a start to put the matter right. I make no secret of the fact that I believe in the principle of the price for the job. I have not the slightest doubt that if you were to carry this Amendment and put it into practice for this section, other grades would be in a stronger position for the extension of the, principle to them. I would say, let that be left to be dealt with on its merits when it comes before us.
    This question has come before us. The claim is an incontestable one, and one that ought to have been made a very long time ago. As I have indicated, it is now 16 years since the broader Resolution was passed. I think there can be no question that by 1921 we should have seen the adoption of this principle in some sections of the Civil Service, but in 1921 we saw the beginning of the first economic blizzard, and it was agreed in this House to defer consideration of the matter for three years. In 1924, when it came up again, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in the financial situation of that time it was quite impossible. In 1925 the Chancellor of the Exchequer—another one this time—said the same thing, and, having survived until 1929, he said it again in 1929. But we have been assured, and a very great deal of evidence has been produced to show, that the second of the two economic blizzards has now passed away, and that we are returning to a position of normality. Whatever may be true taking the country as a whole, I think it is beyond doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not find himself embarrassed if he were faced with the problem of the additional wage cost which this change would involve. There may be varying estimates, from the figure of £6,000,000 down to that of £1,500,000, of what certain things would cost, but there is no doubt about what this would cost. It would cost, as a maximum, something between £750,000 and £1,000,000.
    The refusal in 1929 to deal with the problem was followed by the setting up of a Royal Commission. Neither side can take any comfort to themselves from the
    2026
    result of the labours of that Royal Commission, which found itself so evenly divided in its views that it could not decide anything at all. On a later occasion the suggestion was made in this House that the question should be dealt with by the Whitley Council for the Civil Service, but, whenever the Staff Side of the Whitley Council have tried to discuss it there, it has been very definitely laid down that it could not be dealt with, but that it was a matter of high policy which ought to be dealt with here. The question of the allegations with regard to wastage on marriage, with regard to efficiency, and so on, has been fully dealt with by the hon. Lady, and I do not propose to stress it further, but I do want to stress the point that these women are chosen on grounds of capacity and are promoted through the recommendations of their chiefs. If the inefficient or the less efficient are the ones who are promoted, then there may be something the matter with the methods of selection. 1 do not agree that the least efficient are promoted, but I do say that when these women, because of their capacity, are promoted to higher positions, to supervisory positions, sometimes supervising people who are getting higher wages than they are getting themselves, we have a state of affairs which calls for a speedy and prompt remedy. I had noticed what the Prime Minister said, according to this morning's papers, but the hon. Lady anticipated me. She did not, however, read one part of the Prime Minister's speech which I would like to read:
    "I should like to pay my personal tribute to the industry, capacity, ability and loyalty of the women I have come across in the Civil Service."
    The part to which the hon. Lady alluded I took as referring, perhaps, to women in general, but here is a specific reference to the very women for whom we are pleading to-day. In commercial life, Mr. Gordon Selfridge has made no secret of the fact that he appoints to some of the most responsible positions in his business women to whose ability he has publicly paid a very great tribute, and the same is true of Sir Charles Higham and others engaged in industry and business. It is not the case that the Government of this country would be a pioneer if it introduced the system of equal pay. I think it can be fairly well established that the principle of equal pay has been accepted

    2027
    throughout almost the whole of the English-speaking world except in Great Britain—I am speaking now of the Civil Service; and even in our Civil Service this principle is applied in the earlier years of service. If it is right to pay the young women and the young men equal rates for the same job, surely nothing can happen in the later years—the years of added experience—to justify a departure from the principle.
    The London County Council, throughout the whole of its higher grades and many of its other grades, has established the principle of equal pay, and that has also been done by the County Councils of Bedfordshire, Glamorgan, Montgomery, Radnor, Warwickshire, Southampton, and the North Riding, with which I have had an intimate connection for many years. Moreover, there are nine borough councils, including those of Manchester and Bournemouth, which accept this principle for all grades—not only for the higher administrative grades, but for the clerical and routine grades; and many other local authorities accept it for certain grades. The League of Nations, to which, according to the common claim in all quarters of the House, we owe such definite allegiance, accepts this principle, and it is accepted in the Civil Service itself in the case of medical officers, factory inspectors Grade II, the Board of Control; and even at Borstal it has been accepted. I agree with the hon. Lady that this question is not a party question; there are as strong supporters of the principle on one side of the House as on the other; and, with all the evidence that we have before us, we have now an opportunity to make the experiment on this somewhat restricted scale. I am satisfied that the results will show the advisability of extending it, but, be that as it may, I ask the House to give this measure of justice at least to this particular class, whose claim is so fully accepted.
    4.41 p.m.
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: I intervene for a few minutes because for some time, with other Members of the House belonging to other parties, I have taken an interest in this rather difficult and complex problem. I do not pretend for a moment that the matter which we are
    2028
    discussing is an easy one. It is not possible to lay down any hard-and-fast rule that will satisfy everyone, but here we have what I might call a new service. Women have not been so very long in the Civil Service or in industry in the same numbers as at present, and I think we have to realise that they need a helping hand occasionally, and that, when there is a grievance, that grievance should be recognised and adjusted as soon as ever it is possible to do so. Unquestionably there is a grievance when women find that, having by their own efforts raised themselves to high positions in which they are doing exactly the same work as men, and are acknowledged to be doing it equally well, they are told that because of their sex they cannot draw so much wages as men. I think that, imagining the position to be reversed, if some of us men were in an industry where women were getting better wages than we were, and if we were able to do the work as well as the women could do it, it would not be long before the men put forward a demand for equal pay for equal work; and on that basis it seems to me that we are not being just to the other sex if we do not recognise the claim that they make in the Civil Service.
    I know that some people say that it is only chivalry on the part of the Treasury when they agree that women are doing work absolutely equal and equivalent to that of men, but my experience of the Treasury is that they do not suffer from any false chivalry, and if it were a fact that where the work was interchangeable the women were not doing it as well as the men, they would be the first people to tell us so. Indeed, it would be their duty to tell us so, because they are the guardians of the public purse, and, if money is being wasted, it is their job to point out that fact, Therefore, if money were being wasted, if women could not do the work as well as men, it would be their duty to point it out, and the mere fact that they have not done so seems to me to be proof that the work is performed quite as well by women as by men.
    We are told that higher wages must be paid to men because they have family responsibilities. That is recognised in the Civil Service as elsewhere. They may have greater expenses but that is an argument which will eventually recoil upon

    2029
    itself. If you have two systems of grades doing the same work, one lower and the other higher, it must in the end tend to depress the higher until it comes down to the level of the lower and, when it has come down, there is no extra margin for the man. He has nothing extra with which to maintain his family. The Amendment seems to me to go further than I should propose to go at present. The first part, for instance, refers us to a Resolution that we passed in 1920, but it gives the Financial Secretary some very good debating points. If the change is made all at once, I can see my hon. Friend producing a very formidable figure. It should be made gradually. If the Treasury would only view the matter with a little more sympathy and deal with elder women first, a scheme might be produced which would add very little to the annual cost, would give satisfaction for a good number of years and would be a basis to see how the system works for some time to come.
    Why should not a woman, when she reaches the end of her grade, still continue the steps until she reaches the level of a man? I am told that that would cost between £30,000 and £50,000 in the first year, increasing by a similar amount for seven years, so that it would not be until seven years had passed that the full charge of £350,000 would come on the Exchequer. Is that an impossible figure? It has this advantage, that it gets over the difficulty of the time of the marriage age. It would apply only to women of, say, 20 years' service. It would not set any great precedent for outside. services and it would be strictly limited to those parts of the Civil Service where there was common entry by examination, and where men and women were working side by side and doing the same work. A proposal of that sort would, I am sure, meet with the approval of a great majority of Members of the House. I hope the Treasury will make a start in that direction.
    We think the Amendment goes too far and we should prefer to see it limited but, when we are moving you, Sir, out of the Chair, we are unable to move an Amendment to it. I remember the same kind of position arising once before when we refused by a small majority to move your predecessor out of the Chair. The House met on the following day or two days later and another Motion was
    2030
    brought forward and the Speaker was allowed to vacate the Chair. We should be sorry to put you to that inconvenience. We cannot amend the Amendment so, unless the Treasury can make some concession, the only course is to vote for it as it stands and we must hope, if we are successful, that a more moderate Amendment will be generally agreed, and we shall be able to move you out of the Chair.
    4.52 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I listened with interest and with some amusement to the very cogent plea of the hon. and gallant Gentleman because I remember the speech that he made when he introduced the subject on 7th June last. He was then dealing, not with the question of equal pay in the Civil Service but equal pay in industry generally, and he made the reasons for his enthusiasm for the subject perfectly plain. He drew a lurid picture of the extent—his figures were subsequently disputed by the representative of the Government—to which women were, in his view, replacing men in industry and he put forward the plea for equal pay quite openly on the ground that the result would be greatly to limit the entry of women into industry. He has not used that argument to-day. That is because he thought it would not find favour with the Civil Service organisations whose cause he is championing. What I am going to say will probably displease both sides, but that must not prevent me from trying to put forward what I consider a very important but neglected aspect of the question. The case for the Amendment is based on two grounds, first on the principle that it is contrary to justice that a man and woman who do precisely the same work should get different rates of pay and, secondly, on the legitimate desire to prevent the unfair undercutting of men's work by women. Both are excellent objects with which I have every sympathy but this Amendment is not the best way of meeting them. Let us face realities.
    The hon. Lady who introduced the subject in her delightful speech made very light of the argument usually advanced by the man in the street as justifying unequal pay, namely, the men have families to keep. She pointed out that a great many women have dependants while many men have none. Further she argued that, after all, family dependency was no affair

    2031
    of the State. They were remunerating labour merely as labour, and the remuneration ought to be decided solely by the quality of the work. I think that is a superficial way of looking at it. Consider it from this aspect. The truth is that at present the whole wages and salary system is performing not one but two functions. Wages and salaries remunerate the work of the worker, but they are also the only way in which society provides for the recruitment of the future generation from which all workers are going to be drawn. Broadly speaking, it is the remuneration of men that bears that burden. The 1931 census showed a population in England and Wales of roughly 40,000,000, of whom roughly 17,500,000 were unoccupied wives and children up to the age of 20. The number takes no account of wives and children engaged in remunerative occupations. The whole "occupied" population amounted to roughly 18,750,000, of whom nearly 2,000,000 were unemployed. So that the dependent wives and children actually outnumbered the entire actually occupied population of employed people, employers and self employed put together. Is it not really rather ridiculous to dismiss this immense burden of the dependant wife and child as if it was of no more importance than the fact that a good many women have to contribute towards the support of aged parents or to keep invalid brothers and sisters?
    On the other hand, the present way of meeting that immense burden of family dependency through the differentiation between the wages of men and women is unscientific and ridiculously inadequate. See how it works out in the Civil Service itself. I received a paper to-day, as no doubt other Members did, which shows that in all three classes of the Civil Service, clerical, executive and administrative, the lowest paid grade in each class started at the same figure for men and women. The differentiation began after that and it went up more steeply as it reached the higher grades. This is obviously a recognition of the fact that young men and women normally have no family dependency. It is in the later ages that men begin to feel the burden. Compare the rates given to the higher paid men and women in the clerical class. The top man gets £738 and the top woman gets £634—£104 less. From the
    2032
    woman's point of view that infringes the principle of equality. From the man's point of view, it is an absurdly inadequate provision for dependants, but if the man has a family to keep, it means that he has to take his family to Margate for a fortnight while she can take a Continental tour every summer. How is that going to be effected if you grant equal pay? The woman will be still better able to enjoy herself than the man who is married with a family and jealousy will be greatly intensified between the two sexes. We were told that in these common grades people get in by examination with the same pay for both sexes, but promotion depends on the reports of heads of departments.
    I served for 25 years on a local authority, and I know how extraordinarily difficult it is to get the people who are recommending for promotion to ignore personal considerations. The woman may be known to everybody as the best person, but there is always the feeling that if a man has a family to keep and the woman has already a substantial salary, the better paid job ought to go to the man. That tendency, which is really a psychological factor, will be all the more difficult to get rid of, if you have equal pay for equal work as is proposed in this Resolution. How can these two difficulties be met? There is the real injustice of underpaying the woman who is doing equally good work, and may, in many cases, need the higher salary more than the man. And there is the general instinctive feeling which pervades the whole community that you must, if you put the burden of keeping half the population on men's shoulders, give them something with which to do it. They should not have to pay for it, so to speak, out of their pocket-money.
    There is one way of meeting the difficulty. It is by giving equal pay for equal work and supplementing it by a liberal system of family allowances. Is it not rather a significant fact, that our own country and Portugal and one or two other countries and the only countries in Europe which have not family allowances in the Civil Service? This system is coupled with equal pay in Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Yugoslavia, Norway and Sweden. My figures are not up-to-date and probably require to be altered

    2033
    in respect of Germany and Austria by reason of political developments, but in the Civil Service of all those countries a few years ago there were either family allowances or extra pay to married men, simply on the ground of marriage and not of children, and coupled with this equal pay for men and women.
    The second point elicited by the inquiry that obtained those facts was that, in respect of every one of those countries, all the bodies representative of the civil servants with one exception, one of the two Dutch federations of civil servants, approved of the system, and said that it worked smoothly and without difficulty. Compare that with the lack of progress made in respect of equal pay in this country. The effort began in 1920 when the House passed its first Resolution on lines similar to the Amendment now proposed by the hon. Lady. Has any progress been made in those 16 years? Have those who have brought forward the Amendment very great hopes of its acceptance? I do not know what is in the mind of the Financial Secretary, but I should be rather surprised if he acceded to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not want to discourage him, but I would point out that hon. Members are working along a line which offers very little hope of success.
    I would utter a word of warning to women's organisations. I have worked in the women's movement for 30 years, and I do not think that anyone who knows me would doubt that I am a whole-hearted feminist. But I believe that those who are putting forward a demand for equal pay for equal work without coupling it with a demand for family allowances are either walking into a morass or running their heads into a trap. Either they will not get that for which they are asking (and that is the most likely alternative), or if they do, it may result in a very serious curtailment of women's opportunities. I do not suggest that that will necessarily be so as a result of a system of equal pay merely applied to these particular grades of the Civil Service which are entered by means of examination. But you cannot really stop there. If you pay a woman as much as a man in the grades where men and women both work, is it not illogical not also to raise the standard of women's pay in those grades where only women work? Supposing a woman
    2034
    in one of those grades is doing work as good as, or perhaps better than, a woman working in competition with men in another grade, is it not rather hard that she should be treated as being in an inferior position because that glorious animal man has not entered that particular grade?
    I would suggest to the women who are supporting this scheme, that they should look at the motives of their male allies. I do not doubt that some of them are very good friends of the women's cause. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hexham, to whose speech I have already alluded, made it perfectly plain that his one idea of equal pay was to drive the woman back to the home. He was certain, he said, "that women went to work through economic pressure, and that what they really wanted was to have their own homes as early as they possibly could." What he would really like is to restore the sort of situation described in a certain delightful passage in "Pride and Prejudice," which is familiar to many hon. Members. It is where Charlotte Lucas is reflecting on her engagement to Mr. Collins:
    "Mr. Collins, to be sure, was neither sensible nor agreeable: his society was irksome, and his attachment to her must be imaginary. But still he would be her husband. Without thinking highly either of men or of matrimony, marriage had always been her object: it was the only honourable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and, however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want."
    I suggest that that is the state of things to which non-male advocates of equal pay would like to see women returned. Unfortunately, if every woman is to be provided with that husband, which is apparently her highest ambition, this country would have to resort to polygamy, for there are 2,000,000 more women than men. I am not at all lacking in sympathy with the position of a man who is prevented from marrying and having children by the question of pay-merit and the competition of women. It is a serious problem. I have on other occasions tried to draw the attention of a somewhat indifferent House to the fact that the population problem has become extraordinarily serious, and is one which has begun to alarm every eugenist. I have no figures to show how many Civil Servants indulge in the luxury of wife

    2035
    and children on the strength of about one-sixth more salary than his female colleagues get, but I have worked out the figures in respect of teachers. Among 1,000 men teachers there were 95 children, as compared with 258 children per 1,000 miners, and 231 children per 1,000 dock labourers. These higher grade occupations, in spite of their higher level of remuneration, are really not contributing their normal share to the population for the benefit of future generations.
    Those who are interested in this problem should really think it out again upon rather more scientific lines, and see whether there is not something to learn from the experience of those countries of which I have spoken. I know that there are many people who think that the proposal of equal pay, coupled with family allowances, would be an extravagant proposal. I cannot give any estimate in respect of the Civil Service, but the teaching profession is a very relevant one, and the birth rate among the teaching profession is probably much the same as that among the Civil Service. If in the teaching profession you were to pay a substantial allowance of £40 a year for every child during the period of dependency, it would amount only to the equivalent of about 3 per cent. of the salaries in the teaching profession. To meet both objects of the Amendment, equal pay and the prevention of unfair undercutting of men by women, you would have to introduce a scientifically planned system of family allowances coupled with equal pay for equal work for men and women.
    5.11 p.m.
    Major HILLS: The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) has pleaded very constantly and earnestly for family allowances, but she recognises that her system would not work without equal pay. We are now performing the old and traditional work of the House of Commons in trying to remedy grievances before going into Committee of Supply. Before money is granted to the King, the Commons claim the right to have their grievances adjusted. I assure my hon. and learned Friend, if he does not know it already, that this is a deeply felt grievance and one
    2036
    which calls for some adjustment on the part of a wise Government which wants to keep in touch with modern times. It is more than half a generation ago since, on two occasions, I carried in the House of Commons a Resolution in favour of equal pay in the Civil Service. Looking round the Chamber, I think that the majority of Members now present were not in this House in 1920, but I will not repeat the argument which I used on that occasion. A good deal has happened since then, but as far as equal pay is concerned the clock has not moved forward; in fact the hands have rather gone back. The Royal Commission in 1929, set up very late to fulfil a pledge given seven years earlier that the question would be reviewed as soon as the financial position permitted, expressly refrained from coming to a decision. I believe that they were equally divided, and they passed back the baby to the Government, who are now carrying it.
    Up to last year, when discussing the question in this House, a great point has been made by the Government of the question of expense. That was not made by the Financial Secretary last June. He dropped it altogether. I do not know what my hon. and learned Friend the present Financial Secretary means to say. If he intends to plead the question of expense, I would respectfully remind him of what we have read in this morning's papers of the most satisfactory surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All we ask is for a fraction of that surplus. The late Financial Secretary used two arguments. The first was that women's work was not of the same value as that of men. He said that the same value was not obtained from female work in the long run as for male work, and so anxious was he to rub in that fact, that he repeated it, and said the State got less value in the long run from female employment than from male employment. I should like to know whether the late Financial Secretary accepts the opinion of the Prime Minister, who said last night:
    "University-trained women had been given a fair chance it the Civil Service in a great variety of work and there had been no doubt that in the comparatively few years in which they had been tried they had made good. He personally would pay tribute to the ability, the capacity, the industry and the loyalty of the women whom he had come across in the Civil Service."

    2037
    Is not the Prime Minister right? Was not the late Financial Secretary wrong in saying that women's work was inferior, and in putting it into a different class, and saying: "You are not worth as much as men." I do not think that the best opinion of the modern world accepts that view. I do not think that my hon. Friend the present Financial Secretary accepts it. Who are these women? They enter the Civil Service by equal examination with men. There is no favour for the women. They have to compete with the men if they get a place in the Civil Service. With all its faults, examination remains the best test of ability and executive capacity. When the women are inside the doors of the Civil Service they are graded alongside the men and do the same class of work in many cases. They are transferable one for the other. But for their work the women get lower pay.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will not renew the argument of the permanent, inescapable, inevitable, inferiority of women. The second reason which the late Financial Secretary gave was, the wastage of women in regard to sickness and marriage. He said the sickness ratio among women was 50 per cent. greater than that among men. Fifty per cent. expressed in this way may sound a great deal, and may seem a great excess. As a matter of fact, in the ratio of sickness in the Civil Service it represents four days a year. The days lost by men on the average through sickness is eight days a year, and the average lost by women through sickness is 12 days. That very distinguished judge, an old schoolfellow of mine, Lord Tomlin, who was marked out for high office ever since he left the University, swept that comparison aside as being quite negligible. It is negligible, particularly when we realise from what classes those women who lose time by sickness mostly come. They are chiefly in the clerical and writing assistant classes, and the sickness is chiefly among the younger girls, who are not collected in one office, but spread over. Therefore, the loss of time through sickness does not dislocate any office.
    Can it be said that at the present time women's work in the Civil Service, in the long run, is less valuable than that of men? It would, of course, be absurd to say that women are the same as men. They are different, and the higher you
    2038
    get up in the scale of civilisation the more that difference increases, and I dare say it will go on increasing. We want to employ men and women according to their capacity, but we shall never do that until there is equal pay for equal work. So long as women are paid less than men they will be drawn in on the underside of the Civil Service or of industry because they are cheaper, and we shall not get that real test and that real adjustment that can come only from the experience of employing men and women in different professions and industry according to their ability. We may find that in any change-over that takes place there may be fewer women employed. The women's organisations are prepared for women losing some positions. They accept that possibility, but in exchange for it we shall see the selection of men and women according to the capacity of each sex, and we shall do away with the employment of women because they are cheap and because they undercut the wages of men.
    I admired the clever and amusing speech of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), and I shall vote for the Amendment unless the Financial Secretary gives some promise. I am not in the least unreasonable. I do not expect the walls of Jericho to fall down at once. The Treasury has pretty strong walls, but they must do something I do not think that the Financial Secretary can leave the question where his predecessor left it. I do not know whether his experience is the same as mine, but I have found very bitter resentment among women over the words of the late Financial Secretary. So long as the women were told that the country could not afford it, they accepted it loyally because they did not wish to cost the country more than the authorities in charge thought the country could afford. But we have passed beyond that stage, and they have been told that permanently, I suppose, the Civil Service is not a profession in which they are the equals of men.
    I shall not plead again the case for equal pay. I have done it so often and it has been so well done by my predecessors in the Debate, but I would say one word about the cost. The Royal Commission of 1929, Lord Tomlin's Commission, went into the question, and Sir

    2039
    Russell Scott, the Controller of Establishments at the Treasury, gave the figure as £875,000, which was his estimate of the cost, on the assumption that the salaries of all the women would forthwith be raised to the salary point in the corresponding men's scale which they would have reached if all their previous service had been paid for on the men's scale. That could only be reached after some considerable period. So far as my vote is concerned, I am ready to accept any reasonable suggestion that may be made. I do not want to exaggerate, but I would point out the dangerous position which may arise, something comparable to the suffrage movement, especially since the challenge thrown out by the late Financial Secretary. It is the same cause over again, inequality. Before, it was the question of the capacity for the vote, and now it is the question of capacity to perform equal work in the Civil Service. If the Amendment is resisted on those lines I think a dangerous position will arise for the Government and one that I should be extremely reluctant to see.
    If the Financial Secretary harks back to the argument of cost I would point out that it would be only a very small fraction of the large surplus which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has amassed this year and a very small sum for this great country. I have pleaded for this reform on countless platforms, and the time has gone by and is running out. I had hoped 16 years ago that the cause would have been won long since. I hope that at last we may make some advance. Equal examination has been granted, common, classes have been granted, equal work has been granted and it is time for the Financial Secretary to come forward with the last stone of the edifice and grant equal pay.
    5.25 p.m.
    Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The House of Commons has to deal with a matter of very considerable importance in this Amendment. Although the number of persons directly concerned with the Amendment may not be very considerable, the principle which lies behind the Amendment is a far-reaching one and affects large numbers of people throughout the country and the world. So far as this House is concerned its record on this matter is honourable.
    2040
    Again and again it has taken the special opportunities which sere open to it to impress upon the Government the view held by hon. Members on this subject, and I should like the Financial Secretary to pay heed to-day to the views of those who are in touch with their constituents and who are in favour of this Motion. But the record of the Government—I do not confine myself to the Government at present in office but successive Governments for a considerable time—has not been honourable. They have endeavoured to set aside by one means or other the expressed wishes of the House and of the electorate.
    What are the facts in regard to this demand? There wet e two years ago—the Financial Secretary will no doubt give me the most up-to-date figures—85,000 men and 13,000 women in the common classes of the Civil Service, that is to say, in the classes in which the work is identical, whether done by men or women. The proportion of women employed is growing, and if the Financial Secretary gives us the up-to-date figures there may be a larger number of women than I have suggested. These men and women are recruited by precisely the same methods. They pass the same competitive examination, they do precisely the same work and they are interchangeable one with the other.
    The matter of sick leave has been mentioned and figures have been given. If my information is correct, and I do not think the Financial Secretary will dispute it, since the 50 per cent. figure was given the Treasury have had further inquiry made, and in 1934 it was found that the figure was considerably less. According to my information the extra for women over men was only something like 20 per cent., and in terms of days that means but one or two days' extra sick leave in the year. Everyone will admit that that is quite negligible when we are discussing the question of equal pay for equal work. It is totally unjust for persons performing identical tasks, interchangeable and recruited in precisely the same way, that the rate of pay should not be dependent on capacity but on the sex of the person concerned. It is not merely unjust but, to any one who knows anything about grades of employment, it is a grave scandal. This point has already been referred to, but

    2041
    I think it needs emphasising. The scandal lies in the fact that women who reach a supervising grade are frequently paid a lower rate of wage than the men they have to supervise. The Financial Secretary answered a question on that point this afternoon. He declined to give any figures as to how far this was the case, but he added that he believed the cases were very few. That remark came to me with considerable surprise, because I know the actual facts in regard to the rates of pay in these various grades, and if it be true to say that the number is few to-day, there is every reason to suppose that the number will not be so small in a few years' time.
    Take the facts. In the clerical classes, clerks of the higher grade, men are paid £396 to £515 and the grade above, the staff clerk, £515 to £634. Women in the higher of these two classes receive £396, rising to £515, or precisely the same salary, with the same minimum and maximum, as men receive in the grade below. Therefore it stands to reason that as women are promoted to that class there must be a large number of cases where they will be supervising men who are actually paid a higher salary than themselves. I do not want to weary the House with figures and you cannot get a true impression from figures which are given in the course of the Debate. Those who are in any doubt should study the figures for themselves, and they will find that this principle applies right through the whole of the common classes in the Civil Service, clerical and executive classes, and in the highest administrative class. This grave scandal must continue so long as the Government insists upon differentiating between men and women. We say that this grave scandal and the general injustice must be abolished, and that the time to make a start is now.
    This is not a demand upon which men and women concerned take a different point of view. There are some questions regarding the advance of women on which a vote of women would be in one direction and a vote of men in another, but there is no conflict in the view they take up on the question of equal pay for men and women in the common classes in the Civil Service. Men are just as staunch and firm in the matter as women themselves. In my own constituency during the General Election I was approached by a body of men who said they wanted
    2042
    to raise certain Civil Service questions. In Edinburgh there are a number of civil servants and the very first question they put was: What was my attitude regarding the question of equal pay for equal work? The Financial Secretary will not deny that this demand comes equally from men and women, and, quite naturally. If you have equally competent persons and a lower rate of pay prevailing on account of their sex it must always be a threat to the livelihood and standard of pay of those who axe at present receiving the higher rate of pay.
    What has been the attitude of successive Governments to this question? No doubt the question of cost has been at the back of their mind, but we have never been able to get any firm figures. On one occasion the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that it was not the cost which was at stake but the principle. What was the principle? He said that whether the figure was £750,000 or more did not make any substantial difference. What did he mean by that? He meant that the Government did not want to pay any more for the article than they were actually obliged to pay; that if they could get women into the Civil Service in large numbers at a lower offer why should they propose a higher figure? That is a very specious argument. If you pay for timber at a certain rate why should you pay 25 per cent. more if you can get your requirements supplied at the figure you are prepared to pay? The Government seem to adopt that attitude. If they can purchase the labour of women at this lower price, if the women are offering their services at this price, why should they pay any higher? It is a very specious argument, but it is also very unsound—and for many reasons. It is unsound to create in the minds of your employés a sense of rankling injustice; it is unsound to create unnecessary jealousy between some of your employés and others, and it is unsound to set yourself against the advance of public opinion.
    Public opinion insisted on the enfranchisement of women in 1918, and has insisted since then upon seeing various obstacles in the way of women removed one by one. The Financial Secretary and I are members of a profession and

    2043
    he knows that it was public opinion which insisted upon opening the gates of examinations for the Bar to women on equal terms with men. It was public opinion which insisted on this House carrying the proposals to which I have referred. Like the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) I beg the Government not to wait until discontent turns into something worse. That was the great mistake which the Asquith Government made with regard to the proposals for woman suffrage. For year after year women put forward the demand for enfranchisement in gentle, ladylike, mild terms. It was put aside. It was said that women always would be ladies and that they would never convert their demand from a gentle, acquiescent, docile and ladylike form into something much more serious and much more inconvenient to the persons who were in power at the time. Insult was heaped upon insult until the ladylike character of the women was broken down.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Oh!
    Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The hon. Lady knows that the newspapers were full of statements that the women had ceased to be ladies, and the women who were accused in that way said that "We are going to be women first, and anybody who likes to question our ladylike character can do so, but we intend to get our rights." I am not attempting to hold any threat over the Government, but I would ask whether they really want to wait until a quiet and reasonable demand for justice is transformed into something which they may not like. I do not know what form it would take, and I am not suggesting that it would take the identical form of the days of the militant suffragists, but that it will take some form other than what it is at present I am certain if a plain demand for justice is refused, because it would be in accord with the whole history of the world, with the character of women and with human nature. There is another point in regard to the question of cost which I know is in the minds of those who resist this demand. They say that it is not possible to fix an exact figure and for this reason: It may be that the maximum cost of fulfilling the precise demand made by the proposal for equality of pay in the common classes is so much,
    2044
    but does any one seriously believe that it will stop there? If you remove one anomaly you will bring into the light of day other anomalies which need to be redressed; if one palpable injustice is removed you will only call attention to other palpable injustices which remain.
    There is something in that argument. We cannot altogether deny that if in the common classes you bring up the pay of women to that of Inca, in the classes of labour which are not common to the sexes you will get a demand saying, why should women, because they do not belong to the common classes, be put in an inferior position to women wee do? Let us see where that argument leads. Hitherto Governments have not refused to remove this injustice on the ground that they would permanently resist any such reform, but because they said that the particular time chosen for ale request was unsuitable. It has a1ways been, "jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day." The argument that one by one injustices will have to be removed means that every day the demand is refused the cost of making the change will become greater. I think it would not only be right, but would be sensible and wise to meet this demand to-day, when the cost would not be very serious, rather than to wait to meet it when the cost would be very much greater.
    In putting forward this demand, with which a large number of hon. and right hon. Members opposite are also in agreement, we are not taking an unreasonable attitude. We do not say we will be satisfied with nothing but the complete and immediate acceptance of that which is proposed in the Amendment; we say that we want the Government to take a step forward and to give something on account. I have been in the position which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury occupies at the present time, and I well know the sort of instructions given to Financial Secretaries. The Government say, "My dear fellow, say anything you like, be as polite as you can, use the smoothest words you can find, but promise nothing." When I was Financial Secretary I got into a certain amount of trouble because I did not always carry out my instructions. I made no promises, but 1 did not always use tee smooth words that I might have used, because I am not of a hypocritical turn of mind, and I did

    2045
    not like to lead innocent people up the garden by using words which I knew the Government would not implement.
    In that respect I beg the Financial Secretary to follow my example to-night. Let us have the plain, bold truth, let us have a blunt statement and not smooth words. We know perfectly well that when a man attempts to recover a debt either by going himself or sending someone else to collect it, the debtor chooses a very urbane member of his household to go to the front door and to use his or her blandishments on the creditor. On such occasions, the debtor gives the following instructions: "Talk to him nicely, say how much I value his acquaintance, say that no doubt the master will settle up the account later, but do not make any promises, do not pay him any money and get him away from the house."
    Smooth words and blandishments will not have any effect upon us, nor will they have any effect on the persons with whom this Amendment is concerned, for it is part of their official duties to estimate at their true value the words and favourable expressions of politicians. We do not intend to be put off with anything less than something on account. If the Government, who are the debtors to the women in this question, are prepared to give something on account, and if that which they give is of sufficient magnitude to be a reasonable instalment of the debt, we are prepared to accept it and not to pester the Government any more for the moment. We are not prepared, however, to go away contented unless we have something in hard cash, and if the Financial Secretary has been placed by the Cabinet in the position of not having any latitude in meeting our claim by giving something on account, there will be no course open to us but to appeal to the House to vote against the Government in this matter.
    If the Government by their pressure succeed in carrying the day, if they make it difficult for their supporters to come into our Lobby, we shall be compelled to carry the matter to the country, to put the case before the electorate and insist that justice be done. But I still hope that the Financial Secretary has a better message to give us to-night. I hope the Government have given him the right to say that he will grant the whole of that which is proposed in this Amendment. If
    2046
    he cannot say so much, then I would like him to make a specific and definite promise, that although the whole of that which is proposed is not granted, the Government are prepared to take a step in the direction of meeting the demands.
    5.52 p.m.
    Mr. PICKTHORN: I do not wish to produce a red herring, as we were besought not to do by the Mover of this Amendment. I am as anxious as anyone to support the principle of equal pay for equal work, although I think the decision as to what is equal is sometimes more difficult than some of the champions of that principle are willing to admit; but where officials are, rightly or wrongly, admitted to do work at any rate so nearly equal that they are interchangeable, and can be moved about inside each other's jobs, it seems to me that the work is then so nearly equal that there is no excuse for not making the pay equal as well. Unfortunately, this Amendment as it is drafted goes further than that. It revives the Resolution of 1920, which speaks of equal opportunity of employment in all branches of the Civil Service. I do not wish to discuss that on the present occasion, nor do I think anyone supposes this occasion to be appropriate for discussing it, but if that were to be accepted, a great deal more debate would be necessary. Therefore, I hope it may be taken that any support for to-day's Amendment does not necessarily involve adhesion to the whole of the 1920 Resolution.
    In connection with the latter part of to-day's Amendment, which seems to me to be logically irresistible, there is one other thing I would like to say, and it concerns the dependency argument, the argument that men ought to be paid more because they are likely to have more numerous dependants, I do not wish to follow the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) into her argument about maintenance allowances. I wish merely to make the point that the whole of that argument for giving extra pay because a man has a larger family seems to me valid only on the basis—I suppose the Socialist basis—"to each according to his needs." If we are to stick to the basis "to each according to his or her service," I do not see how it can be contended that there ought to be any distinction between people who

    2047
    admittedly perform equal services, or services so nearly equal that they cannot be publicly distinguished.
    5.55 p.m.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I wish the House had been full when the hon. Lady moved the Amendment. She did it so clearly, so convincingly arid in such a concilatory manner that I would have thought it would have moved the heart of the hardest Treasury official. I believe I see signs of a slight dint in the soft heart of the new Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I am sure he must have been convinced by other speeches. I have been tremendously heartened to see old friends of the suffrage movement in just as good fettle as they were in the days before the girls got the vote, and it is a pleasant feeling to know that they have not lost any of their enthusiasm for what is simply common justice.
    The case of equal pay for equal work has been made so often that it would be unfair to bore the House with it again. Some of the old arguments advanced, such as that of cost, are no longer put forward, but last year the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for War made the appalling statement, quoted by the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) that in the long run female work was not as valuable to the State as male work. Coming from him that was amusing, because, if anybody has the right to be grateful for female work, he has, and I can only say that a ripple of amusement went round the world who knew when we heard that statement. I am perfectly certain it will never be made again, certainly not by him, and I am sure it carried far more amusement than it did conviction.
    This is the day of treaty-keeping, and we are told that all countries must honour their treaties. I want to ask the Government to keep their treaty, for it must be remembered that in Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles the following is incorporated:
    "Among these methods and principles, the following seem to the High Contracting Parties to be of special and urgent importance: … The principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value."
    That is one part of the Treaty of Versailles which has never been kept by any Government since the treaty was
    2048
    signed. The Government cannot get away with it on the ground of cost. After all, they set up a committee to inquire into the working of the sugar industry and there was an almost unanimous report that it was extravagant, that it was not on sound grounds and that it ought gradually to be done away with. The Government refused that r Tort and went on to vote £7,000,000 for an industry which the report said would never be able to stand on its own feet. The Government cannot say they cannot afford to give the money, for if they gave equal remuneration to all grades and classes it would amount only to £1,000,000. But we are not asking so much, because we know the Government will not do that at once. As other hon. Members have said, we wish to be reasonable and to get what we can. If the Government say they cannot afford it, they will make the House look ridiculous, and hon. Members will look ridiculous if they go into the Lobby against this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] Well, we shall see when the Division comes. I am certain that there is hardly an hon. Member here who has not given a pledge on this question of equal pay for equal work, and now is the time for them to keep that pledge.
    This question always seems to cause some amusement in the House. Some hon. Members seem to regard any question affecting women as a good joke, just as mothers-in-law used to be regarded as a joke. But I ask them to remember that this question is very far from being a joke. It is a serious matter and some hon. Members may find that it will be a serious matter for them, in view of the large number of women electors in the country. I would remind them that four out of five women in England to-day are at work. We are not living to-day in the kind of world described in "Pride and Prejudice" which was quoted by the hon. Lady opposite, the kind of world in which a woman's only occupation was to get married. A great many women to-day find that it is too strenuous an occupation and even if they could marry, they do not wish to do lo. They have a perfect right to remain single if they want to remain single. As to the argument which has been advanced about dependants, one could give many instances of women in the Civil Service who have dependants. I have one friend whose whole family is dependent on her work.

    2049
    She is in the position, not only of doing equal work with men but of seeing men who are under her more highly paid than she is herself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It is a shame. It is really unfair that such a state of things should be allowed to go on and we here have the power to stop it.
    Then we are told about the wastage caused by marriage. The wastage caused by marriage is no higher than the wastage caused by deaths among men. The death rate is higher than the marriage rate in the Civil Service. We have also been told that the incidence of sickness is higher among women, but Lord Toulmin has shown that there is very little difference between men and women in regard to the rate of sickness. Therefore that argument cannot be put forward any longer. Nor can the argument any longer be advanced that the country is unable to afford it. The Prime Minister recently paid a tremendous tribute to women and in a very interesting speech pointed out how grateful men ought to be to women. He spoke of the ability, loyalty and capacity of women and added something about their discretion. If women were not discreet where would men be. I submit that on the ground of their discretion alone they are entitled to equal pay with men.
    Some of the best women in the country are in the Civil Service and their demand is based on justice. We do not make any extreme claim and we do not make any threats. But we know that women would never have got the vote if they had gone on behaving like perfect ladies. No one pays very much attention to a perfect lady, particularly when it comes to getting something done and women are not going to stand this kind of injustice for ever. The other day we had a meeting at the Caxton Hall at which 25 different organisations were represented and it was necessary to arrange for a huge overflow meeting. That gathering included many of the best women of the country who feel this injustice very strongly. I, myself, belonging to a great and powerful party, in a country which prides itself on setting an example to the rest of the world, feel that now is the time when we ought to meet the women's demand for equality in this respect.
    2050
    I ask the Government not to seek for every possible excuse to avoid the issue. I beg the House to consider that equal pay for equal work is a matter of common justice if not indeed of common humanity. I do not say that in all branches of work women are as good as men but I would say to hon. Members who are listening to me: Give your daughters the same chances as you give your sons and see what will happen. Send them to college as you send your sons to college. I do not say that they will all take advantage of it. All the sons do not take advantage of their educational opportunities. But I say, give the young women an equal chance and you will find that it will not only pay you but will pay the State. There are some very fine young women to-day going into the Civil Service. They have a very high sense of service and of loyalty but they are discouraged when they find in the fairest country in the world, the country which is supposed to show an example of justice to the rest of the world, they are denied equal pay for equal work.
    I appeal to hon. Members not to listen to the Whips on this occasion. A Government is no use if it has a lot of tame followers. I ask hon. Members also to bear in mind that it will not hurt their chances of promotion to take an independent line on these matters. Governments respect people with independence, especially when they have such a feeble Opposition. However the hon. Lady who moved this Motion said she did not want to be rude and I do not want to be rude either. I only say that, unless hon. Members on our side have the courage of their convictions on this matter and show the Government that they really mean it, there will be trouble, because there is great discontent and disappointment on this subject among the thousands of women throughout the country who backed the National Government, believing that it was for the national good. I would appeal to the young and rising Financial Secretary. Let him rise on justice and let him not be pulled down by Treasury officials who seem to have forgotten what justice is so far as women are concerned.
    6.9 p.m.
    Sir ERNEST GRAHAM-LITTLE: I am not entirely in love with the slogan "Equal pay for equal work" and I do not

    2051
    think we ought to base our championship of this proposal upon that slogan. It is far better that we should base our claims on the justice of the demand and on the fact that sex distinction in a matter of this kind is in these days an anachronism. I am particularly interested in this subject because the University which I have the honour to represent decided this question 100 years ago. We celebrate our centenary this year and 100 years ago we admitted women without any distinction to every examination of the University. That there should be no such distinction in this matter is surely a logical and inescapable proposition at the present time. The Prime Minister whose speech has already been quoted made a very proper appeal for an extension of the opportunities of service for University women. Consider what must be the feelings of University women when they enter the Civil Service of this great country and find that a discrimination is made between the sexes in the matter of pay. The differentiation does not begin until something like five or six years after recruitment but it becomes worse and worse as the entrant rises in the service and it is worst of all in the highest grade. That seems a thoroughly foolish and stupid arrangement. It must discourage the best people from entering the service.
    At the last meeting of the Civil Service Committee of the House before the conclusion of the last Parliament, this subject was discussed. I was in the chair and I found it a remarkable and surprising fact that a motion for the abolition of any discrimination between the sexes in the matter of pay came from the men who were as insistent on that reform as the women. That feeling of common interest is one that ought to be respected as it deserves. It is remarkable that it should be so prevalent and that it should predominate over any feelings of jealousy or sex controversy. The women in the highest grades, as I say, seem to suffer most and that is an aspect of the question which I hope the Financial Secretary will explain. Many hon. Members have probably received in the last few days a very interesting analysis of Ludendorff's last book in which he deals with the possibilities of a future war and of what he describes as the "total war," in which every individual citizen of the nation will be
    2052
    called upon to take part. He makes the very remarkable statement, for a German, that the women in such a war must be placed on a footing of absolute equality with the men in the matter of service to the State and must give the fullest possible co-operation if the nation is to secure victory.
    Is it possible to expect that full cooperation from the women of our country when such an injustice as this is allowed to continue? Among the arguments which have been advanced against the reform is that of the incidence of sickness, but that seems a foolish argument and I have seen figures which refuted it absolutely. Four or five years ago the medical papers dealt with that point and it was shown that there was no proof whatever for the statement that a very much larger number of women were invalided than men. That argument therefore must go by the board. Again, I think the plea of economy is a very unworthy one. It can never pay to be unjust. I appeal to hon. Members to support this Motion.
    6.14 p.m.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: I wish to add my voice to those of the other speakers who have demanded front the Government a clear declaration of their intention in this matter. As the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) said, we do not want to hear smooth words but a bold statement of the facts and I shall be glad to hear the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with his cold clear Scottish logic, dealing with this problem. The case has been put forward so well by other hon. Members that I need only sum up the facts. Men and women sit together as candidates at examinations for the common classes in the Civil Service. If they pass, they are called upon to undertake certain work and up to that time no distinction whatever is made between the successful candidates who are men and the successful candidates who are women. They enter the Service in exactly the same circumstances and they begin with the same pay. But the differentiation takes place at a later stage, because the man's remuneration is increased at a rate at which the woman's remuneration is not increased. There is no difference in their examination or in their contract with the Government—they are both civil servants—but only when it comes to a question

    2053
    of increased pay is the differentiation made. One becomes a male civil servant, and the other a female civil servant. For what reason is this differentiation to be carried on? I have been interested in listening to the speeches to-day, and I think I am right in saying that with one exception every hon. Member who has addressed the House has quoted the words of the Prime Minister. Many of us at the last Election quoted the Prime Minister's words with the greatest possible success, and I only hope that when the Minister replies he may be able to say that the success of the Prime Minister's opinion on this subject is as great in this Debate as it was on other subjects in the debate before the country at the last Election.
    This is not simply a women's question. Over and over again we have been told, "Oh, you are going to discuss a women's subject." This is nothing of the kind. It is not simply the women of this country or in the Civil Service asking for something; it is the people of this country, I believe, in an enormous majority, having discovered this anomaly, who are in favour of a change being made. I think we must describe it as an anomaly that people who have entered the Civil Service by the same competitive examination should, when it comes to extra remuneration, be divided because of their sex. Men and women outside have approached many of us at the General Election and at other times, and I believe that hon. Members inside this House, whether they be men or women, look at the problem from the same point of view: Is this the right way of paying servants of the State, or is it not It is the answer to that question that we want to know to-day.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pick-thorn) and the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown) that many of us do not wish to go as far as this Amendment goes. I do not wish to enter into any discussion of the Resolution of 1920, nor am I in favour of the word "forthwith," a word that has been very dangerous of late, and I think it would be a great thing if, by the removal of that word, we could come to some agreement on the subject. But there remains the principle. I do not want simply to get an aswer as to what cannot be done this year or next year. I want
    2054
    to hear whether the Government feel that it is right that this anomaly should continue, or whether they will explain why they consider it is not an anomaly and that it is right that at this juncture in the work of the Civil Service this distinction should still be made. In asking that, I do not think we are asking too much. We want to know exactly where we stand in this matter, and I would point out that this question is more and more coming before us in the country. People in the past did not realise what the difficulty was, but they are realising it more and more. Is it just and is it right? Those are the questions to which we want an answer.
    If the full amount cannot be paid at once, I would ask that we should be told at any rate whether the Government are in agreement with the principle and whether they would consider a scheme for the future. Are they going to turn down the whole thing? The suggestion was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham that those women who have reached the maximum should, after a certain period, be allowed a further increment so as to bring them up to the maximum for the men. That would be something for those who have been in the Civil Service for 15 or 20 years, and I would like to make another suggestion. Will the Government face boldly the fact that this scheme of payment is not the right scheme and give us the promise that in future, without, saying necessarily at what particular date—we do not press them as far as that—new entrants into those common classes of the Civil Service, in other words, the successful candidates in the common classes, be they men or women, should be remunerated on the same scale of pay? I would like, of course, to see both ideas carried out, but I do not think we can expect all the women in the common classes at once to receive the extra remuneration.
    I would like to know from the Minister what objections there are, of cost or otherwise, to this scheme—first, that those who have been in the Civil Service and have reached their maximum should have their maximum increased to the men's maximum, and, secondly, that at a future date men and women candidates for the Civil Service who are successful and become servants of the State should be given, if they are in those common

    2055
    classes and working in exactly the same way, the same scales of payment. I think the subject is important, affecting not merely the people in the Civil Service, but the country as a whole. The country as a whole, the taxpayers, are the employers of these men and women. They give the money, and they want to see their money given justly, but at present they do not think it is.
    6.21 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: Coming from a different part of the United Kingdom, I want to say a word or two on this question. I will do my utmost not to repeat any of the arguments already used, which is rather a difficult thing on a subject like this, but I have received a communication which is, in my opinion, rather unique. It is from the Civil Service Clerical Association, and it is dated 30th April, 1936. It is signed by "your obedient servant." I will not give his name, but it is a man, and I feel very much inclined to reply to that gentleman that perhaps the best thing he can do is to agree that women should get equal pay with him. I was recently under the necessity of sending a telegram home to Belfast, and when I handed it in, I was asked the extra charge for the Free State, also by another gentleman. I think that, after those experiences, it is high time that the women of the Civil Service got equal pay with the men—either that, or that the men should be reduced to the same level as the women.
    This is an opportunity which I do not think an Ulsterman should miss, because the Post Office is a reserved service. You deal with it over here, and the Government of Northern Ireland have nothing to do with it. Consequently, the civil servants of Northern Ireland make the same appeal as those of this country. In those few words I would like to emphasise the necessity of agreeing to this Amendment, and I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give it the consideration which it deserves. Personally, I feel very much inclined to say "immediate" consideration, because this has been going on for years and years, and these women have proved their ability and are thoroughly entitled to this extra remuneration.
    6.25 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: When I first came into the Chamber to-day I had not intended to try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because my constituents happen to be very much interested in the question that will follow the discussion of this matter, and I thought I ought to reserve myself for that. The question of the import duty on potatoes is a question in which my constituents are very much more interested than in this one, but as I was a member of the Royal Commission on the Civil Seri ice which sat in 1929-1931, and as that Commission devoted a great deal of time to the question of the conditions of women in the Service, I feel that I would like to say a few words. More especially do I wish to do so because I feel that, so far as I have been able to hear the Debate, very little consideration has been given to a question which was very much before the Royal Commission, namely, the question of the bigger family responsibilities of the men. No one wishes to deny that there are many women who have a mother or perhaps a sister to support, but, taken by and large, I think nobody can deny that the family responsibilities of men are considerably larger than those of women, and it was very remarkable that in the evidence that was presented to us by the men's organisations, though several of these organisations said they favoured the principle of equal pay, many of them were very interested in pressing on us the need, as they saw it, of higher salaries for the men at the period in life at which the family responsibilities of married men are greatest, that is to say, at the time when the family is being educated. That was a claim that we heard from many of the men's organisations, and, frankly, it did not seem to me to be consistent with the rather lukewarm support that some of the associations gave to the principle of equal pay.
    I think we have to remember that though the women do not rise to the same final remuneration as the men, they do rise to three-quarters or four-fifths. They enter at the same level, but gradually the men outstrip them by a quarter or a fifth, that is, in those years in which for most men family responsibilities are increasing. Moreover, those of us on the Royal Commission who felt that we could not recommend equal pay, put on record that the relative pay of the sexes in

    2057
    the Civil Service was fully abreast of that in practice in the outside world. It was, I think, clearly set forth that the Civil Service ought to be in the position of a good employer, or of the best employer, but not out of step with what was happening in the world outside.
    It also became clear that, just because there was this general recognition of the weight of family responsibilities resting on men, if equal pay were granted, inevitably it would be followed by a demand for family allowances? There was general recognition, not always vocal, but sometimes tacit, though often vocally expressed, that there are heavier family responsibilities resting on men than on women, and this is something fundamental, from which, we cannot get away. Therefore, it was made clear in the course of the evidence that if equal pay were granted, it would only be the prelude to a further demand for family allowances in order to remedy the injustice to the married men which they would feel if they found there was nothing to compensate them for their bigger responsibilities. I therefore feel it my duty to point out that if equal pay is granted, that is only the beginning of a very much bigger salary bill in the Civil Service. I do not wish to argue the question of family allowances here. I only wish to point out that you are only at the beginning of a considerable addition to salary expenditure in the Civil Service if the principle of equal pay is adopted.
    The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), challenged the Government to face the country on this matter, and I think my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) rather indicated that she thought there would he a very large vote in the country in favour of this proposal. I would like to ask the hon. Member for East Edinburgh what he thinks the married women of this country would say. What would a working woman who is the mother of a family, having a hard time, say about an unmarried woman with little family responsibilities having the same salary as a married man with family responsibilities?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The answer is quite simple. Where there is a question in which the men are on one side in employment and women on the
    2058
    other, very probably the married women will go with their husbands against the women who are working on the other side. In this case, however, the men are as strongly in favour of this principle as the women are. Therefore, it is exceedingly probable that the married women would have the same view as their husbands on this question.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I can only say, after 12 years in this House, that I am sure the working women in my constituency would feel it a grievance for women without family responsibilities to receive the same pay as married men. If this question is going to be looked at from the electoral point of view, that is how it appears to me, but I want to look at it from the point of view of justice. Because I think that, on the whole, in the vast majority of cases, there is a weight of family responsibility resting on the married man that does not rest on the unmarried woman, and because that fact came before me very clearly during the course of my work on the Royal Commission, I feel bound to vote against the Amendment to-night.
    Miss RATHBONE: Does the Noble Lady really think that the wives of married men, whose position she has so much at heart, would feel that their family responsibilities were adequately met by the difference between four-fifths and five-fifths of salary; and if she feels about it so strongly why does she object to family allowances?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I understand the question before us is that of equal pay, and I say that if it were given it would be only the beginning of a proposal for family allowances, which I know the hon. Lady urges. A difference of one-fifth in salary is not an adequate acknowledgment of the difference between married men and unmarried women; but it is better than nothing. My point is that there are many married women who feel very keenly about the proposal that an unmarried women should receive the same pay as a married man.
    6.34 p.m.
    Mr. RICHARDS: We have had an interesting discussion which has been practically unanimous in favour of the Amendment. I, too, was a member of the Royal Commission to which reference was made by the Noble Lady the Member

    2059
    for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). A great deal of attention was paid to this question, but unfortunately the Commission was not quite unanimous as to the recommendation that it should make. The arguments that have been used by the Noble Lady are really antiquated by this time. There are only three arguments, as far as I can see, against granting the request contained in my hon. Friend's Amendment. There is, first, the argument of the Treasury, which we shall hear by and by, and I hope that the Treasury has discovered some means of acceding to the request, but we know how inscrutible are the ways of the Treasury in other cases. The second argument is on the question of wages. Wages are paid in respect of the value of the service that is given, and I think that in this case the House agrees that the nature and value of the service and the entrance into the service are exactly the same for men and women. There is no dispute about the fact that the women in the Civil Service in these particular classes are doing the work just as efficiently as the men. There is no difference as regards the quality of the work in this case. The third argument is that the men are paid more because they have different family responsibilities, and that was the argument advanced by the Noble Lady. It is a very ½old argument, and everybody knows that it does not carry weight any longer. The condition of things has changed so completely that it is nonsense to say that men are being paid in respect of certain social responsibilities.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not a fact that under Unemployment Insurance there are allowances for dependants, and is that not an indication that the State recognises greater family responsibility?
    Mr. RICHARDS: We recognise in that instance the claims of dependants, and I think that the time must come when in other cases, too, we must recognise the independent claims of dependants. Everybody knows that under free competition, which is the basis of this work, the wages that are paid are the lowest possible, and from every point of view they are inadequate to meet the responsibilities of married people. The fact of the matter is that wages really tend to be paid in accordance with the social standing of the
    2060
    individuals concerned. That is a thoroughly unworthy way of looking at this question. I do not think it carries any weight now except for the fact that, with our system of education and the social advantages that some people enjoy, there are people still who are in an advantageous position, and they are paid better than other people simply because there are fewer of them. If they were as numerous as the people in the lower grades, their salaries would descend to the salaries of those lowly-paid people. It has very little to do with family responsibility. It has a great deal to do with social distinctions that are still so prevalent in this country. I hope that to-day we are going to take a step forward in doing away with this invidious distinction, which in this case is based upon difference of sex. I hope that eventually the House will remove all the distinctions based upon sex and social inequality.
    6.40 p.m.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I have delayed as long as possible replying in order to provide an ample opportunity for hon. Members to express themselves on this interesting question. I have been urged by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) to be in my reply bold, blunt and courageous, and to conceal nothing of my mind from the House. I see no difficulty in doing what I am asked, for I have no counsel to give the House but that they should reject the Amendment, and I will give the reasons which have prompted me to that conclusion, which I hope the House will seriously weigh. In the course of our discussion to-day we have had the advantage of hearing the same case stated and restated by hon. Members many times. I should like to pay a tribute to the excellence of the presentation of the case by the hon. Lady who moved the Amendment, to the hon. Gentleman who seconded it, and to many other hon. Members who have spoken. I have sometimes noticed that it is not always safe to judge from a unanimous series of speeches in the House of Commons, for there is often nothing like a corresponding unanimity of opinion in the constituencies which have sent hon. Members here. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor)

    2061
    perhaps gave one explanation of that when she congratulated herself and the House of Commons on seeing in action again the old guard of the suffragette movement. No one who listened to that old guard could entertain any doubt or fear that they had in any way lost their cunning or that their natural force was abated.
    This is one of those questions which arouse and attract sectional interests and which appeal to hon. Members who have always been identified with the feminist movement. When they have prepared and delivered speeches in a debate on this subject it is not always a true indication of what is the opinion of the country or the House. The sense of the House and of the country is not to be judged only from speeches delivered here. There are other means of ascertaining the. view of the country and there is often better evidence than that afforded by speeches. Practically nowhere in the world outside is this principle of equal pay for men and women accepted.
    Miss RATHBONE: Does the hon. Gentleman challenge what I said that in the civil services of practically every European country there are family and marriage allowances? If he is doubtful about that, I should be glad to furnish him with documents to prove it.
    Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Member mistakes my point. I am not comparing our own Civil Service with other civil services. I am comparing the conditions in the Civil Service as regards this question with the conditions outside in our own country. What I am asking the House to try and ascertain is the will and wish of the country in this matter, and I am suggesting in all seriousness that what the country feels about this important question is to be gauged by the practice which prevails rather than from the speeches which are made from one side or the other. With regard to other civil services, if she adopted that method of comparison she would have to reconcile herself, and our civil servants would have to reconcile themselves, to rates of pay very much worse than those in the Civil Service in this country. I am suggesting to the House that the true test to be applied is the practice among our own countrymen outside the Civil Service, and not the practice in foreign countries. We desire
    2062
    to have our civil servants so remunerated that they can maintain an adequate standard of life, judging that standard by the, practices in our own country. If it were the fact that you found a widespread acceptance of this principle in industry as a whole, or if you found a general disinclination on the part of women to accept employment unless they received the same wages as their husbands and brothers, you might be in a position to say that there was general agreement with the Amendment throughout the country.
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Why should not we lead the way?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am asking the House to deduce from the two points I have brought to their attention the fact that the general feeling of the country, which we here are asked to apply, is against the general proposition that is advanced. I make no point, because it would be ungracious to do so, of the fact that the hon. Lady's speech was devoted to a narrower issue than that comprehended in her Amendment. She has desired that we should consider more particularly that section of women employed in the Civil Service who are in what we know as the common entry classes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read the Amendment."] I am quite prepared to accept the hon. Lady's own reading of her Amendment and to accept her particular point. I say the condition of affairs outside is at this stage entirely different from how the hon. Lady sees it in asking the House to accept it as a guiding principle. We do find, in fact, that employment for men and women is rewarded by higher pay to the men than to the women, and I suggest that the reason for that is to be found in our society, founded as it is upon the family, the family in turn founded upon marriage, and marriage in turn casting the greater burden on the man. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am not proposing to prejudge the future, or to say what may be the appropriate action to be taken in the future evolution of our society. If, for example, as some of our gloomier prophets foretell, we ever approximate to the very wonderful, but ungainful, economy of bees, among whom the women do all the work and bear all the responsibility, and the males have what is known as a short life but a gay one—if

    2063
    that drab dawn ever came it might be that those who support the. feminist movement and the female section of our people might find themselves faced with duties and responsibilities beyond what they would desire. But we have to deal with this proposal in the present framework of society and with relation to the practice which prevails outside.
    Let me say one word about this Amendment. It has been put down and has been discussed throughout on the basis that it seeks an equalisation of pay for men and women. In truth it is not that principle which is its object—not entirely, because you can achieve equalisation of pay as between men and women by one or two processes. You may level up or level down, and if equality, that clear, abstract ideal, were the object we might have had some discussion on how to achieve it by reducing the salaries of men to the level of those of women, but we have had no such thing. What the House is asked to do is to consider granting an increase of pay to some women in the Civil Service. I have been urged to be blunt and bold, and I would urge those who are supporting the Amendment to face up to what they are asking. We are asked that a certain section of the women employed in the Civil Service shall get a rise of pay—
    Mr. GALLACHER: Be paid equally for equal work.
    Mr. MORRISON: —not all the women in the Civil Service, but only those who are lucky enough to find themselves in a common entry grade, that is to say 15 per cent. of the women employed in the Civil Service. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are doing the same work as men."] If hon. Members will reflect they will see, as the hen. Member who so ably seconded this Amendment has pointed out, how shallow that view is. If we were to accede to this request and to raise the pay of this happy band of sisters, choosing them from all the other women employed in the Civil Service to receive this particular benefit, is it thought that we could resist, with any hope of success, the claims of their sisters? [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course not."] Hon. Members admit it. I ask the House to say that the fact that the women are in this particular grade is no reason for putting them in a special category as
    2064
    regards their pay. Take the other classes, for which men are not allowed to compete at all. If we granted this request it would not he long before the women in those section where men do not compete would invent what I may call the hypothetical man. Applying the different percentage rises of those in the common entry classes trey would arrive at the proportion of difference that has arisen by reason of this proposal and would then say, "If we had men in our grade they would before now have been receiving this fraction higher than we are receiving to-day, and we ought to get it."
    Let hon. Members face up to what they are asking the House to do. I have said that this is an application for a rise in pay for a particular section of the Civil Service. I would ask time House to observe that it is not founded upon any of the usual grounds for increased remuneration. For example, it is not founded upon any assertion that the scales paid in outside industry for comparable work are higher than those paid inside the Civil Service. This is no demand for a rise in salary based upon any claim that the salary now paid is inadequate in itself as compared with the standards obtaining outside. No such thing. Neither is it alleged that the women in the common entry grades are dissatisfied with their salaries as such. No hon. Member has suggested that and, indeed, I have been asked for my evidence on the matter. I have consulted with those concerned and the truth is that this discontent, such as it is—I am glad to say it is a very small volume, existing only in those sections where men and women work together—comes not from the women but from the married men, who see the women, even though their salaries are, perhaps, a little less, with far more actual pocket money—or I ought to say handbag money?—than they possess and enjoying, in spite of their lower salaries, a higher standard of life than the married men working alongside them.
    Far from there being seething discontent among the women in the Civil Service as an hon. Member suggested—there is no such thing, it is an illusion—such discontent as is heard is the discontent manifested in an occasional grumble from the married men an I the married men's wives, because of the higher standard of

    2065
    life of the women who are in the same grade. As a married man I can say "Sufferance is the badge of all our tribe." I can assure the House that there is no question of real discontent at the bottom of this question. So we find that this application for a rise in pay is founded not upon any industrial considerations but on the feminist, if I may use. the expression, conception that there is something wrong in women having a certain wage, not because of anything wrong with the wage as such compared with wages in outside industry but because a man doing the same work is getting more than she gets. This is very different from ordinary applications for increases in salary which come before us from time to time. The hon. Lady recognises that the basis of her agitation is not that salaries are insufficient in themselves but that some man in the same grade is getting a little more than a woman is. As far as I can gather what the country thinks about this particular dogma, on which alone the agitation is founded, namely, that it is wrong to pay a woman less than a man, that view is not held by the country as a whole.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the hon. Member give the House a free vote on this question; and will he also explain the fact that if a woman enters the Cabinet she gets the same salary as a man?
    Mr. MORRISON: I will deal with the hon. Member's second point first. Most of these Cabinet salaries, including the one which he has in mind, are fixed by statutes making no difference between men or women.
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Exactly. Say that again.
    Mr. MORRISON: The particular salary which the hon. Member has in mind, the salary, I think, of the Minister of Labour—
    Mr. STEPHEN: Or the salary of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
    Mr. MORRISON: —is fixed by Statute, and the Statute, though it does not in so many words contemplate a woman ever holding the office, is in such terms that, legally, that salary is payable whether it be a woman or a man who holds the post. An argument based on that very peculiar and unusual form of
    2066
    employment, and against the whole mass of accepted evidence outside, in the country at large, would not be an argument in accordance with the weight of evidence. I ask the House to consider what is the main consideration when deciding wages and conditions in the Civil Service or in any other Government employment. It has been held by successive Governments that what you have to do in fixing the wages under the State is to 'apply the fair wages principle, that is, to pay those who work for the State such sum as will put the State in the front rank of good employers. Further, you are paying the wages not with your own money but with that of other people.
    Consequently, that principle has been adopted and has been clung to. I wish to apply it here. The wages paid to women in the Civil Service, no matter whether they belong to the common entrant grade or to other grades, corn-pare favourably with the wages paid outside for similar work. There is within the Civil Service admirable conciliation machinery in the shape of the Joint Whitley Council, where all these questions of staff pay are discussed between both sides and where you can get a decision on them. To accept this Amendment, and to say that in the Civil Service you should pay this additional sum because men are being paid a little more, would be to defeat the fair wages principle and to destroy its efficacy in the Civil Service.
    Mr. KELLY: Would the hon. Gentleman read the fair wages Clause, and explain to us whether there is one word that applies to the wages paid in Government Departments?
    Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Member is confusing two things, the Clause which the Government gets inserted in Government contracts, and the fair wages principle—which is the one I am talking about—which is used in Government employment. The two things are connected but are entirely different. To accept the Amendment in this form would be to do 'away with this principle, and set up another one entirely different from the principles on which wages in the Civil Service have so long and so successfully been regulated. Hon. Members seem to make light of the position that we are being asked to consider.

    2067
    We are being asked to experiment with the taxpayers' money for the sake of satisfying a demand for more wages that does not arise from any industrial reason, but from a particular dogma in support of which you have to use the taxpayers' money to give a lead. That is not the purpose for which we are entrusted with public funds. The purpose is to use those funds as the public would like to see them used, and to put ourselves in the position of the best of employers, but not to use them for experiments on the lines suggested in the Amendment. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh spoke about the effect of this Amendment, if carried, on the employment of men. He told the House that he was approached in his own city, which I know is inhabited by many important civil servants, and that the civil servants spoke to him about this matter. He suggested that the male civil servants feared that if this difference in wage were allowed to continue it would have an undercutting effect on their wages and employment, in the sense that there would be more women coming into the Service and replacing men.
    I would ask the House carefully to consider this with me. I say that the effect of this Amendment would be to increase the number of women employed. It is true, as the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) said, that if you applied this principle in industry you would have generally a reduction in the employment of women because employers, having to pay the same wage, would seek the services of men where they could get them for the same money. In this respect the Civil Service is in an entirely different position from the outside market, for the reason that we have already decreed that women shall be admitted to the Civil Service, not at the choice of anyone in that Service but by open competitive examination. Supposing you were by means of this Amendment to violate the fair wages principle, and to give to this favoured section of the Civil Service this additional advantage in the shape of a wage out of proportion to anything they could get outside, the effect you could expect from that would be an increase in the number of women entrants for the Civil Service examination.
    Viscountess ASTOR: What is the objection if they passed it?
    Mr. MORRISON: These are competitive examinations, and the result would be that you would have a greater chance that the top places would be filled by women than you have at present. [Interruption.] The Departments are not allowed to pick and choose whom they will have; they are bound to take the people who pass at the top of the examinations. If you increase the number of entrants by offering this financial inducement you will get a greater number of women entrants. Mathematically you should, and if the opinion of the intelligence of women which the Noble Lady and I share is true, you would tend to get a bigger number of successful women candidates. Let the House do what it is doing with open eyes. Let them know that if you make equal the pay for men and women you would not decrease the number of women in the Civil Service, but you would tend to increase it at the expense of the more heavily burdened married man.
    Miss WILKINSON: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that if the pay is increased in this sense a higher standard of women will compete? Is not the logical result of that that the State would, in that event, be getting better value for its money?
    Mr. MORRISON: I do not think that would happen. What I said would happen would be that the greater inducement would attract a greater number of entrants, not entrants greater in quality. The present position as to the payment of men and women in these classes is based on a report of the Reorganisation Committee which sat in 1920. That was a committee of the Joint Whitley Council which included representatives of the staff side and the official side, and had on it four women. They recommended that the minimum basic wage for each class should be the same, and that the increments should be the same up to a certain point. They then set up the scales which now apply to men and women. We find that boys and girls in the clerical department, which is far the most numerous, so far as this question is concerned, inter at 17 and are level in pay until 22, when the male gradually draws ahead. By the age of 36 the man is at his maximum and the woman has 75 per cent. of his salary.

    2069
    In the higher grades the woman's rate is more like 80 or 85 per cent.
    No doubt the Reorganisation Committee did this having in mind the economic burden on men, since we find that the two biggest increments cover the ages 25–26, and they are called marriage increments. It is that which brings the salary ahead. The criterion adopted in the Civil Service is not purely "the rate for the job," but take account of the greater economic burden normally falling on a man. If you were to accept the principle of the rate for the job, you would have to recast the whole of the salaries, the marriage increment would go, and you would have a demand on the part of the long-suffering men and their wives for additional assistance. The cost of this proposal would vary greatly according to the extent to which the principles were extended. If you gave this selected class of women this advantage, you would be faced with demands for increases of all kinds, and the total cost would be enormous. The Noble Lady congratulated us on having a surplus, and said we should meet the cost out of the surplus. I would ask her how surpluses are accumulated. They ore accumulated by this House refusing to spend public money unless a case for its expenditure is made out.
    Viscountess ASTOR: What about sugar-beet? [Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is so much noise I cannot hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, and I am rather anxious to hear his argument.
    Mr. MORRISON: One point the Noble Lady made was with reference to the Treaty of Versailles. I was rather glad to hear her invoking that Treaty in support of her views; but what it stated there does not make anything in the nature of an engagement; it only sets out certain principles. The first principle is that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or an article of commerce. What the Noble Lady and those who agree with her have been arguing is that the only true measure of men or women is the work they do, and that they should get the same amount of money. I say that, far from that, the House ought to adopt the view that there is a difference, and that the
    2070
    House ought to take into account the burdens which fall on the masculine section of the community. Hon. Members mast not attempt to estimate human values by the mere fact of how much money people receive.
    Mr. G. HARDIE: If a woman is doing equal work with a man who gets higher wages, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not recognise that equality in the payment of their wages, in what other way would he propose to recognise their equality of status?
    Mr. MORRISON: If the hon. Member will be patient for a moment I will proceed to deal with this question of status. It has been urged by hon. Members that there is a grievance on the score of status, and that the women who are working in the common class feel that their standing and status are somehow lower, because their colleagues are getting a little more money. I assure hon. Members that nothing of the kind is. happening. I have yet to find that the people as a whole in this country measure their status by the amount of money they happen to be receiving. The woman who is doing good work is quite as conscious of her own status and value to the community as are people who are drawing a, good deal more money. I entirely agree with the encomiums that have been paid to the women in the Civil Service, and I would not modify one line of them in any way, but I would ask hon. Members to pause long because they consider that those women are measuring their importance to the State and the value of their services by the amount of money they are receiving.
    I will deal with the general question that has been raised in the Debate. The principle which has guided successive Governments, in saying what is a proper wage or salary to be paid, is that of fair wages, that is, to put men and women in their employment in the condition in which they would be if they were employed outside in the comparable rank, in regard to wages and conditions. That is the principle which has been applied in this case. It is recognised in the Civil Service. An hon. Member drew attention to the fact that you might, in a very rare case, find a woman who is getting less money supervising a man who is getting more than she. [HON. MEMBERS: "You

    2071
    do get such cases."] Hon. Members must recognise that you also get the case of the man who is receiving less wages supervising the man who is getting more. It applies to both sexes, and we never seek to make any difference in that respect. A younger officer of the administrative class getting a less salary sometimes has under his supervision men of the clerical and executive classes who are getting more, but are drawing towards the end of their period of service.
    I ask hon. Members to cast from their minds the idea that there is a widespread, seething agitation in the Civil Service on this matter. There is nothing of the kind. There is a general recognition in the common classes of the fact that in leisure, promise of leisure and opportunities to enjoy it, many women are receiving a higher standard of life than the men, and the principle which has been applied hitherto in the Civil Service is to pay a wage which takes account of the different position of the man.
    Viscountess ASTOR: If the Minister is so certain that he represents the feeling of the country, will he leave this Amendment to the open vote of the House?
    Mr. MORRISON: I did not set myself forward as an interpreter of the wishes of the country, but I invite hon. Members to gauge that feeling for themselves by looking at the universal practice outside. In regard to the Amendment, it must be treated just like any ordinary Motion.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Test it by taking off the Whips.
    7.21 p.m.
    Mr. AMMON: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury raised a most amazing number of dummies in his speech, and then proceeded to knock them down. The hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) must have had a considerable shock when she saw how he was applying something of the cold logic of Scotland in replying on the Debate.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: I discovered how extraordinarily brilliant a Scotsman could be in putting a bad case.
    Mr. AMMON: The question which is before the House is not the usual one of wages and conditions of labour. It is
    2072
    an unusual question, put in an unusual manner. There are in the Civil Service numbers of men and women performing precisely the same work, recruited in precisely the same conditions and employed similarly in every respect, except that they receive differential rates of pay. We ask that that position should be put right, not only on the ground of sex, which is not the only consideration, but on the ground that when two people are performing precisely similar duties and have to bring to bear precisely similar qualities, they are entitled to precisely similar rates of remuneration for that work. When the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) asked a question about the differentiation with regard to married women, the Minister fell into the trap and replied that that was fixed by Statute. Exactly; that is what we ask the Government to do now, fix this matter by Statute regardless of sex and regardless of position.
    There have been only two speeches in opposition to the Amendment and one, which we naturally expected would come, was the surprising speech from the representative of the Treasury. There has been a unanimous opinion that our vote should not go against this proposition, which has never been voted down by the House of Commons since 1920. The vote was carried in 1920, and ever afterwards the proposition has either been withdrawn because of some promise or it has been agreed to. Never has the House defeated such a Motion. An hon. Member called attention to the fact that the Whitley Council decided in 1920 against this proposition, but a lot of water has flowed under the bridges since that date. The Whitley Council has been expressly forbidden to discuss the question. In 1924, 1932 and 1934 application was made to the Government to allow the Whitley Council to discuss this proposition, but the Government refused to give consent. It is therefore of no use to cite the Whitley Council in this connection as being in any way against the proposition.
    It is argued that the effect of this Amendment would be, if it were carried, to reduce the number of male workers in the Service. Because there are of necessity more women in the world, and therefore more women enter into examinations, it is held that more women would emerge in the top places.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: That was not what I said. I said that the Amendment asks us to place this section of women in a better condition than anybody else and that we should, by that means, if there were to be any effect at all, attract a greater number of women candidates to the examinations. Therefore you would get a greater proportion of successful women candidates.
    Mr. AMMON: That is only saying the same thing, but I will accept it in the way the hon. and learned Member puts it. It is utterly absurd to suggest that you would get a greater number of candidates of one sex and, of necessity, that a greater proportion would emerge in the top places, but even if they did, what ground of objection can there be, so long as you get the best people, whether they be men or women? Although this happens to be a plea to raise women to the level of men in the Service, it is not a plea based primarily on the question of sex. It is based upon a question of equal pay for equal work, and I hope that hon. Members will keep that principle consistently before them. The hon. and learned Member quoted the Fair Wages Clause. Before I entered this House I was associated with some Civil Service organisations which did a good deal to get the Fair Wages Clause passed by this House. That Clause was introduced by the late Lord Buxton when he was Postmaster-General in order to meet the agitation. The Fair Wages Clause simply laid down that the wages ruling in a given district should be according to those paid by the best type of employer for a trade union standard of labour. It had nothing to do with Government employment, for which it has always been claimed that it set precisely those standards. The hon. and learned Member raised the most amusing idea of a lot of spinster ladies in the Civil Service agitating in order that they might set up some standard of remuneration. He must have been short of argument if he had to drag in something like that.
    A little later the hon. and learned Member said something which destroyed the logic of his first position. He drew attention to what is called the marriage bar in the Civil Service. I took part in that agitation. It was said that at a certain age men took to themselves the responsibility of getting married, but the hon.
    2074
    and learned Member did not insist that they should get married. Whether or not a man marries, lie draws his wage because of the work that he performs. I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot use that argument in support of his case. He said that this proposal comes from the feminist movement, and to a certain extent he is right. When women were admitted to equal suffrage, it followed of necessity that there would be a demand that they should be allowed to grow to equal stature with men in all phases of our public life. Women have now attained to a broader view of things; they have accepted the position of fair competition in the labour market, and their claim is that they are entitled to equal pay.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong when he says that we are asking for something that is not done outside. The Government have no right to set up a standard of comparison with what is done outside unless the comparison is with the nearest comparable service, and, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to rest upon that argument he is on a very shaky foundation, for many of the municipal services accept this principle, and, in those services, where people are employed on similar work, they are receiving similar pay. I happen to be a member of the largest local government authority in the world, the London County Council, and I am also chairman of the committee that interviews applicants for various posts. Most of the higher posts are thrown open for examination regardless of the sex of the applicant, and the preference is decided, not by whether the applicant is a man or a woman, but by whether the applicant is the most competent person for the post. I hope the House will give a very definite decision to-night, as it has done before, in favour of equal pay for equal work.
    7.33 p.m.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: It was not my intention to say anything on this subject until I heard the speech of the Financial Secretary. In my judgment, his speech was not worthy of him. I have a great admiration for his ability, but the whole of his speech was built up on sex prejudice and sustained by special pleading. I should like to say a few words in reply to one or two of the points that he raised.

    2075
    He said that what is being asked for here is not in accordance with what is the practice outside. I challenge that statement. I am not now referring to women employed outside in work that is special to women, but let us be honest and admit that the reason why women are employed in some kinds of work outside in which men are also employed is largely because their labour is cheaper than that of men. One of the reasons for the tremendous amount of unemployment among men who were formerly employed in particular jobs is that their labour has been replaced by that cheaper labour, and I think the House will do well to lay down the principle of equal pay for equal work as a defence of many men. I believe it would cause work to be given to more men.
    I also desire to challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that people are employed and paid outside according to the responsibilities that they bear. It is, if I may say so, absolute nonsense to make that suggestion. I would ask any employer of labour in this House whether, when he employs a man, he pays him according to the number of children that he has, or pays any attention to the responsibilities that he bears. It is just not correct to say that people are paid according to their responsibilities. If I am employing a typist in my office, I do not question her as to her responsibilities; I pay her according to her ability and according to the services she is going to render. People are paid on a certain basis according to the particular work they do, and the basis of payment has nothing whatever to do with their responsibilities.
    Another point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made was that men in the Civil Service feel a certain grievance because single women can enjoy a better standard of life than they can. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to lay that down as a principle that can be justified? Men who, willingly, I suppose, have taken on a marriage contract, should surely decide for themselves how many children they will have and what their responsibilities are. Does a man get no compensation from marriage? If that principle is to be applied, you would, you want to be so just, have to go all round Whitehall and pay every man according to the number of his children
    2076
    or the responsibilities that he has. It is not on any of these points that the House has to vote; it has to vote on a proposal that where, irrespective of sex, equal work is being done, it should be rewarded with equal pay, and I can find no logical argument against that proposal. To say that that should not be the case is simply using sex prejudice.
    I repeat that, if this principle were accepted, many more men would be put into employment, though not perhaps in this particular case, because the entry is by competitive examination. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that, if the proposal were accepted, there would be a demand for it all round, but why should there not be equal pay for equal work all round? It is not a question of belonging to he feminist movement. I myself do not know a single person who is interested in this question in an official capacity, but I am concerned about what is happening to many men today whose labour is being replaced by the cheaper labour of women. That is bringing about a tremendous amount of unemployment. If this principle is laid down, a lot of married men would thank the Government for accepting it, because I believe that a great many more would be employed. The hon. and learned Gentleman's case is, as I said before, founded on prejudice. I did not hear from him one logical argument against the House supporting the Amendment, and it will give me great pleasure to vote for it in the Lobby.
    7.42 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: I feel that I cannot give a vote on this question without stating my reasons for doing so. The Financial Secretary has used a good many very ingenious arguments, but one of them, at any rate, did not entirely convince me. He suggested that the acceptance of this principle would lead to a great influx of feminine candidates in the examinations, and, as a result, men would be displaced. If that be true, it suggests that there is in this country a large reservoir of ability untapped at this moment, which would be made available to the benefit of the Civil Service, because, on his own argument, these women would be abler than the men who now enter the Service. Therefore, I think his argument was not really as effective an argument as he might have used.

    2077
    I will not touch upon minor points, but I should like to say one thing about my hon. and learned Friend's main argument, which was that this is a mere appeal on behalf of the feminist desire for equality, and is inconsistent with the fair wages principle, on which, broadly, the action of the Government in this matter is based. I should certainly not support the Amendment on any ground of mere feminist egalitarianism. Undoubtedly there is much to be said for the abstract view that, regardless of sex, equal work should receive equal pay, but there is also a much more practical point of view, a social point of view, from which men as well as women advocate a general extension of the principle of equal pay for the same work. That is that under present conditions, as the hon. Member opposite said just now, there is undoubtedly a tendency to employ women because they can be got more cheaply, regardless to some extent of the efficiency of the work, and also regardless of the social problems that result from employing women instead of men. On the other hand, if, under equal con-
    ditions, women do get employed, there can be no doubt that their employment is justified, and no one can demur to that result on social grounds.
    The principle is one which affects employment as a whole. Those who support the Amendment wish to see it extended, and their view of the fair wages principle is that the Government should give a lead, not merely in regard to cash remuneration, but also in regard to the whole method and principle of remuneration from the point of view of the social results that flow from it. It is from that broader point of view, I believe, that this proposal has been brought forward, and from that point of view I think it deserves more consideration from His Majesty's Government than the speech of my hon. and learned Friend would seem to indicate.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 156.

    Division No. 131.]

    AYES.

    [7.45 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Assheton. R.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Aator, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

    Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Ganzoni, Sir J.

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Munro, P.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Gunston, Capt. D. W.

    Nail, Sir J.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Harbord, A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Bull, B. B.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Patrick, C. M.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)

    Penny, Sir G.

    Butler, R. A.

    Hopkinson, A.

    Petherick, M.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Cary, R. A.

    Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Cautley, Sir H. S.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

    Hunter, T.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Chamberlain. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)

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

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Cobb, Sir C. S.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)

    Lamb Sir J Q.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)

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

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Rowlands, G.

    Crooke, J. S.

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Salt, E. W.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Lumley, Capt. L. R.

    Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

    Drewe, C.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

    Scott, Lord William

    Dugdale, Major T, L.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree>

    Dunglass, Lord

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Eastwood, J. F.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A,

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    McKle, J. H.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

    Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Spens, W. P.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide)

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Captain Waterhouse and Mr. Cross.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Adamson, W. M.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Muff, G.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Groves, T. E.

    Nicolson, Hon H. G.

    Allen, U.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Oliver, G. H.

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

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Owen, Major G.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hardie, G. D.

    Parker, H. J. H.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

    Potts, J.

    Balniel, Lord

    Holdsworth, H.

    Price, M. P.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Hollins, A.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Barr, J.

    Hopkin, D.

    Quibett, J. D.

    Bellenger, F.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Benson, G.

    Jagger, J.

    Ritson, J.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

    Bevan, A.

    Joel, D. J. B.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Boscom, A. C.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Bower, Comdr. R. T,

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rowson, G.

    Bread, F. A.

    Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Brooke, W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sexton, T. M

    Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Short, A.

    Buchanan, G.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Chater, D.

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Sorensen, R, W.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Leach, W.

    Stephen, c.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Compton, J.

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Daggar, G.

    Leonard, W.

    Thorne, W.

    Dalton, H.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davles, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Liddall, W. S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Little, Sir E. Graham-

    Walkden, A. G.

    Day, H.

    Logan, D. G.

    Walker, J.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Ede. J. C.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    McGovern, J.

    White, H. Graham

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    MacLaren, A.

    Whiteley, W.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Maclean, N.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

    Foot, D. M.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Furness, S. N.

    Markham, S. F.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gallacher, W.

    Marklew, E.

    Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Marshall, F.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Maxton, J.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Milner, Major J.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Montague, F.

    Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

    Words added.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    I do so in order to ask what the Government intend to do on this defeat?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The right hon. Gentleman is
    2080
    naturally elated, but I am not quite clear about what has happened. An Amendment has been moved and has been carried in the direction that he would desire, but the business before the House is still, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask whether the Government intend to carry out the will of the House as expressed in this Amendment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows that that

    2081
    is a matter that must be considered. We could not give an opinion on that at the moment. It is quite impossible.
    Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman must realise that there is something more in a constitutional way involved in this vote. It is true that during the period of the Labour Government, which was a minority Government, an agreement was reached by which a Government defeat on a particular issue did not have the constitutional importance that it had in ordinary circumstances, but it was the practice previous to the Labour Government of 1929 on an occasion of this sort that the House should be immediately adjourned while the Government considered how the situation was to be faced. I remember a similar occasion, I think when Mr. Bonar Law was Prime Minister.
    Mr. SPEAKER: As two Motions have been moved, it is not quite clear what the Question before the House is.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I moved, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have to put the Question, as amended.
    Question put,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has come when the Government should give effect to the Resolution adopted by the House on the 19th May, 1920, and forthwith place women employed in the common classes of the Civil Service on the same scales of pay as apply to men in those classes."
    The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 149.

    Division No. 132.]

    AYES.

    [7.55 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Alexander, Ht. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Owen, Major G.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

    Hardle, G. D.

    Parker, H. J. H.

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

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Parkinson, J A.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Henderson, A. (Kingawinford)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Potts, J.

    Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

    Price, M. P.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Hollins, A.

    Quibell, J. D.

    Barr, J.

    Hopkln, D.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Bellenger, F.

    Jagger, J.

    Ritson, J.

    Benson, G.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

    Bernays, R. H.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Brvan, A.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Rowson, G.

    Bromfield, W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Brooke, W.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Short, A.

    Buchanan, G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Chater, D.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Leach, W.

    Stephen, C.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Compton, J.

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Daggar, G.

    Leonard, W.

    Thorne, W.

    Dalton, H.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Little, Sir E. Graham-

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, H.

    Logan, D. G.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince.)

    Watkins, F. C.

    Ede, J. C.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    McGovern, J.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    MacLaren, A.

    White, H. Graham

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Maclean, N.

    whiteley, W.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

    Foot, D. M.

    Marklew, E.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Gallacher, W.

    Marshall, F.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Mathers, G.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Maxton, J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Mellor, Sir J, S. P. (Tamworth)

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Milner, Major J.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Montague, F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grenfell, O. R.

    Morrison, B. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Mr. Groves and Mr. Charieton.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Muff, G.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Brass, Sir W.

    Albery, I. J.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Assheton, R.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Ayiesbury)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Boulton, W. W.

    Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

    Bull, B. B.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Cary, R. A.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)

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

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rowlands, G.

    Cobb, Sir C. S.

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

    Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

    Salt, E. W.

    Crooke, J. S.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Lumley, Capt. L. R.

    Shaw, Captain w. T. (Forfar)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

    Dorman-Smith, Major B. H.

    MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

    Simon, Rt Hon. Sir J. A.

    Drewe, C.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R, (Scot. U.)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)

    Dunglass, Lord

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    McKie, J. H.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

    Spens, W. P.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Ellis, Sir G.

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (Wm'l'd)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Markham, S. F.

    Stewart, J Henderson (File, E.)

    Emery, J. F.

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    May hew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Ersklne Hill, A. G.

    Mailer, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Stuart, Hun. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

    Sueter, Roar-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Munro, P.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Ganzoni, Sir J.

    Nail, Sir J.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Giuckstein, L. H.

    Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Gunston, Capt. D. W.

    Ormsby-Gorc, Rt. Hon. W. G.

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Hannah, I. C.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

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

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Harbord, A.

    Patrick, C. M.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Penny, Sir G.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. p.

    Petherick, M.

    Wise, A. R.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)

    Porritt, R. W.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Hopkinson, A.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hunter, T.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Captain Waterhouse and Mr.

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

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Cross.

    Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

    Captain MARGESSON: I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    8.5 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Obviously the House is in a very great difficulty in regard to the entire proceedings, in that, having just voted that Mr. Speaker do not leave the Chair, we should immediately afterwards take another vote on the same subject. Either we merely confirm the opinion of the House, which is obviously unnecessary, or else we reverse it, which is obviously absurd. I think that it is clear that the Government will want time to think over this matter. They have to consider what Minister they can get to address the House on any particular subject, and therefore it is obviously right that this Motion should be accepted and that the House should now adjourn.
    8.6 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: I support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader
    2084
    of the Opposition. I do not think that the House can take this matter other than as being a serious Government defeat, not on a trivial issue, but on a matter of principle which reverses the established practice of the Government. On a financial issue which it is particularly within the province of the House of Commons to deal, and on an occasion when the Government Whips were on the run, and in spite of definite pressure put upon ordinary supporters of the Government to go into the Lobby, the Government have been substantially defeated. Under all the established precedents of this House, the work of the House should not go on as though nothing had occurred. It is simply taking away from this House its one important control over the executive. On the previous occasion to which I have already referred, the Government of the day under Mr. Bonar Law's Premiership was defeated in almost similar circumstance to those which obtain to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It was a Civil Service issue on a Treasury matter, on the question of the women

    2085
    entrants to the Civil Service. It was a similar matter, but not of the same magnitude. On that occasion it was considered necessary that the House should adjourn, and subsequent readjustments had to be made in the Government to meet the will of the House. Before the House actually adjourned, the Prime Minister of that day announced that the will of the House would be respected and given effect to. In these circumstances it is wrong for the Patronage Secretary to rise to his feet and make a Motion which implies that we should proceed with the ordinary routine of the day's proceedings as if absolutely nothing had happened. A serious decision has been taken by this House, and if the House of Commons is to be taken seriously in this country, then the Government must take its decisions in a serious way.
    8.9 p.m.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: I would remind the Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps one of the most important constitutional principles which have been established is, that before you, Sir, should leave the Chair, grievances should be redressed. We have had a prolonged and very full Debate, and anybody who has listened to it will be satisfied that the vast majority of the House present were strongly in favour of the principle of the Amendment that was carried on a previous vote. It was only out of deference to the Whips, and under exceptional pressure, that the vote was altered. Any fair observer will agree that, undoubtedly, if there had been a free vote the majority would have been re-affirmed. I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is a question of finance. I agree that there have been similar cases where an Amendment moved by a private Member has been carried to the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." I recollect several occasions, but they were not occasions when taxation and Supply were involved. This is a question of supplying the money. Obviously, we cannot translate this Amendment into action unless the right hon. Gentleman would accept responsibility to provide the money for the purpose, but this Amendment cannot be dismissed as being an ordinary one proposed by a private Member. It is a direct expression of the opinion of the House that you, Sir, shall not leave the Chair
    2086
    until this grievance to a large body of the Civil Service has been removed.
    8.11 p.m.
    Mr. EDE: I want to direct the mind of the House to the precedent that was quoted by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) which occurred in 1923, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, but on that occasion he was, owing to the unfortunate illness of the Prime Minister, virtually in charge of the House. He will recall that on that occasion the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter) who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, made a speech in reply to a case put up by the Civil Service on exactly the same Motion as that before the House to-night—"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." The Government were defeated by a majority of five. I well recollect it because it was about the fourth or fifth Division in which I had taken part in this House. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that on that occasion he accepted the decision that the House should adjourn forthwith, and his memory will also go back to what occurred on the next day, when the Government tried to get themselves out of the difficulty by means that did not meet with the approval of the Opposition, which was then led by his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. He will also recall that on that occasion there was not a word spoken in the House, and that at about five o'clock in the afternoon, after an adjournment for an hour, the then Speaker adjourned the House because of the state of disorder that existed. But on the night on which the Government were defeated, they accepted the position that the House should be adjourned.
    This is the second time this week that I have had to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to recognise the ordinary constitutional practice in this House in regard to the responsibility of Ministers to it. On the occasion in 1923 it was undoubtedly a snap Division, because my friend Mr. Hayes, who was at the time Member for Edge Hill, was speaking, and when the Whips discovered that the Government could be defeated at the moment, he was told to sit down, and those of us who were to follow him were told to shut up. With that loyalty which always distinguishes us, but not the Members of the other side, we obeyed the

    2087
    Whips, and the consequence was that the Government were in a minority of five. To-night that cannot be said to be the state at all. The Debate was carried on until the Financial Secretary himself admitted, when he rose, that he had waited until everybody who had wanted to speak had spoken. My hon. Friend the Member for 'North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) followed him and made it quite plain that he was sitting down so that some arrangement with regard to the time of the Division could be carried through. It is true, that during the afternoon Members on the Government side have been allowed to go when they said they could not vote for the Government to-night. I appeal to the Prime Minister that we are in the position that the House have decided once to-night, that the words "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," do not stand part of the Question.
    It is true that, owing to explanations on the other side, no doubt due not to any excession of strength but to the disappearance of the Government's supporters from our Lobby, the main Question has been defeated, but it still remains the fact that within the last few minutes it has been decided by this House that Mr. Speaker shall not leave the Chair. Therefore, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that when a matter of this kind has been settled, after a full debate, in which the Government so far as I could discover only had one supporter from their own benches—the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl)—it is reducing Parliamentary government to a farce for the Chief Whip to get up and move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." Upstairs in Committee Room 14 there is a picture showing what a man who went to the same college as myself did when one of your predecessors wanted to leave the Chair. He had received orders from a tyrannical King that he should leave the Chair, so that the House should not discuss grievances, but the House ordered that the doors should be locked and declined to obey the order from the King that the Mace should be handed over.
    In this twentieth century I hope that, despite the smallness of the numbers on this side of the House, the Government still respects constitutional liberty. They have been fairly beaten in the Lobby and
    2088
    I should have thought that the Prime Minister was a sufficiently great Englishman to get up and say, "You shall have the reward of your victory. You can have the night off. The Chief Whip could not keep my legions together. He could only give me 140 votes in the Lobby on an issue of major importance. Therefore, we will think out some war by which we can put this matter right and get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair in a way that shall not be an outrage to the Constitution."
    8.18 p.m.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I want to put this matter to the Prime Minister in its true and its important aspect. The Prime Minister has on more than one occasion made it clear that British democracy is of the greatest importance. We have had a vote this evening. The Prime Minister, owing to other duties, was not able to be present, but I can tell him that the Debate shoved extraordinary unanimity on the part of the House in favour of the proposal. It was quite clear that even under the very great pressure brought upon Members on his own side, the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," was defeated. Therefore, the House is entitled before it proceeds to other business to know what attitude the Government are going to take with regard to the question which was the subject of the Debate.
    The Prime Minister said that he must have time to consider the matter. We take no exception to that. It is in order to give the Prime Minister the time for which he has asked that we propose that the House should follow its usual practice. When there is a defeat of the Government it is usual for the Government to adjourn the House in order that they may have time to consider the question. This was no snap vote. It was no accident that the vote, was taken when a great number of the Government supporters were out. It was a perfectly deliberate vote. Supporters of the Government knew perfectly well that the vote was coming on, but they deliverately cast their votes against the ruthless attitude taken up by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is a definite expression of opinion, and we ask that the Prime Minister, in a spirit upholding the democratic principles of this country, should agree to adjourn the House, in order to give himself the time for which

    2089
    he has asked to consider what the attitude of the Government is to be on this very important issue.
    8.21 p.m.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I quite admit that the position in which the House finds itself is an unusual one. I also admit that the Motion for the Adjournment is perfectly legitimate, and one that had I been occupying a seat on the benches opposite I should certainly have moved; but as an old Parliamentary hand I should not have expected it to be received with avidity. I cannot accept the Motion, and for this reason. I hope that I am, as the hon. Member who has just spoken said, a good democrat, and I shall consider very carefully what steps shall be taken with regard to what has happened to-day; but as a good democrat I want to see the democratic machine in this House functioning at its work. We have discussed to-day one very important question raised from the benches opposite, but there is another important question for discussion which is of importance to all sections of the House. We have also another important matter to consider—the building Votes, which are always got on this day to enable immediate progress to be made in the building which is carried on under the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour. In these circumstances the best thing is for the House to proceed with its business.
    The Motion before the House is that the House do now adjourn. I oppose that Motion and suggest that we proceed with our business. I would remind the House—I will say nothing about the awkwardness of losing a day if we accept the Motion for the Adjournment and as to whether it can be made up—that we have to consider the work that has to be done before we separate. It would be impossible to take this Vote before Easter, and we should probably lose the chance of discussing those other matters which hon. Members are anxious to raise. We should also have to postpone the passage of the building Votes for a month, and that would be a very un-businesslike method of procedure. I hope very much that after that explanation the House will proceed with the business in a quiet and dignified way and will not dissipate itself, just to go away for an evening's amusement.
    2090
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] An hon. Member on one of the benches opposite suggested that. My principal enjoyment is in this House and I am perfectly content to spend the evening here. I cannot accept the Motion for the Adjournment.
    8.24 p.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I understand that if the Motion for the Adjournment is defeated, the Government propose to move that you do leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask you whether it is within the competence of the Government to decide whether or not that is in order, or whether that is not a question which you should decide. As I understand it, that question has been voted on. I do not know whether it is right to raise the point now or whether I should do so when the Motion for the Adjournment is out of the way, but I want to have the opportunity of putting the case to you.
    8.25 p.m.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the right lion. Gentleman is wrong in thinking that the actual definite Motion that I do now leave the Chair has been defeated. That is not the case. The Motion voted upon by the House is the Amendment, and that Amendment having been defeated the question that I do now leave the Chair still remains open. That would be the occasion for keeping me in the Chair or allowing me to leave the Chair. But the actual Question that I do now leave the Chair has not been voted upon by the House.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Do I understand that the Question before the House now is that you do leave the Chair?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Question now before the House is, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. LANSBURY: The point I am putting is that if your ruling is correct, with great respect why then should the Patronage Secretary make another Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"? If the original Motion is still before the House, I cannot understand why there is any need for a further Motion.
    Mr. MABANE: On a point of Order. May I point out that Erskine May says:

    2091
    "The Committee of Supply must be kept on foot throughout the Session until closed in due course. Accordingly when the House, by the acceptance of an Amendment to the question for the Speaker's leaving the Chair or by negativing that question has thereby superseded the Order of the Day for the Committee of Supply, that order is revived by a Motion made forthwith, either that the House will immediately or upon a future day resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."
    That seems to cover the point.
    Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask what was the exact Motion on which we voted? I understood the original Motion was "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," to which an Amendment was moved, and that the Question put to the House was "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Therefore, the words "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" were defeated.
    Mr. SPEAKER: On an occasion like this, we must get the procedure right, and all I desire is that the House should put itself in order. My interpretation is that the Question "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," has not been decided. There are several precedents on the point, but I have not had time to look them up, but the passage read from Erskine May by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) is quite correct. The Patronage Secretary could have moved that the House do resolve itself into Committee of Supply forthwith or upon a future day, and that Motion could have been debated and voted upon. If it was carried, then the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," could have been put again. That would have been the correct procedure.
    8.35 p.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Does not that show that the House ought to adjourn now so that the business can be done in a proper manner? I think the Prime Minister and the Government generally ought to meet the House in this matter and put a proper Motion on the Order Paper, as Mr. Speaker has just informed us is the proper procedure. Because there is a majority in the House is no reason why we should ride roughshod over Rules of the House. Everything that has been said during the last 20 minutes must have convinced any reasonable person that a new Motion must be on
    2092
    the Paper. It is not on the Paper now, and although the Patronage Secretary desires to get his business through—I do not blame him—I think he will get it through much easier if he treats the House as if it had some rights in the matter. If what Mr. Speaker has said is correct, it is certain that an altogether different Motion to the one the Patronage Secretary has moved is necessary to be moved. Mr. Speaker has just informed us of that, and, therefore, it is only right that the Government should have time to consider the matter further and do it in an orderly manner. I know that when Governments are defeated in this way there are means of rehabilitating themselves, but I do not think there is any precedent for it ever having been done in the way it is proposed this evening. I hope hon. Members opposite, if we have to vote on the Adjournment, will stand up for the constitutional practice of this House.
    8.33 p.m.
    Mr. STEPHEN: The Prime Minister would be very well advised to agree to the Adjournment of the House. If he attempts to adopt a new method of dealing with this situation, he is going to be up against the whole forces of the Opposition, who will not agree to go on with the business on the lines suggested. On the last occasion when the Government—a majority Government—were in this position the present Prime Minister who was leading the House said that the Government would naturally carry out the wishes of the House, but the one question which the Government at that time had in view was whether it was going to regard the Vote as an issue which would involve a General Election. Everyone will admit that there is a difference in the circumstances of to-day as compared with that occasion. On that occasion it was a snap Division. There is nothing of a snap Division about the Vote to-day. Indeed, the question was put to the representative of the Government as to whether the Government Whips should not be taken off.
    Speaking definitely f it the Government, he took up the position that the Government, in behaving as it was on the matter, believed it was voicing the opinion of the people in the country. He challenged the Division on the basis that this was a matter of major importance, and on a matter of major importance I

    2093
    submit to the Prime Minister that the only honourable thing the Government can do is to go to the country for a General Election. [Laughter.] Some hon. Members laugh at what I have said in this connection, but I would like to remind them of the traditional practice in this respect. I remember when the Liberal Government were defeated on the Cordite Vote in Supply. It is a Parliamentary tradition in this country, and I put it to the House and the Government that if democracy is to be real in this country, in these days when we have so many instances in other countries of dictatorships, it means that in a Division in which the Government are defeated when the representative of the Government has declared the question to be of major importance in the mind of the Government, the only way in which the situation can be dealt with adequately is for the Prime Minister and his colleagues to go to the country.
    In view of the circumstances, it is intolerable that the Prime Minister, under pressure from the Patronage Secretary, should say that there are these important subjects to be discussed to-night, such as ventilation of the House. That subject may be of importance, but what I believe to be of fundamental importance is the constitutional issue involved in connection with this matter. The hon. Member who quoted from the pages of Erskine May made it plain by his quotation that the Motion that would have to come from that Bench is one that we should go into Committee of Supply again. The fact that the Motion would be that we should go into Committee of Supply again carries with it the obvious conclusion that the Prime Minister in those circumstances will adjourn the House. Possibly exception will be taken because of the word "forthwith," but I would remind hon. Members that in this House everything depends very largely upon previous practice, and the practice has always been, except at the time of a minority Government, to adjourn.
    There is nothing new in the circumstances of the present occasion, and I confess that I am surprised at the hesitation of the Prime Minister in agreeing to the demand of the Opposition. I do not wish to make any threat to you, Mr. Speaker, as to what would happen if the Prime Minister desired to go on with
    2094
    business, but there are constitutional methods by which an Opposition can make it impossible for business to proceed. I would remind the Prime Minister and the Patronage Secretary of that fact. It is not in accordance with the dignity of Parliament that those constitutional ways should be employed at the present juncture, but if they have to be employed the responsibility will rest with the Prime Minister and his colleagues who are taking this ridiculous attitude in face of the Division which has taken place.
    I am not making any appeal to the Prime Minister, but I am demanding, in view of his own statement with regard to democracy and the traditions of this House, that he should agree to the Adjournment. If anything is said additional to what has already been said from the Government Bench, it should be to the effect that the Prime Minister agrees to the Adjournment, and if the Government intend to carry on and not go to the country, they will accept the decision of the House on this question and institute in the Civil Service the principle of equal pay. I hope the Government will bow to the unanimous wish of the Opposition and adjourn the House arid not put the Opposition in the difficult position of making proceedings impossible.
    8.43 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: May I put it to the Prime Minister that it would be in consonance with the dignity of this House if he yielded to the plea which has been made for an Adjournment? It is clear that whatever may be done to-night, we are likely to discuss this point a considerable time. It is unlikely that one would get on with the business of the House. After all, the Prime Minister knows the traditions and precedents of the House perhaps better than anyone else, and it would be more in consonance with the dignity of the House that it should be adjourned.
    8.44 p.m.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret very much that I was unable to be in the House this afternoon. It is not always possible to be present. I have, however, been following the speeches that have been made from various benches during the last hour, and I think that, as Leader

    2095
    of the House, I have to pay regard to what I believe to be the opinion of the House in a matter of this kind. I think I should be interpreting the general opinion of the House if I were prepared to adjourn now and postpone this business. I quite agree with the tributes that have been paid to democratic procedure. We have to-day perhaps shown an example of that procedure in the two votes which the House took within a few minutes of each other, but I think we may all go away perhaps less dissatisfied if we remember that to-day is the 1st of April.
    8.44 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: I am very glad that the Prime Minister has come to that decision which I think plainly represents the view of the majority—certainly the view of the Opposition and perhaps of some on this side of the House. I only rise, as an old Member, to make two points clear. First it would be very wrong if, when a Government was defeated on an important matter, no statement were made by the Prime
    2096
    Minister or Leader of the House of the day as to the action which he proposed to take. Such a statement is essential. It should be made clear that a defeat in Parliament on an important question is not a matter to be treated as of no importance. For the rest, I would like to say in support of the Prime Minister that there are, as a matter of fact, plenty of precedents for the House not adjourning immediately after a Government defeat. What there is no precedent for is for the Government, in any way, to ignore that defeat. I only rise as an old Member to establish the right of the House to a statement from the Prime Minister on such an occasion.
    Mr. HARDIE: Are we to-morrow night, or on any other night, to be loaded up with business and kept here to a late hour on account of what has happened to-day?
    Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes before Nine o'clock.

  CONTEMPT OF COURT (NEWSPAPERS).
  CONTEMPT OF COURT (NEWSPAPERS).
  CEYLON (GENERAL ELECTION).
  CEYLON (GENERAL ELECTION).
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  UNEMPLOYED SEAMEN.
  UNEMPLOYED SEAMEN.
  HATCH COVERS.
  HATCH COVERS.
  COASTING SHIP'S CREWS.
  COASTING SHIP'S CREWS.
  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  TAXES OFFICE, ROMFORD.
  TAXES OFFICE, ROMFORD.
  AIR ACCIDENT, MINSTEAD.
  AIR ACCIDENT, MINSTEAD.
  CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT, SUBSIDIES.
  CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT, SUBSIDIES.
  HOUSING DEMOLITIONS.
  HOUSING DEMOLITIONS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  RATES AND UNEMPLOYMENT.
  RATES AND UNEMPLOYMENT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (PERMANENT SECRETARYSHIP).
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (PERMANENT SECRETARYSHIP).
  EASTER (FIXED DATE).
  EASTER (FIXED DATE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

FOUNDLING HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with. It is necessary for me to ask your Lordships to do this because we have been waiting for the Attorney-General's Report, which has now been received.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

COTTON SPINNING INDUSTRY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

AFFORESTATION IN THE LAKE DISTRICT.
LORD HOWARD OF PENRITH LORD HOWARD OF PENRITH had the following Notice on the Paper:—To call the attention of His Majesty's Government to a Petition (which has been signed by over twelve thousand persons, including the Lords Lieutenant of Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire, the Archbishop of York, many Bishops, Members of Parliament and members of the three county councils, the Vice-Chancellors of six Universities, other leading educational authorities in all parts of the country, and the chairmen and officers of all the open-air organisations) asking the Forestry Commission to reconsider their decision to afforest parts of Eskdale and Dunnerdale in the Cumberland part of the Lake District; to request that His Majesty's Government should appoint a Select Committee of this House to in-quire into this matter, and to consider whether it would not be advisable that the Forestry Commission should be instructed
364
to make no further purchases of land for afforestation within certain specified areas of Great Britain, such as the Lake District, which are generally recognised to have special landscape beauty and suitability for public open-air recreation; and to request that, pending such inquiry, His Majesty's Government should instruct the Forestry Commission to suspend all further action in regard to the afforestation of Eskdale and Dunnerdale, except on those parts of their property which are covered by the current year's programme of operations; and to move for Papers.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, you will deeply regret, I know—and certainly in the circumstances no one will regret more sincerely than myself—that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Penrith, who was to have moved this Motion this afternoon, is unavoidably prevented by illness from bringing this Motion before your Lordships. He is, under doctor's orders, confined to bed. The noble Lord has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for his absence and, unfortunately, also to undertake the task of taking his place. I know your Lordships will sympathise with the noble Lord who has been prevented at the last moment, after his unremitting activities in this cause, from laying his case and the benefit of his intimate knowledge of the subject before your Lordships. I use the words "at the last moment" somewhat feelingly, for it was only after midday to-day that I knew that this task was to be imposed upon me. I cannot, of course, pretend to anything like Lord Howard's knowledge, or indeed to any intimate knowledge, of the threatened district, and I venture to address your Lordships, if I may so put it, primarily as a member of the general public who is deeply concerned for the fate of this loveliest of English districts, and, beyond the immediate horizon, is deeply anxious as to whether His Majesty's Government and the Forestry Commission may commit themselves to a mistaken policy which may at some later date gravely threaten other districts besides that with which we are at the moment immediately concerned. I hope that if there is—and I am sure there will be—any obscurity or incoherence in what I say, your Lordships will be good enough to attribute that to the advocate and not the cause.

365
I hold in my hand a very remarkable Petition. Your Lordships will notice that the Motion in Lord Howard's name begins by drawing attention to this Petition, which is, I venture to say, one of the most remarkable documents that can have been presented for many years to a Government Department. May I begin by very briefly reminding your Lordships by a short historical retrospect of how this remarkable document, on which I shall have to say a word or two in a moment, came into being. The Forestry Commission already owns in the Lake District two large areas, and it is indeed largely from experience of what has happened in those areas that the Friends of the Lake District and the other signatories to this Petition are rightly concerned to-day. More recently the Forestry Commission has purchased an estate of, I think, some 7,240 acres in the valleys of Eskdale and Dunnerdale. Curiously enough, of those 7,240 acres only 2,100 are regarded as being economically plantable, and the original intention of the Commission, as I understand it, was to plant the whole of these 2,100 acres which were regarded as being the economically plantable portion of the 7,000 odd acres which had been purchased. That scheme was at once recognised to threaten what may, I think, fairly be called the heart of the Lake District. It meant a plantation in the foreground of one of the finest natural amphitheatres of the Lake District, or indeed in the country. The result, naturally, was an outcry upon œsthetic and other grounds, as to the validity of which I think it will not be difficult to satisfy your Lordships in a moment.
The Forestry Commission, if I might so put it with all due respect, after attempting at the outset to pooh-pooh this outcry altogether, eventually consented to the appointment of a Joint Committee with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. A Joint Committee was appointed and invited the delegates of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England to inspect the threatened area. Those delegates unanimously reported that it would he advisable to abandon the whole project of the plantation of those 2,000 acres. I should like to draw your Lordships' special attention to the fact that the delegates of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, as I understand
366
it, unanimously reported against the scheme, for we shall undoubtedly be told that the proposal for a Select Committee of your Lordships' House is unnecessary because the whole matter is in the hands of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, an admirable body for which I have the very greatest respect, and to which we all owe very great gratitude. But this initial incident does, I suggest, at once make it clear that we cannot expect too much from the Council. Here you have the delegates unanimously reporting against afforestation, and the result is not the abandonment of the project but only that the Forestry Commission offers to refrain from afforesting some 440 acres. The result of the unanimous recommendation of the delegates of the Council is that only 440 acres out of 7,240 acres bought and the 2,100 acres economically plantable are to be saved.
If I may trouble your Lordships with a small calculation, as I understand that two-thirds of these 2,100 acres are in the Dunnerdale Valley, that means that one-third, or 700 acres, are in the Eskdale Valley. The Forestry Commission has already offered to spare from afforestation some 440 acres in the Eskdale Valley, as I understand it, so that in order to save the Eskdale Valley completely it becomes only a question of rather less than 300 acres. That, I think, is a point which it is well worth bearing in mind. For the rest, all the Commission was prepared to do was to promise that it would set about its task but that the area would be carefully treated from an amenity point of view. Carefully treated from an amenity point of view! I venture to suggest, with all due respect, that that in effect means nothing. It is like saying that if you propose to plant a petrol station in front of an ancient Cathedral you will do so with all due respect for amenities.
At this stage, my historical retrospect finishes, because at this stage the Friends of the Lake District organised this very remarkable Petition. This Petition sets out that the signatories ask the Commission to reconsider its decision to proceed with the afforestation of Eskdale and Dunnerdale. It says:
" We desire also to affirm our conviction that any further extension within the heart of the Lake District of afforestation such as that which has already taken place on the

367
slopes of Whinlatter Pass and in Ennerdale would do most serious damage to the landscape of a region unique in England and having unparalleled claims to be considered an inviolable national heritage."
Signatures to that Petition were only invited from persons with personal knowledge of the Lake District. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen it, but I should like to draw your attention to the fact that that Petition is signed by the Lords-Lieutenant and High Sheriffs of all the three Lake Counties—Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire—by the Chairman of the County Councils of Westmorland and Lancashire and the Vice-Chairman of the Cumberland County Council, by the Bishop of the Diocese, by a large number of landowners who include at least three members of your Lordships' House, by four ex-Cabinet Ministers, who include the noble Earl, Lord Derby, the Duke of Devonshire and two others, by the Archbishop of York and ten Bishops, by the Lord Mayor of Liverpool and five ex-Lord Mayors of Liverpool, by a number of persons representing art and letters, and, lest it should be argued these are but the familiar protagonists of vague æsthetic causes, also by a number of economic experts including the late Chief Economic Adviser to the Government, Sir Llewellyn Smith, the present economic adviser to the Bank of England, Mr. Henry Clay, by Sir William Beveridge and Mr. J. M. Keynes.
We all know that there are petitions and petitions, and there are also petitioners and petitioners. We all know that there is a readily recognised type to whom the signing of petitions has become a habit and almost a vice. Your Lordships will not confuse this distinguished body of signatories with that easily recognised type. Myself being intimately connected with one of our ancient Universities—I may be prejudiced—I should not like to leave the question of the overwhelming authority of these signatories without drawing your Lordships' attention to the extraordinary strength of academic opinion represented here. Universities are places in which not only culture but also the higher criticism is cherished. If this were really, as has been suggested, a mere vague outpouring of sentimentalists and cranks, would you find the Vice-Chancellor of the great and
368
ancient University of Oxford—foremost, as ever, in good causes—appending his signature to it? Would you find four other Vice-Chancellors? Would you find eight heads of Oxford and Cambridge Colleges, twenty-one professors, thirty-nine Fellows of Oxford and Cambridge Colleges and the headmasters and ex-headmasters of Eton, Rugby, Harrow, Winchester and seventeen other public schools? I suggest that that is an overwhelming manifestation of public opinion.
Faced with that Petition the Forestry Commission suggested, I understand, that there were certain inaccurate statements in the document which had been put out when these distinguished signatories were invited to give their signatures. What exactly the inaccurate statements were was not particularised, though the Friends of the Lake District have had their attention drawn to various possible charges, as to which all I need say is that, even if all could be established, they do not amount to anything of very material substance. I do not think that the noble Marquess who replies for His Majesty's Government is likely to seek to base his answer upon them, but even if he does it would always be possible, I suppose, to deal satisfactorily with them at a later stage. Why did these distinguished signatories sign in such overwhelming numbers? Firstly, obviously on œsthetic grounds. That, of course, is cardinal. To talk œsthetics, to talk matters of taste in public, is a delicate and difficult task and I do not propose to delay your Lordships for more than a moment with that, but I do suggest that this is the gist of the matter.
The charm of the English countryside—some of your Lordships may have noticed two pictures in The Times newspaper this morning—is that it is unregimented. Even in the most domesticated counties there is a certain irregularity, a certain indefiniteness of outline, a merging of woodland with field and field with orchard. It has never been better put than by that great poet, primarily and perhaps for ever to be associated with the Lake District, Wordsworth, who, when describing how trees gradually climbed up the mountains, said:
" Gradually, however, by the quality of the ground, and by increasing exposure, a stop is put to their ascent; the hardy trees only are left: those also, by little and little,

369
give way—and a wild and irregular boundary is established, graceful in its outline, and never contemplated without some feeling, more or less distinct, of the powers of Nature by which it is imposed."
And speaking later precisely about this question of plantation—although you will notice that he spoke of larches which to some extent have been supplanted by other soft wood trees—he says:
" It is therefore impossible, under any circumstances, for the artificial planter to rival the beauty of Nature. But a moment's thought will show that if ten thousand of this spiky tree, the larch "—
he might equally well have referred to the Douglas pine—
" are stuck in at once upon the side of a hill, they can grow up into nothing but deformity; that while they are suffered to stand, we shall look in vain for those appearances which are the chief sources of beauty in a natural wood."
He referred in another passage to planting for profit, and he wrote:
" To those who plant for profit…I would utter first a regret that they should have selected these lovely vales for their vegetable manufactory."
A more modern writer in the Spectator last month says:
" To blot out Upper Eskdale under a dense carpet of regimented fir trees all exactly alike is as great a sacrilege as to place an aerodrome in Hyde Park."
The effect is to reduce the scale of the landscape for miles around. The visitor to the countryside finds himself walking between rows of Christmas trees in stark straight lines, blotting out all the wild essential beauties of the landscape.
If there are any of your Lordships—I do not suppose there are—who are inclined to feel that in this age the æsthetic must always give place to economic considerations, may I suggest that even on that plane a very valuable economic asset of this country is the unspoiled beauty of the Lake District? There are economic arguments which I am not going to elaborate, because I trust that others will deal with that aspect of the case, but I may say that it is suggested that this scheme means the displacement of a considerable amount—I will not put it higher—of sheep fanning, and sheep farming among the small sheep farmers who have maintained themselves as small scale independent farmers for centuries. I believe that if your Lordships examined a map showing the activities of the Forestry Commission you would see great blank areas in such
370
districts as the Pennines and the Yorkshire moors. I think if it is proposed to displace some of these independently established sheep farmers in the Lake District we are entitled to ask the Forestry Commissioners why they should prefer to displace sheep and farmers rather than turn out, say, grouse from the Yorkshire moors.
There is one other point which I should like to make. It is of course true that recently a grant of £100,000 a year for five years for afforestation within fifteen miles of the distressed area in West Cumberland has been made. I do not want to trouble your Lordships with topography, but I just wish to make this point. That area includes roughly two-thirds of the Lake District, and all the important part of the Lake District, the part which members of the organisation the Friends of the Lake District seek to safeguard. What I should like your Lordships to realise is that, also within that area, fifteen miles from the distressed areas, are plenty of suitable areas, fell and otherwise, which could be far more harmoniously and appropriately planted than any part of the Lake District proper itself. It may be said: "Why not leave the whole matter to the Council for the Preservation of Rural England?" I sought to meet that point a moment or two ago when I referred to the unfortunate results of the recommendation of the delegates of the Council on that Joint Committee. It is no fault of theirs. Any private body of that nature working hand in hand with a Government Commission, a statutory body, is very much in the position of the young lady of Riga who entered into that very ill-judged partnership with the tiger. It is no blame to the Council itself that we should claim that to leave the matter solely for action by the Council is not a satisfactory answer to this proposal.
Finally, might I safeguard myself against being thought to have said anything derogatory to the admirable activities of the Forestry Commission itself? I would suggest to your Lordships that its undoubted devotion to its main purpose, which is primarily that of planting conifers, for the overwhelming majority of the trees it plants are conifers, disqualifies it from being likely to remember some of the considerations which I have ventured to try to put before your Lordships. It is in order to remind the Forestry

371
Commission of these facts, and to remind the nation also, that the noble Lord put down his Notice. An offer has been made to safeguard a further 300 acres in Eskdale by paying compensation to the Commission, and I understand that a wider offer has also been made to repurchase at cost price the whole of this acreage which is in question. There need, therefore, be no question of the Forestry Commissioners losing financially by the abandonment of this scheme.
That is the first object of the Petition: to keep the plantation out of Eskdale certainly, and, if possible, out of Eskdale and Dunnerdale together. Beyond that we should like, if your Lordships will agree, the appointment of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to consider the wider problem of whether the Lake District and other areas should be reserved from this particular activity. Till a Report from that Select Committee was produced, we would suggest that the Forestry Commission should confine its activities to its present year's programme. If that is granted, there need be no fear that its activities will be reduced, or that there are not plenty of other far more suitable places in which they could be carried on, and we shall still possess the Lakeland which we know at present. I beg to move.
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to join with the noble Lord in the regrets he expressed at the absence of Lord Howard. I am sure that I am joining your Lordships generally in expressing our sorrow at the cause of his absence. This question was very near Lord Howard's heart, I know. I have had correspondence with him about it, and I know how greatly disappointed he will be at not being present to-day to move the Motion. I would also say that I am sure that Lord Howard will be well satisfied and pleased with the very adequate, full and excellent way in which the Motion has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
I know the Lake District, but I do not know the two dales under consideration; I do not know Eskdale and Dunnerdale. But I am sure that your Lordships, both those who know that district and those who, like myself, do not, will be quite certain that it is a very beautiful part of the country and a part of the country which should not be
372
spoilt unless to do so is necessary to fulfil some vital national need. There are cases, no doubt, where beauty may have to go down before utility, but I feel quite certain that this is not one of those cases. The party to which I belong, the Labour Party, have always been much in favour of afforestation. We think it is a very necessary thing to provide adequate timber for the country. We realise that industry, carried on as it is to-day by individual enterprise and on the basis of private profits, cannot give us many of the things which we ought to have, and timber is one of those things. There are many things which private enterprise cannot do where profits are not sufficient or where returns come in very slowly. Afforestation is one of those cases in which the returns are very slow in coming in, and it is not an industry which private enterprise can carry on satisfactorily. Therefore it has to be done by the State; and we should like to see more afforestation, not less, and to see it more efficiently carried out.
But that does not mean that you want afforestation anywhere, or where it interferes with other interests and other amenities. I think your Lordships will agree that you ought to plant on land which is the most suitable land to obtain for growing trees. You ought to plant where transport is easy, where the timber can be easily and inexpensively transported to the places where it is required; and you ought in your afforestation to provide the maximum of employment possible without reducing employment in other industries. How far does this proposal to plant in Eskdale and Dunnerdale comply with these tests which I have suggested? Of course, with regard to this land, some of it may be suitable planting land. I do not know, but it strikes me as an extraordinary thing that the Forestry Commission should buy or become possessed of 7,240 acres of land of which, on their own showing, only 2,100 acres are economically plantable at all: that is, only 29 per cent. of the land of which they have become possessed is suitable land for planting. That strikes me as a wasteful and rather unbusinesslike proceeding.
Then with regard to transport. I understand that the nearest railway head to this district where they intend to plant is eleven miles away; that there

373
are no proper main roads down the valleys, and that a very heavy expenditure will be involved in making roads, in building bridges and in supporting existing bridges. Then, again, with regard to my third test: the proposal does not meet even my third test with regard to employment. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has told the House, the industry there is mainly sheep farming, with some small general farmers too. They have been there for generations, as the noble Lord said—good, hard-working, thrifty people, well established in the countryside there. Of course you might get a net increase of employment by afforestation, but I doubt it. At any rate, as the foresters come in sheep farmers will go out, and small holdings will be abandoned. That seems to me to be a curious policy for the Government to adopt—a Government which has believed very much in small holdings and is spending considerable sums of money on promoting them. It seems to me a mistake to destroy small holdings in one part of the country whilst spending money on building them up in another. Then there is another industry in that district which is quite important, and that is the catering industry. Large numbers of visitors go there and are put up in the farmhouses, and if you destroy the amenities of the place of course the catering industry will suffer.
It seems to me incredible that there should be no alternative to this proposal. I cannot believe that there is not a suitable alternative. Is there no other part of the country that can be planted equally well, if not better? What about some of the Yorkshire moors and some of the Scottish highlands? Can it be, as the noble Lord suggested, that in those parts of the country grouse are thought to be more important than timber? Is the Forestry Commission finding difficulty in obtaining suitable land? I would like very much to know that. Are the landlords unwilling to part with suitable land for planting? Are they holding up land and demanding extortionate prices for suitable land? Why is it that of the land which the Forestry Commission holds for planting only 60 per cent. is plantable land? How is it that they have to buy so much land that is not plantable? If the Commissioners are being held up owing to difficulties such as I
374
have described—the difficulty of obtaining suitable land and the difficulty of prices—why cannot they use their compulsory powers of purchase and buy suitable land for planting, instead of planting in places where they are ruining the beautiful parts of the country? I think until those questions are satisfactorily answered no one will allow that it is reasonable or wise to destroy a very beautiful piece of English scenery, and I very much hope that the Government will agree to appoint a Select Committee, as is suggested in the noble Lord's Notice. I also hope that that Committee will be given wide terms of reference, so that it can go into questions beyond the one with which the Resolution deals.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire to say very few words on this subject, as I cannot pretend to any special knowledge of the district and therefore shall not attempt to enter into any criticism. I would like first of all to join in the expression of regret that the noble Lord in whose name the Motion appears on the Paper is not able to be here. As we know, both his personal distinction and also his intimate knowledge of the country affected would have made his contribution to the debate especially valuable. At the same time I think your Lordships must all have felt that the case could not have been more happily presented than it was by the noble Lord opposite, both in fullness and in the clearness with which all the different facts were set out. I am glad to think that in this House none of us are likely to take extreme or even bitter views of the possible action on either side. We are not bound to assume that the Forestry Commissioners are purely soulless people, thinking only of how many trees they can plant and how cheaply they can get land on which to plant them, and entirely indifferent to all considerations of taste and also to the preservation of wide mountain spaces, over which young people, to-day, love to roam. Neither, on the other hand, need we suppose that those specially concerned with what I may call the open spaces side, such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and other bodies, of one of which I have the honour to be President myself, are completely indifferent to the economic side of the matter—that they in no way realise the fact that there is a shortage of timber in this country, and

375
also that afforestation does reduce unemployment, not only directly by providing employment but also by the valuable provision of a number of small holdings, worked by those who at some times of the year are employed entirely on forestry.
I was a little surprised to hear the statement of the noble Lord who spoke last, that he feared that small holdings in Cumberland might be abolished or diminished in number by this scheme, for I have always supposed, and I think I am right in supposing, that in all great afforestation schemes definite provision for small holdings forms part of the entire project. There may, of course, be active objections to the planting of a part of this area from the purely afforestation point of view. It may be that the Forestry Commissioners are wrong, and that they are proposing to plant trees at an altitude and under conditions which are unsuitable for planting. If so, there should, of course, be further inquiry. Of course we have to realise that, although Cumberland is one of the favourite holiday grounds of the country, it is not only a holiday ground, and that, as Lord Elton himself admitted, there is a part of Cumberland which is definitely distressed by the misfortune of the depressed heavy industries there of coal and iron: that, on the face of it, makes it a suitable area for some effort on the part of the Forestry Commission. As the noble Lord pointed out, there has been a consultation between the Forestry Commission and the representatives of several of the societies which in instances such as this would protest against any destruction either of amenity or of an open space. The noble Lord seemed to think that the representatives of these societies were in too weak a position in attempting to arrive at a compromise with the Forestry Commission. Well, we shall hear no doubt from the noble Marquess representing the Government how far that charge can be regarded as substantiated. It does not seem to me on the face of it that it need be so, because from what I know of the principal representatives of those societies I should have thought that they were well able to hold their own, even with a statutory body such as the Forestry Commission.
I quite admit—in fact I more than admit, I entirely agree—that it is desirable that this matter should be further
376
examined. Everything that has fallen from the noble Lord opposite and from the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, shows, I think, that there is a strong feeling that this matter ought not to be allowed to rest exactly where it is, and therefore I should hope that we are looking forward to hearing that any definite action will be held up until some further inquiry has been made. It has to be borne in mind that, though a certain delay in pursuing an afforestation scheme may be unfortunate, it is not important; whereas if a wrong scheme is entered on and the countryside is spoilt, or unfit land is taken for planting, we should be powerless later to remedy the mistake; once done it cannot be undone. Surely that is a strong reason for some further inquiry. At the same time, I cannot join with the noble Lord opposite or with the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, in thinking that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House would be the best body for such an inquiry. I have a long experience of such Committees, and we all know how admirably and conclusively they arrive at decisions on questions of property and questions of the particular direction in which a public improvement ought to be carried out. But on a general question of this kind I do not think that such a tribunal could act to very much purpose. It seems to me that if an inquiry is to be made at all it is more the kind of inquiry which should be entrusted to a Royal Commission, assuming the subject to be large enough—and it may be—by which some definite inquiry might be made, probably on the spot, or by calling in a number of people who could be asked to sit upon it. I would ask the noble Marquess on the Front Bench, if he agreed—as I hope he may—that some inquiry ought to be made, to indicate what his view is as to the line which the inquiry ought to take.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I would like to join with other noble Lords in expressing my regret that my noble friend Lord Howard of Penrith is unable to be here to-day. One knows the great interest that he takes in his own native fells, and he would have put the position very clearly before us. But we need take no exception to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has stated his case. It has been extremely clearly put, and I am certain that your Lordships are in possession of the whole facts from

377
that point of view. The matters arising out of this Question have a very considerable effect upon the forestry policy of the country, and as I had the honour of being on the Forestry Commission for the first ten years of its life I should like to be allowed to make some general observations upon the work that is going on. I may have to go a little far back, out your Lordships will probably know that for at least two, or probably three, generations there has been a great demand upon successive Governments of this country to embark upon a forestry policy. But it was not until the experiences arising out of the War that the Government of the day saw the real disaster to the country which had almost occurred, and might very well occur, from an almost entire dependence upon foreign countries for the timber which we require here.
That dependence showed itself in the fact that a large amount of tonnage which was required for the importation of the food and other important commodities had to be taken up for the importation of timber, and it was quite clearly in the mind of the Government of that day, which appointed the Commission to deal with the matter, that steps should be taken to avoid any possibility of such risk occurring again. Another effect of the War was to deplete almost the whole of the private woodlands of this country. There were before the War about 3,000,000 acres in private hands. After the War a census of woodlands showed that there was less than one half of that area of productive woodlands. High taxation and other things prevented the replanting of those areas, and the break-up of estates through Death Duties has distributed them among the small farmer-owners who do not want to have timber, who certainly will not replant, and who endeavour to turn whatever may have been under plantations into rough grazing ground. There was also the other object of providing increased employment and of increasing small holdings. I was glad to hear the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, in his statement replying to Lord Sanderson, say that there has been a great increase of small holdings, due to the work of the Forestry Commission. Moreover, it is the best form of small holdings, because it puts the man in possession of a house and probably ten acres of land, and at
378
the same time provides him with part-time employment. It is on those conditions more than on any other that the small-holding movement is, I believe, likely to succeed in this country.
The Commission was, as I have said, appointed by the Government and presided over by Sir Francis Acland. The policy which the Commissioners laid down was adopted by the Government and appears in what we know as the Acland Report, It is a very large policy indeed. It requires the acquisition, throughout the course of the operation of the policy, of no less than 1,800,000 acres, and that is in itself a very formidable undertaking. It is formidable not because there is not a very large quantity of land available—everywhere owners are endeavouring to sell—but on account of the fact that a great deal of the land is not suitable for afforestation. You have, on the one hand, land which is too good, land under crops and good grazing land. It would be entirely uneconomic to turn such land into forestry. There is, on the other hand, very little, if any, waste land in this country. By waste land I mean land which does not produce food or does not employ labour. There is no difficulty in buying land, as the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, stated. The difficulty is in buying actually suitable land. The price offered and accepted is certainly not high. I think I am quite safe in saying that the Forestry Commissioners have bought land very much cheaper than any Government Department has done before. The average price per acre, in my time at all events, did not exceed £3 capital value, and I do not think you can complain that the landlord grasped a very great deal in asking that sum.
Some land is too good, there is very little waste land, and so you have always to fall back on mountainous land or heath land, and for several reasons. These lands, although they do produce food, produce a relatively small quantity of food to the acre. They are what might be called of low economic value. But there is a natural limitation in respect of these lands because so much of them, like the deer forests in the Highlands and like parts of the Lake District which we are discussing, are in their upper elevations impossible for planting owing to exposure or thin soil or matters of that kind, and a great deal of the low land is unplantable

379
on account of heavy peat or bog. You are thus reduced to only a small proportion of the mountainous land which is available. Lord Sanderson suggested that it is very unbusinesslike for the Forestry Commission to purchase an area of 7,000 acres, of which only 2,000 are plantable, but the reason is perfectly clear—that is one single estate. They get the 7,000 or 8,000 acres, but they pay only for the plantable land. What the actual price was in this particular case I do not know, but probably it did not exceed £3 per acre, and I do not think Lord Sanderson would say that that is an excessive price to pay for 7,000 acres of land. These are some of the difficulties of getting suitable land.
Then we come to what is probably the main subject of this debate—the question of amenity. I suppose that as a general proposition your Lordships would agree that, on the whole, woodlands add to the amenity of the country. It would be a terrible day for this country if our woodlands disappeared and nothing was left to hide the pylons and factories and ribbon building which seem to be part of our coming civilisation. But while that is true as a general statement, I can conceive that woodlands improperly situated, which really hide natural features, might have a contrary effect—that is to say, they might spoil the amenities of the country. Every forester, whether he is a Government forester or a private forester, knows quite well that when his work does change the face of the country in many respects he is bound to consider the landscape effect, and I think that in every case he attempts to do so. That, however, will never prevent criticism. In this country I think our critical faculty is very highly developed, because whenever any one, particularly a Government Department, attempts anything new, there is quite certain to be an immense amount of criticism, and it would be quite safe to prophesy that when the time comes for felling the plantations which are now being created, exactly the same class of people will raise some criticism.
I am certain that many of your Lordships on your own private estates have met with a great deal of criticism in the matter of cutting down a plantation in the ordinary course of afforestation. All sorts of complaints appear in the local Press as to the sin of destroying beautiful
380
trees. A Government Department has already considered that aspect fully, because in the Town and Country Planning Act there are certain model clauses which can be enforced by a regional authority, enabling them to schedule trees or groups of trees against being felled and also—and this is perhaps a good idea—to prevent anyone felling a plantation unless he replants it. I do not know if these provisions are put into force but they are there. Criticism is quite certain whatever you do. In several instances I can remember local objectors to the work of the Forestry Commission have appeared. One case, your Lordships may remember, aroused considerable debate in this House, and that was in connection with the New Forest area.
There was undoubtedly a difficulty about interpreting the New Forest Act, but after considerable consultation and very careful surveys of the whole position we appointed a local committee, the New Forest Society, to act with the Forestry Commission, and work has proceeded in an exceedingly pleasant way ever since. I do not think any objections are ever raised. More recently there has been a committee acting as between the Forestry Commission and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I remember several other instances where discussions took place, and as a result of these discussions the Forestry Commission, when we found the objections sound, either refrained from acquisition or reduced the area of planting to fit in with the ideas of the objectors. Exactly the same procedure has been followed in the present case. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, described pretty accurately the fact that in the course of negotiation there has been, at all events, an offer made by the Forestry Commissioners to reduce the area of planting and site it in a way which, in their opinion, will not injure in any respect the scenic value of that particular area.
The statement of the noble Lord was put forward in an admirable way, and I think a great deal of restraint was used, because one knows quite well that feeling in the district runs very high. There were, however, one or two points in his speech which struck me as being,

381
perhaps, reminiscent of certain statements which have appeared in the public Press in the last few months. Perhaps it would not be fair to suggest that, because some of these statements in the Press have been so inaccurate. They have implied all sorts of ideas to the Forestry Commissioners and made all sorts of suggestions as to the result of their work which are quite untenable. I do not like to say that that long array of Vice-Chancellors and economists who have supported this Petition would be taken in by these statements, but the noble Lord himself used the expression that the proposal would blot out Upper Eskdale. My information is that there is no foundation for that statement, and that such planting as there is at the bottom of the valley cannot by any chance have any blotting out effect in respect of the scenery there.
Then we were told that in order to gain access to mountain ground visitors would have to walk between rows of stark Christmas trees—I think that was the expression. I must ask your Lordships to consider that for a moment. A good deal was said in the newspapers about spoiling the access of the public to this land. The position really is that, while formerly the public had the privilege of access to that mountain land, now that it is in the hands of the Forestry Commission they will have rights of access and rights of recreation over all the land except a small area, not one-fifth of the whole, which is being planted and which for the time being will have to be shut off from the public. The Forestry Commissioners were very careful to make paths through these stark Christmas trees so that visitors may see them and get as easy access as possible. But it is obvious that the idea in the mind of the Press, or whoever wrote to the newspapers, was to endeavour to persuade the public that the Forestry Commission were endeavouring to stop access. Nothing could be more untrue. I recollect that there were one or two other suggestions—they were not mentioned by the noble Lord—referred to in the Press. There was the statement that the action of the Forestry Commission would destroy the amenity of land which has been purchased or received by the National Trust, and that the ownership
382
of the National Trust in the Scafell range was in danger. It is impossible to understand what was in the minds of the persons who wrote such letters to the Press. Still they appeared there, and it is not impossible that they did exercise some influence upon the minds of those who signed the Petition. Those, I think, were the main things, but there may be many others of that nature.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, also quoted from the poet Wordsworth as to the poor effect of regimentation and regular lines, which are so different to what is presented by natural woods. Of course that is so, and the poet was perfectly right. The modern plantation can never vie with the beauty of the natural woodlands of this country. Unfortunately, in so few places can we get natural beauty, but the Forestry Commissioners are really doing their best in this respect. The statement that the plantation in Bassenthwaite has spoiled the appearance of the valley is met to some extent by later ideas, for example, the planting in almost every case, at any rate where possible, of irregular lines of hardwood trees for the boundaries so as to mask the effect of the area of conifers, which seems to be so disliked. I should like to say in passing that there is a perfectly meaningless prejudice against the planting of conifers in this country. You can very seldom get land which will grow them, and it is not worth while planting them on unsuitable land, but there is in masses of conifer plantation, whether larch or spruce or anything else, a magnificent mass effect. Any of those who have walked through the bigger woodlands in the South of England or Wales, or, better still perhaps, in the Tay Valley or Speyside or Deeside, will realise what an immense landscape beauty there is in these woodlands, and, as they thin out and the public can walk through them and see these magnificent State trees growing out of a growth of heather or bracken, it is a wonderful attraction not only to the natives but to all tourists who go that way. I would like to see hardwood trees planted, but where you cannot get hardwood trees, then I certainly would raise no objection to the planting of these conifers.
As to the suggestion that a Select Committee should be appointed, I was

383
very glad indeed to hear what the noble Marquess said. It would unnecessarily interfere with the work which the Commissioners have really got to do. They are charged with a very great responsibility, and unless their work is a stable work, unless it is continuous, unless it goes on without interruption, it is impossible for the country's policy to be undertaken. They will always, I am quite certain, have as full regard as possible to natural amenities. There is no desire to spoil amenities. Quite the contrary. But they would not be justified, I think, in the work they have to do, in view of what I have said and the difficulties of getting suitable land when it is wanted, in allowing that responsibility to be taken by any one else. From the action of the Forestry Commissioners in the past I think your Lordships may be quite satisfied that they will use their best endeavours to preserve as far as they can the natural beauties of the country.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I am sure we have listened with great interest to what has fallen from the noble Lord who spoke last. I believe that we do appreciate the work which has been done during the last few years by the Forestry Commission and we hope that they will continue in their good work. It may be—I do not know—that in this particular instance they have made a mistake in the purchase which they have made and the intentions which they have shown of planting a considerable part of the two valleys that have been named. I was for thirty-five years the representative of the Lake District in the House of Commons, but these two particular valleys in question to-day were outside the district that I represented, and I cannot, therefore, claim that I have any special knowledge of them. But it seems to me that the whole matter of planting in beautiful spots is one entirely of taste, of discretion, of degree.
I do not think that anybody would approve of large square blocks of dark green trees being plastered on some of the hillsides of the Lake District. There are, it is true, on some of the lakes considerable plantations, and, indeed, I am not sure that the beauty of the Lake District is not very largely enhanced by the woods which we see running down from the hillsides to the lakes or the
384
lower valleys in contrast to the rather barer views that we get in Scotland. As I say, it seems a matter of degree. In some places these plantations can very well be planted without any disfigurement. In one of the latest acquisitions of the National Trust, at the end of the Lake of Ullswater, there are to my knowledge plantations which have been there for some time and which certainly add to rather than take from the beauty of that particular spot. The great thing, after all, is to obtain variety. A long, bare hillside is not necessarily beautiful except for the variety of tone and colour which you get from it. The birches and the larches and the alders along the lake add to the charm of the prospect, and I am not opposed to conifers being planted provided they are not put, as I say, in great square blisters. That I feel would deteriorate very much from the view.
There is one point upon which I think the Forestry Commission are not sufficiently careful, and that is in the obstruction of views by the plantations which they make. A few years ago I was at Thirlmere. Your Lordships may possibly remember, although it was a long time ago, that the Manchester Corporation acquired the lake and the immediate watershed around Thirlmere and planted a series of plantations there, most magnificent plantations of Douglas fir and Sitka spruce and other conifers. Parliament imposed upon the Manchester Corporation the duty of making a new road along the east side of the lake in order that the public might enjoy the prospect of the lake and of Helvellyn. When I was there last the view from this road was almost entirely obstructed by the trees which had been planted by the Corporation below the level of the road. You could not see the lake at all, and the irony of it was that the road had been made for the express purpose of enabling people to see the lake! I humbly expressed to such representatives of the Corporation as were there on the occasion of my visit, the desire that at all events there should be vistas through the trees. Whether those vistas have been cut or not I do not know, but a vista, just a glimpse which you get through the black woods of a patch of shining lake below you, is not the equivalent of the broad view of the lake from end to end which otherwise you could get as you passed along the road. I think in a

385
matter of that sort the Forestry Commissioners have to be very careful not to obstruct views. I am glad to say that in a totally different part of the country, in the County of Suffolk, where I am largely interested in preserving the beauty of the country, I have found the Forestry Commission amenable to the views which have been put forward by the Suffolk Preservation Society; and I believe that in this instance they would also meet the views of responsible people.
To come to the particulars of the Motion and the question of the appointment of a Select Committee, I noted that the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, thought a Select Committee of this House was an undesirable and an unsuitable body to hold the investigation. He proposed a Royal Commission. Is not that too potent an instrument to decide what, after all, is only a small question which relates to some 2,000 acres in the Lake District? A Royal Commission takes a long time, it works—
THE MAKQUESS OF CREWE: May I interrupt the noble Viscount to say that my impression was that the purpose of the proposed Select Committee would be to inquire into the whole question all over England and not merely into the matter of these two valleys.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: No doubt that is so, but I think a Royal Commission would take a great deal longer than a Select Committee and is really too large an instrument to crack such a small nut. I do not know whether there have been other cases brought before your Lordships—I do not think there have—of so-called errors of judgment on the part of the Forestry Commission, but after all we only recently passed the Statute under which the Forestry Commission work. It is altogether too soon, I think, to review the whole of the situation. Therefore personally I am opposed both to the Royal Commission and to the Select Committee. I prefer the arrangement of a Joint Committee of representatives of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and of the Forestry Commission and the National Trust. I think they might well be entrusted with the duty of examining this particular difference of opinion and of arriving at a reasonable and just solution.
386
The Forestry Commissioners are sensible people. They do not run amuck. The representatives of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England know very well what the public want in this regard, and the National Trust have had so large an experience of matters of this kind that they can well be trusted to come to a sound decision. Therefore I should be perfectly prepared to leave the whole matter to the judgment of that Committee which is now sitting. I am afraid that if we set up a Select Committee or a Royal Commission it would to a very large extent hamper the work which is being carried on by the Forestry Commission. We know quite well that when a Government Department is being put upon the rack in that sort of way, the attention and the time and the minds of the chiefs of that department are devoted wholly to the case which they have to put before the Commission and they find it difficult to embark on fresh work. I would not for a moment wish to interrupt in any way the work of the Commission, and for that reason I think it is very undesirable that we should appoint any inquiry. At the same time I think that the Petition which has been so widely signed, and which carries such a weight of authority in the names of the important persons who have signed it, will give to the Forestry Commission an indication that they have to be careful of the way in which they regard public amenities. I am certain that after this debate the Forestry Commission will be alive to the difficulties which may present themselves if they do not pay sufficient regard to what has been put forward by the Petition.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the speeches we have heard this afternoon have indicated how great, and I hope how growing, is the public interest in the relations of afforestation and the general amenities of the countryside. I have listened with great interest and I hope I may ask your Lordships' permission to state what has been going on between the Forestry Commissioners and an informal Committee which they have taken into consultation for a good long time past. I am myself connected with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, which together with the National Trust, one of the largest owners in the Lake District, and the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society,

387
which is responsible for watching the interests of a vast area of commons in this district, have been discussing with the Forestry Commission.
I quote from page 55 of the Report of the Forestry Commissioners for the year ending September 30, 1934. Your Lordships will see that we have been talking to the Forestry Commission for some time. They say:
" The Commissioners have recently been in communication with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England on the subject of the relation of forestry and afforestation to the amenities of the countryside. As a result a joint informal Committee has been formed to meet from time to time for the discussion of outstanding questions. In these densely-populated islands there is scarcely an acre of accessible land in which someone has not an economic or sentimental interest. The Commissioners consequently welcome the opportunity of discussing with so representative a body and from the view of the national welfare those changes which are inevitable in the utilisation of the soil if an adequate reserve of standing timber is to be provided."
That Committee is quite an informal one. The members meet on any occasion which seems desirable to the Forestry Commission or to the Committee themselves and they discuss every kind of question within those very broad terms of reference—the question of view, for instance, which is very material to the matter to which Lord Ullswater referred; the question of the species or type of tree to be planted; and, above all, the question of outline and boundary, which is in my opinion one of the really crucial matters in this problem of afforestation.
That has been going on for a good long time, and we have been pressing the Forestry Commissioners to form in the Lake District what we call a "sacrosanct area "—an area, that is to say, in which no afforestation can take place without our consent. Now the Forestry Commissioners have met us on that point and—I do not think there is anything confidential in this—there is in effect the outline of a sacrosanct area. I ought to say that we want to extend that area, and we have asked that it be extended. For instance, we should like the Loweswater territory included; the Vale of Keswick might suitably be brought into it; the Troutbeck Vale, by Windermere, again; and finally, Martindale, by Ullswater. The mention of that particular area allows me to wish many happy returns to the noble
388
Viscount, under whom I sat in another place thirty-five or forty years ago and who to-day celebrates his eighty-fifth birthday. As he well said, this is all a question of degree, and if we can persuade these people of the correct degree, we shall, I believe, be meeting the case of ninety-nine critics out of a hundred.
But, my Lords, I very much want to impress this point upon you, that this is far from being a small local problem. Other areas are involved. You cannot say, "Now, we are going to stop afforestation in this particular district." Afforestation is like water; all the schemes are inter-related and each one is more or less dependent upon the others. The whole organisation of any given planting is not drawn up for one particular area or one group of areas, but deals with an estate as a whole. These people have an estate of a million or one-and-a-half million acres in England, and you cannot say, "We will cut out this entirely "; you have to consider all together. That is contemplated quite frankly by Lord Howard: he says he wants to discuss the question of certain specific areas in relation to the afforestation of Great Britain. Let me remind your Lordships of the kind of problem about which this Joint Committee are now talking. They are talking about the Lake District about the Snowdon District, about Breckland, about the New Forest, about the Borders, Dovedale, the Forest of Dean, Dartmoor and Exmoor; and of course there is the whole Scottish problem as well. This is a very big problem indeed, and it is, moreover, mixed up with the problem of the national park. You cannot dissociate the problem of the national park from that of afforestation. So, when we talk about a Select Committee of your Lordships dealing with this, we must remember that they would have a great deal to do: they would have to master the whole of the national park problem as well as this very complicated problem of afforestation.
Now I do not think your Lordships have ever discussed the national park fully, but you all well know that it is a very popular demand. It is not only a popular, but it is a praiseworthy demand, and in every way a wholesome demand. For my part, I will not for one moment agree that a large policy of afforestation is inconsistent with a fine national park. In the terms of the noble Lord's Notice, how-

389
ever, the Lake District is singled out as especially important. I was very sorry that the noble Lord opposite should have attacked the Forestry Commission so severely—" The ground is too high; it is too inaccessible; there is no adequate transport; there are too many conifers; the scheme is going to do away with small holdings; the purchase was wasteful." My Lords, these Forestry Commissioners are really very expert and very efficient people. My noble friend beside me, Lord Clinton, who is well known in Scotland, at any rate, as one of the protagonists of scientific afforestation, my friend Sir George Courthope, Sir Francis Acland, and others have devoted their lives to this subject, and they are surrounded by a group of real professional experts. I assure Lord Sanderson that these people cannot be condemned offhand like that. So far as the small holdings are concerned, it is not right to mislead public opinion in that way. There have been letters in the newspapers saying that we are sweeping away the smallholders, "these fine yeoman farmers "—and all that. But, my Lords, these Forestry Commissioners are spending a great deal of time and money in establishing these small holdings. It will be found in the course of time that one of the most economic small holdings in this country is one which is not solely dependent upon agriculture.
" Much of the area about which we are talking is too high for planting; why waste money on buying it? "—says Lord Sanderson. The reason is this. When you buy an estate, the man who sells you the estate says you have to take good and bad; you cannot take just the good and leave him with the bad, useless property. The result is that, when you buy high land for afforestation—a few hundred feet up—there is often land above it which you have to buy and which very often stands in your books at a ridiculously low figure. What I want to point out to your Lordships—and it has not been stated this afternoon; I wish Lord Clinton had said so—is that that land is not wasted to the public. I do not know who owned the estate; it was private property and the landlord was presumably entitled to fence it off. Now it is in the hands of the Forestry Commission, and for all time the public will have an area of 5,000 acres or more over
390
which they will be free to roam unembarrassed in any way by afforestation, and the public will be the richer in consequence.
In this area you have the ground which is going to be planted and you have the upper land which the Forestry Commissioners have said will ultimately be placed at the disposal of the rambler and the hiker; and in addition you have the commons, on which lords of the manor like Lord Leconfield encourage the holiday maker. Finally, you have the National Trust. Between these bodies you are securing this area as a great healthy and open-air centre, and afforestation therefore, I may point out, gives free open rights to the public which the public has never enjoyed before. Moreover, it is safeguarding this high land against what I am very much afraid of, and that is the summer bungalow, occupied for six or eight weeks in the high summer when the weather is finest. That would be a most disastrous disfigurement of the whole of that glorious area.
Therefore, do not let Lord Elton, who has denounced the Forestry Commission so bitterly, think that there are not counterbalancing advantages conferred on us by these people. I confess that I am in these days considered a very old-fashioned person, because I admire trees. Among trees I admire conifer. I thought that Lord Elton almost hated trees. His reference to the tree as a Christmas tree through which the innocent hiker from Bradford or Liverpool walks is not true natural history. For the first few years a larch tree has the form of a Christmas tree—as a rule we prefer spruce—but after a few years you get a tall cylindrical bole, such as that of the Scotch fir, and I am one of the old-fashioned people who still admire a noble tree. When people talk about a dark green hideous uniformity of colour, there again their natural history is wrong. In a number of years, as anybody who has travelled on the Continent or in wooded country knows, a coniferous wood assumes most wonderful colouring. There is no more tender green than that of the young larch tree and few trees are more gloriously coloured in the autumn. The dark Scotch fir is beautiful too, and whatever these pundits may say I am going to admire these trees for the rest of my life.

391
Now, my Lords, it is assumed that there are no trees indigenous to the Lake Country—that there are no larch trees there—but if you examine the country you will find that the trees are creeping up the valleys, and that the tree is indigenous to England pretty well all over. We must not say, for that reason, that no trees are to be planted in hilly country here. I agree that great care is to be exercised. On that point I agree with my noble friend Lord Ullswater. It is a question of degree, and our province is to persuade the Forestry Commissioners, if they are planting in a wrong area or in a bad manner, to amend their ways. They recognise that quite well. They know the problem, I venture to say, just as much as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. They realise the conflict, so-called, between beauty and utility, and without disrespect may I say that the Forestry Commission have progressed very greatly in the last few years—I might almost say since the time when Lord Clinton retired from it.
LORD CLINTON: Thanks very much.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I believe it is now axiomatic that they do not plant along rigid lines. A polygon is always a hideous thing, but when on a hillside a polygon of trees is a turpitude. On the other hand, if these rigid forms are modified by here and there following the contour lines, by putting a bulge or making a gulf, by breaking frontages and leaving some space unplanted, and by having belts or clumps of hard wood trees, nearly all that objection disappears, and you can do away with that rigidity which is the fundamental distinction between the natural and the planted woodland. How can we make most certain that the Forestry Commission will remain alive to what one may call the amenity aspects of afforestation? Lord Howard in his Notice suggests a select Committee of your Lordships' House, and Lord Sanderson, I believe, wanted to extend the terms of reference to the Committee. Lord Crewe proposed a Royal Commission instead.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I explain, because Lord Ullswater, I think, also misapprehended what I said. I was very far from proposing a Royal Commission. I said that if any body had to be appointed I should prefer a Royal
392
Commission to a Select Committee, but I should be far more pleased to see the whole matter left to the informal Committee.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess. I have spoken much longer than I had intended and I will hasten. The reason why I think that a Select Committee of this House is unsuitable is that a Select Committee would really be fighting against experts the whole time. That is not usual with Select Committees. Nine out of ten of our Select Committees deal with public life, matters of public utility, and the making of laws for the government of this country. On those matters we are capable of talking to anybody, and successfully, but on this point we should be entirely dealing with experts, and find ourselves in great difficulty. Secondly, the Committee would have to travel all over Great Britain, and Scotland too, and would have to see all these selected and specific areas, and decide where afforestation was possible. And finally we should have to deal with questions of acquisition under the very terms of this Motion. That is not the way to let these people buy their land cheap—to send the Select Committee of your Lordships' House to look round to see which is the suitable area. These are practical difficulties to which I think your Lordships must pay very serious attention.
I pointed out, moreover, that all areas are inter-related, and therefore we should have to deal with practically all the afforestable land which is now under review by the Forestry Commission. Forestry is not a temporary or a transitional problem, it is a continuing problem, and to do the work properly we should have to have a continuing Committee, for these matters are not settled once and for all. There is a constant revision in the practice of forestry: you constantly revise your programme. And, as I say, the final objection to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, is this. You are going to substitute political for non-political control of afforestation. This work is now being done by a Commission, which is a vague, indeterminate, and certainly a non-political body. If you get a Committee of this House, or a Joint Committee of the two Houses, running and

393
controlling afforestation, you immediately bring in the political issues. That is unavoidable. What will be the result now, for instance, in this particular area? You get all the pressure of politics to bring the Lakeland into the afforestable area, because some of these towns on the Cumberland coasts are among the most distressed of the distressed districts of England. I urge therefore that we had better go on as we are.
So far as this particular area is concerned, I repeat that we want a sacrosanct area in Lakeland, and we want some of them elsewhere. I am glad to say that the Forestry Commission have met us, and we are discussing this same problem in all sorts of other parts of the country, and they have already met us very favourably. We want constant, informal and private consultation with these Commissioners, and we do not want them to do anything in the Special Areas by way of afforestation which may ultimately prejudice the use of these areas for national parks. I really believe that we have made a good start during the last few years with these advisory committees—and there are, by the way, plenty of other advisory committees with which the Forestry Commission is in touch—and I hope that the authorities of this body will consent to go on keeping the well-informed people in their confidence and receiving from time to time any advice they may be able to give.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: My Lords, in spite of the brilliant speech from the noble Earl to which we have just listened, and in spite of the unsolicited testimonials which he has paid to the Forestry Commissioners, I stand here as an unrepentant supporter of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I do so not that I have any authority to speak, but because I have intimate knowledge of the country concerned. For many years my family has been connected with the Lake District, and my family is living there still. Indeed, for fourteen years we were mainly in the Duddon Valley itself, and for the last eleven years I have found my happiest holiday in Eskdale. And I want to say quite firmly and strongly here that we still desire that the Forestry Commission shall call a halt to its activities in Dunnerdale and Eskdale, if not for eternity at any rate
394
until some authoritative Committee or Commission has reported.
For the Lake District is a very small district, small in extent, small in its mountains, small in its rivers, small in its valleys; and any very striking change becomes in that neighbourhood a revolution, and a scheme of afforestation small in itself may affect the beauty of a whole valley. How it will affect the area concerned we know only too well, because we have instances to guide us. We need not wait till the planted area has grown up in Ennerdale, we can see for ourselves what has happened on the Whinlatter Pass and in the neighbourhood of Thirlmere, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, has already made allusion. Anyone who has driven over the Whinlatter Pass from Keswick to Crummock Water, anyone who has undertaken that shin-breaking walk from the top of Lord's Seat to the top of Whinlatter Pass, anyone who knew Thirlmere when the Corporation of Manchester first took it over, still more anyone who, like Lord Ullswater, knew it before the Corporation took it over, will realise what a deadening effect the planting has had on that neighbourhood. In spite of the affection of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, for the conifer, I believe that the great majority of people feel that the planting of these trees does spoil a great deal of the hill country of England, and particularly when it takes that tidy geometrical form in which so many planters have delighted.
These valleys which are concerned are really beauty spots in one of the most beautiful places in the world. In an area that has been so little spoilt and which is still built and planted in the Cumbrian or Westmorland or North Lancashire way, there are three farms particularly concerned. The southernmost, Birks Farm, has in its neighbourhood natural copsewood and birches, from which it gets its name. The two more northerly farms, Black Hall and Brotherilkeld, lie at the foot of bare uplands leading up respectively to Harter Fell and the Scafell range which are in form and outline all that can be desired, and I submit to your Lordships that anything like the kind of afforestation to which we have grown all too accustomed of recent years in the Lake counties would really be disastrous to that exquisite neighbourhood. I am no

395
botanist, but I do know the botanical effects on the natural growths of these plantings—how the mosses and the grasses and the seedlings which are left there by winds and birds lose their colour and revert to paleness under the shadow of the woods. I cannot feel that your Lordships would readily consent to so precious a district losing one of its chief claims to beauty.
But I think there is something more important to be said than that. In these mechanical days we are seeing a great revival of the noble art and pastime of fell walking. Youth hostels are springing up or being equipped everywhere. There are holiday houses, there are travelling associations, and into this district there come more and more men and women who are really trained to enjoy its beauty and the open air life which it affords. Partly it is that they are not able to spend money in going far afield to Norway, or Switzerland, or the Highlands of Scotland. Partly it is that they are pushed off the road in other parts of England and Wales by the motor car, and here at the top of Dunnerdale and in Eskdale we have the inestimable advantage at present of having no motor road out. Hard-knott Pass and Wrynose are not yet traversable by motors, and the result is that in these valleys there is peace and quiet, and innumerable pathways lead to the sanctuaries of Scafell and Bowfell and the Crinkle crags. In spite of what has been said about the generosity of the Forestry Commissioners throwing open the upper fells to walkers in the future, it is to my mind certainly true that on the lower fells, at any rate, where the planting will be, they will for a time certainly, if not always, be grievously restricted. There will be wiring, there will be walling, and instead of their being able as now, in spite of the fact that the land is privately owned, to travel about freely as they will, they will be confined, as Lord Elton has pointed out, to certain well-marked pathways, and the places for them will lose the freedom to which they have been so generously admitted.
I speak as one of the signatories to the Petition, and I should like here to say that they are asking for nothing like selfish exemption for themselves and their own neighbourhood. They realise, as the noble Earl has pointed out, that there are other places to be considered too, and they would be only too glad to lend
396
their assistance in saving them. The unselfishness of some of the signatories has been proved by the fact that they have made an offer to buy the whole district back. Equally, we believe, there are open spaces still available for afforestation and still obtainable cheaply for that purpose. Many suggest themselves to us as we think over the matter, and we do not believe that even a Committee of this House would be bamboozled into paying excessive prices for the privilege. There has been in recent years all too great a shrinkage of rural England, and it seems to us that the true policy for preserving it is the policy which has been followed in certain noble gifts that have been given to the district—gifts, for instance, by Professor George Trevelyan in Langdale and by Sir Ernest Simon towards the upper waters of the Duddon. There the farms are kept in their own condition, cultivated as before, used and accessible as they have always been, open and unspoiled for everyone who wills to use. I desire to support the proposal that the noble Lord has brought forward.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I have been very much interested in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford. I, like him, have agitated for a Forestry Commission. I took a great deal of pains, when I was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to arrange for the whole of the Royal forests to be scientifically felled and scientifically planted, and I have revelled in the amount of work which the Forestry Commissioners have done. I know they make mistakes. In my own district, in the County of Durham, they have planted trees 900 feet to over 1,000 feet above sea level, open to every wind that blows from the east or from the west, and there is not the slightest chance of any of these trees ever becoming more than a sort of stunted Japanese oak in size. But on the whole the Forestry Commission have done their work well, and I am satisfied that they are doing it well to-day. What I want to feel is that they are in touch more with the general public and that they realise, not only the amenities in connection with their planting, but the use to which their trees should be put, so that industries may subsequently be produced in those areas where afforestation takes place.
It is a pity that all our paper has to be made out of foreign pulp. It is

397
a pity that so much foreign timber is imported into this country when it might be grown at home. I have a few figures in my hand which may interest the House and the public in connection with the extent to which pit props are not made of wood. It is because we in the colliery districts are not buying very much home-grown timber that I want to direct attention for one moment to one or two facts taken from the Divisional Inspectors' Reports. Steel props, steel straps and bars, steel arches, steel girders, steel plates, and steel chocks are being more extensively used in our collieries and are replacing home-grown and foreign timber. In Scotland it is remarkable that underground roadways were supported by steel arches to the extent of 427 miles at the end of 1934. A considerable increase has, I believe, taken place since then. In that year sixty additional miles of steel arches were used instead of timber. In addition thirty-seven and a half miles of roadways were protected by cambered girders, compared with nine and a half miles at the end of 1933. In the northern division, the division of Durham and Northumberland, the total amount of roadway supported by steel arches increased from 170 miles to 246 miles. The number of steel bars in use increased from 202,000 to 368,000. In Yorkshire, steel arches increased from 205 miles to 266 miles.
Therefore, instead of attention being directed to colliery requirements, as was the case soon after the War, when it was realised that so much of the timber required in our collieries had to be home-grown, the Forestry Commission ought to realise that they should plant trees not so much for the use of props in our collieries as heretofore, but should think more of the amenities connected with our plantations. It is very important that this matter should be inquired into in some form or other and not allowed to rest, and I hope that as a result of this interesting debate, Lord Howard of Penrith, whose absence we all deplore, will feel that his Motion has been worth while.
THE MARQUESS, OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I rise only to ask the noble Marquess who is going to reply one question. My justification for doing so is that for a great many years I used to go in June
398
or July to walk in the Lake District. One cannot do that year after year without realising that it is an area of quite exceptional beauty with a character and uniformity of its own. I confess I am a little alarmed by the trend of this debate for this reason, that while I think the proposal for a Select Committee or a Royal Commission is undesirable, we are confronted with the possibility of a secret conspiracy between the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Forestry Commission, which apparently is going to arrogate to itself sole control of the question of amenities from one end of the country to the other. I think it would be a very desirable thing if the body of those who have signed this Petition, people peculiarly associated with the Lake District and having a special interest in it, should be associated with the Forestry Commission. I would like to ask the noble Marquess whether it would not be possible for the Government, even if they reject the larger proposal, to take steps to bring into touch with the Forestry Commission, and perhaps more largely than heretofore with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the body of signatories to this Petition. I cannot imagine anything more fatal to Lakeland than that you should have an area in the middle preserved exactly as it is, and the outer parts covered with forest. I think the thing must be considered as a whole, and every valley must be considered on its merits. The people who ought to be most closely associated with the inquiry are those who have tried to preserve the priceless beauties of perhaps the most beautiful section of our country.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, may I with your Lordships' permission say that there is nothing secret about the Council for the Preservation of Rural England? It consists of a number of private individuals. There are hundreds of societies who are interested in the open life of England, and also a great number of public bodies, and I do not mind who is on the Committee or who is not so long as they are efficient.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Perhaps the noble Earl will welcome the suggestion that more might be associated with it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not know if the noble Marquess means the

399
Archbishop of York. I must think about that.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I should like if I may first of all to associate myself with those of your Lordships who have deplored the absence this afternoon of Lord Howard owing to illness. I have had myself the pleasure and the privilege of working with Lord Howard on problems of this kind, and I know with what passionate sincerity he is attached to the beauties of the countryside and particularly the beauties of the Lake District. May I say that I think Lord Howard has been fortunate in the noble Lord who has on this occasion deputised for him. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made a speech of great moderation, particularly in view of the depth of feeling which has been aroused over this question, and I realise that there is a very strong feeling, certainly throughout the Lake District, that it would be disastrous were anything done which should seriously damage the amenities of that beautiful tract of country. With the objects which the noble Lord has in view there will be many who sympathise and not least amongst them, if I may say so, myself.
I do not think it is too much to say that the National Trust, of which I happen at the time to be Chairman, has done as much as, or perhaps more than, most people or organisations to preserve for the people of this country the beauties of the Lake District. But having said that, I would remind your Lordships that we have to take the modern world as we find it, and the world as we find it is not always the world as we should like it to be. There are, I have no doubt, a great many people who would like to live in a world where nature was untrammelled and uninterfered with by the activities of man, but we all know that such a world does not exist. Nature is interfered with by the activities of man in many directions. Many of us I am sure would like to live in a world in which the jerry-builder had not been a product of human evolution, but he is there, and we have to recognise his existence. I am happy to think that the Forestry Commissioners do not interfere with nature in so damaging a way as many other human institutions do, but I do realise that there are parts of the country and there are
400
occasions on which the activities of the Forestry Commission might be held to be damaging to the amenities of the country.
But I would remind your Lordships very briefly of the circumstances in which the Forestry Commission came into existence. I listened with interest to what was said by my noble friend Lord Clinton upon that point, because as a former Chairman of the Forestry Commission he has, of course, intimate knowledge of that body. The Forestry Commission came into existence to make provision against the sort of emergency with which the people of this country were faced during the last Great War. Your Lordships will remember how valuable was the shipping which was available to this country in the circumstances of the War. It is a fact that something like 13 per cent. of the ships which came to the ports of this country were required to bring the necessary timber to these shores, and one of the purposes for which the Forestry Commission was established was to provide against an emergency of that kind in the future. The Commissioners were definitely instructed by Parliament to arrange for the provision of something like three years supply of standing timber in this country. They were also instructed in the course of their activities to pay special attention to providing increased employment. They have during the period of their existence, if I may say so, carried out with a very great measure of success the task which was entrusted to them. They have purchased something like a million acres of land of which some 600,000 acres are plantable. They have actually planted already some 280,000 acres of land, and they have given grants in aid which have been responsible for the further planting of some 100,000 acres of land by public bodies and by private individuals.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, made, if I may say so, the most paradoxically unexpected speech of the whole of this debate. The noble Lord spoke as if the activities of the Forestry Commission resulted in the abolition of small holdings. Very far from that being the case, one of the results of the activities of the Forestry Commission has been to increase enormously the number of small holdings. They have actually increased the number of forest workers holdings

401
by hundreds, and these small holdings are now housing some thousands of people, so that, if I may say so, the noble Lord's objection to the activities of the Forestry Commission on that ground were a little inexplicable.
LORD SANDERSON: May I interrupt to say that I was referring to the possibility of doing away with small holdings in the particular district under discussion? I thought that sheep farmers would be turned out and replaced by foresters. That is what I meant to suggest. I was not speaking of small holdings over the whole country.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Lord said he was in favour of afforestation generally, but was particularly opposed to it in the areas with which we are concerned this afternoon. I thought that the Party for which the noble Lord speaks had been urging for a long time past the Government to do something for the Special Areas—those areas which have, through no fault of their own but under the play of economic forces over which they have no control, suffered so grievously in recent times. The Government are at this moment proposing to do something to relieve the distress of these people, particularly the people in the Special Areas in the part of the country with which we are more immediately concerned this evening. They have requested the Forestry Commission to undertake a scheme of afforestation over the next ten years involving the planting of some 200,000 acres which will also involve the establishment of 1,000 additional forest holdings (which I should have thought would have appealed to the noble Lord and his friends) and will create direct employment to the extent of something like 2,200 persons a year. I was surprised as I sat listening to the speech of the noble Lord opposite.
Now I come to the arguments of those who support the Motion which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Penrith. The circumstances being such as I have described, it is inevitable that there should be some conflict of interests between the Forestry Commission on the one hand and those who are anxious to see the amenities of this country preserved on the other hand. Such a conflict of interests is, in the circumstances, inevitable, and the question which your
402
Lordships have mainly before you this afternoon is what is the best way of reconciling these conflicting interests. The noble Lord who moved the Motion thinks that the best method of doing that is to appoint a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. That Committee, as my noble friend the Earl of Crawford pointed out, would necessarily be a peripatetic body which would have to travel over the whole of the country, deciding questions probably of acute controversy, and, as my noble friend said, meeting at all turns experts on the question. The Government do not think that the best way of dealing with this matter would be to appoint a Select Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, suggested that the Forestry Commission might very well plant their forests on the moors of Yorkshire. I do not know if the noble Lord knows some of the moors of Yorkshire as well as I do, but I can promise him that if a Select Committee made that proposal there would be just as great an agitation on the part of the people in the area affected as there is now. The real fact of the matter is that nearly the whole of the plantable country is country of which the amenities may be affected by large schemes of afforestation. The Government are of the opinion that by far the best method of trying to reconcile these conflicting interests is continuance of the negotiations which, as has been explained, have been going on for some time past with an informal Committee representing the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the National Trust and the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, to see to what extent they can come to an agreement with the Forestry Commission over this question.
With regard to the more special question—that is to say, the scheme for the afforestation of part of the Eskdale and Dunnerdale Valleys—I have to make this observation. I am told, and I believe correctly, that the former owner of this land had every intention of afforesting it himself. He certainly sold it to the Forestry Commission on the understanding that it was sold for afforestation. I sympathise with those who object very strongly to what have been described as these great blisters of conifers being spread over the Eskdale hillsides, but as a result of the negotiations of which I

403
have spoken between the informal Committee and the Forestry Commission, a large measure of agreement—I do not say complete agreement—has been reached. Of the 8,000 acres which the Forestry Commission bought in these two valleys they now propose to plant only some 1,600 or 1,700 acres. They have also undertaken to pay special attention to the amenities of the valleys.
I noticed that the noble Lord who moved this Motion poured a little scorn upon the suggestion that the Forestry Commissioners will pay attention to the amenities in their planting. He said it was very much as if a garage owner set up a petrol station outside the door of a Cathedral at the same time telling the Dean and Chapter that he would pay every possible attention to the amenities of the matter. The analogy is not at all a tenable one. As my noble friend the Earl of Crawford explained, the Forestry Commissioners have agreed to plant, so far as they are going to plant in Eskdale at all, with due consideration to the contours of the hillside. More than that, they have agreed, so far as that may be possible, to include hard wood along with the soft wood which they propose to plant. In those circumstances I think it is reasonable to say that the Forestry Commissioners have, so far as they can, met the demands of those who wish to preserve intact the amenities of the Eskdale Valley.
May I make an appeal to both parties in this controversy? May I appeal to the Forestry Commission, on the one hand, to endeavour to meet, so far as they can, the requirements of those who stand for the preservation of the amenities of the countryside? I am sure they will appreciate as the result of this debate in your Lordships' House this evening how strong is the feeling on questions of this kind. On the other hand, I make an appeal to those who are standing for the preservation of the amenities of the countryside in their turn to endeavour to appreciate the nature of the task which has been imposed by Parliament upon the Forestry Commission and the difficulties with which the Commissioners are necessarily faced in carrying out their task, since it is a fact that the amount of plantable land in this country is not nearly so large as is sometimes supposed. I make that appeal
404
particularly to the Forestry Commission in connection with this great scheme of afforestation in the neighbourhood of the Special Areas. It is quite true that large parts, if not the whole, of the Lake District come within the area which might be covered by this scheme of afforestation which is being undertaken in the interests of the Special Areas. I sympathise entirely with the proposals which have been made by my noble friends and by the Standing Committee of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, for the preservation, untouched by the activities of the Forestry Commission, of as large as possible an area in the Lake District. I trust that that is an appeal which will not fall upon deaf ears.
Now, my Lords, I do not think there is any more that I need say, for most of the questions which have been asked me have been answered by one speaker or another in the course of this debate. I listened with great interest and with great pleasure to the speech which was made by my noble friend Lord Ullswater, and, if I might say so, I should like to join in the congratulations which were offered to him on the happy event which was recorded in the papers to-day. The noble Viscount is very familiar not only with these problems but also with the particular area of country which is concerned, and when men like the noble Viscount who know the country urge the continuation of the negotiations on the lines on which they are now proceeding, I think your Lordships may be satisfied that, at this present time at any rate, that is the best course for you to pursue with a view to arriving at the happiest possible solution of this question.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, you would not wish me at this hour to attempt to reply to the points made by the noble Marquess and other noble Lords, although it would be possible to reply to some of them. I should only like to say that I am in some ways sorry that much of this debate has taken the form of a defence of the Forestry Commission. I am sure it was not my intention, and I have no doubt it was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Penrith, to make this Motion the occasion for an attack on the nature, constitution and general activities of the Forestry Commission. The question is, is it

405
making a mistake in this one particular localised instance? and on that point I am not yet entirely converted.
I should like to say that I was sorry to hear the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, charge me—I do not know on what grounds—with being one who detests the conifer. I was brought up and spent the first twenty-one years of my life in a country full of conifers; I passionately love conifers; I hate being away from conifers; and I eagerly look forward, after two or three months' absence, to being in a short time once more in that country. But I like conifers in the right place, and the question is whether Eskdale and Dunnerdale are the right places. On that point it seems to me that no speaker in the debate, with the possible exception of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, was quite at ease. There were many defences of the Forestry Commission in general, but whether it really has selected the right land for these conifers in those two particular valleys did not seem to me to be a matter on which any of the speakers, with that one possible exception, really felt himself confident.
I do hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government and the Forestry Commission will read the speeches which noble Lords have delivered. I quite appreciate the difficulty which many noble Lords have felt about the appointment of a Select Committee, and therefore I do not think Lord Howard would wish me, and I do not propose, to divide the House on this question. I hope, however, that His Majesty's Government and the Forestry Commission will realise that there are very strong feelings on this point and will do their best even now to spare this district from this particular fate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

RADIO ADVERTISING.
LORD KILMAINE LORD KILMAINE rose to ask His Majesty's Government if something cannot be done to stop the Independent Broadcasting Company of London, who broadcast through Radio Normandie and Luxembourg, from advertising patent medicines and fortune tellers, such publicity being likely to lead to harm. The noble Lord said, My Lords, the Independent Broadcasting Company, with which my question deals, is an English
406
company with headquarters in Hallam Street, London. It operates by means of gramophone records which are made in London and sent out by the company to Radio Normandie and Radio Luxembourg to be broadcast from those stations to this country. This has been going on for some time. Now this company has become a purely advertising company, and I venture to think that not only has it become a perfect nuisance to hosts of listeners, but it has also become a danger. It is chiefly occupied in transmitting records which deal with patent medicines, disinfectants, cheap matches, forms of gambling such as Vernon's Pools and the Irish National Sweepstake, and fortune tellers, for instance, a Professor Eltana. They send records, if you please, to these countries advising people to write to him, in which case he will send them their horoscopes and tell them what the stars foretell of their future.
It is incredible to think that a company can operate and advertise patent medicines—I will not mention their names; your Lordships have listened in and have heard them—in this public mariner when there are hosts of invalids and young and nervous people in this country who may be induced thereby to take these remedies without any advice from their doctors and without realising that the company which advocates them does so for money paid to it and not because it believes in these specifics. I have here the report of the Broadcasting Committee, 1935, and I will venture to read two extracts from it:
" It has been widely recognised that the practice of excluding advertisements from broadcast programmes in this country is to the advantage of listeners. In recent years, however, this policy has been contravened, and the purposes sought by the unified control of broadcasting have been infringed, by the transmission of advertisements in English from certain stations abroad, which are not subject to the influence of the British authorities except by way of international agreement and negotiation. As long ago as May of 1933 this matter was brought before the Council of the International Broadcasting Union."
Then there is this recommendation:
" That the responsible Departments should take all the steps which are within their power with a view to preventing the broadcasting from foreign stations of advertisement programmes, intended for this country, to which objection has been taken."
I fully realise that it is impossible for any Government of this country to deal

407
with a foreign broadcasting station without international agreement. But surely, if a company which operates in London, and is an English company, makes these records at a known address in London and sends them out, it can be made illegal for them to do such things. Recently, when the whole nation was mourning the death of our well-beloved and much lamented King, this English company by means of its records gave out that same advertising programme, only they said: "The programme which comes now is sent you by the courtesy of Messrs. So-and-so "—namely, the makers of some patent medicine or other—" but owing to the feeling in the country the programme has been altered to one of sacred music." Imagine the bad taste—I could use another word—of advertising Sanitas or a patent drug by means of sacred music. I beg to ask the Government whether something cannot be done to stop what a host of listeners consider to be a public nuisance and a danger to the community.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having withdrawn a Motion similar to this which was down for discussion at the beginning of February last. Since
408
that date we have had the good fortune to receive the Report of the Broadcasting Committee presided over by Lord Ullswater. In that Report they make recommendations regarding advertising programmes given over services in this country and other countries of the world. It has invariably been the practice of successive Governments, and of the British Broadcasting Corporation, to look with disfavour upon anything approaching advertisements in this country or elsewhere. The recommendations in the Report are at present being considered by the Government, and I do not think it would be proper for me to give the noble Lord any information concerning their examination until such is made public. However, I can assure him that the very question which he has put down for discussion to-day is one of the matters under consideration. I hope that in those circumstances he will be satisfied with my reply, and will not press me to give further information at present.
LORD KILMAINE: I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and am quite satisfied.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.

RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petitions for additional provisions in the following Bills:—
London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers),
Southern Railway,
ought to be dispensed with: Read, and agreed to.

NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
WARKWORTH HARBOUR BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
SOUTH ESSEX WATERWORKS BILL.
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, without amendment.
HASSOCKS AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented, praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.