Sitting of 15 December 1936

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
HIS MAJESTY'S ACCESSION.

  ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir George Penny) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address [14th December], as followeth:
  I have received with deep satisfaction the loyal Address of the House of Commons upon My Accession to the Throne.
  The Queen and I thank you for the expression of your devotion. You may be assured that it is My determination to do all that lies within My power to safeguard the liberties of My People and to promote their prosperity and contentment.
  I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon My Reign.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Earsdon Joint Hospital District) Bill.
  Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

  MEMBERS SWORN.
  Several Members took and subscribed the Oath or made the Affirmation required by Law.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  RAILWAYMEN, DOMINIONS (FORTY-HOUR WEEK).
  Mr. WATKINSasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in which of the Dominions the 40-hour week for railwaymen has been introduced and the number of people affected in each case?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am making inquiries and as soon as my information is complete, I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

    SEDITION ACT.
    Mr. CREECH JONESasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Sedition Act, as passed by the Southern Rhodesian Parliament, has been submitted to him; and whether he is prepared to recommend disallowance?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: The Act was forwarded to me in the usual course, but as it contained no provisions which do not apply equally to Europeans and natives, it did not fall within the special provisions of the Constitution relating to the classes of Bills which the Governor is required to reserve for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure. The Governor was, therefore, informed that His Majesty would not be advised to exercise his powers of disallowance in respect of it.
    Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Bill will adversely affect freedom of speech, and dissension among the native people?
    Mr. MacDONALD: The Bill will affect the native and European population in exactly the same way.

    COTTON RESEARCH AND INDUSTRY BOARD.
    Mr. CREECH JONESasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will inquire of the Southern Rhodesian Government whether the proposed Cotton Board is to be constituted on lines similar to the maize board, which differentiated against the natives and in its actual operation restricted the local markets for the natives' produce?
    Mr. M, MacDONALD: I am informed by the Government of Southern Rhodesia that the Southern Rhodesia Cotton Research and Industry Board is in no way similar to the Maize Control Board in its constitution or functions. The board's duties will be to foster the cotton industry and assist in the marketing of crops with equal opportunities to European and native producers.
    Mr. JONES: Will not the effect of the new proposal be that definite economic restrictions will be imposed on the natives'? Will there not be trading restrictions?
    Mr. MacDONALD: One of the duties of the board will be to endeavour to expand the industry.

    NATIVES REGISTRATION ACT.
    Mr. CREECH JONESasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that protests have been made by persons or bodies representing native interests in Southern Rhodesia against the pass system embodied in the recent Natives Registration Act, on account of the hardship caused to the African community and the interference with native trade in the townships; and whether he will make representation to the Government for modification of the Act as it affects the native population?
    Mr. AMMONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will make a further statement regarding the protests made to the Government in Rhodesia against the passage of the Natives Registration Bill; and whether he is now satisfied that such protests were received by that Government?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: I have been informed by the Governor of Southern Rhodesia that representations regarding certain clauses of the Natives Registration Act were made to the Chief Native Commissioner in Southern Rhodesia by the Native Association after a draft of the Bill had been published in the Gazette for general information. These representations received full consideration by the Southern Rhodesia Government, and as a result various amendments were made in the Bill before it was passed.
    Mr. AMMON: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon.
    2250
    Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) on 26th May last was incorrect?
    Mr. MacDONALD: I am afraid it does. I made that answer on information telegraphed to me from Southern Rhodesia. I am afraid that information was inaccurate, and this answer corrects what I then said.

    NATIVE RESERVE FUND.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, seeing that there is a Native Reserve Fund in Southern Rhodesia, he is prepared to ask the Government of Southern Rhodesia to consider the advisability of publishing the audited accounts of this fund?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: I understand that the practice is for the accounts of the fund to be laid on the Table of the Southern Rhodesia House of Assembly, though they would not in the ordinary course be printed except by order of the House.
    Mr. AMMON: Should not there be some means of ascertaining exactly how this fund stands?
    Mr. MacDONALD: That information is at the disposal of members of the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia when the information is laid on the Table. I will take up with the Governor the question of whether it can automatically be published without the special order of the local Legislature.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the Government of Southern Rhodesia pretty well that of an independent State, and why should we be overhauling it?

    NEWFOUNDLAND (RECRUITING, ROYAL NAVY).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether there are any arrangements or machinery at present existing that will permit men residing in Newfoundland who desire to enlist in His Majesty's Royal Navy to be finally examined and accepted for recruitment; and whether he will give particulars of any extension that is being considered of the existing arrangement?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: There is no machinery at present for final examination in Newfoundland, but facilities are

    2251
    provided, when possible, for provisional examination in one of His Majesty's ships when visiting St. John's. The question of extending the existing arrangements is now under active consideration; I am not at present in a position to give further particulars.
    Mr. DAY: Are not some arrangements being considered that exist for the other Dominions?
    Mr. MacDONALD: The question of the other Dominions is a totally different question. There are different conditions there, and I should have to look into the situation before giving an answer.
    Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the best men in the Navy in the last War came from Newfoundland, and will he give every facility for recruiting?
    Mr. MacDONALD: I am aware of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. We are considering the question of increasing facilities for recruitment.

    DECLARATION OF ABDICATION ACT (DOMINIONS).
    Mr. GARRO JONESasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what attitude has been adopted by the Dominions, including the Irish Free State, towards the new Act of Settlement?
    Mr. M. MaoDONALD: As was explained in the Debate last Friday, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa associated themselves with the Act which was passed that day through this Parliament. As regards the Irish Free State, the Dail on Saturday last passed an Act which included provision to give effect to His former Majesty's Instrument of Abdication and the necessary consequential change in the succession.

  SCOTLAND.

    FISHING VESSELS (CREWS, ABERDEEN).
    Sir DOUGLAS THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in Aberdeen men signing on or signing off a fishing vessel pay a fee of one shilling to the
    2252
    Board of Trade; whether he can recommend any reduction of this charge; and whether he will consider instituting a reduced fee of sixpence for intermediate signings on and off, even if the fee of one shilling remains for the half-yearly period?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have received representations on this matter from several quarters. There are substantial difficulties in the way of adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I will arrange for the matter to be reexamined.
    Sir D. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a reduction of these charges would be most welcome to men in a very hardly-pressed industry at the present time?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is there any reason why fishermen should be treated differently from the men in the Mercantile Marine?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The conditions of employment are not identical.
    Mr. GARRO JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Aberdeen is the only port at which these fees are charged; that the total amount does not amount to more than £1,000 per annum; and, in view of the great irritation aroused by the charging of these frequent fees, does he not think that it would be a wise policy to abolish them altogether?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already said that I am having the subject reexamined.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that such a charge on the men of Aberdeen will be felt there more than in any other parts of Scotland?

    HOUSING.
    Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of houses demolished to date by the Edinburgh Corporation under the two St. Leopards improvement schemes and the number of houses built on the cleared sites?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Elliot): At 30th November out of 2,219 occupied houses scheduled for demolition 1,762 had been

    2253
    demolished. The total number of houses to be built on the cleared sites is approximately 290, of which 146 have already been completed.
    Mr. GUY: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is a strong demand for the new houses in the central sites and, with due regard to density reduction, does he not consider that there might be better progress made in demolition and the provision of new houses on the cleared site?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am not at all satisfied with the progress of housing in any of the main centres of Scotland.
    Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses built by the Edinburgh Corporation in the financial years 1934, 1935, and 1936?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The numbers of houses completed in the years referred to were 1,848, 838, and 432 respectively.
    Mr. GUY: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the excuse put forward, namely, the shortage of bricklayers, is a sufficient excuse for this very sharp drop in the number of houses?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am examining that now. I do not think that there can be any excuse for a drop of that size.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that in 1934 there were over 1,000 houses built, and in 1936 about 400? What is the explanation for the difference, seeing that it is not a Labour town council that is operating in Edinburgh?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The number was 1,800, and it fell to 432. I think this fall in both Glasgow and Edinburgh is greatly to be deplored.
    Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of condemned houses in Edinburgh which are still occupied and the number of houses which were found to be overcrowded by the survey made under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935?
    Mr. ELLIOT: At 30th November the number of occupied houses to be demolished or closed under orders made by the corporation was 715. It is estimated that there are approximately 6,000 unfit houses in the city which have not yet
    2254
    been made the subject of official representations by the medical officer of health. The number of overcrowded houses revealed by the survey was 19,746, comprising 2,645 unfit and 17,101 fit houses.
    Mr. GUY: Do not these figures indicate that the Edinburgh Corporation will have to build considerably more than 1,000 new houses per annum to overhaul the arrears
    Mr. ELLIOT: I think they will be a long time overhauling the arrears at the present rate.
    Mr. WATSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the attempt to induce bricklayers to leave the municipal housing scheme at Cowdenbeath, Fife, for other work; whether, in fact, any have left; and whether, in view of the shortage of men on that job, lie can do anything to prevent bricklayers leaving schemes where municipal houses are urgently required?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am informed that two bricklayers have recently left the scheme in question for employment with another firm of contractors. With regard to the last part of the question, I am fully aware of the difficulties arising from the shortage of building labour in Scotland and am at present in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on the subject. I have, however, no power to prevent workmen transferring their labour.

    SHERIFFS SUBSTITUTE (SALARIES).
    Mr. CASSELLSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether in light of the Government's proposed policy relative to the increase of salaries payable to English judges, he is prepared to consult with the Scottish Sheriffs Substitute Association in order to ascertain from that body its view on salaries at present paid to sheriffs' substitutes in Scotland?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have received representations from the Association of Sheriffs Substitute for a revision of salaries, and am in communication with the Treasury on the subject. Before a final decision is reached I propose to communicate with the association.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the Secretary of State for Scotland keep in view the fact that the sheriffs substitute in Scotland have a much wider jurisdiction than county court judges in England, and as they have a far more onerous task are they not entitled to the same pay?
    Mr. CASSELLS: May I take it that this vexed question will have favourable consideration by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It will have every consideration by my Department, and I have been in communication with the Treasury on the subject.

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
    Mr. MATHERSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now make a statement as to the action the Government intend to take to give effect to the findings of the committee on farm workers in Scotland?
    Mr. KIR KWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the average weekly wage, including cash and allowances, comparing 1930–31 with 1934–35, dropped from 36s. 6d. to Ms. ld. for ploughmen, for cattlemen from 38s. 3d. to 35s. 9d., and for shepherds from 38s. 7d. to 36s. ld.; and whether, seeing that wages of this character will not keep workers on the land, he will say what he is prepared to do to improve the wages of agricultural workers in Scotland?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I hope to be in a position to snake a statement on this subject when the House reassembles after Christmas.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has answered my question. That is not an answer at all, and he will not get away with it in that way.

    HERRING INDUSTRY BOARD.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the statutory powers of the Herring Industry Board are adequate for the proper discharge of its functions?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have no grounds for supposing that the Herring Industry Board have hitherto been hampered by lack of powers. I understand, however, that the Board are giving close consideration to the question whether their existing powers are sufficient for dealing with future developments of the industry.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: If the Board come to the conclusion that more powers are necessary, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to introduce the necessary legislation?
    Mr. ELLIOT: That is a hypothetical question, but I will give the matter sympathetic consideration.

    OATS.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to announce the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to oats?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I regret I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answers which I gave on this subject on 24th November.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many more years are to pass before the Government make up their minds?
    Mr. ELLIOT: If the price of oats continues to rise as it has done recently it may be a long time.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for Adjournment.

    DEER FORESTS.
    Mr. LESLIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider the advisability of taking action to acquire deer forests in the Highlands, which were formerly cultivated lands, in order to establish national cattle ranches for the purpose of safeguarding food supplies in the event of a national crisis?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for the Mary-hill Division (Mr. Davidson) on the 8th instant.
    Mr. LESLIE: Would it not be wiser to graze cattle than to allow these forests to be used for deer and shooting purposes?
    Mr. ELLIOT: If the hon. Member will take the cattle after they have been grazed I have no objection.
    Sir EDMUND FINDLAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not encourage employment on farms in Scotland until he has put the farms in Scotland on a satisfactory basis?
    Mr. MATHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement with regard to the acreage under deer forests in Scotland, 3,350,000 acres, is looked upon as a gross under-statement of the position, and that the deer are devastating something more like 6,000,000 acres?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I do not think that arises out of the question.

    PUBLIC RECORDS.
    Sir SAMUEL CHAPMANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the better preservation and custody of Scottish records?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Proposals for the better preeservation and custody of the public records of Scotland (including Sheriff Court records) have been the subject of consultation with the various authorities and Departments concerned; and when the necessary details have been adjusted it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation on the subject.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
    Mr. CASSELLSasked the Lord Advocate whether he is prepared to introduce legislation for Scotland bringing all dwelling-houses within the Rent Restrictions Acts and thereby to constitute control of such subjects?
    Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. The Rent Restrictions Acts expire, so far as Scotland is concerned, on 28th May, 1938, and it is still too early to consider what action may be necessary thereafter.
    Mr. CASSELLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider any representations which I might make to his Department in connection with this particular matter?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. I will gladly do that.

    MOTOR ACCIDENTS (LITIGATION).
    Mr. CASSELLSasked the Lord Advocate whether he is prepared to recommend legislation to permit of action for damages in respect of alleged negligence on the part of motor users to be judicially heard in the court possessing jurisdiction over the locus of the accident; and thereby permit of financially embarrassed litigants having their legal rights properly dealt with?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): No, Sir.
    Mr. CASSELLS: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be prepared to consider any representations which I might care to make to his Department in connection with this matter?
    Mr. COOPER: Certainly.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    STEEL (IMPORTS).
    Mr. R. ACLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make relating to charges and profits made by the British Iron and Steel Federation upon imports of steel?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am glad of this opportunity to modify and amplify the information on this subject which I gave in Debate on 24th November. As a result of further inquiries I am informed that on the annual importation of 525,000 tons of steel under the cartel agreement, the British Iron and Steel Federation make an office charge of 6d. a ton, based on the prices ruling in March, 1936, with an additional 1d. a ton for every increase of 2s. 6d. a ton in price since that date, after the first increase of 2s. 6d. a ton. In addition, about 300,000 tons of semi-manufactured steel have been bought by the federation at fixed prices to meet actual or anticipated shortages in this country, and about 240,000 tons have been delivered. All this material, with the exception of 600 tons, is of a kind used only by members of the federation and has been sold to them, sometimes at a loss and sometimes at a profit, at the prices ruling at the time of sale for British material of a similar kind. Up to the present the transaction has resulted, after deduction of administrative expenses, in a profit to the federation equivalent, on the average, to 2s. 5½d. a ton, but it is not yet possible to estimate the result to the federation of the transaction as a whole.
    Mr. ACLAND: While thanking the hon. Member for his statement, is it not the fact that this increase in the imports of steel will only occur at times when the supply of steel is very much short of demand; and is it not, therefore, overwhelmingly likely that a profit will always

    2259
    be made on those transactions, and what will become of the profits which are so made?
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Are we to understand in the House that every endeavour will be made by the Iron and Steel Federation to increase their supplies of steel in this country and avoid the excessive imports which have taken place.
    Dr. BURGIN: Both of the matters raised in these questions are quite separate from those in the question on the Paper. Certainly, the iron and steel industry of this country desires to supply, as far as possible, the requirements of our own country. With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland), that was a pure hypothesis, and obviously is not a matter with which I can deal now.
    Mr. BENSON: As the hon. Gentleman said that 300,000 tons was steel only used by members of the Federation, does that mean that the Federation did not import steel used by non-members and get the advantage of importation purely for their members?
    Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir, it does not mean anything of the kind. What it says is that 300,000 tons of semi-manufactured steel was bought by the Federation in certain circumstances. With the exception of a small quantity of about 600 tons that was of a kind used only by members of the Federation, it refers to a particular purchase to meet a particular shortage.

    CANNED GOODS.
    Mr. LESLIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability, in the interests of fair traders and the consuming public, of introducing legislation to make it compulsory that all canned foods should bear the origin and date of canning?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that canned goods, whether canned in this country or abroad, are usually sold with an indication of origin. As regards imported canned goods, it is open to the interests concerned to apply for an Order under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926. For the rest, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to the hon. and gallant
    2260
    Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) on 19th November.
    Mr. LESLIE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be possible for that kind of goods to bear the date of canning, because in the case of fruits they ought to be used within from six to 12 months, otherwise their food value is gone?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That aspect of the question comes within the purview of the Ministry of Health, and not of the Board of Trade.

    RIVETS (STATISTICS).
    Mr. STOREYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state for 1935 and 1936, to date, the production of iron and steel rivets in this country and the quantity imported?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of the United Kingdom production and imports of rivets are not distinguished separately from those of washers, and 1934 is the latest year for which the production of rivets and washers in the aggregate is available. The total imports of iron and steel rivets and washers amounted to 1,991 tons during the year 1935 and to 3,095 tons during the first 11 months of 1936.
    Mr. STOREY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the importation of foreign rivets has increased by three and a half times since 1934, that the bulk of these rivets go to shipyards on the River Wear, where works are being closed, solely owing to foreign competition, and will he take steps to safeguard the interests of other works on the North-East Coast?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The reason why rivets and other materials were given freedom of entry was in order to facilitate shipbuilding.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the rivets we want in this country can be made in Birmingham?

    TRADE AGREEMENTS.
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give particulars of any notice given or received to terminate any commercial agreements between Great Britain and foreign countries for the year ending 1936?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Trade Agreement of 1933 with Argentina was terminated on 20th November. A new agreement, which was signed on 1st December, operates provisionally, pending ratification, from 20th November.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many more agreements are liable to be terminated this year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That does not arise out of this question.

    EGYPT AND SUDAN (COTTON PIECE-GOODS, IMPORTS).
    Sir WALTER SMILESasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the numbers of yards of cotton piece-goods imported from this country into Egypt and into the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan for the six months ended 30th November, 1936, or to the nearest convenient date?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the six months ended November, 1936, the exports from this country of cotton piece-goods of United Kingdom manufacture registered as consigned to Egypt amounted to 31,370,000 square yards and to the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, 1,065,000 square yards.
    Sir W. SMILES: Are the conditions of entry of cotton goods into Egypt and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan the same, and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reason for the small exports to the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan is due to Japanese competition?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot answer that question without notice.

    JAPANESE MADE-UP GARMENTS (IMPORTS).
    Sir W. SMILESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there has been any increase or otherwise in the amount and value of made-up garments imported into this country from Japan to the disadvantage of the home manufacturers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Provisional figures for the first ten months of this year show that imports of made-up garments from Japan are about the same in value as compared with the corresponding period last year and less than in the corresponding period of 1934.

    BACON (PRICES).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED NOXasked the President of the Board of
    2262
    Trade what was the average price per lb. of bacon in the years 1930, 1931, and 1932?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Based on the monthly retail prices recorded by the Ministry of Labour, the average price per lb. of bacon in the years 1930 to 1932 was

    s.

    d.

    1930

    1

    4

    1931

    0

    11½

    1932

    0

    10

    Sir A. KNOX: Is this reduction in price due to change of Government?

    IMPORTED DAIRY PRODUCTS.
    Mr. TURTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he received the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee relating to imported dairy products; and with what countries were the Government negotiating for a reduction of imports of these products on the date of the receipt of the recommendations?
    The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The recommendations were received on 3rd June, 1936. Negotiations were in progress with the Netherlands and Denmark.
    Mr. TURTON: As the reorganisation Commission have recommended the adoption of a subsidy policy and against a quantative regulation, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his attitude to that report by the Advisory Committee?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think we had better await the result of the inquiry.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether notice of denunciation of the treaties with foreign countries has been given?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer that question without notice.

    SHARE PUSHING (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
    Dr. LEECHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will request the committee which is inquiring about bucket shops to collect information, in relation to bucket shops, about the exploitation of investors by the abuse of the system known as private introduc-

    2263
    tions and private placings of stocks and shares?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: While it does not appear that the practice of private introductions and placings of stocks and shares as ordinarily understood falls within the committee's terms of reference, the committee will no doubt give full consideration to any analogous practices of a fraudulent character connected with share-pushing and share-hawking which may come to their notice. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any such cases which he has in mind I will see that they are forwarded to the committee.
    Mr. LEACH: Will this committee have authority to examine the status of stock exchanges, many of which are merely private clubs?

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SHIPBUILDING CAPACITY.
    Miss WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the demands made on available shipyards, he would consider discussing with National Ship-Builders Securities, Limited, the advisability of reopening some of the yards closed under their auspices?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question of the sufficiency of shipbuilding capacity is kept under constant review and is discussed from time to time with National Shipbuilders Security, Limited. I understand that at present, in spite of the improved conditions, the work obtainable is sufficient to occupy only 55 per cent. of the available capacity. There is, I fear, no prospect of finding work for yards additional to those already available.
    Miss WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that foreign owners wanting ships built in this country can get the same consideration as they have had previously; and might not that be a point worth discussion with the shipbuilders?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As far as I know, they are in no way impeded by the shortage of berths. The number of berths now available is more than the number of orders that can be placed.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the difficulty that there are not enough men available for the work?
    Mr. STOREY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that within the last few weeks the National Ship-Builders Securities, Limited, have purchased a modern yard on the Wear, and if he is not prepared to consider reopening the yards which have already been closed down, will he at any rate take steps to see that no further yards are closed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will send particulars of that case, I will have it inquired into.

    PILOTAGE, PORT OF LONDON.
    Lord APSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Dutch motor-ships and barges coming into the Port of London are persistently evading pilotage in a compulsory area on the inward journey, and that when outward bound, though unable to avoid pilotage, they take a pilot with reluctance, and on more than one occasion the pilots have been offended by the persistent violence of the Dutch captains' language and behaviour throughout the journey; and whether he will make representations to the Dutch authorities on the subject so as to avoid any possibility of an international incident?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed by Trinity House that, apart from a serious complaint received from a pilot who recently piloted a Dutch motor vessel outwards, and which they have not yet fully investigated, they are unaware either of any persistent evasion of pilotage in the London district or of conduct on the part of the Dutch captains of the nature referred to in the question. They understand, however, that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction among the pilots at the lack of civility not infrequently shown by captains of Dutch ships. I am asking Trinity House to furnish me with the result of their investigations into the case referred to, and I will then consider whether representations to the Dutch authorities are called for.
    Lord APSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the danger to other ships in these very narrow channels, that the captain cannot possibly navigate his

    2265
    ship and engage in conversation with the pilot, and that the pilot cannot do his job if at the same time he is in conversation with the captain?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a situation that will be kept in mind.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that incivility among seamen is quite different from incivility among landsmen?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I quite realise that an amount of latitude of language is granted to bargees which is not enjoyed by others.

    CANDIDATES' EXAMINATION CENTRES.
    Mr. WINDSORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the difficulties of candidates sitting for the Mercantile Marine examinations in having to travel long distances for such examinations, he will arrange for Hull to be made an examination centre?
    Mr. LAWasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of arranging for examinations of candidates wishing to enter the Mercantile Marine to he held at Hull?
    Mr. MUFFasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to reinstate Hull as a centre for examinations for the granting of certificates to candidates for the Mercantile Marine?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question whether it is desirable that additional examination centres should be opened has been very carefully considered and arrangements will be made for examinations to be held at Hull and at Leith, in addition to London, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cardiff, Glasgow and Belfast as at present. The date of the re-opening of these centres will be fixed so as to avoid any interference with the safety work of the Board of Trade Surveyors.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL UNITS, ORKNEY AND SHETLAND.
    Major NEVEN-SPENCEasked the Secretary of State for War whether any consideration has been given to the ques-
    2266
    tion of raising Territorial Army units in the counties of Orkney and Shetland?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): This matter is under consideration.
    Major NEVEN-SPENCE: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in both these counties there were highly efficient Territorial units in existence at the outbreak of the Great War, and that at the present time there is a very keen desire in both counties to get units established at the earliest possible date?

    FILMS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give particulars of any numbers of units or equipment under his control that have been used for the production of films for commercial purposes during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and what payment has been received by those taking part in such films and by his Department for the use of such units and equipment?
    Mr. COOPER: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not readily available and could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour. The payments made to military personnel taking part in the films are at rates not less than those current in the industry, and the fees charged to film companies vary in accordance with the services rendered, but I do not regard it as being in the public interest to give figures.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any units are being used at the present time?

    ALDERSHOT TATTOO.
    Sir ROBERT YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to say what were the receipts and expenses incurred in connection with the last military tattoo at Aldershot; how was the balance of income, if any, allocated; and what were the charitable and other institutions benefited?
    Mr. COOPER: The total receipts at the last Aldershot Tattoo were £91,000, and the expenses, including £15,000 for improvements and maintenance of the Rushmoor Arena, and a grant of £10,000 to the Eastern Command Trust for the services rendered by the troops of that

    2267
    command, were approximately £63,000. The balance, apart from an addition of £9,000 to the reserve fund and the allocation of £1,000 for headquarter charities, was distributed by the trustees, partly to Service charities, and partly for increased recreational facilities, in the area from which the troops taking part in the Tattoo were drawn.
    Sir R. YOUNG: May we take it that all this money is used for Service purposes?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the time taken up by the troops in preparing for this entertainment is justified by the money secured?
    Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this year for the first time for many years certain regimental charities will have no grant, that they have been informed that they will receive no grant, and no reason has been given, and is it fair, in view of the amount of money available, that this year they should be knocked off the grant?
    Mr. COOPER: I imagine that what they did not get went to some other regimental charity.

    UNIFORM AND KIT (PAY STOPPAGES).
    Sir W. SMILESasked the Secretary of State for War the approximate average weekly stoppages from a soldier's pay on account of extra uniform and kit?
    Mr. COOPER: I am unable to give the specific figure for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks, but the question as to how far soldiers, and in particular recruits, can be relieved of the expense of purchasing certain articles is receiving careful consideration.

    THE CORONATION (DATE).
    Mr. GARRO JONESasked the Lord President of the Council whether, having regard to the dislocation of national activities resulting from continued uncertainty in regard to the date of the Coronation, he can state whether the Coronation will take place on the date already arranged?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Yes, Sir. His Majesty The King has decided that the Coronation of himself and of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth shall take place on Wednesday, 12th May, 1937.

    FOREIGN LOANS.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government gradually to relax the present restrictions on foreign trade and upon the movement of capital; and, if so, what steps he is taking to achieve this object?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have constantly in mind the desirability of securing the removal of restrictions on foreign trade and of any restrictions upon the movements of capital which interfere with foreign trade; and the figures of United Kingdom imports show that there are fewer restrictions on trade with this country that elsewhere. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 12th November last to questions by the hon. Members for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) and Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins).
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the object which the Government have in mind might be better achieved if the terms of reference to the Foreign Transactions Advisory Committee were a little less rigid than they are, and will he consider the matter in the future with the object of making the terms a little more flexible?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the terms are very flexible, and no doubt the hon. Member is aware that the embargo on lending to foreign countries does not apply where the loans have a direct influence in increasing British export trade.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Before reconsidering the question of reopening the market for the flotation of foreign loans, will my right hon. Friend send to the hon. Member the list issued by the Council of Foreign Bondholders which shows that millions of money have been lost by the public on foreign loans issued here to investors, to the profit of flotation houses and to bond houses?

    LEGISLATION BY REFERENCE,
    Mr. LEWISasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will arrange that, in future, when any Government Bill seeks to enact a provision by reference to any previous Act of Parliament, copies of the relevant sections of such Act of Parliament shall be circulated to Members at the same time as the text of the Bill is made available to Members?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I would refer my hon. Friend to his question to me on 24th November and to my reply thereto. The alternative suggestion which he now puts forward has been carefully examined, but is found to be open to the same objections as his previous proposal. I regret, therefore, that I do not feel able to adopt it for the reasons given in my previous answer,
    Mr. LEWISDoes the Financial Secretary realise that if hon. Members take Government Bills home in order to study them they are quite unable to apprehend their meaning owing to the system of legislation by reference which makes it impossible for hon. Members to study Government Bills in their own homes with understanding?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have given careful thought to the suggestion and in fact the special printing of a collection of Sections would be even more expensive than the printing of a Bill.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not be well that hon. Members should be able to understand a Bill? Is it not the purpose of the Government to prevent a misunderstanding of Bills?
    Sir JOHN MELLOR: Does the hon. and gallant Member think that but for the purposes of repeal it would be better to avoid the method of reference altogether?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That is another question.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS (MINERS).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can make any statement on
    2270
    the proposed reduction of the pensionable age of miners from 65 to 60?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No specific proposals of this character have, to my knowledge, been put forward. If the hon. Member has any particular proposals in mind, perhaps he will put down a question to myself, if it refers to the system of State pensions, or to my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines if it refers to a scheme outside this system, making it clear precisely what these proposals are.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the reply, in the event of my submitting an approved statement on the whole subject, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be prepared to use his influence with the Cabinet with a view to giving pensions to miners at 60 years of age instead of 65?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I could not answer a question of that nature in advance.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Then what is the use of your being a Minister?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    COKE (IMPORTS).
    Mr. MAGNAYasked the Secretary for Mines whether his Department has information of any proposed further importation of coke from abroad; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): No, Sir.

    OIL EXTRACTION.
    Miss WARDasked the Secretary for Mines what degree of commercial success has to be attained by the experimental plant at Billingham before the Government will consider the establishment of similar plants in the Special Areas?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend has in mind, but I do not think I can say more at present than that, so far as I arts aware, the results of the hydrogenation plant at Billingham do not as yet form an adequate basis on which decisions can be reached as to possible extensions elsewhere.
    Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: In view of the fact that the erection of such plants in the Special Areas has been urged in each report of the Commissioner, may I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman when we may expect some kind of report on the matter?
    Miss WARD: Did not the speech made by the chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries some time ago give some reasonable basis upon which one might expect a report from the Government as to whether it is a commercial success?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I cannot go beyond what I said in the reply, but I shall certainly look up the speech, or perhaps the hon. Lady will send me a copy of it.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what he means and what his Department means by "a commercial success"?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: No one ought to know, what the Department means better than the hon. Gentleman himself, who presided over it.
    Miss WARDasked the Secretary for Mines what data are available in the Mines Department as to what coalfields would be most suitable for the production of oil from coal?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The suitability of a particular coalfield for the production of oil from coal depends primarily on the constitution of the coal, including, among other features, the proportion of volatile matter it contains. Such data have already, to a large extent, been made available by the coal survey which the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is making covering all the coalfields of the country, and which is still continuing.
    Miss WARD: If the experiment which has been initiated is a commercial success, may we expect the establishment of such plants in the Special Areas, and whether the coalfields in the Special Areas would be suitable?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Lady started her supplementary question with a hypothetical question, and that I cannot answer.
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary for Mines the total quantity of petrol
    2272
    produced by hydrogenation in the United Kingdom since the commencement of operations of the Billingham plant; the proportion of that quantity which has been derived from the direct hydrogenation of coal as distinct from other materials; the revenue which would have been raised on a quantity of imported petrol corresponding to the total produced by hydrogenation; and the estimated amount paid in wages to miners for the production of the coal converted into petrol
    Captain CROOKSHANK: As the answer is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    By the courtesy of Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, I am able to say that up to the end of November approximately 170,000 tons or about 50 million gallons of motor spirit had been produced at Billingham. The company is not prepared, for commercial reasons, to state the actual proportion obtained from coal as distinct from coal tar oils, which are the only other raw materials used, but they inform me that the proportion was a large one. On the quantity of petrol mentioned the revenue on an equivalent amount of imported petrol would he about £1,670,000. For the reasons given I am not able to supply the information asked for in the last part of the question. It is, however, the case that the total quantity of coal used at Billingham in connection with the hydrogenation plant up to the end of November was 650,000 tons. Practically all this coal came from Durham, and it is estimated that on this quantity the amount paid to miners in wages including the value of allowances in kind, was about £280,000.

    ORGANISED SELLING SCHEME.
    Dr. LEECHasked the Secretary for Mines what steps have been taken by the Central Council of Colliery Owners since 1st August, 1936, to set up a central system for selling coal for export; and to what extent, and in relation to what countries, it is actually in operation?
    Captain CROOKS, HANK: Since 1st August, 1936, a scheme for the organised sale of coal for export as well as for in-

    2273
    land consumption has been in operation in each coal-mining district. The function of the Central Council of Colliery Owners with regard to the schemes is one of co-ordination of policy and not the establishment of a central system for selling coal for export.

    SAFETY APPLIANCES AND METHODS.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that, owing to the mines of this country becoming more mechanised every year, the pace in the mines is faster than ever before; and whether he is satisfied that every appliance known to science is being adopted to prevent men losing their lives in getting the coal which is necessary for Great Britain?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, every effort has been and is being made to devise safety appliances and safety methods and to secure their adoption in the mines of this country, and I am hoping to receive the benefit of the guidance of the Royal Commission on Safety in regard to some of the difficult problems which are involved.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that everything is being done now to safeguard the lives of men who are getting coal, the most important commodity that we require in Britain at the moment?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: No one can ever be satisfied fully on a question such as this, but I hope I shall have the support of the Press and hon. Members interested in these matters in giving full publicity to such information as appears in the official reports on this subject.

    DURHAM (STATISTICS).
    Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWARTasked the Secretary for Mines the total output of coal in Durham each year from 1929 to 1935; the amount sold inland and the average prices per ton; also the number of tons exported each year during the same period and the price paid per ton?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The required information as to prices and disposals is not available, but I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the available information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:

    Durham.

    Saleable output.

    Tons.

    1929

    39,000,694

    1930

    35,862,756

    1931

    30,248,866

    1932

    27,802,275

    1933

    27,606,127

    1934

    30,590,076

    1935

    30,272,958

    Some information as to the disposal of coal for export supply and inland supply will be found on page 29 of my Annual Report for the year 1935 and the average price realised for all coal disposed of commercially on page 148.

    FIDUCIARY ISSUE.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to make any statement concerning the Fiduciary Issue?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. As a temporary measure it has been decided to increase the amount of gold held in the Issue Department of the Bank of England by £65,000,000. Such a step by itself would, of course, mean a very sharp expansion of the credit base for which there is no justification at the present time. I have, therefore, at the request of the Bank, directed the reduction of the Fiduciary Issue by £60,000,000 under the powers conferred by the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, thus limiting the expansion to small dimensions. I would add that there is no greater permanence in these arrangements than may seem desirable since the fiduciary issue may be increased or diminished at any time in the future in accordance with the provisions of the Act named.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not necessary, under the Act of 1928 to lay a Minute on the Table?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, not in respect of a reduction in the issue, but it would be necessary in the case of an increase.
    Mr. THORNE: Not being a financier, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what object he has in view?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can hardly give that in answer to a question.
    Mr. THORNE: Does that mean that I had better find out myself what object the right hon. Gentleman has in view?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will tell the hon. Gentleman if he will see me afterwards.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: If the right hon. Gentleman were to allow things to follow the normal course and an expansion of credit to take place, would that not greatly stimulate trade and industry, and give a great deal of employment to the people?
    Mr. BELLENGER: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a measure of deflation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I have explained that it is not.
    Mr. SHINWELL: May we have an assurance that this process will not have an adverse effect upon trade?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I can give a definite assurance.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is this limited in length of time by the Gold Standard Act?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not limited in time. There was no specific time mentioned by me in answer to the question, but I explained that it is a temporary measure, and if conditions change there is sufficient flexibility in the arrangement to enable us to alter it.

    CHINA (SITUATION).
    Earl WINTERTON (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give concerning the grave events in Shensi, including the reported capture of General Chiang Kai-Shek?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. I am informed by His Majesty's Ambassador that the Chinese Government confirm the report that on 12th December, General Chiang Kai-Shek was placed under arrest at Sian, the capital of Shensi Province, by troops under the command of Marshal Chang Hsüehliang. The Central Government are despatching troops to Shensi to deal with the situation and pledges of support have
    2276
    been received by them from leaders all over China. I have at present no information regarding subsequent events at Sian.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (ACCIDENTS,NO. 102 SQUADRON).
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement on the circumstances of the crashes and forced landings to six out of the seven aircraft of No. 102 Squadron on Saturday last; whether the Meteorological Service Reports forecasted fog conditions over England in the northern area, whether such reports were handed to the responsible officers before departure, and whether the aircraft were in wireless communication at all times during the flight with ground stations; and, further, will he give an assurance that these and other relevant considerations will be the subject of inquiry in order to prevent a recurrence of such disasters, and will he undertake that a full report shall, as soon as possible, be given to the House?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Courts of Inquiry are now sitting to consider these accidents and in the circumstances I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it is not possible for me to make a statement. As soon, however, as the proceedings of the Courts of Inquiry have been received in the Air Ministry, a full statement will be made to the House. I should like, however, to take this opportunity of expressing publicly my Noble Friend's and my own deep sympathy with the relatives of those who have lost their lives.
    Captain BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Baronet give the House an assurance that the answers to those questions which I have put to him, and which he is unable to answer at the present time, will be embodied in the report which is to be given to this House in due course?
    Sir P. SASSOON: It will be a full statement.
    Captain BALFOUR: But may I ask whether the full statement will include specific replies to these specific questions?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think I can say anything further at the present moment, or while the Court of Inquiry is still sitting.
    Captain BALFOUR: May I press the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the full report will give specific replies to these specific questions, which I am quite content to leave unanswered at the present time in view of the fact that the Court of Inquiry is sitting? May I ask that the House should have an assurance that these specific questions will be answered in the full report?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I hope that the statement will be satisfactory.
    Captain BALFOUR: In view of the very grave and unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I am reluctantly forced to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (LAMBERT v. LEVITA).
  Mr. ATTLEE(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister when the House will be in possession of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Lambert case?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that the report will be in my hands this evening, and in the hands of Members of this House to-morrow afternoon.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask on what date the House will reassemble after the Christmas Recess, and what business is it proposed to take during the week after reassembly.
The PRIME MINISTER: It will be necessary to ask the House to meet on Tuesday, 19th January—a week earlier than was anticipated. We have lost some days, I am sorry to say.
Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: We are not to blame.
The PRIME MINISTER: On that, I accept the blame.
On Tuesday, 19th January, we propose to take the Committee stage of the
2278
Money Resolutions for Empire Settlement and the Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners (Tenure of Office).
Wednesday, 20th January—Second Reading of the Livestock Industry Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Thursday, 21st January—Second Reading of the Beef and Veal Customs Duties Bill and other Orders.
Friday, 22nd January—Private Members' Bills.
On any day, as opportunity offers, other Orders will be taken, including the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
I propose on Thursday next to move a Motion to take Private Members' time on Wednesday, 20th January, and on Friday, 12th March. These days, together with Friday, 22nd January, fall to Private Members by reason of the earlier date of meeting after the Christmas Recess and the taking of Private Members' time last Friday. As I have already announced, it is not proposed to take Friday, 22nd January, for Government business, but to give precedence- on that day to the Private Members' Bills which were displaced last Friday. The remaining Fridays selected in connection with the ballot for Private Members' Bills will not be affected, nor will the Wednesdays remaining for Private Members' Motions on and after Wednesday, 27th January. To put it briefly, we intend to keep Private Members' time exactly the same as it would have been under the Standing Orders had the Christmas Recess lasted until 26th January, as was originally intended.
Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Home Secretary has reported to the Cabinet as to when he is going to introduce the Factories Bill, or must we put down a further question on that subject?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice.
Mr. ATTLEE: How far is it proposed to go to-night in the event of the Eleven o'clock Rule being suspended?
The PRIME MINISTER: We are moving the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule in order to obtain the Committee stage of the Ways and Means Resolutions on the Order Paper, but we propose to take certain items of exempted

2279
business—Import Duties Order No. 31 which relates to rubber aprons and the Clearing Office (Turkey) (No. 2) Order.
Mr. MATHERS: Referring to the business to be taken after the Christmas Recess, may I ask the Prime Minister is he not aware that in bringing Scottish Members back here on the earlier date in January he is running a very grave risk of interfering with the consumption of
haggis? Has the right hon. Gentleman never heard of the name of Robert Burns?
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, 267; Noes, 118.

Division No. 42.]

AYES.

[3.58 p.m.

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

De Chair, S. S.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

De la Bere, R.

Jones, L, (Swansea, W.)

Albery, Sir Irving

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

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

Denville, Alfred

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

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

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

Dodd, J. S.

Lamb, Sir J. O.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Doland, G. F.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Assheton, R.

Donner, P. W.

Latham, Sir P.

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

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Leckie, J. A.

Astor, Visc'tesa (Plymouth, Sutton)

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Atholl, Duchess of

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Duggan, H. J.

Levy, T.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Lewis, O.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Dunglass, Lord

Liddall, W. S.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Lloyd, G. W.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Ellis, Sir G.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Beit, Sir A. L.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Loftus, P. C.

Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.

Elmley, Viscount

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Bernays. R. H.

Emery, J. F.

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

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Bird, Sir R. B.

Entwistle, C. F.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Blair, Sir R.

Errington, E.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Blindell, Sir J.

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

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Bossom, A. C.

Everard, W. L.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Boulton, W. W.

Fildes, Sir H.

Macquisten, F. A.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

Findlay, Sir E.

Magnay, T.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Fleming, E. L.

Maitland, A.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

ManninghamBuller. Sir M.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Fremantle. Sir F. E.

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

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

Furness, S. N.

Markham, S. F.

Bull, B. B.

Ganzoni, Sir J.

Maxwell, S. A.

Bullock, Capt. M.

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

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Burghley, Lord

Gluckstein, L. H.

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

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Goodman, Col. A. W.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton. E.)

Burton, Col. H. W.

Gower, Sir R. V.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Butler, R. A.

Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Moreing, A. C

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

Cartland, J. R. H.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

Carver, Major W. H.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

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

Cary, R. A.

Guy, J. C. M.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'str)

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

Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hamilton, Sir G. C.

Munro, P.

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

Hanbury, Sir C.

Nail, Sir J.

Channon, H.

Hannah, I. C.

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Chapman Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Christie J. A.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Palmer, G. E. H.

Clarke Lt-Col R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Patrick, C. M.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

Peake, O.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

Perkins, W. R. D.

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Plugge, L. F.

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

Holmes, J. S.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

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

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Porritt, R. W.

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

Hopkinson, A.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.

Radford, E. A.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

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

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Ramsbotham, H.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Hunter, T.

Rankin, R.

Cross, R. H.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Crowder, J. F, E.

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

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Cruddas, Col. B.

Jackson, Sir H.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Culverwell, C. T.

James, Wing-Commander A. W.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Davison, Sir W. H.

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Rickards, G. W. (Sklpton)

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

Touche, G. C.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Train, Sir J.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Rowlands, G.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Turton, R. H.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

Smithers, Sir W.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe,

Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Warrender, Sir V.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Salmon, Sir J.

Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.

Wells, S. R.

Salt, E. W.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

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

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Storey, S.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Sandys, E. D.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Savery, Servington

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Withers, Sir J. J.

Scott, Lord William

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Selley, H. R.

Sueter. Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Sutcliffe, H.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Tate, Mavis C.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Simmonds, O E.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Sir George Penny and Lieut. -

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Tichfield, Marquess of

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

NOES.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

Parkinson, J. A.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Potts, J.

Adamson, W. M.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Price, M. P.

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

Hardle, G. D.

Pritt, D. N.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Harris, Sir P. A.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hayday, A.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Barnes. A. J.

Henderson, J. (Ardwlck)

Riley, B.

Barr, J,

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Ritson, J.

Batey, J.

Holdsworth, H.

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

Bellenger, F.

Hollins, A.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Benson, G.

Jagger, J.

Rowson, G.

Bromfield, W.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Salter, Dr. A.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Sanders, W. S.

Burke, W. A

John, W.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Cape, T.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Sexton, T. M.

Cassells, T.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Shinwell, E.

Chater, D.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Short, A.

Cluse W S

Kirkwood, D.

Simpson, F. B.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Lathan, G.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Cocks, F. S.

Lawson, J. J.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Daggar, G.

Leach, W.

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

Dalton, H.

Lee, F.

Sorensen, R. W.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Leonard, W.

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

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Leslie, J. R.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Day, H.

Logan. D. G.

Thorne, W.

Dobbie, W.

Lunn, W.

Thurtle, E.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Tinker, J. J.

Ede, J. C.

MacLaren, A.

Viant, S. P.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Maclean, N.

Walker, J.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Watkins, F. C.

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

Mainwaring, W. H.

Watson, W. McL.

Gallacher, W.

Mathers, G.

Westwood, J.

Gardner, B. W.

Messer, F.

White, H. Graham

Garro Jones, G. M.

Montague, F.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

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

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Naylor, T. E.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Grenfell, D. R.

Owen, Major G.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

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

Paling, W.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Parker, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Mr. Groves and Mr. Whiteley.

MEMBERS SWORN
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.
BILL PRESENTED.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL,
  "to grant money for the purpose of certain local out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to local loans," presented by Lieut-Colonel
  Colville; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed.[Bill 49.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITEES).

    SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
    Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Sheep Stocks Valuation

    2283
    (Scotland) Bill): Mr. D. M. Adams, Mr. Bellenger, Sir Joseph Lamb, Major Leighton, Mr. Radford, Major Rayner, Mr. Ross Taylor, Mr. West Russell, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart, and Mr. Windsor.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  4.7 p.m.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I beg to move,
  "1. BEEF AND VEAL NEW CUSTOMS DUTIES.
  That—
  (a) as from the sixteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, there shall be charged on the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of the classes and descriptions specified in the first column of the following Table, not being Empire products, duties of customs at the rates specified in the second column of that Table:—

  Class or Description of Goods.

  Rate of Duty.

  —

  —

  (i) Beef and veal not preserved in any airtight container (excluding offals and boned and boneless meat)—

  Chilled

  the lb. ¾d.

  Other kinds

  the lb. ⅔d.

  (ii) Boned and boneless beef and veal and edible offals of beef and veal, not being beef, veal or offals preserved in any airtight container, and excluding sweetbreads

  20 per cent. of the value of the goods.

  Provided that no duty shall be chargeable in pursuance of this Resolution in respect of any sausages or pastes, and no duty shall be so chargeable on the importation of tongues before the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution and any other Resolution of this House;
  (b) goods chargeable with duty in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution shall, for the purposes of the Import Duties Act, 1932, be deemed not to be goods chargeable with a duty of customs by or under an enactment other than that Act;
  (c) it is expedient to make, in connection with the imposition of the duties aforesaid, provision wth respect to goods in transit or transhipped, with respect to the re-importation of goods exported, and with respect to drawback of duties, and for enabling the Treasury to repeal or reduce duties having regard to commercial agreements;
  (d) in this Resolution the expression Empire products' has the same meaning as in Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the Finance Act, 1919, as amended by any subsequent enactment."
  2304
  This Resolution, and a second which I shall move later, relating to Customs duties on imported foreign meat and veal and certain other products, will, of course, be followed by a Bill to confirm them, and, as the Prime Minister announced, that will be taken immediately after the Christmas Recess. These Resolutions do not come as a surprise to the Committee. The proposed duties are an essential element of the Government's proposals for the assistance of the cattle industry in this country. The subject has been frequently debated and the general lines of the Government's policy have been fully set out. Before explaining the Resolutions in some detail, I think that the Committee will expect a brief narrative of the course of events which led up to the proposals now submitted.
  The difficulties of producers of cattle in this country, and not alcne in this country but elsewhere, have been a matter of concern to the Government for many years. The Committee will recall that cattle and meat prices slumped heavily in 1931 and 1932 and continued to fall in 1933 and 1934, and have since remained at a low level. Following Ottawa and subsequently, restrictions were placed on the importation of foreign and Irish supplies, but these did not serve to secure satisfactory returns to the home producers. Since 1934, as the Committee are aware, Parliament has voted a subsidy, the cost of which as a temporary arrangement has been borne entirely by the Exchequer. For the time being no other course was available to the Government. It was explained at the time the subsidy was applied that in the Government's view the situation would be best dealt with on a more permanent footing by a levy on imports, coupled with a payment to producers and a measure of supply regulation. Such a plan as that could not have been introduced forthwith.
  The Committee are aware that we were precluded from placing an import duty on foreign meat by the terms of our treaty engagements, and until the expiration last month of the Anglo-Argentine Trade Agreement of 1933, such a duty could not in any case be applied. But, beyond that, the policy that the Government proposed to adopt was of such importance to the Dominions as well as to foreign countries that discussions with Dominion representatives were an essential preliminary.

  2305
  These discussions have now taken place. The Dominions were consulted in 1935, and again this year during the visits of Australian and Canadian Ministers to this country. Negotiations were entered upon with a view to securing a new trade agreement with Argentina in replacement of the agreement of 1933, and the result of those negotiations has already been published and is available to Members in the form of the new agreement.
  The outcome of the long and difficult negotiations is the policy outlined roughly in the Resolutions on the Paper to-day, and in the Livestock Industry Bill which is before the House, will in due course come up for discussion. The date of that discussion was announced to-day. I think it is Wednesday, 20th January, that is fixed for the Livestock Industry Bill, and that will afford full opportunity of discussion on a wider basis than is provided by these Resolutions. The interests to be considered in framing such a policy were many—the pressing needs of the cattle producers, the interests of consumers and our trade relations with Empire and foreign countries. Hon. Members must not forget that when they speak of the consumers' interests in these matters, very important though those interests are, there are also the very important interests of our overseas trade with foreign and Empire countries which have to be considered, as well as the interests of the home producers. It is no easy task to find a policy which fairly reconciles those interests.
  Mr. QUIBELL: Hear, hear.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Member says "Hear, hear," but it is a problem he and his party would have to face if they were ever responsible for the policy of this country. The reconciling of those three interests is not easy.
  Mr. LEACH: It cannot be done.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If that is the view of the hon. Member's party, it evidently cannot be entrusted to handle the affairs of this country, because this is a most essential part of the conduct of those affairs. The case for the producer need not be elaborated further now, because there will be an opportunity for more detailed consideration when the
  2306
  Minister of Agriculture explains the provisions of the Livestock Industry Bill. As regards the consumer, the objective of the Government has always been to secure the maximum possible meat supplies consistent with a reasonable return for the producer. In some quarters it is represented that the Government should deal with the beef problem by imposing a duty on imports sufficient in itself to protect the industry. That is the remedy which is frequently suggested as one that would be sufficient to give protection to the home industry. An alternative suggestion is that the imported supplies of beef should be curtailed in such a way as to raise prices. The Government have rejected these courses because in their view the benefit to the producer could only be obtained at an inordinate cost to the consumer. The policy of the Government of combining an import duty with a subsidy is designed to preserve a proper balance between the interests of the home producer and of the consumer.
  Another interest is that of the overseas trade. I speak of this with feeling, because I worked for four years in the office of Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department in which we negotiated with many foreign countries for the purpose of getting an increase in our overseas trade. I, therefore, know the great difficulty of framing a policy which reconciles these interests. The line the Government are adopting is the only one that can be taken to preserve our overseas trade and at the same time to give a measure of assistance to our home producer in such a way as not to damage the consumers interest unduly. As regards our trade position with the Dominions and Argentina, the Committee need not be reminded that it has been the constant objective of the Government to encourage the development of overseas trade in recent years. They have attained a considerable measure of success in regard both to the Dominions and to foreign countries. It is important that these results should not be prejudiced for the future. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, who will speak later in the Debate, is more qualified to deal with the trade aspect of the situation than I am, but I could not pass from my preliminary remarks without emphasising the great difficulty of reconciling the various in-

  2307
  terests and pointing out that those interests have been fairly met by the policy which the Government are placing before the Committee in this levy subsidy.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The Financial Secretary has made two observations that seem to me to be ominous. Are we to take it from his last statement that we shall have no statement from the Minister of Agriculture on this important matter?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have indicated that the Minister of Agriculture will, on the Livestock Industry Bill, go fully into the agricultural aspect of the question. This Resolution is primarily to raise finance, and it is one that should properly be presented to the Committee by the Minister connected with the Treasury.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman infer that the Minister of Agriculture who is responsible for the Department which is affected by these duties and levies, is to make no statement at all as to their relationship with agriculture and the products with which they deal? If that is so, I am not sure that I shall not have to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Surely the Minister of Agriculture is going to speak in this Debate. The Bill will be based upon this Financial Resolution and will be absolutely limited by it. I shall support a Motion for the Adjournment if we are not to have a speech from the Minister of Agriculture in this important Debate, which is the very prelude to the Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think that the hon. Members misunderstand the position. The Resolution necessarily deals with finance, and it is being properly presented to the Committee by me. The agricultural policy has been discussed on many occasions, and the Committee is not unfamiliar with it. The Minister of Agriculture and his predecessor have spoken about it on a number of occasions. On the Livestock Industry Bill there will be a full opportunity for that aspect of the matter to be discussed. To-day, however, the two Departments concerned are the Treasury, which is very much affected, for it has been paying the subsidy direct
  2308
  out of the Treasury; and also the Board of Trade which is concerned with the interests of the consumers and with the administration and management of this scheme. I think that the hon. Members would be unreasonable if they did not see that we must at this stage bring into this important subject the Treasury and the Board of Trade. The Minister of Agriculture, who has already spoken on the general policy of the Government, will be brought in later when he will fully explain the policy on the Livestock Industry Bill.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The provisions of this Money Resolution will make the consideration of the subsequent provisions of the Livestock Industry Bill almost a foregone conclusion. Hon. Members on the other side who may not be satisfied with the amount of the subsidy will be precluded from raising the question on the Bill. That is one reason why the Minister of Agriculture ought to speak to-day. In any case, when this Resolution is passed, the House will be committed to the principle of the Ministry of Agriculture being subsidised in this way.
  Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: On a point of Order. Does not this Resolution implement Cmd. Paper 5324, which is the Anglo-Argentine Agreement? That agreement. does not deal only with livestock. It includes beef and veal and dozens of little items of various goods, including textiles. Do we not have to deal with the beef and veal part first before we can discuss the Livestock Bill?
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Baronet referred to other goods embodied in this Money Resolution. I rather suspect that he has not read it or he would not have made that observation.
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: No, the ¾d. per lb. duty on beef is part of the agreement in which the other goods appear. I hold it in my hand.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The other goods will clearly be dealt with when the trade agreement is brought to the House for ratification. To-clay we are dealing with a specific proposal for a specific purpose. This Money Resolution is to enable the Government to collect a levy for the purpose of assisting the livestock industry, and surely, if the Committee

  2309
  is to pass a Resolution giving power to impose these duties, we ought to have a statement from the Minister responsible for the Department which is most closely affected. Whatever the Minister of Agriculture says on the Livestock Industry Bill, our hands will be tied because it will be based upon this Money Resolution. It is not treating the Committee with the usual courtesy to ask it to pass such a vital Resolution without the Minister responsible making some statement showing the anticipated effect on the livestock industry of the money to be collected.
  Mr. SANDYS: In view of the fact that a number of hon. Members wish to give their views in this Debate, I wonder whether you, Captain Bourne, would give your Ruling on the scope of the discussion.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I had better reply first to the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel), who was kind enough to warn me that he intended to raise the point about the Argentine Agreement. I have had an opportunity of looking into it, and I am clear that this is not a suitable occasion on which to discuss it. We can only raise those paragraphs of the agreement which are affected by the Resolution now before the Committee. With regard to more general discussion, I have considerable difficulty about its scope. This is a Resolution in Ways and Means and, therefore, prima facie its object is solely to obtain revenue. I think that it will be open to the Committee to ask what necessitates the raising of additional revenue at this period of the year, and if that question is replied to I must then consider how much further it may open the Debate, but I would point out that it is obviously impossible to anticipate now a discussion on an Order of the Day of which notice has been given and which is coming on shortly.
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: With respect, I do not disagree with your Ruling, which is what we all expected. With regard to the amount of the proposed duty on beef and veal, may we argue that we do or do not agree with the amount or with the bargaining factors in the negotiations which have been undertaken to bring the duty to the stated amount? May we protest to the Minister that the
  2310
  amount is too little because the bargaining adjustments accepted are not those with which we are in agreement?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that I would rather hear the hon. Member develop his argument before I give a Ruling.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Shall we be able to discuss the whole policy of the Government as regards livestock on this Resolution? If we are not able to do that, we shall find that we are restricted when we discuss the Bill. I submit that this Debate is of no use unless we can discuss the livestock question, and if we do not get an adequate reply from the Minister of Agriculture the Committee will be at a loss to know exactly where it stands in regard to this problem.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In reply to the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), I would point out that this Resolution has no effect whatsoever on the Livestock Industry Bill, and the agreement or otherwise of the Committee to this Resolution will not affect that Bill in the least. Quite obviously, the Agreement goes very far beyond the livestock policy set out in that Bill.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: On a point of Order. You are no doubt aware that the Livestock Industry Bill will deal with a continuance of the subsidy for a longer period, but there are many Members of the House—not myself—who hold that the subsidy is inadequate and that the question as to whether or not the subsidy is adequate will depend on the method taken of obtaining revenue. In the view of many people this Resolution is insufficient to allow of a Debate as to whether the subsidy is or is not adequate. The whole purpose of the Resolution is in fact, as was said by the Financial Secretary, to provide finance for the purpose of continuing the subsidy which will be legislated for in the Livestock Industry Bill. Therefore, I submit that it is in order that we should have the fullest possible discussion on this Money Resolution because of the policy involved in the Livestock Industry Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The finance which is being raised by these proposals will not be sufficient to meet the whole subsidy, and the reason why it is not proposed to raise more will be explained

  2311
  in the course of my speech. As the Committee knows, the subsidy has been paid for some period, and it has never been disguised from the House that it was the intention of the Government at the earliest possible moment consistent with our trade treaty engagements to seek to raise some portion at any rate of this finance from import duties. I therefore submit that the course which we are taking is quite proper and that the somewhat intricate explanation which I am giving is the proper way to introduce this Measure to the Committee.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In reply to the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), I think it is obvious that this Resolution does not limit the subsidy which the House may see fit to grant on the Livestock Industry Bill, and I think it is obvious that the two things are not connected in the technical sense. This is really a taxing Measure. At the same time, I think it is difficult to dissociate one's mind altogether from the fact that it is a portion of a policy which has been announced by the Government. What I have tried to point out is that we cannot go into a full discussion of the details of that other Bill. The proper place for that is the Second Reading of the Bill, but to some extent references to it must be in order, and I shall have to judge how far such references are in order as and when they arise.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Further to your Ruling, Captain Bourne, does not the very fact that you, Sir, stated that it will be possible on the Bill to increase the subsidy make it the more essential that we shall have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question whether or not a particular Minister addresses the Committee is not in my hands. I wish to correct one remark of the hon. Member's. I did not say that it will be possible to increase the subsidy on the Livestock Industry Bill. That is a matter which, I think, will depend on the terms of the Financial Resolution governing that Bill, and without careful study I should hesitate to say what the House could or could not do in that connection.
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: On a point of Order. Is it your Ruling that this is an ordinary taxing Resolution similar to that
  2312
  governing any tax raised in the Finance Bill?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, obviously, as this is a Ways and Means Resolution.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think subsequent debate will show that the method which we have taken for introducing this Resolution is the correct one. There are two Resolutions before the Committee. The first applies duties on imports of chilled and frozen beef and veal, and other beef and veal not at present subject to duty. The second provides for duties on imports of foreign chilled and other beef products which are at present subject to the 10 per cent. general ad valorem duty. The rate of duty proposed for chilled beef, which is the most important import, is ¾d. the lb., and that is calculated as equivalent approximately to 20 per cent. ad valorem. For frozen beef the duty proposed is ⅔d. the lb., and again in our view that is approximately equivalent to 20 per cent. ad valorem. For the remaining products either 20 per cent. is proposed or the existing 10 per cent. duties are increased to 20 per cent. in all. I want to give the Committee a picture of the incidence, broadly, of these duties. There is an exception to this general 20 per cent. ad valorem duty, and that is with regard to tinned tongues, where, in order to maintain the protection already enjoyed by British manufacturers on imported tinned tongues, the duty on imported tinned products is proposed to be increased by 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. in all. That is the exception to the general 20 per cent. ad valorem level. These rates arc the maximum possible under the new Argentine Treaty, which has been laid before the House.
  The total revenue expected to be derived from the duties is rather more than £3,000,000 per annum, and, as I have already stated, that will not suffice to cover the future cost of the cattle subsidy if approval is given to the proposals outlined in the Livestock Industry Bill. I am asked. "Why, then, is the rate of the import duties fixed at a level which will not in fact produce enough money to cover the whole subsidy?" The answer is to be found in what I said earlier, that the Government, in considering this problem, had

  2313
  to have regard both to the interests of consumers and to the interests of Empire and foreign traders—our trade with the Argentine, our valuable trade agreement with that country, and in addition the question of trade with the Empire. Imports from the Empire, as the Committee will see, are not to be subject to duty at all. The Dominions attach very great importance to the development of their beef industry, and we gave specific recognition of this fact at Ottawa. As a part of the negotiations to secure their participation in a scheme of orderly regulation of supplies in this market, it has been agreed that Dominion preference should extend to the full duties permissible under the Argentine Agreement, and consequently free entry of Dominion products is afforded as hitherto. That explains why we did not, either on foreign or Empire products, or on both, decide to apply a duty which would raise sufficient money to cover the whole of the intended subsidy.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is there to be no quantitative restriction at any time, apart from what there is now?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That is a point which, I suggest, should be dealt with later in the Debate, or by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, but, as I have indicated, the intention is that the Dominions should share with us the responsibility for the orderly regulation of supplies to this market, and great importance is attached to that feature.
  Mr. LEWIS: Before leaving that part of the question, will my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether we are to understand that the Government have now definitely abandoned what they themselves have repeatedly stated to be the best long-term policy in this matter, namely, the imposition of a duty on all imports of foreign meat, with preference for those coming from Empire sources? Is that definitely abandoned, and, if so, why?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: So far as the question of a duty on the imports of meat from the Dominions and the Empire is concerned, we have definitely decided not to apply such a duty, and for the reasons which I have stated, namely, that it is our view that it is necessary to afford them the full measure
  2314
  of preference which is available up to the duty applying to foreign products.
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Does that not bring us to the point that the duty with which we are now dealing is exclusively dealt with under the Argentine Agreement, and for this reason how can we avoid bringing in that agreement on this Resolution?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I ruled earlier that there were certain effects of the Argentine Trade Agreement which might have to be discussed, but I do not think we should wander over a very wide area. I had better wait and hear how the discussion goes.
  Lieut. - Colonel COLVILLE: The Argentine Agreement fixes or consolidates certain maximum rates of duty, and for that reason no higher rate can be applied to imported foreign beef and veal. I thought I had made no secret of the fact that the Argentine Agreement was an important factor in the consideration of this Resolution. In regard to imports from the Empire, it is the deliberate decision of the Government, after careful examination, consultation, and negotiation with representatives of the Dominions, that we are not applying these duties to imports of Empire products.
  Coming to further points of detail, it should be explained that sweetbreads are proposed to be exempted from the duty under this Resolution. Hon. Members opposite smile, but there is an important reason behind this exemption, and the reason is that a considerable part of our imports of sweetbreads is used as the raw material for the manufacture, of insulin and its salts. These are imported free of duty, and it is desired that the exemption should similarly extend to the raw material for the manufacture of insulin in this country. I think that is a consideration with which everybody will agree. As insulin itself is at present free of duty, it would seem proper that the raw material for manufacturing insulin in this country should also come in without any duty being imposed.
  The next point is that the Resolution excludes sausages and pastes, which at present bear a 30 per cent. duty. It also excludes from duty for the time being imports of raw tongues, tinned tongues, and jellied veal. The reason is that under

  2315
  the Anglo-Polish Trade Agreement the duty on tinned tongues and jellied veal is consolidated at 10 per cent. I should mention that this restriction will come up for consideration next year, but in the meantime the higher duties proposed in the Resolution will not apply either in respect of Polish imports or generally. Provision will be made to apply Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1933, under which the Treasury may make an Order reducing duties where it is expedient to do so having regard to the provisions of any trade agreement. The Resolutions preserve the full effect of the provisions of the Import Duties Act of 1932, and technically it will still be open to the Import Duties Advisory Committee to consider applications for increased duties, but I must explain that that is in so far as our trade agreements allow. In point of fact, almost all these duties, with the exception of tinned veal are consolidated in the Argentine Agreement. The Resolutions also include the usual Customs provisions about drawbacks on goods imported for re-export and goods re-imported which have previously been the subject of duty, and I do not think hon. Members will quarrel with the provisions in that respect.
  Finally, it is intended that the duties authorised by the Resolutions should take effect forthwith from 16th December. In the case of the duties authorised by the second Resolution, duties on goods which are already the subject of duty, it is recommended that payment should be required under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913. In the case of the duties authorised by the first Resolution, on goods not at present subject to duty, the provisions of Section 6 of the Finance Act of 1926 will apply, under which the Customs may require importers to give security against payment of the duties when the Act giving effect to this Resolution comes into operation. As I explained at the start, these Resolutions have, of course, to be confirmed by a Bill which will be taken immediately after the Recess. In the meantime it is necessary for the proper management of the Customs that the Customs authorities should have power to require importers to give security against payment of the duties when the Act giving effect to the Resolutions come into operation.
  2316
  Having explained in some detail the provisions which appear on the Paper, I wish to conclude with a few general observations on the view which I believe is held in this House and in the country on the necessity of giving some measure of assistance to agriculture. It will not surprise me if the party opposite oppose these Resolutions, and yet I believe that in this House and in the country outside—and I speak not only of those who live in the countryside but also those who live in the towns—there is a determination that our agricultural industry, which is necessary to preserve our proper economic balance in peace time, and is vital to our very existence in war time, shall not be allowed to perish from unrestricted foreign competition. Hon. Members opposite may criticise us, but if they themselves were responsible for the handling of this problem they would have to make up their minds how to give British agriculture its proper place in our national economy. It would not matter if every acre of land were nationalised and every farmer and every farm servant were a State worker, they would still have this problem of imports from abroad. In any consideration of the problem they would come up against exactly the same difficulties as we are meeting, but I have never yet heard an indication from them that they have really thought out how they would face the question of importations from abroad. We believe that the steps that we have taken are wisely conceived, with a full regard for the interests both of consumers and foreign trade, and these Resolutions are a necessary part of the steps we are taking, and I recommend them confidently to the House.
  4.51 P.m.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman wound up his speech by stating that it would not be surprising if hon. Members on this side opposed these Resolutions. We should not be surprised if the President of the Board of Trade opposed them, for we recollect that the right hon. Gentleman made a profound statement in an area in this country which is now perhaps famous for that statement. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's concluding observations proved more effectually than anything I can say the very close connection between these Resolu-

  2317
  tions and the industry of agriculture. He demonstrated clearly how difficult, and almost how ridiculous, it would be to attempt to debate the mere question of imposing the levy or duty without relating the use to which the levy was to be put. I hope that we shall be able not only to relate the duty to the industry but also relate it to its effect on the people of his country, and we shall have something to say about the wise and carefully thought out policy of the present Government as we have seen it worked out to its logical conclusion over the past two years. We have had numerous emergency Measures and temporary proposals, and at long last we have reached the starting point of their long-term policy. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman declared that these duties are an essential part of the Government's policy. If these Resolutions, the Livestock Industry Bill which will follow and the ratification of the trade agreements are any indication, we are moving towards the first stage of the final proposals of the long-term policy of the Government, and I quite imagine that in the next five or six, weeks, despite all the speeches made during the past two years, more eloquent speeches will be made on old English roast beef than on thrones and kings and men.
  The Government's latest proposal is the most outrageous of all. Previously it was felt that direct financial assistance was necessary to preserve what the Minister always used to call "The first of all our industries." With £1,000,000,000 invested in it, no Government worthy of the name could allow that industry to go by the board, hundreds of thousands of men to be unemployed and all the other disasters which he has enumerated from time to time. We have had two years of direct financial assistance from the Treasury. Now we are invited to transfer the burden from the Treasury to the poorest section of the community, and of all the outrages which this and the last National Government have committed I think this is the most outrageous of all. It is not without interest that the ex-Minister of Agriculture was Financial Secretary to the Treasury and was sent to the Ministry of Agriculture to look after the Treasury. He failed lamentably, of course. It is not without interest that the present Minister of Agriculture
  2318
  should have been sent from the Treasury to the Ministry of Agriculture. It is not without interest that one of the ex-officers of the Treasury, the Chancellor's secretary, has been sent as Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. Now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stands up as the Minister of Agriculture and the caretaker of the public purse combined.
  It seems to me that the combination of circumstances clearly indicates that whatever agricultural Members think about the Government and agriculture, at least the Treasury have made up their mind that if any more financial burdens are to be carried they will have to be borne by the poorest section of the community and not by the taxpayer. That is why I think the transfer of responsibility from Whitehall to Limehouse is a crime. I not only think it is a crime, but I am convinced that it will not have the effect which the right hon. and gallant Member seems to anticipate, and I shall give some reasons why I think this policy will be as big a failure as was the policy operating from September, 1934. We on this side are not going to be purely negative in our criticisms. We have not been purely negative in all the discussions since 1939. I repeat that we can make out a case for a temporary subsidy for any industry if in the national interest it is felt that that industry ought to be preserved, but when providing the temporary financial assistance we at least ought to be making inquiries into costs of production, into marketing efficiency and into slaughtering. We ought to be hacking our way, as it were, through any vested interests which may stand in the way.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now getting on to matters which arise very directly on the Livestock Industry Bill. I have seen that Bill and every one of those things could be done in such a Bill, whether there was any subsidy or not.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: These Resolutions show a change of Government policy. They are merely transferring a direct financial burden upon the Exchequer on to the consumers of a certain product, and it will be difficult to discuss the cause and the effects of Government policy unless we can relate the money to be collected under these duties to the industry

  2319
  it is going to serve, and to make some reference, at all events, to the opinion in the country that in view of present retail prices an economic return ought to be finding its way to the producers of food in this country. I hope I shall be within your Ruling, Captain Bourne, in a casual reference to the need for this Financial Resolution. After all, if the industry were paying its way there would be no necessity for the Resolution. Therefore, in the nature of things, one must be able to relate the one to the other, or discussion becomes more or less futile.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman put it to us on these benches that if we were confronted with the problem we should have to face up to the issue, but the issue is not merely the passing of a Money Resolution and the handing out of money to make an industry profitable. The problem facing this Government or any other Government is not how to make farming profitable but how to make farming pay its own way, two very different things. That is why I said I shall not be purely negative in my proposals. I suggest, therefore, that while direct or even indirect financial assistance may be justified over a period pending the superimposition of certain modes of organisation and efficiency, it is a very different thing to impose duties and hand over the money unconditionally to the producers of a certain commodity. Unconditional subsidies are always bad, and I do not think that agriculture itself welcomes them.
  What is the problem facing the Government, apart from any organisation? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Government know that the potential demand for high quality beef in this country is unlimited, but the actual demand, which is determined by the incomes of the people, must of necessity be limited. What have the Government been going to ascertain the actual demand at an economic price? Have they taken any steps to learn the truth? I do not think they have studied the problem at all, because they do not seem to know anything about it. They know very little about that or many other problems of this industry. Under pressure they granted direct assistance, and under the same pressure they are now giving the duties and increasing the sum
  2320
  from £3,000,000 to about £5,000,000; but they leave the problem where it was. These Money Resolutions will not be any more successful than the direct assistance given during past years. What has happened to change the Government's policy? Since 1934, £8,250,000 has been given to beef producers in this country, but there is no marketing scheme, no slaughtering policy and no attempt at costing or at controlling prices on the market. The position to-day as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, is worse than it was in 1934. Prices have continued to fall.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I did not say that, and the hon. Gentleman must not put the words into my mouth. I said that prices still remained at a low level.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that prices still remained at a low level. If he were Minister of Agriculture and were replying for the Ministry, he would know that prices are less than they were in September, 1934, and that is after the Government have provided a subsidy for more than two years. The position at the end of the period is worse than it was when the policy commenced.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Some prices have fallen while other prices have risen.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am referring to the price received by the producers of beef in this country. The Minister cannot ride off upon a side issue. After two years of direct subsidy, prices are lower, he must admit, than they were two years since.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Gentleman is surely leaving out of account the world trend in prices.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Members of his party have always left out of account the world trend of prices since 1931, and since they have sat on those benches. It is only because he and all his political friends since 1931 ignored the world trend and world prices that they were able to bamboozle the people in this country into returning them to office. After five years of muddle, mess and incompetence, he has just learned, at long last, that world trends and world prices

  2321
  have some little effect upon our industries. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had been responsible as Minister of Agriculture during the past years, he would have realised that the world trend of prices has been the dream and the day-dream of every Minister of Agriculture for the past seven years. He is not going to get away from the fact that, instead of dealing with the weaknesses within the industry, not forgetting the problems of the Empire producer, of our investments in Argentina, and of our general food supplies in times of peace and war, they leave the beef producer worse off to-day than he was in 1934. The Government have never had courage to face the problems confronting the industry. Even now, this proposal is only collecting money from somebody else to hand over to the beef producer. It is not a policy; it is a mere expedient that cannot solve anything.
  What was the cause of the depression? The Minister said in 1934 that the cause was surplus production, and that the quantity dumped on to our market was such that the market could not absorb it, at least at a price that was economic to the home producer. Therefore the Government set out to provide the maximum quantities that the market could absorb, to provide a maximum price for the home producer and to regulate the market in the meanwhile. What has happened in the meanwhile? Imports have been restricted. To put it on the highest level, imports since 1934 have been practically stationary. If there has been any movement in the market, it may be due to either surplus or shortage, but it is wholly due to our home producers. What are the facts of the situation? Between 1933 and 1935, there has been an increase of home-produced beef and veal of over 100,000 tons. In other words, the home producer has flooded his own market, and prices have constantly gone down. We told the Government in 1934, when asking for a direct as distinct from au indirect subsidy, that the moment we granted it we would attract a bigger supply. The Minister denied that possibility, but 103,000 tons excess was produced in 1935, as compared with 1933, over 2,000,000 cwts. more.
  That increase is continuing to-day, and the price level is decreasing, not because of Argentina, New Zealand or Australia,
  2322
  but because there is no control of market supply in this country, one of the three essential things that the Minister declared he was caring for in his policy announced in 1934. On this point, I want to ask a question, and if the Minister cannot reply now perhaps he will do so when he comes in January, after four or five weeks' reflection. How much of the 100,000 tons extra supply in 1935 over 1933 was unsatisfactory cow beef? To what extent, for instance, is the market of the producers of high quality English beef being outraged by milk producers, whose primary object is to produce milk for which there is a stable price. To what extent is that individual on that side of the industry destroying the market for the beef producer? I recall that the Minister of Agriculture, in his White Paper of 1935, made this statement:
  "The primary object which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have before them in this connection is to assure to the efficient home producer a reasonable return and not to stimulate an artificial expansion of the United Kingdom livestock industry."
  What has he done to avoid an artificial expansion? What steps has he taken to prevent a further reduction in the price? So far as we know, he has taken no steps at all.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is referring to the livestock industry, but he must remember that we are now dealing with the taxing Resolution.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not at all sure whether we ought not to have pursued our first thought, namely, instead of attempting to proceed with a Debate of this magnitude and significance in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, we should have moved the Adjournment of the House. I find it very difficult to disconnect this Motion, and I think perhaps the Government have deliberately put up the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on a matter which involves agriculture from top to bottom. I do not see how one can deal effectively with a problem which affects 50 per cent. of the people of the country. I fully recognise your extremely delicate position, Sir, and I would not in any way attempt to controvert your Ruling, but if your Ruling is that we cannot deal with the industry, with the effect of past policy and with the likelihood of present

  2323
  policy, I see no further use in discussing the question at all. We might as well adjourn the House and wait until 20th January, so that we can have a proper Debate. I do not want to controvert your Ruling, but if it is your Ruling that we are unable to make references to the industry which has created the need for these Money Resolutions and this £3,500,000—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying, but I am sure he will realise that the Committee to-day are in a very difficult position from the point of view of order. There is a Bill of which notice has been given and the text of which is available to hon. Members. It raises a very large number of the points upon which the hon. Gentleman is speaking. It is also true that under that Bill there is proposed to be a subsidy, and that if the present Resolution be passed, the money which it will make available is not earmarked expressly for that subsidy; but the subsidy will undoubtedly be paid out of the general Revenue, and this is one of the methods of raising it. So far as that is concerned, it is relevant to this discussion, but if I once allow the Committee to discuss now all the innumerable details which are covered by the Livestock Industry Bill, we shall be anticipating another Debate which will shortly take place, and that is contrary to the practice of the House.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that the moment we return in January the Livestock Industry Bill will be given a Second Reading and that the Bill based upon these Money Resolutions will also be given a Second Reading on the day upon which we resume. To-day we are dealing with the most vital part of it. The livestock proposals will be in relation to £5,000,000. These Resolutions provide for £3,500,000. It is the source of origin of the £3,500,000 which concerns those who are taking part in this Debate. We shall see how far it is possible to go within your Ruling.
  I want to ask the Financial Secretary where the stability of the beef industry is to-day, after two years of direct financial assistance. Where is that increased employment to which we were expected to look forward? The only reply which the Minister has given is the present
  2324
  Resolutions to increase the sum to be given to that part of the agricultural industry from £3,500,000 to £5,000,000 per annum. I repeat that it is not a policy, and for him to suggest to us that merely to put on ¾d. per lb. on imported chilled meat and two-thirds of a penny per lb. on imported frozen meat will solve the problem, is begging the question. I recognise that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not expected to know much about agriculture, and, indeed, Captain Bourne, that may be your justification for keeping agriculture out of the question, but it does not absolve the Government from blame for not having the Minister of Agriculture in his place.
  To what extent is this Money Resolution, as distinct from agriculture, going to affect the people of this country, and who is going to pay? If the figures which have been supplied to me are correct, 45 per cent. of all the beef consumed in Manchester is imported chilled or frozen beef, so that 45 per cent. of the people in Manchester will have to bear this burden. Fifty per cent. of all the beef consumed in Birmingham is imported, so that 50 per cent, of the people in Birmingham will have to meet this levy. Of the total consumption in London, 66 per cent. is imported, and, taking the whole nation, round about 50 per cent. of our consumption of beef is either imported chilled or frozen beef. The people who are to pay these duties will not be that section of the community who can afford to buy high-quality home-produced meat; it will be the unemployed, the pensioners, the low-wage earners, and, indeed, families on the means test, who will have to make a contribution towards this £3,000,000. It is an outrage if the Government can find no better solution than merely to transfer a burden from the Treasury or from the rich consumer of high-quality meat, and plant it on to the backs of poor, poverty-stricken people in this country. I remember that at the Tory Conference somewhere at the seaside this year the then Minister of Agriculture said:
  "In their campaign that autumn "—
  that is to say, this present autumn—
  "they ought to make it clear that a policy such as had been considered and discussed by Sir John Orr and others of an increased consumption of healthy foodstuffs in this country was the Tory policy."

  2325
  What is that party's policy to-day? The Government are taking steps to reduce the import of nutritive food for those who cannot afford to buy except in very small quantities, and I repeat that it is one of the biggest crimes that this Government has committed to transfer the burden from either the Treasury or the rich consumer of home-produced beef and plant it on to the backs of the very poor. The "Economist" the other day made this statement on the same point:
  "The levy plus restriction plan as applied to beef is particularly bad, for the levy will fall on imported low-quality beef in order to subsidise the home-produced high-quality article. The rich consumer of home-produced beef, that is to say, as well as the farmer, will be subsidised out of the pockets of the relatively poor consumer of imports; a peculiarly vicious example of regressive taxation."
  It is peculiarly vicious, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who asks for it is as vicious, almost, as the scheme itself. Some of my colleagues on past occasions have been in some little doubt as to the wisdom of opposing the present Government's agricultural policy, but there ought to be no doubt in their minds as to whether or not we shall support this proposal, for our complaint is that the Government's policy, if it can be dignified with the name of policy, is purely negative, and has no relation to constructive thought. It simply goes on to stereotype the prevailing system of agriculture and the happy-go-lucky organisation which has produced the chaos into which they have now fallen. I suggest that these Resolutions, and the policy embodied in them, are not good enough. If we are assuming the financial responsibility in a temporary fashion, we ought at least to insist on a change of policy.
  I suggest again, and I hope I shall still remain in order in doing so, that there may be 200,000 unsatisfactory carcases finding their way on to the market in this country, and that we ought to have the Minister here to make a reply on that question. We may suggest constructively that if we had national slaughterhouses to deal with cow beef, we should be able to arrange that those portions of it that were fit for human consumption were tinned, to deal with the hides in bulk, to provide glands for medical purposes and manures of which horticulturists are badly in need, and thus we should be rendering two or three sides of the agri-
  2326
  cultural industry a very fair service. The Financial Secretary may say that such slaughterhouses would lose money, but so far we have lost £8,250,000 and have made no progress.
  We are where we were when we started in 1934, simply because the Government will not face up to the realities of the situation. They ought to know exactly what is the market in this country for high-quality beef at an economic price that will pay the producer, and, when they have discovered what that market is, they ought to control the market supplies in such a way that the farmer would receive an economic price; they ought not to leave the matter in such a position that they can compel the consumer of imported frozen meat to make a weekly or daily contribution to the consumer of high-quality meat. They ought to survey the whole situation; they ought to plan towards a balanced scheme, and, where vested interests step in, they ought to tackle them with courage, though I know that to ask this Government to display courage is to ask almost for the moon. In any case we think it would be far better than the simple expedient of making farming profitable if they would set about trying to make farming pay its own way. We would not mind if the plan had to cover three, five or seven years, if they would only start, but no start has ever been made. We are still convinced that it is because they are determined to continue to repay their political debts to agriculture and its landlords that this policy is bound to continue, and for these reasons we are obliged to oppose the Resolution.
  5.25 p.m.
  Major LLOYD GEORGE: I confess that it is a little difficult to know exactly how to go on with this Debate, because the Financial Secretary stated that the Resolution is an essential part of the Government's policy, and he went on to say that the levy which is now being proposed would not altogether cover the subsidy. Obviously, that meant that the two things are interlinked, and it is extremely difficult to say anything about the Resolution without going beyond the bounds of order. However, I will do my best.
  The Financial Secretary told us, and we all agree, that agriculture is one of the most vital industries in this country.

  2327
  Indeed, not only is it vital from the point of view of the economic life of the country to-day, but it is becoming more and more obvious that it is vital to national defence. The object of all of us, I take it, is to stop the drift from the land to the towns, and not only to stop it, but actually to get a start in the other direction. Many measures have been introduced in the last few years, and another has been foreshadowed to-day; vast sums of money have been spent; and yet the drift continues. Despite all the measures that have been taken, despite all the expenditure of money, there are fewer people on the soil of this country to-day than there were some years ago. In the last few years the total number of agricultural labourers has gone down by something like 80,000. That does not seem to indicate that the measures which have been taken have been successful in stopping the drift. The Financial Secretary was pleased to criticise the party above the Gangway in regard to the fact that they had no policy. Might I ask him, or somebody else on the Front Government Bench, to tell us what the Government's policy is? The fact of the matter is that they have never made up their minds since they came into office what they really want to do for agriculture. They are running the agricultural industry on the instalment system. They ask the House to vote money for sugar; the next time it is wheat; later on it is pigs; then it is milk, and now it is beef. Everyone knows that this chopping about from one thing to another, instead of having a clearly defined objective, has seriously unbalanced the industry.
  I am not going to discuss the question of Free Trade and Protection this afternoon; my views on that question are well known; but I think I am entitled to say this to the Government: They are a Protectionist Government, but my criticism has always been that they do not understand their own policy. They are Protectionist, but they have never applied Protection intelligently. They said that it was going to save the agricultural industry, but, if that be the case, I cannot understand the way in which they are applying it. The Financial Secretary told us towards the end of his speech that agriculture must not be allowed to perish, as I gather it was going to perish before they came in, owing to a, flood of foreign
  2328
  importation into this country. May I put to him this point? If it is necessary for that purpose to protect the agriculturist, it is surely necessary in logic to protect him from all competition. Some years ago the Government of which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a Member sent representatives to Ottawa, where they pursued a certain policy. At that time I criticised the Ottawa Agreements very severely, and in particular I criticised the agricultural proposals. Nothing that has happened since then has made me alter my opinion; indeed, I have been confirmed in a good deal of the criticism that I then made.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us some years ago that the object of the Government's agricultural policy was to ensure the producer a remunerative price, and that is a policy for which we also fought. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time stated that the reason why it was necessary to restore prices was that prices had fallen owing to the excessive increase of importation into a market of which the capacity was not increasing. I shall have a word to say later about the capacity not increasing, but the low prices against which they are now trying to provide were clue, according to their own spokesman this afternoon, to excessive importation. What did they do, therefore, at Ottawa—and I gather, from the answer that was given this afternoon, that they are going to continue that policy? Their policy at Ottawa was to secure the development of the home industry and at the same time to secure an expanding share for the Dominion producer. I ask the Committee to notice that that is to be done in a market which shows no increase in capacity.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say that for this purpose the Dominions must be got to play their part. They have played their part to some tune in the last few years. The flood of foreign importation to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, which was going to ruin the agricultural industry, has certainly been stemmed to a certain extent, but its place has been taken by another flood from the Dominions. If you are a Protectionist and believe that Protection is going to save this industry, I cannot understand the policy of people who say, "You must protect them from one quarter though

  2329
  they may be equally ruined from another." I fail to understand, and I do not think anyone on that bench understands, the policy that they have advocated for so many years. I go further. I shall probably be out of order on this. I would ask them to refer to the situation that is likely to arise before very long. Their policy is to help the farmer by protecting him from this competition. The farmer does not care who it is who ruins him—whether he carries the Union Jack or any other flag. It makes no difference to him. How it is going to help the farmer to shut off one competition and give him the full blast of the other it is difficult to understand.
  I believe that, if agriculture is going to be restored, you have got to pay very large sums for it. After all, we are spending large sums of money in making our defences efficient. One of the most important sections of our defence is our agricultural industry. It was shown to be so in the last War and from what we hear with regard to the Mercantile Marine and the deficiency of sailors and so forth, it may be much more important in the next war. I have never quarrelled with the suggestion that money has to be spent if the agricultural industry is going to be restored. I have always taken the view that it will cost a lot of money. I also believe that it will be money very well spent, for the benefit of the whole country. You will get a finer population and a more stable economic system if you can bring it about. But I should like to see the country as a whole contributing to this expenditure. I object strongly to making one section of the community, and that in many cases the poorer section, foot the bill. I would rather see it done by the community as a whole, because the community as a whole will benefit in the long run.
  The producer is at present going through a very difficult time. Everyone realises that he must get remunerative prices. If you cannot farm at a profit, farming is going down. There is no permanent recovery for the agricultural industry without considering the needs of the consumer. If the consumer is not to be considered, there can be no permanent help in the agricultural industry. I mentioned a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer four or five years ago that this was a market the capacity
  2330
  of which was not increasing. Do hon. Members opposite really consider that the market of Britain to-day is a market that is not increasing? Millions of people will be only too glad to prove that statement wrong. There is plenty of opportunity for increasing the market for consumption. There are only too many people who would be too delighted to get the chance to do their part in increasing the consumption of this commodity. You have the best market in the world. That is shown by our imports.
  But what is vital to the population of the country is to concentrate more on fresh food, which is the one thing that can be produced here better than anywhere else. I would ask, before the Government enter into these commitments, whether the Minister is really satisfied that the British market is properly served. We know there is on record a Resolution which says that it definitely is not. Probably hon. Members would not think that a fair opinion, but, at any rate, it was the opinion of the House that the marketing system is chaotic. I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman again to consider, before any commitments are come to, whether a great deal more cannot be done to make it more possible for the vast population of the country to get the commodities which we alone can produce—fresh food in good quantities. I should like to see the assistance which has been foreshadowed as the result of this Motion extended to credit facilities, transport facilities and marketing facilities. I hope it is not going to be concentrated purely on payments for cattle. Under the emergency with regard to defence we were forced to appoint a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. I wish the Minister of Agriculture would make himself into a Minister for co-ordinating agriculture, instead of treating it, as it has been treated in the last few years, as purely a collection of pursuits, dealt with sometimes one way and sometimes another. I wish he would co-ordinate the industry as an industry, and remember, above all, that it is vital that the consumer and producer should be coordinated too, for there can be no lasting prosperity to the industry with antagonism between producer and consumer. If he goes into the question of the whole industry he will find that it is quite possible for the producer to get a re-

  2331
  munerative price for his produce without penalising the vast army of consumers, on whose purchasing capacity this industry must in the long run depend for its prosperity.
  5.38 p.m.
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: This Motion almost coincides with the wording of the Fifth Schedule to the Anglo-Argentine Agreement, on page 66. I do not support the Amendment on the Paper, and I do not support the point of view of the hon. Member who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench. But I am glad that he has opposed the Motion because it has given us an opportunity of raising the whole question as to how long this Agreement should run, and the amount of the beef tax in the Agreement. I am not going to deal, as the last speaker did, with general policy or say what shall be done with the money when you have it. I shall keep closely to the amount of money that is to be raised per lb., as set forth in the Motion. It gives effect to negotiations based upon a compromise and the negotiations have been protracted. In the compromise the Agreement puts ¾d. a lb. on the Argentine product and there is in it the seed of much mischief. This ¾d. a lb. Agreement is like an arched roof which is kept in position by various thrusts, pulls, pushes and stresses of conflicting interests and buttressed up, though we have not yet realised how it is buttressed up, by two hidden subsidies out of British pockets. I do not think that the amount of ¾d. a lb. is right. I shall not say how much it is too little. I wish it were a great deal more. I was brought up in Norfolk and I have every sympathy with agriculture and hope to see it at least making a profit. On the other hand the textile people are against the imposition of any duty on imported products from the Argentine. Of course they wish to sell their textiles. Therefore, there is that stress or push of the British agricultural interests as against the textile thrust, and those things have to be considered, have to be related to the need of Argentina to sell us her meat and grains and foodstuffs.
  I wish to draw attention to the two hidden subsidies. In order that the three farthings may be as low as it is, there has had to be conceded to the Argentine
  2332
  grower of pastoral and agricultural products a railway subsidy in two forms. That is not shown. It is a hidden subsidy paid by the British investor in Argentine Railways. A subsidy has been given to the Argentine growers of wheat and maize by the exchange control, referred to on page 6 of the Argentine Agreement, where it deals with the export of Argentine products and with the sterling exchange. The two things are cognate. The two things are also referred to in Article 4 on page 4 and in the Protocol on page 68. Those who have put the railways and the transport system into Argentina have provided the wheat and maize growers with two subsidies. They have carried the maize and wheat for the growers without proper remuneration and British utility companies have been subjected to a tax on exchange, which has enabled the Argentine Government to give a subsidy to the Argentine maize and wheat growers. A slight concession in the rate of exchange has been neutralized by the Argentine Government compelling the railways to reduce their rates on maize. As a matter of fact, the bargaining around the three farthings duty has been dominated by the vulnerability of our railway investments in the Argentine. This vulnerability of our investments in the Argentine has injured our British agriculture because it has prevented us, for fear our investments may be further injured, putting a larger amount of duty upon foreign meat so as to help British agriculture.
  It is folly to deny that the dislike by the Argentine people of foreign capital has resulted in maltreatment of £277 millions of British savings which gave Argentina her railroads. This sum has never been allowed to pay a reasonable total income. Last year not a penny income was derived from £174,000,000 of railway capital. We subsidised Argentina by providing transport without being paid for our services. We are very anxious to keep friends with the hundred year old friends like the Argentine people, but this Argentine railway problem in relation to grain and meat and rates of exchange is a breeding ground for ill-feeling. It is necessary for us in dealing with this duty of ¾d. per lb. to examine the effect of the railway problem upon the agreement. The maltreatment cannot be allowed to pass.
  The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Captain Sir George Bowyer): The hon. Gentleman promised when he started his speech that he would keep within the terms of the Motion which the Committee is discussing. I must remind him that this is not a discussion upon the Argentine Agreement and that he must keep within the Ruling of the Chair and the discussion of the terms of the Motion.
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I am very justly rebuked and I accept it. The point is that it has only been possible to agree to the figure at ¾d. per lb. because the Argentine grower of meat has said that if there was a higher duty he could not live. Let us assume for the sake of argument that if the duty were higher he could not live. We have helped him to live by providing him with £174,000,000 worth of railway capital upon which not a single farthing of income has been allowed to be paid in 1934. That is a subsidy of nine millions per annum to the Argentine citizen. That has enabled him to accept the rate of duty at ¾d.; if higher than that, he said, it would not possible for him to live. He gets from us most of his railway services free, and a further cash subsidy by putting an exchange tax on the British owned railways, plus a reduction of freights on his grain. Before we go any further with these agreements about Argentine meat we ought to have the railway position straightened out. If we do not, then at the end of the agreements in 1939 when we come to discuss whether we shall renew them, friction will have intervened between us and the Argentine and it may injure the selling of our textile goods. I am not quite certain whether they could sell their food products anywhere else. We bought of Argentina exports £45,000,000 worth last year, including £36,000,000 worth of foodstuffs, and they bought only £15,000,000 worth of goods from us.
  Mr. MacLAREN: Did we need the goods we bought?
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: That is a curious point to make. We should rather take the point that unless the railway investment difficulty is cleared up when the time comes for reviewing the ¾d. a lb. duty on meat we should not again accept an Agreement such as that which we have before us, upon the terms upon which it is introduced. I do not wish to say
  2334
  anything more. All I wanted to say was that I do not think that the duty of ¾d. is sufficient, but I do not intend to vote against the Resolution, believing that we must be content with what we have got. But the Argentine people must understand that we consider they have treated us badly with regard to our railway investments and that we shall require to have these points cleared up during the next three years. Otherwise we must reconsider, on our side, whether we shall accept Argentine foodstuffs. As our railway investments bring us very little income we have not much more to lose if Argentina does not sell her products to us. It is time we made a stand for fair treatment.
  5.49 p.m.
  Mr. PRICE: I will not follow the lion. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) into the intricacies of the Anglo-Argentine Agreement, but it is true that the Argentine Government have been giving an indirect form of subsidy in respect of chilled beef coming over here. I do not see any reason why, because the Argentine is sending over to this country cheap supplies which are of inestimable value to the poorer citizens of this country, we need make any objection. It is open to argument that the result of this importation is disastrous to British agriculture, and I should be the last to say that the feeding industry in this country is not in a serious predicament. As one who is engaged in that industry, I know it and I feel it, but I suggest that the method laid down in the Financial Resolutions is not one which is either in the interests of the mass of the consumers of this country, or, in the long run, of the agricultural industry. You cannot separate and divorce the one from the other. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved these Resolutions from the Government. Benches—and I think I am not doing him an injustice—said that it was a part of the livestock policy of the Government and for that reason we are all tempted on these benches to discuss the livestock policy of the Government and what we think it is.
  Your Ruling, Sir George, and the Rulings of Captain Bourne, narrow us down to the purely financial side of these duties, but I should like to examine whether really it is the fact that these duties upon beef are going to be of all

  2335
  the value which it is suggested they will be to the livestock industry. Here we have a number of levies raised upon imported meat, the revenue of which is to be earmarked. It may not officially be earmarked like the Road Fund was, but I can come to no other conclusion than that in the long run that is what is going to happen. If it is not ear marked for the feeding industry, why is it that we are having these Resolutions brought forward now? Surely, the proper place is to have them introduced in the Budget for the coming year, but the mere fact that we are having this extraordinary taxation introduced now outside the Budget indicates that the Government are linking this up with their livestock policy, and in that way are creating an unofficial fund which is to be earmarked for the purpose.
  The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: It would be just as well if I made it quite clear that the money to be raised goes into the Consolidated Fund.
  Mr. PRICE: My only point is that as it is being introduced specially now, it looks as if it is being connected with the livestock policy, but, of course, I accept your explanation, Sir George. My point is that all earmarked taxation is thoroughly vicious. I know that the Treasury have been opposed to this sort of thing and I believe that that is the Treasury policy now. If it is really the fact that the British livestock industry has suffered a decline because of foreign imports an examination of the figures of imported foreign meats is not without interest. I have been examining these figures for the last few years, and it is clear that the total imports of all meats, chilled, frozen, tinned, from all sources for the last five years have not undergone any very considerable fluctuations. In 1931, the highest figure was 13,135,000 cwts., and in subsequent years, up to and including 1935, the figures have fluctuated between 12,175,000 cwts. and 12,679,000 cwts. It is true that in the first 10 months of this year there has been an increase in comparison with the 10 months of last year of about 2 per cent., but taking it as a whole there have been no very large fluctuations.
  The same thing also applies if you look upon it not as a whole, but in part. The
  2336
  imported chilled Argentine beef has undergone a reduction since 1931. It was 9,288,000 cwts. in that year, and it went down to 8,798,000 cwts. in 1932, and the lowest point was reached in 1934, when it was only a little above 8,000,000 cwts. There has been an increase for the last 10 months in comparison with the 10 months of 1935, but the fact remains that there has not been that amount of increase of imported chilled, frozen and other forms of meat to cause the difficulties which are the subject of discussion.
  If we examine the level of prices of live stock of all the various forms of meat we find that in 1931 fat Shorthorn and Hereford live stock in the markets of this country was 47s. 6d. per cwt., and that it has been steadily going down. It was 44s. 10d. in 1932, 39s. 10d. in 1933 and 39s. 2d. in 1934. I have not the figure for 1935, and, anyway, the position is worse now. English longsides of beef were 8½d. a lb. in 1931, and they have been going steadily down since 1934, and the same is to be said of Scottish short-sides, and of Argentine chilled, 6½d. in 1931, going steadily down to 4½d. in 1934, and frozen Australian 4¼d. in 1931 and 3½d. in 1935. That indicates, surely, that the cause of this fall in livestock as live weight and as dead meat cannot be due to the imports which have been coming in during recent years, and there must be some other cause to consider.
  Certainly we shall not solve this question by putting a tax upon the cheapest form of meat. The interesting point to notice here is that there must be some world causes at work, because the falls in prices have been quite general, no matter what the class of meat or from what country the meat comes. It is as though on this question of meat we were all linked up one with another. It is also to be noted that on the average throughout these years home-killed meat is about 2d. dearer than chilled Argentine, and that chilled Argentine beef is about 2d. dearer than Australian frozen. These three classes of meat serve three different markets, and that is a point we have to remember. It has been estimated that 15,000,000 families in this country, representing 26,000,000 people, consume the cheaper classes of meat, leaving the rest to consume the English home-grown meat. That is, roughly, about half the population.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: That is less than two per family.
  Mr. PRICE: Those are the figures which I have seen quoted. My main argument is not altered that, roughly, half and half represents the numbers of those who are consuming home-grown meat and those who are consuming imported meat. In many of our big cities in the north, particularly in places like Glasgow, the only meat that is consumed by poor people is the very cheapest form of Australian cow beef, which they mince. These people are unable to afford anything but the cheaper forms of meat coming from Australia. One of the main troubles which the livestock industry has to face is the fact that there has been for many years much depression in our mining and heavy industries. In the years before the War, when the mining industry in South Wales was doing well, the buyers of English beef used to go to the markets in the Midlands and buy heavily there. Since the depression in the South Wales coalfields the purchases from that quarter have gone down very much. In my own constituency, the Forest of Dean, many miners, especially when they are working only half time, as they often do during large parts of the summer, bring home no more than 25s. or 30s. a week. How is it possible under those conditions for those families to purchase English beef? Their only opportunity is perhaps once a week to buy the cheapest foreign meat. If we raise the price of this meat, those people will not be able to purchase their previous amount and will either have to cut down their quantities or go to other forms of meat, such as the cheapest cuts of bacon.
  I think I have shown that there is another cause for the falling off of beef purchases in this country, owing to the industrial depression. There is some indication that in the last 12 months there has been an improvement in the heavy industries, but not in the Special Areas and not in the big coalfields, which are lying almost derelict. There may have been a slight improvement, with some consequent improvement in the purchasing power of some of our industrial workers, and possibly there will be a slight increase of beef purchases, but the main problem remains, that so long as we have our
  2338
  Special Areas and our large volume of unemployment and poverty, there will not be any large increase in the meat consumption by those people who are so important for the cattle feeding industry. The miners and the workers in the heavy industries are the kind of people who can consume large amounts of beef if they are in a position to do so.
  We have to remember that there has been a change of habits in recent years. Owing to labour-saving machinery people are tending more and more to go over to the consumption of light meats, vegetables and fruit. The large joint is not the feature in the households to-day that it was in Victorian times and the earlier part of this century. We more and more rely for the success and buoyancy of the meat market upon those engaged in physical labour, like miners and the workers in the heavy industries. It is, therefore, the more necessary for us to study most carefully the consumers' aspect of this question, and not blithely to put on taxes here and there on the assumption that we are going to solve the agricultural problem in this manner. The revenue of this tax is, somehow or other, to be applied to the assistance of the agricultural industry in the form, I presume, of a subsidy which we shall discuss in the new year. I should like to give a warning. The evidence of what has gone on in the last three years should be enough to daunt the Government. The subsidy of 5s. a cwt. has not gone to the producers. Probably the farmer has not received more than 6d. of that 5s. The remaining 4s. 6d. seems to have been dissipated otherwise, but I will not enter into that question, because it would not be germane to this discussion.
  There is no reason to suppose that the exporter is going to pay this tax. The incidence of taxation of this kind is obscure, but we can say generally that if there is a large surplus of meat in the exporting country and if there is no real shortage of supplies in the importing country the levy or tax will not be paid by the exporter, but is much more likely to be paid by the consumer in the country to which it is sent. You may find conditions in which the tax may be borne, in part, by the exporting country, but there is no evidence at the present time that that would be the case here. If that is so, having regard to the facts

  2339
  that I have stated, I maintain that this tax will cause a rise in the price of the cheaper forms of meat and will result in the poorer sections of our people consuming less, or going over to other forms of meat.
  This form of assistance to the agricultural industry without the necessary reform in our marketing system, which I will not discuss in detail now, is wrong. Everything that has happened up to now shows how unsatisfactory is this method of dealing with the problem. All that has happened so far is that the total amount which the farmer receives for the beef he sells has remained the same. He has received no more in the aggregate in money form although he has been supplying the home market with more beef. So it will go on, in the absence of any reform of our marketing system which would eliminate the waste which is at present taking place. I agree that some form of assistance must be given, but the best form of assistance is, first, the reform that I have mentioned and, secondly, direct financial assistance from the Treasury. The assistance should fall upon all sections of the community, particularly upon the direct taxpayers, who are much more likely to be able to afford this burden than those who will have to pay this tax in the long run. I maintain, therefore, that the proper way of dealing with this problem is to put out of our minds any idea of trying to finance the agricultural industry by taxing the importation of cheap food into the country. Let the assistance come direct from the Government, accompanied with the necessary reform which will prevent the waste that is going on at the present time.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. LAMBERT: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury in introducing the Resolution stated that it was, first, a revenue Resolution and, secondly, a Resolution designed to help agriculture. We have many cooks dealing with the agricultural industry to-day—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the President of the Board of Trade—this Resolution is based on his Argentine Agreement—and the Minister of Agriculture. They have not made much of the job of restoring prosperity to agriculture, up to now, but only a beginning. They have begun with tariffs, but not gone very far. The hon.
  2340
  Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) denounced this tariff as an outrage.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: As you used to do.
  Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend who interrupts me, who was an efficient First Lord of the Admiralty, must remember that when I discussed this fiscal question then the expenditure of the country was £200,000,000 but to-day it is over £800,000,000. That is a very vast difference. I am afraid, however, that I should go beyond the rules of order if I argued further with my right hon. Friend. It is no disrespect to him, but perhaps I might meet him on that subject another time. I always listen to the hon. Member for the Don Valley with much interest. It is extraordinary how he has gathered so many facts about the agricultural industry, representing as he does a mining division. On the question of mining, may I remind the hon. Member and other hon. Members of a little incident that happened to me. We who are engaged in agriculture tend to be thrifty. I had a circular about the summer prices of coal and, trying to get my coal at the cheapest price, I gave an order for delivery about the second week in July. I had a communication in the middle of August from the agent, saying that under the Government quota system the monthly output for the colliery was restricted to a certain tonnage and that since they had raised that tonnage they must stop working for the rest of the month. That is a tariff for the coal industry. Why does the hon. Member, having reaped the benefit of a tariff for the coal industry, object to the agriculturist getting a tariff? I want to benefit the mining industry because I know the miners are our best customers for beef, but do let us have a little reciprocity and not denounce the tariff in this Resolution as an outrage, as the hon. Member did, when we too are asking only for some form of regulation.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In 1935 the wages of mine workers in this country were 44 points above the 1913 average, while the weekly returns issued by the Ministry of Agriculture said that to maintain a working-class family they should be 51 points over 1913. Therefore, despite restrictions and regulations, the mine worker is still not receiving the same standard as in 1913.
  Mr. LAMBERT: The hon. Member said that but for the regulations the miners would be worse off. Why not therefore, apply the same regulations to the agricultural industry? I only put that point because I want to benefit the workers. The Resolution will be gravely disappointing to the agricultural industry. I am not going to discuss the agricultural policy of the Government except so far as it is contained in the Resolution. Tariffs have benefited workers in other industries, indeed they have been one of the chief planks in the Government's programme. If they have benefited workers in other industries why should they not benefit the workers in the agricultural industry. This is a very small sum, ¾d. per lb. on beef and 3d. per lb. on other kinds of meat. The iron and steel industry have a tariff of 33⅓ per cent.
  My point is that the Resolution excludes Empire products. Why should you exclude Empire products? The Resolution does not give agriculture the same treatment as is accorded to other industries; why I cannot understand. I understand that the amounts proposed are going to bring in about £3,000,000 per year, and the Financial Secretary has told us that the subsidy to the agricultural industry is to be 25,000,000. I have not the smallest doubt we shall be told that it is a dole. I hate the word, and agriculture does not want a dole. I want to say a word or two with regard to these subsidies. The tariff in the Resolution is not really enough. It is not sufficient on the beef from foreign sources, and the beef from Dominion sources should also be taxed. I do not know whether the Government have realised how the trade of this country has been progressing this year. Imports are greatly in excess of exports. I observe in "The Times" this morning that imports are £68,500,000 over and above the 1935 figures. The imports have greatly increased, but exports have increased only slightly. That means that if we were in a world system of stable exchanges sterling would go down and everything would become dearer.
  Therefore, although the Resolution goes a little way, it does not go far enough to maintain the stability of British currency. If currencies all over the world were stable we should feel it, and that
  2342
  is why I argue that the Resolution does not go far enough. If sterling did fall, which it will do unless you check imports, it will mean that prices will rise here all round. I want to tell the Labour party that if we paralyse agriculture in this country we shall have to pay very heavily for overseas products. The Dominions are not averse to receiving the largest price from the British consumer. In 1929 I was in Canada, they were then hoping to have two dollar wheat, and the Government bought up large quantities of wheat and hoped to charge more to the British consumer. Therefore we must not reckon on the Dominions; and that is why I object to the Dominions being left out of the Resolution. The Dominion producers will demand the highest price, and we want as an insurance to encourage the production of as much as possible in this country. I am certain that it would be in the real interests of consumers later on.
  I understand that in the Argentine Agreement there have been certain concessions. I agree, and it is admirable if you use tariffs to compel freer trade, but why not use tariffs, and propose a Resolution having a tariff, with the Dominions. The Dominions tax our goods and are actually using some of the taxes they collect from our goods to subsidise agricultural products coming into this country. The whole thing is unfair. I should like to see the Government bringing in a Resolution which would give relief to agriculture and also strengthen the revenue. Do not let anybody make a mistake; the armament expenditure on which we are engaged is going to cost money. You will have to get more money into the Exchequer or sterling will fall. This was the policy of the Government announced by the late Minister of Agriculture in July, 1936. But we have had changes in the policy of the Government on the question of a duty on foreign and Dominion imports. In March, 1934, and also in 1935 there was to be a levy on Dominion products which was to be used for the relief of agriculture. Why has that policy been dropped? I cannot understand it.
  That was the policy announced deliberately in 1934 and 1935, and now Dominion products are deliberately excluded. Why? This new policy was not mentioned at the General Election which was fought on the policy announced in 1935. Now the Government come down and alter it. I

  2343
  do not know who is responsible for the alteration, I rather suspect the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the agricultural community will have an opportunity of discussing the matter when we are not cabined and confined by Rules of Order. The policy of the Government was to put a duty on all meat imports with a substantial preference to the Dominions. It has not been carried out in the Resolution. The Government will regret it. I am certain that agriculturists will be disappointed, and, what is still more important, agriculture itself will not receive that measure of encouragement which it has been led to expect. One of the greatest benefits which could be given to this country is a restoration of rural prosperity.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The speech of the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) was, to my mind, an amusing and an amazing speech. It was amusing by the way in which the hon. Member wanted to impress on the Committee that the Argentine was an enemy of this country because she wants to send us cheap beef, and amazing that the hon. Member as a financial purist should be offeneded because the Argentine insisted on paying her debts in the form of imports into this country.
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: The point I made was that the Argentine bought £15,000,000 worth of goods from us and that we bought £45,000,000 worth of goods from her. In addition, £174,000,000 of railway capital, lent to Argentina, never paid in 1934 a single farthing to British investors. She does not permit the Anglo-Argentina railways to earn a reasonable overall income.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: That does not alter my argument. If you are going to prevent the Argentine sending a greater amount to this country than she receives, with an outstanding debt of £500,000,000 which we have lent her, how on earth is she going to pay that particular debt?
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: She does not.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: She does. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) began and ended his speech by a criticism of the Government. The more that industrial Members in this House listen to agricultural members, the more
  2344
  they wonder when they are going to be satisfied.
  Mr. LAMBERT: All we ask is to be treated in the same way as the others.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Then agriculturists would be much worse off than they are at present. Neither industry nor anything else in. this country is treated as a sort of pet in the way that agriculture is. The right hon. Gentleman then made a statement that was astonishing. He said that he expected it would be said that this is a dole. What else is it?
  Mr. LAMBERT: We demand only the same treatment as is accorded to the iron and steel industry. The hon. Member does not call it a dole in that case.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: In the case of the iron and steel industry it is not a definite gift of money, as this is. This is a definite subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not big enough, and the whole of his speech was to the effect that agriculturists would be absolutely dissatisfied. He said, in the first place, that it is not enough, and then he asked why the duty is not extended to all imports, whether they come from the Empire or anywhere else. There is no avoiding the fact that agriculture is on the dole, whether we like it or not. If it were in order, I could cite all the different instances of agriculture being on the dole. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Look at the awful position of this country—there are more imports than exports." Which country is more prosperous, a country that has an excess of imports or a country that has an excess of exports? That is a test of prosperity, a test as to whether we get more for the goods that we send out. Then, like all people who believe in tariffs, the right hon. Gentleman wanted it both ways. He said we ought to have a bigger tax so as to get more money for the Exchequer, and a moment before he had been complaining that this tax is not big enough to keep out imports. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. We cannot keep goods out of the country and at the same time get more money for the Exchequer.
  I am reminded of what the Prime Minister said yesterday when, referring to another matter, he spoke of an unprecedented situation. I believe it is true to say that for the first time in the his-

  2345
  tory of this country—I am open to correction if I am wrong—we are putting a definite tax, as such, on meat. What really astounds me is that the President of the Board of Trade can agree to that particular tax. During the last Parliament, there was a discussion across the Floor of the House as to what the President of the Board of Trade had promised at the 1931 Election. On 10th February, 1932, he told us what he had promised, and he said:
  "What I said was that I was against the taxation of wheat and meat."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1932; col. 905; Vol. 261.]
  There was a sort of roundabout taxation of wheat, but here, for the first time, there is an absolutely definite tax on meat. In the Debate on the Import Duties Bill, to which I have referred, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) criticised the President of the Board of Trade and the Government because there was no specific duty on meat, and it was on the free list. We were all led to believe that one of the reasons meat was left on the free list was that the President of the Board of Trade had pledged himself not to tax meat and wheat.
  A great deal has been said to-day concerning agricultural policy, and I want to say that it was a great relief to me when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland left the Ministry of Agriculture. I believe all the schemes which the right hon. Gentleman introduced have been failures. To-day they have been denounced from the opposite side of the House. They have been chaotic, a policy of shifting from one thing to another, and the only thing which they have had in common is that every one has been a failure. I am rather restricted in what I would like to say by the Ruling that has been given by the Chair, but I would like to dwell on this definite tax on meat. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he was Minister of Agriculture, repeated time after time that we cannot afford to buy in the cheapest market. I remember the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, referring to the restrictions on imports of bacon, told me that I should have to learn a new economics, the economics of glut. We cannot afford to buy in the cheapest market; there is a
  2346
  glut. The Government have abandoned the policy of cheapness and substituted —I say these words after having given them consideration—the deliberate policy of raising prices to the consumers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that hon. Members opposite agree. It is as well for the people of the country' to know that that is the deliberate policy of the Government. Not only have the Government done it in the case of meat, but in the case of milk. In Bradford we get winter milk prices one month earlier than we used to do. Everything has been done to raise the prices of food. There have been marketing schemes, with all their restrictions, there has been limitation of production—every conceivable thing has been done to make it harder for the poor people of this country to live.
  Major BRAITHWAITE: The agricultural labourer is poorer than the workers represented by the hon. Member.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: That is very doubtful. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will go to the Vote Office, and look up some information on the textile industries, he will find something that will interest him on that point. It is very interesting to go back to the beginning of this particular part of agricultural policy. When the first Bill giving a subsidy on cattle was introduced, we were told by the Minister of Agriculture that it was 6, purely temporary Bill, and that as soon as the levy was put on meat, the money so raised would go back to the Exchequer to reimburse it, for the subsidies given. I remember that Sir Herbert Samuel, who then sat on these benches, challenged the Minister on the question whether or not the Exchequer would receive repayment. The levy and the subsidy are to be permanent; the one works with the other. There is to be no repayment of the £8,000,000 which have already been given. Moreover, there is to be a permanent tax on meat and a permanent subsidy. When we have raised the amount for this particular duty, we shall still be about £1,500,000 or £1,750,000 per annum short of the sum necessary to pay the permanent subsidy, and the Exchequer will have to make up the balance. I suggest it would have been better to call this Resolution a Money Resolution for the relief of the Treasury, for that is its real meaning.

  2347
  At whose expense is this money to be paid into this fund? At this point, I would like to meet a criticism which may be made. Hon. Members opposite very often call out "Sob stuff," or "Sentimentalism." I intend repeating what has been said time after time, and I do not mind how much that sort of criticism may come from the other side. This is being done at the expense of the poor people who cannot afford to buy English meat. It is being done at the expense of the men in receipt of unemployment benefit, and the families subjected to the means test. It is nonsense to talk about the foreigner paying this duty. That argument may be put forward in regard to some things and it may be correct, although I do not say it is, but it cannot be put forward on this question, for the difference in price between the foreign article and the English article is too vast for him to pay the duty. When this duty has been put on, there is still left a great margin. The Treasury knows that. It is suggested that Empire meat is to be substituted for this foreign meat, but I suggest that the margin of quality is too big for that to be done. I took the trouble a few weeks ago to go to Smithfield Market to examine foreign and Empire beef. I do not profess to be an agriculturist, but I profess to know which joint I would prefer as I saw them at Smithfield. The margin in quality is too big for it to be suggested that Empire meat is to be given a particular advantage in that direction.
  One of the things I cannot understand is that at the very moment when all the authorities in England who profess to understand the food problem are concerned about standards of living and the fact that a great percentage of our people —we are told 40 per cent. of them—are under-nourished, at the very moment when we are concerned with building up an A1 nation, when an appeal is being made for recruits, when there is so much talk about the physical development of the nation, the Government are making meat dearer. The tables drawn up by Sir John Orr show that in the household where the average amount that can be spent on food is 4s. a week, the consumption of beef and veal is 10½ounces a week, and that when the amount is 8s., it is 17·2 ounce's a week.
  2348
  One could go on showing that what is wrong in this country is that the prices of foodstuffs which really make for physical fitness are so high that poor people cannot afford to buy them. They cannot afford to pay 7d. a quart for milk, and they buy tinned milk or go without milk. The wheat price is an artificial one. The bacon price is an artificial one. Potatoes are almost beyond poor people's reach, and will be, as hon. Members know, in February. About a fortnight ago the price jumped to £4 a ton on the market, and it is mounting up week by week. Those are foods that are absolutely essential for the physical wellbeing of the people. Now we have the last straw—a tax on the miserable portion of meat that they can afford to buy. You are doing it in order to relieve the Exchequer and in order that some of us may save perhaps a farthing in the pound Income Tax if it is distributed over the community. The agricultural policy of the Government, particularly this part of it, is a mockery and a farce.
  We have heard a lot of talk about changes in the habits of the people and the reduced consumption of meat. It is true that people are not eating as much meat as they did formerly, but they would eat more if they had the money to buy it. There is a change in the habits of those who can afford other kinds of food, but the person who is doing hard manual labour wants a beef-steak when he gets home and if those people had more money they would buy more meat. I found myself rather in disagreement with one statement made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). He said that there ought to be a market supply committee, and that we ought to measure the demand for meat. I suggest that it is impossible to measure the demand in present circumstances. The ordinary housewife when she goes out to buy meat at the week-end does not think about what she requires. She has, say, 2s. to spend, and all she thinks about is the amount of meat which that will buy. That is all she can afford.
  If you want to stimulate the agricultural industry, you will not do it by putting things beyond the reach of the people. You can only do it by providing the people with the income to purchase these products. It is astounding to me that this policy should be regarded as a

  2349
  policy for stopping the flow of imports. If that be its purpose why is this duty limited to foreign supplies? Those are the very imports which have gone down. The imports of chilled beef from foreign countries in 1931 were 9,288,000 cwts., and in 1935, 8,007,000 cwts., a reduction of 1,200,000 cwts., while the imports from British countries have gone up from 9,000 cwts. in 1931 to 482,000 cwts. in 1935. The imports of frozen beef from foreign countries in 1931 were 1,145,000 cwts. and in 1935, 740,000 cwts. The imports of frozen beef from British countries in 1931 were 1,549,000 cwts. and in 1935, 2,240,600 cwts. If your purpose is to have a smaller quantity coming into the country, you are going the wrong way about it. The imports which have increased are not the imports upon which you are putting the duty. You are leaving the gap open where increased imports are entering.
  There is one question which is relevant to this subject and which I would put to the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department. How are the Ottawa Agreements being carried out? We have a right to know before we are asked to place a duty on foreign imports, whether the countries within the Empire are carrying out what they promised at Ottawa. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that they are not. In the debates on the Ottawa Agreement it was agreed that, as far as possible, the increase of exports from those countries to us of certain grades of meat should be kept to a certain percentage. We all know that a vastly greater amount is coming in than was fixed under what was then termed "gentleman's agreement." Evidently it will be necessary next time to have not only a gentleman's agreement but a lawyer's agreement in which things will be definitely set down.
  In the last Parliament when the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and his friends were arguing that meat should not be on the free list, the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered him to this effect: "It is not the duty that we are concerned about but the quantitative restriction." Now we are getting both. We are making the worst of it both ways. We are restricting the quantity and taxing the smaller supply. Nobody is more concerned than I am to see the farmers prosper. [Laughter.] I ask hon. Members who laugh, "Are your schemes
  2350
  making them prosper?" I see meetings of branches of the Farmers' Union week after week near the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, but I have never heard yet of one of those meetings at which it was said that these schemes were making them a profit.
  Major BRAITHWAITE: I think the farmers of my constituency have shown a distinct appreciation of the wheat subsidy which has cost nobody anything and has benefited them considerably.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: If it has cost nobody anything, how have they got the subsidy?
  Major BRAITHWAITE: There has been no increase in price.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Perhaps the Treasury has some way of doing it that I do not know about, but I have my suspicion that it is costing everybody something. Again, why do agricultural representatives complain, in speech after speech, if the industry is prosperous as a result of these schemes? They cannot have it both ways. When I speak they contradict me, and when the Minister on their own side speaks they contradict him. Every speech is a complaint. In regard to this particular duty, I would like to ask, has the farmer benefited train the subsidy up to now? Has the farmer got the subsidy? Let me refer in passing to the remark of an hon. Member earlier to the effect that the people in the industrial constituencies were anxious that the farmers should get proper prices. That is true. No one wants to see the farmer producing at a loss. We know that he cannot go on doing so. But what industrial people are concerned about is the tremendous gap between what the farmer gets and what the industrial consumer pays.
  May I give a personal illustration? In order to get the figures relating to these matters I ask my wife what she pays for certain articles. If there is anything of which I am fond, it is a grilled steak, and the other day at home I had a grilled steak which I enjoyed very much. I inquired what was the price of the meat, and I was told that it was 2s. 4d. per lb. I know that one pays more for the better cuts, but that is no explanation of the difference which exists between what the public pay even for the lowest-priced cuts and what the farmers get. I want to

  2351
  assist the farmer, but I want to know who is getting all that difference. We are entitled to ask before we pass this duty on beef what provision is being made for better marketing and for the elimination of waste.
  I know that it is proposed under the Bill which is to come later to set up a Livestock Commission and an Advisory Committee. How many commissions and committees have already considered this problem, and what has been done with their reports? There are reports galore on this subject to be had in the Vote Office. Any hon. Member can have almost a library of reports which have been drawn up, particularly in the last ten years, on this question. The other day I read a very interesting report which was issued in 1933 by the Economic Advisory Council on the slaughtering of livestock. We are now proposing to set up a commission and a committee to do exactly what that council has already done.
  Speaking as an industrialist, I do not profess to understand agriculture, but there appears to be something wrong somewhere in this matter. The farmer is not getting a square deal. The consumer is not getting a square deal. That is where the Government ought to start. and not by putting another penny on the consumer of the poorest kind of meat, the very meat that you do not want to compete with your own. Taxing the food of the poor is something to which I can never agree. It is a policy to which this party can never subscribe. Some day we shall solve the problem of production by stimulating demand. Some day we shall distribute God's gifts to those who need them. Some day we shall stimulate man's efforts instead of erecting barriers which destroy those efforts and result in the impoverishment of the whole human race.
  6.58 p.m.
  Major DORMAN-SMITH: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) in all he has said—and he covered a very wide field—but there are one or two comments which I would like to make on his speech. At the beginning he taunted the agricultural industry with being on the dole, instead of which I think he ought to join us in being heartily ashamed of the fact that the policy of this country has
  2352
  put its first and most important industry in that position. He spoke of raising food prices. The agricultural industry has to do one thing and that is to try to get its prices to an economic position and on a level which will enable it to carry on. I do not imagine that even Bradford would be able to carry on if it did not make some sort of profit out of the trade in which it is engaged. That is all we are trying to do. The hon. Member suggested that we ought to try to increase consumption. I agree and those of us who are engaged in agriculture sometimes wonder whether it would not be a good thing if the industrialists, who have so much to say to us, took a little less in profits and paid a little more in the form of increased wages to their workers. I think we are entitled to say that in view of some of the profits disclosed which, to us, are enormous—profits such as we do not notice in our own books.
  I do not wish to go through the whole gamut of agriculture because I think this is a narrow problem. As I see it, this tax is entirely divorced from the Government's livestock policy. We have been told that whatever may be the result of the tax, however much it may bring in, we shall get a fixed sum of £5,000,000. I take it that when the Livestock Bill comes on there will be another Financial Resolution, when the whole matter will he dealt with. I support this Measure, but not because I think that of itself it will be of any help to the livestock industry. I do not believe the amount of this tax is going to be passed on at all. The Dominion goods which are to continue to come in free will have the effect of keeping Argentine prices much as they are, and, as I read the Argentine papers, they also rather anticipate it. I regret, too, that the Dominions are not to pay some toll for the use of this market. It is only right that they should pay something, and we in agriculture regret that they are getting off free. It has been announced to-day that it is the Government's policy that they shall get off free in this respect. I hope that any Gentleman's Agreement which they come to in future will be much better kept than the agreements have been in the past. What, I think, is the value of this measure is that it is some token that the Government are preparing to

  2353
  give protection to the standard of life of those who need protection.
  There can be no doubt that those engaged in the livestock industry are definitely in need of protection. If we are to maintain our British standards and improve on them, those who are suffering from such competition as that from which we are suffering in the livestock industry will have to be given the necessary measure of protection, whether it be from goods coming from countries which do not want the same standard of cultivation, or from countries which do not want the same standard of life for their workers, as we do. Any section of the community has a right to ask for a shield against the advances of science, if those advances spell ruin to that section, until it can readjust itself to meet the new conditions. It is the advance of science in the livestock business which has taken away all that natural protection we used to have, and has left us open to the full blast of competition from abroad. It will be said that it is intolerable that the consumers of this country should not be able to take the fullest possible advantage of every advance of science and of all the abundance in the world.
  I do not believe that this method we are using to help agriculture—taxes and restrictions—is the right and final way. I would much prefer to see the public have more money to spend, so that they could pay a fair and reasonable price for goods produced in this country. The time will come when those in authority will be forced to consider more seriously how we are to expand the purchasing power of the people. That may be some time ahead, and a lot of well-entrenched vested interests will have to be tackled before it can be done, but I think it will come about, and in the meantime I suggest that it is poor statesmanship to try to ease the position of the British artisan by trying to annihilate the British peasant. That is what. is happening now. Gradually the peasant class is going out of existence as surely as if a foreign army was walking through our lanes and depopulating our villages. That is one reason why I want to support this Measure, because it shows that the Government are prepared to go some way towards protecting that necessary peasantry. The second reason is that I cannot see why agriculture, and especially
  2354
  the livestock industry, should not have the same type of protection as is enjoyed by other industries, and under which other industries have expanded. We have to buy a tremendous amount of goods which are taxed, taxes which are borne by the farming industry alone. Here is a long list of them.
  Mr. MacLAR EN: Read out some of them.
  Major DORMAN-SMITH: I think it might be well that the Committee should understand some of them. Taxes on our fertilisers range from £4 a ton, and 20 per cent. ad valorem, to £1 a ton; implements and machinery, 30 per cent.; shovels, spades, scythes, forks, 15 per cent.; hay and grass-mowers, the humble plough, planters and seeders, reapers and binders, 15 per cent.; wire, 33⅓ per cent.; barbed wire, nails and staples—nearly everything we have to buy is taxed in some way or other.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Does the foreigner
  pay?
  Major DORMAN-SMITH: That we can argue. All I am arguing now is that in this case it is going to be no help to agriculture to raise prices. We have not, as farmers, once tried to stop these taxes being put on the goods which we buy. We only ask for the same treatment. We believe that this protection was necessary for the people working in these trades, and we cannot see why we cannot have the same type of protection as they are enjoying. It has been argued that we are enjoying protection by way of subsidies. I cannot see very much difference—it is a question of words—between them and an import duty such as these people have, which is, to my mind, an invisible subsidy. I do not know how much it would have cost the country if the motor trade had been helped to reach its present position by subsidies —many more millions than agriculture has ever seen—but, instead, they were given a tax on the horse-power rating. There is not much difference between the two, except that gradually, by forcing the agricultural industry into the acceptance of subsidies, the Government are getting more and more control over it. For that reason I loathe these subsidies, and would sooner have my taxes; but I would sooner still have industrialists paying more to their workers. We

  2355
  have not heard much to help the Government as far as alternative solutions are concerned.
  The party opposite have some idea of import boards. Surely import boards would be more hard on the consumer than the policy which the Government now adumbrate. Import boards mean that the demand will be regulated and the supply will flow to meet that demand. They will be used to keep prices at a remunerative level. Import boards would, in fact, be used to restrict imports to keep up prices. The Liberal Opposition place a lot of faith in the internal organisation of the industry. I agree that it is up to the industry to do everything it can to reorganise itself from within, and now that the country is becoming willing to see agriculture reorganise itself, you will find that there will be a great advance in that direction. In the new Bill, there will be necessary powers for the industry to start that reorganisation, and I do not think that, if we can get the encouragement necessary—the encouragement of a fair economic price for our goods—the industry will be slow to set about reorganising itself, or that this House will be dissatisfied with what it does. That is for the future, and time is the essence of the contract at present. We have to take this subsidy as it is, and try to make the best of it, and hope that some day it will be unnecessary.
  If dreams come true, that internal organisation is all that is necessary, nobody will be more glad than I am, but I doubt whether we shall ever be able to do away with all assistance when the Argentine can produce a beast for £8 10s. and in this country the cost is nearer £24. That gap has to be bridged somehow, and we have to see that we do not have to lower our standards to enable the consumer to enjoy the luxury of cheap food. I hope it will not continue to be thought that the consumer can go on running this great agricultural industry, that the industry must depend on the housewife with her basket. Although the housewife knows what she wants to buy, she does not know what is necessary for agriculture. I hope all parties will try to educate the consumer on what are the needs of the agricultural industry, and not let us go on being terrified of
  2356
  giving the other chap a chance to say, "You put up the cost of food." Otherwise, we shall not get much done. I have here a document from the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners in which they make this point. They say:
  "A substantial rise in the wholesale price-level of farm produce and other basic commodities was essential to the revival of world trade … and of the cotton trade in particular."
  We are here trying to do something to give effect to that statement of the cotton trade interests. The House is occasionally inclined to think that agriculturalists are the most greedy of all classes and are most anxious for any chance of getting money from the Government. The philosophy of the industry, however, is summed up in the words of a Bill which was put through the New Zealand Parliament to ensure fixed prices for butter. The Bill states that the prices
  "shall be such that any efficient producer engaged in the dairy industry under usual conditions and in normal circumstances should be assured of a sufficient net return from his business to enable him to maintain himself and his family in, a reasonable state of comfort."
  That is all that the agricultural industry asks.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. DAVID ADAMS: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he hoped in the Measure he was submitting to reconcile the interests of the consumer, the producer and oversea trade. The Foreign Secretary similarly declared during the Abyssinian dispute that his intention was that the triple interests of Italy, Abyssinia and the League of Nations should be reconciled. I think we can justly conclude that in both the case of Abyssinia and that of the consumer, they are victims of Ministerial reconciliation. We were advised, moreover, that the object was to secure to the consumer the maximum of foodstuffs, subject to reasonable profits being made. The profit instinct in this relatively young Government which has 75 per cent. of its life still to go, will be permitted to have free rein. If there be any argument which can condemn the existing system more than any other, we have it illustrated in this Resolution, for in the admission that this country could have unlimited supplies of cheap goods, and all the requisites of a great industrial population, but that the

  2357
  interests of profit-making are to be secured through national scarcity, we are presenting an unanswerable argument to the masses of the people, when they have an opportunity to express their will again, that the existing system cannot supply them with the standards of existence which the age we live in so freely offers. I come from one of the distressed areas where the mining population when at work earn scarcely sufficient income, when deductions are made, to maintain a fair standard of living. Their wages average about 38s. per week inclusive of the advance recently granted and thus they are living just on the margin of subsistence. Thirty-two per cent. of the insurable population in my constituency are unemployed, and these are living well below the margin of adequate subsistence. It would be gross negligence on the part of any Member coining from such areas if he failed to register his protest against this proposal to increase the cost of certain of the essential foodstuffs. Before this proposal was submitted to the Committee it ought to have been demonstrated to us—and it has not been during this Parliament—that the agricultural industry as a whole is a depressed industry, that it does require remissions of rates and taxes and costly subsidies. From to-night onwards, as a beginning I suppose of a new era, we are to have the deliberate taxation of meat and other consumable commodities entering our ports from abroad.
  It has been argued that the consumer does not pay the tax. If that were so, we should be greatly astonished at the rise that is taking place in the cost of living. All the commodities that are taxed automatically rise in price to an amount beyond the amount of the tax. The present tax is not a light one, being 20 per cent. of the value of the goods. Although we are informed by the Financial Secretary that £3,000,000 will be the amount of the tax, something far in excess of that amount will be taken from the consumers because the amount charged always shows a profit upon the tax itself. There has been no mention from the Treasury Bench of any protection for the consumer. There ought to be defence of this class. The Government are said to represent the masses of the people. They do represent the majority of the people. The consumer is entitled to proper considera-
  2358
  tion. There has, however, been no mention of him. The majority of the people are not able to compensate themselves by demanding and obtaining higher rates of wages, and there are few trades where the wages rise in harmony with the rise in the cost of living.
  If the object is to stop the flow of imports it will impair our export trade, our shipping, and, in turn, our coal trade and employment generally in the country. A vicious circle into which the Government are entering. The reduction in the number of employés in the agricultural industry is one of the surprising facts of the situation. It is not sound to assert that men are leaving the land for the towns because agriculture is in an impoverished condition. The fact is that there are mechanisation, better management, and alteration in the system of production which, in the nature of things, are bound to operate, in the agricultural industry precisely as they do in others. The rise in the cost of living is becoming a serious matter. The index figure in November, 1932, was 43 per cent. above the pre-war figures; in November, 1935, 47 per cent.; and in November this year, no less than 51 per cent. For food alone the figure in November, 1932, was 25 per cent. above prewar; in 1935, 31 per cent.; and this year 36 per cent.!
  The day is rapidly coming when the workers as a whole will be entitled to represent that their real wages are altogether lower than they ought to be because the cost of living, and particularly of food, has risen rapidly. Could not the Government, even at this late hour, turn their attention scientifically, calling in experts, to the question whether there cannot be a method adopted whereby increased and not diminished consumption could be the rule? That would be the solution of the problem of the farming industry. I am glad to be able to make this protest against the action of the Government, and to express the hope that the Government will fulfil the liabilities which they undertook not to diminish the standard of living but to raise it and to protect those who are least capable of defending themselves, and that they will turn their attention to the increase of consumption and not its diminution. These proposed

  2359
  duties are a flagrant abuse of Government authority.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. ARTHUR DUCKWORTH: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken through all the arguments that he put forward, but I should like to refer to one point that he made about the percentage level of prices in 1932, 1935, and to-day. He omitted to give us the figures for 1929 and 1931. I think I am right in saying that the general level for foodstuffs is to-day still below the figure for 1930 and 1931. Those of us who represent constituencies which are vitally interested in the livestock industry, and particularly in the production of beef, regard the proposals for the imposition of duties on foreign imports as a step that is long overdue. We recognise at the same time that the imposition of these duties alone cannot possibly provide any satisfactory solution of the problem of beef production in this country or bring relief from the distress which so many producers are suffering at the present time.
  It is almost impossible to consider these duties unrelated to the whole of the Government's livestock policy, which is to be the subject of a Bill to be introduced at a later date, and for that reason we have found ourselves faced with some difficulty with regard to the scope of this Debate. What we have to consider mainly to-day is how far these duties are a necessary and desirable feature of the whole of the Government's policy. There is, I think, general agreement that the plight of the beef producers in this country is so desperate, and that beef production occupies such a very important place in the agricultural economy of this country, that some further steps, at any rate, are essential to bring assistance to the industry and to prevent a still more serious decline in production. The peculiar nature of the problem that confronts us was very clearly outlined in the speech made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and it is clear that these duties are not intended to have, and cannot have, any protective effect. They must be regarded solely as an instrument for the collection of revenue, an instrument which will at the same time go some way towards offsetting the direct subsidy that is to be paid from the
  2360
  Exchequer; and as such these proposals have been criticised on two main grounds.
  They have been attacked by hon. Members opposite and by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holds-worth) on the ground that they are likely to increase the price of the cheapest class of meat and place a burden on the poorest consumers of this country. So far as the attack from the benches opposite is concerned, it seemed to me to be a very half-hearted attack. The hon. Member for South Bradford went further and delivered a denunciation of every form of assistance that could be given to the agricultural industry. But the main argument is only valid if it can be conclusively shown that these duties must inevitably lead to a rise in prices, and I believe there is no justification whatever for that assumption. In the first place, Great Britain is a monopoly buyer of beef. This is the only market in which the Argentine producer can place his products, and I believe that this is one of those exceptional cases in which the exporter will be obliged to pay the whole duty. It is a case in which the importing country can dictate the price to be paid, and if any further evidence is required for that proposition, it is clearly demonstrated in the great reluctance that has been shown on the part of the Argentine to agree to any form of duties at all.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I am very interested in the hon. Member's argument, but perhaps he would like to know that our trade quotations throughout this week are already showing that an advance is being required by the shippers and exporters to meet the new duties. The quotations to the trade this week show an increase.
  Mr. DUCKWORTH: I am quite prepared to accept that as a fact, but I am very much surprised to hear it, and it seems to me that it is very early to offer that information as definite evidence that that is going to be the course of events in the future. Let me put forward another reason for thinking that there will not he any increase in prices. Surely the very fact that the Dominions have been excluded from the scope of these duties affords a further guarantee that any increase in price is extremely improbable. It seems to me that where you have such an enormous extent of

  2361
  free market still open, any tendency towards an increase of price is almost sure to be offset by the competition which will be met from the Dominions.
  That leads me to the second line of criticism that has been brought against these proposals. Whatever may be said for excluding Dominion imports from the scope of these duties, it does, at any rate, represent a very definite departure from the statement of Government policy contained in the White Paper of July, 1934. That statement contemplated that duties would be imposed on all imports, and I am bound to confess that up to date at any rate it seems to me that no very adequate reasons have been brought forward to justify a departure from that statement. I regret that that departure has been made at this stage, for this reason: I have never believed, and I do not now believe, that adequate protection to the home industry can be given purely through the imposition of duties on imports from the Dominions or from foreign sources. The Ottawa Agreements are shortly coming up for revision, and I believe that we have already given away in advance the most powerful bargaining weapon that we could have held in our hands in respect of a class of imports in which the Dominions must inevitably be vitally concerned.
  I should have no objection whatever to excluding imports from the Dominions if we had received some reciprocal advantage to compensate for the advantage which we are giving them. There is a very definite impression in this country that when the Ottawa Agreements were concluded the Dominions got very much the better of the bargain, and it seems to me that a situation cannot and should not be perpetuated in which we give the Dominions Imperial Free Trade and receive in return only a measure of Imperial Preference. I hope that that whole question may still be reconsidered. I recognise that these duties are only incidental to the whole of the Government's policy for dealing with the livestock industry. I recognise fully that the whole question of organisation, marketing, and many other problems have to be dealt with besides, but I believe that these duties represent at any rate a step in the right direction, and I shall certainly support them in the Division Lobby tonight.
  7.39 p.m.
  Mr. C HATER: I wish to give an uncompromising opposition to the Resolution before the Committee, and I do so purely from the point of view that has been laid down this afternoon on a point of Order, that we are to regard this as a purely revenue-producing Resolution, having no relation whatever to future legislation. Taking it from that point of view, I want the Committee to realise the effects that the Resolution will have on some of the poorest of the population of this kingdom. I come from a constituency which, although it cannot be described as a depressed area, yet is one of the poorest in the whole of London, an area in which poverty is widespread, and not only so, but under the social and economic conditions of the system under which we live, must be perpetual.
  I would ask hon. Members opposite to consider the effects of this tax upon imported meat on the people who live in my constituency. There must be simply thousands of working-class folk whose incomes, even when they are in regular employment, do not exceed £2 per week, and a tax of ¾d. per lb. on imported beef, I presume, will represent, when the folk in my constituency go to the local butcher's to buy their meat, at least a 1d. per lb. increase, because I assume, and I hope I assume rightly, that the whole purpose of the duty is to raise the cost to the consumer of imported chilled beef in order that its price may compare more favourably with that of English beef. If you take a working-class family of only five persons, and you are prepared to allow that they are entitled among the whole family to 6 lbs. of beef per week, it will mean a tax on them of 6d. per week. That may not sound a great amount to hon. Members opposite, but I can assure them that to the humble and poor folk who live in North-East Bethnal Green, where the conditions already for the majority of them are so economically stressful, another 6d. a week represents a real burden.
  There is a large number also of unemployed people in that constituency who have no prospect before them except to live either on the dole, as it is called, or else on public assistance relief, and for them this will represent a deduction of at least 6d. a week from their already very limited means. When I come to

  2363
  survey the vast army of unemployed, I ask myself whether those responsible for introducing these Resolutions will be able, through the proper representatives in the Government, to get instructions conveyed to those responsible for the scales of relief to be given under the Unemployment Assistance Board that this extra 6d. a week which is to come out of the pockets of those people will be taken into account when assessing their means. Already in the East End of London I think it may be said that the Government's agricultural policy has, practically speaking, banished bacon from the breakfast table of the working classes, and I wonder how far they are prepared to pursue their agricultural policy in an attempt to raise the prices of imported meat in order that they may compare less favourably, with those of English beef.
  I ask myself what, after all, is the objective of this tax. I presume it is to increase the consumption of English beef and to reduce the consumption of imported beef. I should be out of order in discussing the purpose to which this revenue is to be applied, but we know that a subsidy must eventually be given to the producers of English beef, and that seems to mean that the poor people in my constituency are to be mulcted in 6d. a week from their already limited income in order that a subsidy may be given to the producer of beef in this country. From one point of view, that may assist in keeping down the prices of British beef to the people who can afford to buy it much better than can the people in Bethnal Green. I should not complain so much if the policies which the Government have followed would, on balance, give more employment to the people of this country, but the net result of them is that if one unemployed man is put into work an employed man is automatically put out of work. It has already been admitted that there is no increase in the number of agricultural workers, and if we were able to reduce imports of Argentine beef by 50 per cent. what would be the result on employment? We should find a diminution of employment in shipping and in the business done in banking and insurance and in the work available at the wharves and docks of our ports. So, taking it all in all, I
  2364
  am doubtful whether any of these measures give on balance increased employment to our people.
  In all these policies the Government are not taking a national point of view, rot planning agriculture on anything like scientific lines. Rather, the policy reveals the horns of the dilemma on which the Government find themselves. On the one hand they are afraid to increase the price of food to a point where it will lose them the votes of the working classes to a greater extent than they have already lost them, and on the other hand there are on the benches behind them representatives of the agricultural interests putting increasing pressure on them to do something for agriculture at the expense of the rest of the community. When faced with a choice of these alternatives, I can only say that under existing conditions I will stand unflinchingly against any increase in the cost of the food of the people, because I can see no prospect of the Government doing anything to give them increased spending power to meet the additional burden.
  7.48 p.m.
  Major BRAITHWAITE: I do not want to intervene, except to challenge the speech made by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). He expressed himself in such vigorous terms in criticising the agricultural industry that I felt profoundly grateful that he and his associates were not in charge of the Government, because then the position of our agriculturists would indeed be quite forlorn. I am satisfied that the Members of the official Opposition are prepared to give the farmer and the farm worker, at any rate, a fair deal if a basis can be found which is satisfactory. We have been told that these are duties for revenue purposes, and therefore they do not interest very much the Minister of Agriculture. I should have thought the Government could have found many other better means of raising revenue. On the other hand, I should like to draw the attention of the Government to their original proposal, which appeared in 1934, when they definitely stated in a White Paper that they were prepared to help the livestock industry by putting a substantial duty on the whole of the meat imported, using the revenue for the purpose of maintaining fair prices at home. As has been pointed out by an hon.

  2365
  Member, the cost of raising meat in the Argentine is out of all proportion to what it is in this country, and the difference cannot be offset by a duty such as is proposed to-day, so we can definitely rule out of our argument the view that this duty will give any protection to the farmer or give him any greater share of the market to which he is justly entitled.
  I am one of those who believe that agriculturists should be given an adequate and a proper opportunity, with a safe market. When I refer to a safe market I want the Committee to remember that farming in this country is not a short-term business. Farmers have to plan two or three years ahead if they are to do any good. They cannot say, "I will manufacture something to-day and sell it to-morrow." They have to look two or three years ahead and to have some idea of what they are going to receive for their products if they are to make a profit. If we can reasonably give farming that opportunity of looking ahead we shall find in this branch of agriculture the greatest possible scope for expansion. I regard the livestock industry as absolutely the foundation of British agriculture, and although these duties may not realise our hope of Protection they ought to give the Government a line, and if they prove to be satisfactory and without disadvantages we might be able to have a greater amount of protection under the cloak of these duties, in which case our own industry could expand without detriment to the people generally.
  I am just as zealous as the hon. Member for South Bradford to see that the people get an adequate supply of food at reasonable prices, but I am opposed to the agricultural industry losing the whole of its capital and its hope for the future by supplying the people with food at prices below the economic cost of production. I ask the hon. Member for South Bradford to realise that over one-tenth of the working population of this country are dependent on the land for their living. When he criticises the policy of the Government on the ground that it will reduce the purchasing capacity of the public he is disregarding the fact that our own agricultural workers can buy from his constituents—from the manufacturers of this country—as much as the whole of the rest of Europe is buying from us to-day, if only agriculture is put on a proper basis. So I gladly support these
  2366
  duties and I hope they are the forerunner of a proper basis of Protection for agriculturists. They are worth protecting, worth helping in every way, because agriculture produces the soundest stock for our industrial as well as our rural occupations. If we are to have an A1 nation it is up to us to do everything we can to secure an adequate living for those who work on the land. I support the duties, and wish they were more, because I frankly believe that if we were given more our own costs of production might drop, and we should have a better opportunity of meeting competition. If these duties are to be used for the purpose of encouraging better marketing and other improvements I think they will serve a valuable and useful purpose for the nation, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will take very good care that the whole of these revenues are collected and pocketed by him for use in his Department. I can assure him that the farmers of this country will do their share when they are called upon to do it.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. H. HASLAM: One or two hon. Members opposite have spoken as representatives of very poor constituencies. An hon. Member for a Durham constituency pointed out that he represents a depressed area, and an hon. Member from a London constituency said he represented an area only just above a depressed area. I speak for a, district of Lincolnshire which I, in company with other Members who represent agricultural constituencies, have been striving for the last four years to prevent from becoming a derelict area. Many hon. Members opposite have described agriculture as a kind of spoiled child. They say it is always having a great deal done for it, and has had too much done for it. The fact is that what has been done has, perhaps, saved agriculture from a dreadful fate, has perhaps saved many parts of the countryside from becoming derelict. Even to-day there is land out of cultivation and a great deal which is under-cultivated, for the simple reason that with the present wholesale prices agriculturists cannot get even a reasonable remuneration, let alone any sufficient return on their money, and cannot pay agricultural workers anything like the wages that highly-skilled workers in town industries can command. That is the situation at present.

  2367
  I do not think that anyone representing an agricultural constituency would wish to inflict further burdens on the poorer part of the community. Hon. Members who have asserted that this duty of ¾d. a lb. on foreign meat will fall in its entirety on consumers have not offered us very much proof of that contention. They have simply assumed the fact and then argued that it was a very bad duty. I will give the Committee one or two reasons why we may feel that the duty will not fall on the consumer in this country. In the first place the Argentine producers themselves have conducted their negotiations on the assumption that they will have to pay the whole of the duty and have fought against it. If it were all to be paid by the consumer surely they would not have minded, and would not have engaged in these protracted negotiations, because it would not have made any difference to them. There is also the factor that we are the main buyers of Argentine meat; and, further, there is little opportunity for the Argentine estancias to produce anything else. We had an illustration of the position in the case of the Irish Free State. The duties put on had very little effect on the price of meat in this country; in fact, I think they had no effect at all, but the Irish producer had to keep on, because in an occupation like agriculture, where stock raising is a vital part of the industry, one cannot stop. Another factor to be taken into account is the free importation of meat from the Dominions. On all those grounds I do not think this duty can be regarded as anything else than a revenue duty.
  Hon. Members opposite have asked, "If it is only a revenue duty, how does it benefit British agriculture?" The reason why this duty, raising £3,000,000, will benefit British agriculture lies in the fact that the £3,000,000 goes into a fund which will be used to put the livestock industry on a better basis. That is the reason why this duty will benefit agriculture.
  An hon. Member stated just now that he proposed to accept the duty if it could be shown that it would increase employment. It will increase employment, because if we can put agriculture eventually upon a decent basis, the agricultural community can buy largely from British manufacturers. The agricultural
  2368
  worker, the farmer and all those who are engaged in agriculture are always willing to buy British goods rather than foreign. We agricultural Members of Parliament have supported the Government throughout in imposing duties on foreign commodities, as upon iron and steel. Hon. Members of the Opposition voted for the duties on iron and steel, but when it came to putting a comparatively small duty upon some agricultural product, they went into the Lobby against it. All that agriculture asks is the same treatment as is received by other industries. In introducing these Resolutions, the Minister stated that the object of the Government was to enable the farmer and agricultural worker to obtain a reasonable remuneration for their labours. That is plain and simple, and we agricultural Members support that policy.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. RILEY: I have listened to the arguments that have been adduced to show whether or not the proposed duty will be paid by the exporters of chilled beef. I suggest that if the duty does not result in increasing the price of imported beef to the consumers in this country or in diminishing the supply of beef which is coming in here, it will not be of much use to the British farmer. Surely the object of the proposal is to enable the British farmer to have a higher price for home-produced beef and a larger market, by the curtailment of the possible supply—
  Mr. HASLAM: May I interrupt the hon. Member? I did definitely say that the reason for this duty to bring in about £3,000,000 a year was to benefit the British farmer, and that it went to a fund to improve the livestock industry.
  Mr. RILEY: The British farmer gets that £3,000,000 now. That is the obvious reply to the hon. Member. All that it means is that whereas the British farmer now gets it from the Exchequer, he will get it from the duty on foodstuffs consumed by the people. I oppose the Resolution because I feel in my very bones that it is one of the most indefensible and inequitable proposals made by any Government. It is not disguised that the object of the Resolution is to place a duty upon a commodity which is admittedly consumed by the poorer sections of the British people. It is not disputed that the obvious result

  2369
  will be to raise, out of a commodity consumed by the poorest people, over £3,000,000. It is intended to hand that £3,000,000 over to a section of the community who do not include the poorest classes. The duty will enable the farmer to continue to pay his rent to the landlord, and it is a contribution to help him in that work. In the second place, the subsidy of 5s. per cwt. will encourage the home producer to increase the supply of home-produced beef. The result of the increased supply has been that his prices have not risen; as a matter of fact they have gone down. The rich, the well-to-do, the Income Tax payer, get the benefit. They share in the £3,000,000, which is handed out by this proposal, and that is its outstanding effect.
  Let me call the Committee's attention to the broad facts. Our total consumption of beef is roughly 26,000,000 cwts. per annum. Of that total 10,000,000 cwts. are imported chilled beef, mostly from Argentina. It is proposed to put upon those 10,000,000 cwts. a duty of ¾d. per lb., which looks very innocent upon paper. When you look into it, it is obvious that under this proposal the duty will be 7s. per cwt. or £7 per ton on all chilled beef imported into this country. Does the hon. Gentleman think, in his heart of hearts, that Argentina will stand the whole of that £7 per ton? It is useless to imagine that she will. But let us assume that that is the case, and that the exporter is going to stand it; it does not alter the fact that the benefit will go to a special class of the community. Assuming that Argentina does not charge any more after the embargo of £7 per ton is imposed, and that the consumer does not pay more, those who get the benefit are the Income Tax payers, the landowner and the farmer. They get the £3,500,000 in the shape of a reduction of costs for maintenance and rent; it also goes to the well-to-do who consume the home-produced meat.
  It has been stated by the Minister that an import duty to the consumer, supplemented by a subsidy to the producer, is what the Government aim at. One comes back to the question: Who is to pay the subsidy? I do not think that the subsidy is necessary, and I take the view that there are remedies for agriculture other than subsidies from State funds. There are reorganisation and better marketing, that general reorganisation of
  2370
  the industry to put it on to a more businesslike footing. Who is to pay the subsidy? Giving assistance to agriculture in this way is calling upon the poorest of the poor to make a contribution towards an industry from which only the well-to-do will receive benefit. From every point of view it is obvious that this method of dealing with the agricultural situation is one of the most indefensible. No Government with self-respect should have the face to present it to any Parliament, and to ask people who are unemployed or the widow living on a widow's pension to contribute, in the price of the meat they buy, to the relief of people who are well-to-do and who can afford to pay the proper price, and a subsidy, if necessary.
  I should like to add one word on the question of whether the duty will affect the price of meat to the poorest consumers. To-day there is a difference in the price of good chilled meat, the quality of which is not questioned, I suppose, oil the opposite side of the House. There is' a choice open to the consumer of having chilled meat at as low as 4½d. per lb. for the poor people, up to 7d. or 8d. for the best meat, as against British beef at 10d. per lb. up to as much as 1s. 3d. per lb. That is a difference of 4d., 5d. or 6d. per lb. It takes little imagination to see that, as long as that difference exists, the poorest people will naturally be confined to consuming imported meat—good meat, it is not disputed—and the people who will have the home-grown beef will be those who are in a position to buy it. The duty or subsidy of ¾d. per lb. will go to one class only. On those grounds I oppose the Resolution and I hope that the Committee will reject it.
  8.13 p.m.
  Mr. LEWIS: Earlier this afternoon, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) argued that it was a serious matter to put a duty on imported foodstuffs. I could not follow him in some of the deductions which he arrived at from that argument, but I felt that the argument itself was perfectly sound. It is a very serious matter to put an import duty upon an article of food which is so widely consumed as beef. It requires, therefore, justification from any Government who propose such a step. We are invited in this Resolution to put on such duties. I feel that there was a

  2371
  good deal to be said for the contention, put forward by several hon. Members opposite, that the Resolutions should have been prefaced by a speech by the Minister of Agriculture telling us the purpose of the duty and of the policy of which they form a part. Instead of that, we had a speech from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He made a brief and, if I may say so without offence, I thought rather perfunctory reference to the policy on which these Resolutions are based. It is quite true that, in reply to a question which I ventured to put to him, he admitted that there was a complete change in the Government's policy on the matter, but he declined then, apparently, to tell us why that change had been decided upon.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My hon. Friend will forgive me, but he only anticipated the points that I was going to put in my remarks in relation to that question.
  Mr. LEWIS: I beg pardon. It is quite true that I interrupted him, and I had to realise that he did allude to them; I do not wish to misinterpret him in any way. But there is no doubt that there has been a great change in the attitude of the Government towards this matter. When the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Scotland was Minister of Agriculture, we were told on several occasions, both in speeches and in command papers, that in the view of the Government the best long-term policy for meat was a policy of import duties on meat from all sources with a preference for the Dominions. To-day that is not the proposal that is put before us. Instead of that, we have these Resolutions proposing duties on meat coming from certain countries, and excluding the idea of any duty on meat coming from Dominion sources. There is, to my mind, one grave objection to this modified policy. It is that, on the admission of the Government's spokesmen themselves, it will not suffice to provide the money required. These duties are not expected to yield enough to provide the money which the Government feel is required to secure an adequate return to the grower in this country.
  The example, which we all have before us, of the Wheat Act, appears to have
  2372
  been completely ignored. That showed us how it is possible to reconcile two largely conflicting purposes—the purpose of securing an adequate price to the home grower and the purpose of ensuring the consumer the widest possible sources of supply from overseas. I quite admit that there are certain peculiar features with regard to wheat which made the application of those principles easier in that case than. in the case of meat, but I have yet to learn that there are any insuperable difficulties in applying precisely the same principles to meat which were then applied to wheat. There seems to me to be an element of justice in the basis on which the proposals for wheat were made. The British farmer was in grave difficulties because of the importation of large supplies from abroad at low prices, and surely, if we desire agriculture to continue in this country, it is not unreasonable to say that those sources of supply from overseas which are themselves the cause of the home difficulty should contribute to removing that difficulty. That was the principle of the Wheat Act, and it is no doubt partly the principle of these Resolutions, but in my view it would have been far more completely and satisfactorily achieved if the Government had stuck to their original proposal in the case of meat, and put a duty on all meat coming from overseas, with a preference to the Dominions.
  The House of Commons has been very patient in this matter. The last Minister of Agriculture repeatedly came to us and asked for time. He asked for temporary subsidies, temporary Acts were passed, and, as I say, the House was very patient. It was felt in all parts of the House that it was not unreasonable, in view of the complicated and difficult nature of the problem that he had to face, that he should be given time to work out the complete details. I cannot say that I, for one, regard these Resolutions as a fair reward for that patience. It may be argued, on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, that these proposals are better than nothing, and I accept that as far as it goes, because I believe it to be true. But I think it is a great misfortune that those principles which were so clearly enunciated on several occasions by the last Minister of Agriculture, have been departed from. I understand that the Secretary

  2373
  to the Overseas Trade Department is to reply to this Debate. I should like to ask him, if he will, to devote at any rate a few minutes of his reply to answering this question: Why have the Government changed their policy with respect to meat coming from the Dominions? How have the Dominions succeeded in cajoling or frightening them into giving up part of their policy? Before we are asked to assent to these Financial Resolutions tonight, we are entitled to put that question, and we are entitled to expect an answer to it. I would point out that we are not now being asked, as we have been before, to do something of an admittedly temporary character; we are being asked to take the first step in a permanent policy so far as this Government is concerned, and I think the question I have mentioned is one that it is reasonable to ask, and one to which it is reasonable to expect a considered reply.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. BARNES: The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) has referred to the permanency of the tax that we are considering to-night. We are familiar in the House of Commons with taxes imposed for revenue purposes, and, until the advent of the National Government, that principle was characteristic of the fiscal system of this country. It was a policy that the average citizen could clearly understand, and the equity and incidence of any tax could be followed. The National Government have already complicated our fiscal and financial system by introducing a method of taxation designed probably to adjust the costs of production overseas as against home production, and to improve the earning capacity of the home manufacturer. Now we are considering the imposition of a tax of an entirely different character—a tax which is being imposed on one section of the citizens of this country on a commodity that they consume, and the revenue from which is to be earmarked as a gift for another section of citizens in this country. The group of citizens who are to be taxed are the poorer element of the community to whom my hon. Friend has referred, while the recipients of the tax are the more wealthy members of the community.
  Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: They are still poorer.
  Mr. BARNES: I do not agree that the recipients are still poorer. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the agricultural worker, I should be inclined to agree with him. If some of these bountiful gifts from the State found their way to the worker, that would alter our attitude towards some of these doles that are being given to the agricultural community. But we see no evidence that the generosity of the Government in the matter of doles to the farmers is raising the standard of the agricultural worker.
  Sir E. SHEPPERSON: The worker is a partner in the agricultural industry.
  Mr. BARNES: I should say he is a very submerged and a very inferior partner. However, when we are considering the imposition of duties as part of the permanent fiscal system, it is desirable to point out how vicious is the principle of taxing one class of citizens for the purpose of making a direct gift to another. It is also interesting to contrast the attitude of the Treasury tonight with its attitude towards the Road Fund on the last Budget. The Chancellor was then at some pains to explain that it was undesirable to earmark any tax for a specific purpose although Parliament, when it imposed the very heavy taxation on motorists, justified it on the ground of the heavy cost that would have to be met in transforming the highways to meet the new form of motor traffic. The Chancellor a few months ago abolished that principle as far as motor taxation is concerned, and now we are to have a tax on an important food commodity for the purpose of making a gift to another group of individuals.
  The procedure to-night is also open to criticism. On five different occasions since 1934 the Government have asked us to vote supplies for this branch of the agricultural industry, and altogether we have voted roughly £11,000,000 for the purpose of helping the breeders of cattle. Yet the Financial Secretary admitted that the pouring in of £11,000,000 into the industry has in no way remedied the position. I think we were at least entitled, even within the limits of the Ruling of the Chair, to some indication as to why the Government believe that the continuance of this payment will improve the state of the industry. The Financial Secretary merely outlined the

  2375
  commodities upon which the tax would fall and those upon which it would not. fall, but he advanced no reason for the-tax itself. He indicated that this duty of ¾d. a lb. on chilled meat represented 20 per cent. of the value of the imported commodity, and that the two-thirds of a penny duty on frozen beef also represented 20 per cent. of the value. Can we have some statement as to how this value is arrived at? Is it on particular sections or joints or parts of the carcase, or are you arriving at that calculation on the whole carcase?
  In relating this to the consumption of these commodities, I should like to support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) that it is the poorest section of the community that will pay the tax. Sir John Orr stated that the low-purchasing groups consume, roughly, 20 ounces per head per week of meat, and the higher-purchasing groups consume on an average 50 ounces. If we analysed the purchasers of the group that consume only 20 ounces a week, we should find that that group, with hardly an exception, purchases frozen and chilled meat. The higher-purchasing groups in the main purchase English and Scotch beef. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Major Dorman-Smith) stated that the real long-term solution of this problem was for the industrial population to have higher wages. I entirely agree. If you want agriculture to get on a permanently prosperous basis, the only way to do it is to raise the buying power of the industrial workers. I speak on this from actual experience. During the War I was president of the largest co-operative organisation in the country. When the workers were fully employed and their wages were relatively high, practically the whole of the meat sold from our shops was English. It is absurd to suggest that any British working man purchases frozen or chilled meat from inclination. He buys it only because his pocket will not allow him to go to English meat. At that period practically the whole of our sales consisted of English meat. That persisted until we moved into the economic slump of 1920 and widespread unemployment developed. Hon. Members opposite and their friends, and their Press, led an agitation for reducing
  2376
  wages, and wages fell considerably. The working people could no longer buy English meat, and they were compelled to demand the cheaper joints. By reason of that method and because of the fact that we have had the importation of overseas supplies, we have had the collapse of the British agricultural industry. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wishes to know how we should grapple with this problem if we were the Government, I will tell him. We would not grapple with it by putting a tax upon frozen meat and making the poor pay so that the rich could be excused from taxation. We would so arrange the economy of this country as to give the workers decent wages, and then we should get a prosperous agricultural industry.
  8.36 p.m.
  Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I was interested in listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes). He assumed that the lower purchasing power of the workers caused them to buy imported frozen or chilled meat, and that the more wealthy section of the community were able to purchase English meat. I would ask him whether, in his opinion, the Members of the Committee are in the category of lower paid workers or of the more wealthy individuals, because I have been led to understand that when we in this House have lamb for our dinner, it mostly comes from New Zealand.
  Mr. BARNES: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that his party have a majority on the Kitchen Committee.
  Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I have no intention of detaining the Committee on this matter for more than a very few minutes, but I feel that I have a duty to the Committee to express my appreciation for this Financial Resolution and the Measure that we are to-day discussing. I myself some four of five years ago, believing in the taxation of meat, had the courage in this House to put down an Amendment to the Import Duties Bill taking meat out of the free list and letting it be subject to a 10 per cent. duty and any further duty that the Advisory Committee might ultimately suggest. The reply given to me at that time by the President of the Board of Trade was that I was asking for a tax upon meat, the essential food of the people, and that

  2377
  such a tax would be detrimental to the interests of our large industrial towns in sending up food prices. Therefore, in the interests of those industrial towns, the Government could not accept my Amendment. I took it to a Division and naturally lost. It could not be accepted because it might increase the price of food.
  The Ottawa Conference came along. I often think that at that time, in the early years of the National Government, when we had as Members of the Government such renowned Liberals as Sir Herbert Samuel, a tax on food was ruled out of the question. Ottawa decided to adopt, as a means of raising commodity prices, the quantitative regulation of imports. I have never yet been able to understand how it is possible for an individual to accept the raising of commodity prices by quantitative regulation of imports and at the same time refuse to have the price raised by the simple, straightforward method of tariff. However, Ottawa decided for the quantitative regulation of imports. But I stuck to my guns, and, at the time that those quantitative regulations of imports were being discussed, I still maintained my preference for a duty rather than for the quantitative regulations. The reply given to me then was that what we all wanted was to raise commodity prices and that the experience was that a tax upon meat would not raise commodity prices and therefore would do no good. Two years before my advocacy of a tax on meat could not be accepted because it would raise prices, and two years afterwards it could not be accepted because it would not raise prices
  To-day I am in the position that at long last we have before the Committee that which I have advocated for the last four or five years, namely, a tax upon meat. I have never yet found out whether the Members of the Government are of the opinion that it will raise commodity prices or whether it will not. I therefore speak definitely in favour of the Resolution bringing meat within the scope of a tax for the first time in its history. But I have some criticism to make, and it is a criticism that is being made, I think, in many parts of the Committee. This is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. The figure is not sufficiently high to meet the demand that will be made, and
  2378
  it does not include—it is a, criticism that we all have to make—the Dominions. Personally I have always favoured, and shall always continue to favour, the principle of dealing with imports not by quantitative restriction of imports; not by raising the price by quantitative restriction, but by a straightforward tariff and by giving a substantial preference to the Dominions. That would not raise the price to the consumer.
  We are dealing with ¾ on the lb. We producers are selling meat at somewhere round about 5d. or 6d. a lb., and consumers are to-day paying is. 2d. or ls. 4d. a lb. Therefore there is plenty of margin to enable us to get a penny without the consumers having to pay anything more for their meat. f suggest that this proposal, making foreign meat subject to tax, will not affect the consumers in the least, and that the tax can be borne by the distributive agencies as distinct from the producers and the consumers. I would have liked to have seen the Government fulfil the policy which we understood they were going to bring forward to deal with meat, that of the levy-subsidy principle; the same policy as was being applied to other agricultural commodities, such as milk products, bacon and so on. I regret that they have to this extent departed from that principle. They have had the illustration of the Wheat Act, which has worked well and smoothly, and I still think that it might, have been possible to adapt their meat, policy somewhat on the lines of the wheat policy; to have given a standard figure of the price the producer wanted to receive for his meat, and to have a flexible levy on all imported meat, with preference to the Dominions, which would go into a fund, kept solvent in order to pay the deficiency price as between the standard figure and that at which the cattle was sold by the producer.
  It would have been possible to have had something of that description, which would not have been resented by the Dominions. If they had been given a substantial preference under the levy I believe they would have accepted it. We should then have been in the position that the levy could have been made flexible and the fund always kept solvent. If world prices of meat rose the levy would fall, because the deficiency pay-

  2379
  ments would go down. That is not the policy of the Government, but I hope that in the future, when easier conditions obtain, they will adopt that policy which they themselves put forward in the White Paper. In the meantime, because this is the first occasion on which what I have advocated for five or six years, namely, a straightforward tariff, is being applied, I shall give the Resolution my support.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: We are grateful to the hon. Member for explaining to us the difficulties that he finds in the agricultural industry, and particularly for pointing out how easy it would be to solve this problem if we had co-ordination from the producer to the consumer and the removal of the intermediaries who, he contends, are consuming the enormous profits made by the producers.
  Sir E. SHEPPERSON: Should be made.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: It would seem that if 5d. or 6d. is the margin of difference between the producer and consumer a substantial sum of money is running to waste, so that the Government should tackle the question of re-organisation if they are to carry out the substance of the hon. Member's remarks. To-night many hon. Members have had the pleasure of listening to a representative of New Zealand in this country. We have had a practical demonstration from him of how it is possible to solve the agricultural problem in dealing, first, with what the land should produce and, secondly, guaranteeing a price level for the products of the land. He suggested that it would be practicable if we dealt with the differences of the home market as well as the foreign market, and he showed how it would be possible for persons in this country engaged in the production of manufactured goods to consume agricultural products if they were given a reasonable purchasing capacity. I have had occasion many times in this House to say that the farmers in my constituency never complain, except as farmers would normally complain, that they were suffering grave losses when the miners were paid a reasonable wage. Most hon. Members would agree that if the consumers of beef and other agricultural products in this country were paid
  2380
  a living wage that would enable them and their dependants to subsist properly, the products of agriculture would command a reasonable price and the persons engaged in that industry, including the agricultural labourer, would be paid a
  fairly decent wage.
  The Government are carrying out precisely the policy that hon. Members on this side of the Committee would expect them to carry out. They are carrying out in this proposal another piece of class legislation. That is precisely what we expect the Government to do. I should be surprised if they did anything to improve the lot of the poor. The purpose of the Government is to remove as far as possible any burden which they conceive to be borne by the rich. That is precisely what this Resolution is for. It is to enable those who can purchase English beef to purchase it at as cheap a price as possible at the expense of the poor, who have to consume chilled beef because they cannot afford to purchase anything else. The miners have to consume cheap beef, not because they desire to eat chilled beef but because they receive 32s. to 35s. if they are unemployed or 42s. to 45s. a week if they are employed. Upon these people who are unemployed, who are subject to the means test, or in receipt of unemployment benefit, and the miner who is paid on an average not more than £118 a year, this extra cost of ¾d. per lb. is to be placed. These are the people upon whom the Government expect to build the revival
  of the agricultural industry. The Government should face up, first, to the problem of the enormous rent charged by landowners and the enormous interest charged on mortgages to the person who has to borrow money.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Member was here at the beginning of the Debate, when I ruled that it is very strictly limited.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I feared that I should not be able to deal with Government policy as such, but the Amendment which stands in the name of some of my hon. Friends suggests that this matter shall be deferred so long as the means test applies in this country; that it shall be deferred for 12 months until the Government has had an opportunity of reconsidering the whole matter. I presume that during

  2381
  that time they would see how the means test was being applied in other parts of the country, particularly on the basic trades, in which we have a large number of persons aggregated in what are now designated the Special Areas.
  Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): On a point of Order. May we be informed where the Amendment about the means test comes in? The only Amendment that I can see is one which suggests that in line 3, after "thirty-six" there should be inserted "until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven," and another Amendment, that in line 7, at the end, there should be inserted, "and, being Empire products, duties of customs at half the rates so specified."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In regard to the Amendments referred to, the first one would not have the effect suggested by the hon. Member, and if the hon. Member in whose name that Amendment stands is going to move it, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) had better not anticipate the discussion on it. The second Amendment is out of order.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I will leave the Amendment to my hon. Friend. I presumed that it would be in order to make comments on the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), who has in mind the burden that will fall upon the consumer under the proposed increase of ¾ per lb. He was hoping that it would be possible, by the acceptance of his Amendment, to defer this burden for at least 12 months. The Government ought to be prepared to accept an Amendment of that kind. I am not going into the merits of the question, but I hope the Government will appreciate that there is some substance in the Amendment. I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). I can understand why the hon. Member for Colchester was not favourable to what the Government are doing. He foresees what will happen. He realises that if this extra burden is to be placed upon poor people who are wage earners the time will shortly come when those wage earners will demand an increase in wages
  2382
  in order to meet the rise in prices. That is certainly what the hon. Member had in mind, although he did not positively say it. He spoke as one interested in the manufacturing industry concerned with the probability that the workmen of this country would seek to remedy what the Government are doing by demanding an increase in wages at least equal to the increase in prices imposed upon them as customers. That is a remedy which I hope trade unions will take in regard to all proposals of this nature which come before the Committee. About £11,000,000 is to be handed to the farmers, and yet the Government hand out only a miserable sum of money to relieve the dire distress in our depressed areas, not to revive industry but because it has some propaganda value as a presumption of their sympathy for the million and a half and their dependants who are in penury due to the Government's own policy.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we had better keep to the Resolution.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am endeavouring to keep within the limits of the Debate, which I appreciate are very narrow indeed. I am hoping that Special Areas represented by Government supporters will realise how the Government are not helping these Special Areas by any financial aid, but are actually taxing them as consumers. I am hoping that the Special Areas will realise what the Government supporters who represent them are doing in such proposals as this. There can be no doubt that this Resolution is designed to hit hardest the people who are receiving the least income. The Treasury will save £3,000,000, and this burden will be placed upon the poor, because out of their poverty they are compelled to buy chilled beef.
  8.59 p.m.
  Miss LLOYD GEORGE: An hon. Member opposite who criticised the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Holdsworth) suggested that hon. Members on these benches were not alive to the state of the agricultural community. I repudiate that suggestion most strongly. I represent an agricultural community where the conditions are lamentable. Not within the memory of living man have the conditions been worse in the island I represent than they are to-day. It is the greatest mistake to assume that the in-

  2383
  terests of the towns and the countryside are conflicting. To me they seem to be the same. After all, we are all members of one body, and I cannot think of anything which will benefit the agricultural community more than really effective action to assist the distressed areas and increase the purchasing capacity of the unemployed.
  Nothing has convinced me more of the futility of these suggested measures to assist farmers than the speeches of hon. Members opposite. They are pinning their faith to Protection. That is their policy. But what they are doing is that, while they are protecting farmers from one competitor they are exposing them to other competitors who are becoming increasingly formidable. While they are putting up a shelter to the agricultural community in one direction they are taking down a shelter in a quarter from which the prevailing wind is coming. I cannot see that it matters very much to the farmer any more than it did to Abel whether it is his brother or a stranger who does him in. The thing which is of vital importance is that he is done in.
  We have been told by hon. Members opposite that these are only revenue producing duties, that there is nothing new in them and that it is no matter of concern to the Minister of Agriculture, as one hon. Member said, except in so far as these duties are going to pay for the subsidy. It is another example of the good old-fashioned theory, which is dying very hard, that the foreigner pays. It is only a device by which he burden instead of being placed upon the shoulders of the taxpayer is going to be placed on the shoulders of those who are less able to bear it. There is nothing new in it, say some hon. Members. If that is true, it is really not going to assist the farmer. He is still going to depend on the subsidy, and will hon. Members opposite seriously say that the subsidy has benefited the farmer very greatly or that he is getting higher prices as a result of it? My farmers are not, and I should like to hear whether other hon. Members have a different experience. The subsidy has hardly made a fraction of difference to his position.
  The salvation of the agricultural industry is not going to come that way, and I think the Government might
  2384
  profitably inquire where the subsidy is going. This House has been prepared to pay out money to assist the farmer over what is considered to be an emergency period, but I doubt very much whether it would have been prepared to pay a subsidy which is certainly not going to the farmer, and which I have more than a shrewd suspicion is going to the middleman. I do not think hon. Members are prepared to vote him a subsidy. The only thing which is really going to affect the situation—and the Government will have to come to it in the end—is the reorganisation of marketing. The margin between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays is far too wide, and if the problem of marketing was seriously tackled by the Government, I think it would be possible to secure higher prices for the producer without raising prices to the consumer. I know that there are difficulties. There are vested interests to be tackled; very uncomfortable and unpleasant things to tackle. It needs a great deal of courage, but unless the Government does take its courage in both hands and tackles this problem you cannot restore prosperity to agriculture in this country.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I would like to intervene for a few minutes because I understand the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department is to wind up the Debate. It was part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's duty at the time to make a very particular inquiry into the distressed areas, and he made a report on the distressed areas which was the most profound document that had ever been laid before the House. The right hon. Gentleman is to wind up the Debate to-night, and I ask him whether, in view of all that is embodied in that report and of his experiences, which bit deeply, he is prepared to put his name and influence behind a proposal which will increase the cost of living to the people in those areas about which he knows more than any Member in this House. As has been said to-night, if the tax which is to be imposed does not restrict imports and increase prices, it has no reason for being introduced.
  Surely hon. Members cannot be fully alive to the responsibility of their actions when they begin to indulge in a process of eccentric taxation. A few months ago

  2385
  we were told that it would not be appropriate to have specific taxation for any given section of the community, but here a special tax is to be collected. It is a tax which the poorest of the poor will have to pay. I almost collapsed when I hear a good old-fashioned Conservative opposite try to advance the argument that the foreigner pays the tax. The funny thing about it was that just before he got up—he must have been sleeping—the hon. Member for Petersfield (Major Dorman-Smith) was on his feet and reading a long list of commodities which the farmers have to use, that are taxed. He advanced the argument that because the farmers have to pay heavy taxes on these imported articles, they are entitled to receive this appropriation to-night. That did not in any way seem to penetrate the skulls opposite. There are some hon. Members—why they come here I do not know—[Interruption]—I agree with the cheers when I look at hon. Members opposite—whom I would like to put through a fourth-form boys' examination in economics and see where they stand. This House is supposed to be a deliberative Chamber, but arguments pass over some hon. Members like water off a duck's back.
  Let me return to the subject. I want seriously to ask whether the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department, in his heart of hearts, assents to this in principle. I cannot believe that he does. Some hon. Members have asked where all these millions of money are going. We have been told that poor agriculture is a timid thing that needs protection. One hon. Member said that the one section of the community that wanted protection was agriculture. Millions of pounds have been given already by way of protection. It would be interesting to go round to every hon. Member, except those on this side, and ask him where the money that has already been voted is going. There is a nice little row of hon. Members opposite. I challenge any one of them to answer that question.
  Mr. CHRISTIE: May I answer the challenge?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I rather think the hon. Member's challenge is not in order.
  Mr. MacLAREN: The hon. Member has been saved from an awkward posi-
  2386
  tion. It has been suggested that the farmers are not getting that money.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member did not quite follow what I said. I said his question was out of order.
  Mr. MacLAREN: What question? I am not putting any question at the moment. I am suggesting that during the Debate this afternoon it has been admitted that the farmers are not the recipients of these benefits that are going out in the form of monetary gifts. Certainly the agricultural labourers do not seem to be receiving them. There are three parties to this industry. There is the farmer, there is the agricultural worker and there is another gentleman who always gets his tribute from farming, whether it is doing well or not, and he is the landlord, the rent-receiver. It is no good smiling, as I see the hon. Member for Petersfield is, because whether farming is in a good condition or a bad one, that toll is paid, and I hope at another time, when it will be more appropriate, to prove by figures and facts that that is where these millions are going.
  Until the rents of the agricultural areas of this country are deflated and prices are brought down to a competitive level, as they could be if there were not these tolls to be paid in rent, you are living in a fool's paradise. This appropriation to-night is part and parcel of an injection of a sort of intoxicating drug; agriculture must be kept going by new and fresh injections of public money. If there should be a change in the policy of the Government, agriculture will get the shock of its life. If it came to that now, I honestly believe that agriculture in this country dare not try to live from day to day without large drafts on the taxation of the country. I do not know what hon. Members who are farming experts and representatives of agricultural districts in this country think when they go to Denmark and see a small country—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I ruled at the beginning of this Debate that hon. Members could not go into the general question of agricultural policy. The hon. Member must keep within that Ruling.
  Mr. MacLAREN: To-night we are voting public money. We are doing more

  2387
  than that—we are using the weapon of taxation to screw money out of the public to the advantage of certain sections of the community under the guise of helping agriculture. I ventured to make a comparison with another country where agriculturists do not appeal to the Government for money but where they have organised a great agricultural industry and have refused subsidies. Here in this country we have hon. Members opposite going on their weary way and telling us that agriculture is withering, that there is no blood in it, and that it requires fresh injections from the Treasury. I want to know what the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department has to say about this. I ask him, in all sincerity, whether he is going to place his influence and his name behind this project, knowing as he does the conditions in the distressed areas which he visited and examined? He knows that it is the poor people who will have to pay this tax if they are able to buy meat at all. Is he, then, going to identify himself with those who propose to take this action to-night?
  As to the fuller discussion which is to take place on the Bill when it is introduced, I hope to be able to say a good deal more on that occasion if I get the opportunity. All this afternoon I have listened to speeches in which Members have tried to correlate the broader question of the conduct of agriculture with the proposal before the Committee. The Chair has been in a rather difficult position, and each Member who spoke appeared to be wondering how far he could traverse the ground of the general question. I submit that it was not fair on the part of the Government to bring in this proposal to-night under the shadow of the forthcoming Bill in such a way that the Committee has been compromised as regards the wider discussion of all the facts involved in this question. I make my complaint and I leave it at that, but I hope that when the Bill is presented for Second Reading, nothing that has been said in this discussion will be taken as compromising us as regards a fuller debate and analysis of the subject.
  9.18 p.m.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I should like, in the first place, to reinforce the last
  2388
  point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). I have sat through the whole of this Debate, and I am bound to say that it has been one of the most unsatisfactory Debates, on a matter of such vital importance, to which it has ever been my lot to listen in Committee of Ways and Means. That is largely because of the technical difficulty in which the occupant of the Chair—to whom no blame can possibly attach—has been placed. Under the Ruling which he felt bound to give, we have been precluded from discussing in the fullest sense the very issues which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury put to the Committee in the opening sentences of his speech. What were those issues? I took them down as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking from his carefully prepared financial brief. He said, first, that these Resolutions and this duty were essential for the assistance of the cattle industry but while we are being asked to vote money for that purpose, in Committee of Ways and Means, we have not been allowed to debate that issue, nor have we had the advantage of the technical advice of the Minister of Agriculture with regard to it. That is a most unsatisfactory position for this Committee.
  The Financial Secretary then went on to explain the course of events in the cattle industry. He spoke of the slump, gradually increasing from 1931 during 1932, 1933, and 1934. He said that prices had remained at a low level, and he mentioned the Ottawa restrictions on foreign supplies. He thus led us into a sphere of debate in which we ought to have been free to develop our arguments with regard to the cattle industry in general, and the position in which the Government say their long-term policy now requires this special aid to be given by means of a tax upon meat. I do not presume to ask for any greater latitude than has been extended to other Members of the Committee, but I repeat the protest of my hon. Friend who has just spoken. We ought not to be asked to vote this money, weeks in advance of the Second Reading of the Livestock Industry Bill, to Clause 3 of which this Resolution is essential and, with regard to the other proposals of which, it would have been very much to our advantage if we had been able to discuss the whole

  2389
  subject fully before deciding on the way in which we are to vote this money.
  I, therefore, approach the matter mainly from the point of view of one who is considering the fiscal issue involved in the Resolution. Judging from the attendance to-day the House of Commons does not seem to mind the fact that it is being asked to pass, in Committee of Ways and Means to-day, a Resolution which, if it is nothing very new to some hon. Members, is in fact a milestone on the road of the fiscal deterioration of our nation. All the great supporters of the policy of Protection before the War, including the late honoured protagonist of Protection, Joseph Chamberlain himself, maintained that the one vital thing which Protectionists must keep in mind was "You must not tax meat, and you must not tax bread." To-night we see that the high priests of post-War Protection are pushing the country into the position of taxing the one essential thing which the former high priests of that policy declared to be the one commodity that must not be touched—the food of the people. Instead of having anything like a full Debate on the subject we have had a sparse attendance and we have been handicapped by the Rules of Procedure, because of the order in which the Government have placed these matters on the Paper.
  That must not prevent us from dealing with the situation as it reveals itself. We are being asked to do to-night—and to do it especially for the Treasury in the financial year 1936–37—just what those of us who oppose Protection have always said the Protectionists wanted to have done and that is to broaden the basis of taxation when it is inconvenient for the Treasury to find what is required. The Financial Secretary has admitted that it is revenue which is wanted. There is no real vital change in the assistance given to the farmer. The Government are already committed to a maximum of £5,000,000. The Treasury has found millions for this purpose in the last two financial years but it is inconvenient in the present state of the British Exchequer for the Chancellor to find the £5,000,000 this year out of direct taxation. Therefore, he proposes to find it by the indirect method of taxing the consumers of meat.
  2390
  I think the way in which the public of the country have been misled with regard to the financial position of this Government is perfectly disgraceful. I have said it before, in full session in the House of Commons. I say it again in Committee of Ways and Means to-night, and I shall go on saying it. If a Labour Government were proposing, at this moment, the Budget of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, all the financial interests in this country would be trying to hound us out of office on the ground of the unsoundness of the budgetary position and the methods by which we were proposing to meet it. One of the methods which this Government is proposing to-day is to add once more to the indirect taxation, obtained through the commodities used by the poorest of the people. Since 1921 this Government and the preceding National Government have increased the taxation of food by over £20,000,000 per annum. They have increased the taxation of commodities used by the people, not to the extent of the mere £20,000,000, but £85,000,000 per annum more than in 1931. The former Financial Secretary to the Treasury who has proceeded to the higher post of Minister of Agriculture, and the present Financial Secretary, know full well that if it had not been for the introduction of this indirect taxation on the commodities which the people use, the Government could not meet even their present budgetary position, with an unknown deficit looming up, without putting at least another 1s. 9d. or 2s. in the pound on Income Tax. The country has been wangled, misled, bamboozled—
  Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Swindled.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: —by the way in which revenue has been raised to meet these demands. To-day we are asked to put on the common people the worst form of all taxation, the taxation of meat. We have heard many suggestions about why this tax on meat is not going to be met by the consumer but, in some miraculous way, by the foreigner. We on these benches are often charged with using our co-operative association for an illustration of our case. But there is no better way in which to illustrate arguments used in the House than to speak of actual experience in trade and business, and it is no dis-

  2391
  qualification of Members on this side that we are engaged day by day in trade and business. If hon. Members who profess to know about this industry will look at our position I think that they will see why we can prove that this tax will be met by the consumer. The organised consumers for whom I am always proud to speak, both in this House and elsewhere, cannot be, and have no right to be, regarded as the enemies of the British farmer. They are the best, the most regular and the best paying customers of the British farmer. I heard a whisper from the Front Bench; I will not repeat what it was, but if there is any doubt let one look at the Economic Series, 1920, the Report of the Ministry of Agriculture on the marketing of cattle and beef in England and Wales. It says:
  It may be accepted without question that the industrial co-operative societies are the most important customers for the British farmer both in the amount and in the quality of the supplies that they buy."
  We are now asked to believe that the consumer is not going to be asked to pay this extra duty. Let me take first of all that section of the Resolution on the Paper to-day which deals with canned goods. I hold in my hand a copy of a letter which we received, dated 9th December, from Henry Lane and Company, packers, in which they are quoting to us, because of the new duties, increases of price on canned beef varying in one small case from 3.9 per cent. up to 9 per cent. In this section the increase in duty is to be about 10 per cent., so that already, before the duty begins to operate, we are quoted prices which pass on nearly all the duty to the consumer. There is no argument about that. I quote now from a quotation, also dated 9th December, sent to us by Oxo, Limited, packers. Here the prices are advanced from round about 7 per cent. up to 18 per cent. on those classes of goods which are to bear between 10 and 20 per cent., according to the Resolution.
  We are being asked in this Committee to-night to believe that it is the foreigners who will have to pay when already we have the business quotations in our hands this week in anticipation that this Debate would have taken place last week and that the duties would have operated
  2392
  from 11th December. The only difference is that we shall pay it from tomorrow instead of last week. Lest there is any doubt whether my argument applies only to canned goods let us look at the market quotations for chilled beef. In anticipation of the duty there has already been an advance in Argentine beef of 4d. a stone. Of course, there is not anybody who cannot understand that if Argentine ribs are selling at 6½d. and English ribs are selling at 1s., the poorer people who cannot afford to pay 1s. for English will still have to buy the Argentine beef at 7½d. or whatever it may be. The whole situation is nonsensical for it to be put to an intelligent body, a deliberate body, like the House of Commons.
  Take the needs which have to be met in our heavy industrial centres, in some of the centres visited by the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply. There is one thing to be said about the miners who have to work in those pits. They have nothing round them often but a pair of shorts, together with boots. The heat makes the sweat pour out of them until the perspiration fills their boots and pours over the top. We have thousands of those people in membership with our societies. They need meat. When they cannot afford to buy English they buy the best Argentine. They buy sirloin. You may get pretty good English at times at 1s. 3d. If it is Scotch it will be 1s. 4d. Who is going to say that with that disparity between 10d. and 1s. 4d. the foreigner is going to pay the ¾d. duty put on so essential a food? It is perfectly nonsensical.
  I am not at all sure that, if we give this Ways and Means Resolution and reinforce therefore the general revenue of the Government in order to let them carry on their subsidy policy, that money is going to reach the real producer of the cattle. We are bound in our trade experience to speak as we find. This subsidy has been in operation for more than two years. One curious thing which we have noticed when we have gone to buy in the market is that the price of Irish stores has been regularly up ever since the subsidy has been on. The Irish producer of store cattle seems to have done pretty well out of it. It is clear that nearly 45 per cent. of the total sum which has been voted for subsidies has not gone to the store cattle producer in Great Britain, but to the store cattle producer outside—to

  2393
  Ireland in the main, and a little to Canada. The amount which has been received by the feeder of cattle and the actual producer of stores in this country is very small, having regard to the cost it has been to the nation.
  Let us go a little further on the fiscal side and look at its effect in other directions. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) spoke about the Welsh miner. It is very pertinent when the Committee are asked to pass this Resolution to look at the Board of Trade Returns. In world trade in general it seems that we have lost in coal exports at least 3,000,000 tons of what we were exporting even in 1925—I would not have the audacity to compare it with such a year as 1929. When we look at the Argentine market, against which we are now going to use this restrictive tax, what do we find? Before the War the Argentine market for coal was about 98 per cent. British, and of that, 94 per cent. came from South Wales. How do the figures come out for the last 11 months? As usual, they are downwards. We see a decrease in the import of British coal by the Argentine of something like 105,000 or 110,000 tons. If you reckon that every 250 or 300 tons might give a miner a year's work, it does not need a great deal of calculation to show what a serious thing it is for a considerable number of men in South Wales to lose that amount of export trade.
  Yet here is a Government which thinks that it can save the situation not only by putting a tax on each pound of meat exported by that great market of ours, but by taking powers in the Bill which is to follow this Resolution to regulate the amount of imports. We have been told to-night by the Financial Secretary that the Government, in order to secure the maximum possible meat supplies with the most satisfactory return for the producer, had decided to adopt this dual policy. They had rejected a policy of a high duty because it would be too costly to the consumer. I suppose that when the duty is high the foreigner does not pay and that when the duty is only medium the foreigner pays.
  Captain WALLACE: That may be very true.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I should be delighted to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, after all his negotia-
  2394
  tions for overseas agreements, demonstrate how that happens. If he can do that, will he also tell us how it reacts upon our foreign trade?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have gone through a great number of negotiations with foreign countries, and I have never yet met the representative of any foreign country who did not think they were going to pay the duty.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: You can hardly find a single commodity in regard to which we have made such an arrangement where the duty has not been paid by our home consumers. The Minister of Pensions, who used to be at the Ministry of Agriculture, shakes his head, but I will give him a case in point, namely, bacon. Instead of a tax, there was an artificial restriction of imports, and everybody thought that the Danes would be seriously injured and that the British consumer would get away with it. What has happened is that the price of bacon has soared in this country and the Dane has done very much better out of it than was expected, because he has had a higher return for a smaller quantity of bacon. I am certain that if you were to follow through commodity after commodity and examine it in all its phases, the old principle would hold good.
  I shall be delighted if the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, in his reply, can prove the contrary. I submit that there is no policy more fatal to the interests of the consumer than that which the Government are following. There is no more inadequate policy, in the light of the financial difficulties of the Treasury and of the trade position of the Board of Trade. I want to emphasise that this is not going to help the export and import position at all. If we look at the trade returns for the 11 months of 1936, we see that we have a balance of imports over exports, in the visible sphere, of something like £311,000,000. If the returns of the last 11 months are represented in the 12 months of the year, we shall have an adverse balance of trade, in the visible sphere, of something like £340,000.000. This is not because of Free Trade. It is in spite of the high tariffs, which make us now one of the highest tariff countries in the world—not the highest, of course, but one of the highest.

  2395
  [Laughter.] The Financial Secretary smiles, but what does he call a high tariff? The Government are regularly imposing duties of 30, 40 and 50 per cent. Are they not high tariffs? Do not some sections of this Resolution impose high tariffs?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The right hon. Gentleman has not had experience of tariffs in other countries, or he would realise that this is not a high tariff country.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I did not say it was the highest, but one of the highest, and I should say that it is within the first seven or eight of the important countries. This adverse balance of trade, then, is in spite of the high tariffs. It is in spite of the partial extension of the quota. It is in spite of the Government having gone off the Gold Standard in order to try to remedy the adverse trade position. Instead of really remedying the situation, the Government are driving our foreign trade more and more into this serious situation, and preventing it from having the largest amount of free exchange between the principal nations of the world. I am sure that all of us on this side of the Committee would assist the Government if necessary to devise whatever reasonable means there may be by marketing, by decent import arrangements, by central slaughtering and the like, to make the best possible market we can in this country for British agriculture. We have no quarrel with the desire to make proposals to help agriculture in that way. We can see no royal road in that direction by restricting the purchasing power of the poorest section of our community and by helping to destroy the markets oversea of one of the most important and deserving sections of our industry, the mining industry of this country, and we cannot consent at any time to the imposition of duties of this kind in order to bolster up a system which is using its subsidy and distribution of the revenues of these duties only for the maintenance of private profit and class preservation.
  9.46 p.m.
  Captain WALLACE: Anybody who has been in the House of Commons with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) as long as I have will realise that he is a
  2396
  past master in making the best of a rather thin case. There is nobody in this House whose delivery is more forceful, whose knowledge is, I admit, on many subjects most profound, and who is better able to persuade the House that it is absolutely universal. I do not know that there are many people whom I dislike following more on almost the first occasion when I have been put into the position of having to wind up a first-class Debate. I should like, first of all, cordially to agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said when he referred to the unsatisfactory nature of our deliberations this evening. We four orphans of the storm on this bench, defending the fort, have been many times acutely conscious of the difficulties imposed upon Government and Opposition alike by a situation which is certainly not your fault, Sir Dennis, and which is not, I believe, ours either. The Debate has ranged over almost the whole world, and if it had been necessary for a Government reply to be made immediately to each of the speeches which have been addressed to the Committee, the spokesmen would have had to include practically every Minister, and the answers in many cases would have had to be slightly contradictory.
  It is a very remarkable thing about the Debate—and I intend, if I may, to be perfectly frank with the Committee—that we are, in this Ways and Means Resolution, in the Bill which it is proposed to base upon it, and in the future reactions of what we are asking the Committee to do to-night, moving to a large extent in the realm of conjecture. I only wish that it were possible to reply, in the time at my disposal, to the very interesting speeches which have been addressed to the Committee from different quarters on such diverse subjects as agricultural reorganisation, trade balance, currency reform, central slaughtering, and the like. But while I know that the Chairman has, in his generosity, allowed a good deal of latitude to other speakers, I feel that it is the duty of the Government spokesman winding up the Debate to confine himself more or less to the subject under discussion.
  To go back to this Resolution, I would like to say, in the first place, that if the Committee understood my right hon. and gallant Friend to mean that the passing
  ***
  2397
  of the Resolution was essential to the prosperity or the existence of the livestock industry, that was not what he meant, because, of course, as the Committee very well knows, the money upon which hon. Members opposite claim at the moment the industry is dependent is to be found from the Treasury, and the rejection of this Resolution would not actually affect agriculture at the moment at all. But I would remind the Committee that this is no sudden change of policy which has been sprung upon them. It has been advertised and made plain for many months past that His Majesty's Government were anxious to secure from the Argentine Republic an alteration in the Roca-Runciman Agreement which would permit us to put some levy upon their imported meat. It is indeed the very protracted nature of the negotiations which has prevented the Government from coming to the House some considerable time ago in order to get these duties put on. Therefore, what we are doing tonight is primarily a simple financial operation.
  We are proposing, now that we have at last got the power to do so under the new Argentine Agreement, to carry out a plan which we have had in contemplation for a long time; and although we do not, as the Committee knows, earmark money for a definite purpose, there must obviously be sonic connection between the raising of these duties at the rate of ¾d. per lb. and the future general agricultural policy of the Government. Here I would like to say that actually the passing of this Resolution is not essential for what the right hon. Gentleman described as Section 3, and which is in reality Part II, of the Livestock Bill, because the money is actually being found from the Treasury.
  It seems to me that the proposal we are discussing can fairly be criticised under three heads. It is open to the Committee to say, first of all, that we have made a bad bargain. They could say, and it has been said by many hon. Members, that the imposition of these new duties will react unfavourably upon our trade with Argentina—I think the right hon. Gentleman implied that—and will prejudice the very important interests which we have in that country. Equally well it has been argued on the other side that in return for making the duty as low as ¾d per lb., we ought to have ob-
  2398
  tained very much larger concessions from the Argentine Republic. Both those points of view have been stated, and they are, of course, mutually destructive. In the second place, it can be argued, and it has been argued very forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) and the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), as well as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Major Dorman-Smith), that the duties proposed are not big enough to secure to British agriculture favourable conditions for the development of the livestock industry. Equally, an appeal has been made with great force from the Labour and Opposition Liberal benches that the duties are much too big and that they impose art unfair and indeed a tragic burden upon the consumer. Both those things cannot be true at once.
  I would like very briefly to take up these three lines of argument. First of all, there is the argument that we have made a bad bargain with the Argentine Republic—in simple language, that at the end of many months' negotiations His Majesty's Government have been done. I think it ought to be known that if we had not been able, after all these negotiations, to secure in the new trade agreement signed the other day a mutually satisfactory arrangement which would benefit — [Interruption] — perhaps not everybody: it may not benefit the margarine merchant—but it will benefit great numbers of people in this country—then the duties which we should have put on, had we been obliged to act unilaterally, would have been substantially higher. The level of duties in this series of Ways and Means Resolutions represents, from our point of view, a very important concession to Argentina. In exchange for this concession we have been able to secure guarantees for our export trade, and that is intimately bound up with the position of the consumer, because a man at work drawing wages is a very much better consumer than a man who is out of employment.
  We have been able to obtain concessions as well for our financial interests; and all these concessions judged as a whole justify in our view the modification of our original proposals and the limiting of them to a duty of ¾d. a lb. Let nobody scoff, even on this occasion, at the consideration shown to what I have

  2399
  described, for want of a better phrase, as "our financial interests," because our investments in Argentina, those which do pay dividends, do not come home in large blocks of money to super-fatted millionaires. Most of the investments are held by small people, and the dividends, when they come home, represent a substantial addition to the purchasing power of those people, which ought to help British agriculture and British miners as well.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Tell the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel).
  Captain WALLACE: Beef represents 33 per cent. of our imports from Argentina, and yet we asked Argentina to agree not only to a duty, whereas under the Roca-Runciman Agreement she was guaranteed free entry, but we also got her to agree to a reduction in her shipments. If we had tried to insist on a higher duty than ¾d. there is no doubt in my mind, and I did have a certain amount to do with the day-to-day negotiations with Argentina, that we should have had a less favourable agreement, and in all probability no agreement at all. The particular agreement from which this Resolution arises fulfils, I think, the essential quality of all good agreements, and that is that neither side should feel that they have had the worst of it, and that in the long run the agreement should be worked by both parties in the spirit that each of them has at least had a fair share.
  After what we have heard during the last few months, and in many cases known ourselves, about the state of British agriculture, nobody speaking from this Box could fail to be moved by the impressive speeches we have heard today from people directly concerned in that industry, and nobody speaking from this Box would pretend, at least I certainly would not, that a duty of ¾d. a lb. on imported chilled beef would be sufficient to safeguard home agriculture in the sense that it would induce people to switch from buying Argentine beef to buying the home product. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite and others pointed out very forcibly, the difference in cost of production is a great deal more than that. But these proposals do not by any means stand alone; they are part of a
  2400
  far-reaching scheme involving both a subsidy and a quantitative regulation of imports with a view to maintaining a reasonable level of prices, though if I were to pursue the discussion on this wider aspect I know that the Chair would tell me to sit down. I know also, in common with hon. Members in all parts of the House who have spoken for the agricultural industry, that we must also in this agreement consider our export trade, secured very largely by the Argentine Agreement, and the position of the consumer at home.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Are we to understand that the Argentine are going to allow more opportunities for taking our exports because we have put a duty on their exports?
  Captain WALLACE: I know that it sounds very odd but I can only reply that we have at least got Argentina to maintain all the export concessions previously given us, and at the same time to accept this duty on their exports to this market.
  The next point which I should like to take up is the question of free entry for the Dominions. I was particularly asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) to answer this point; and the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), who I think very rightly, and very charmingly, expressed the idea that town and country are not antagonistic, also wanted to know about free entry for the Dominions. She used a rather extraordinary expression, because she talked about "taking down the shelter." May I tell her that we are not taking down any shelter; the only thing we are doing is not putting up a shelter because the Dominions have had free entry and we continue to maintain that position.
  With regard to our general policy at Ottawa, it will be well known to the Committee that we guaranteed to Australia and New Zealand an expanding share of this market. Because of the greater cost of transporting chilled meat from the Dominions, for one thing, it would have been necessary that any duty on Dominion meat should be substantially preferential. Let the Committee imagine what an uproar there would have been, and I think hon. Members opposite would have joined in it, had it been suggested

  2401
  that we should tax the Dominions at the same rate as the foreigner. The plain fact of the matter is this: when it became obvious that it was not possible to get a duty of more than ¾d. a lb. upon imported Argentine meat, and to get an agreement as well, it became equally plain that there was no room for a preferential position for the Empire halfway between free entry and the foreign duty. Suppose we had taken the obvious course, the course, indeed, which I think was suggested in an Amendment which failed to secure acceptance, of halving the duty on Empire products, making it three-eighths of a penny per lb. Allowing for the extra cost of transport, that would not have meant any appreciable preference over the foreign product, and if we had tried to impose it there is no doubt that we should have struck a savage blow at our general policy of Empire trade, which nobody on this side of the House would have felt able to justify.
  Now I come to the last, and in many ways much the most difficult, of the questions with which I have to deal to-night. I may tell the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) that the very kind references which he made to a past activity of mine makes it much less easy for me to answer him. I may tell him straight away that if I did not think that the Resolution which we are asking the Committee to accept was for the best, I should not be standing here supporting it. I hope he will do me the honour to believe that. It is obviously impossible for anybody on any side of the Committee to dogmatise as to exactly how the duty of ¾d. per lb. will be paid. I can tell the Committee only this, which is really repeating what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) an hour or two ago, that, in the early stages of these negotiations, one of the greatest difficulties with which our negotiators had to contend, was the obstinate, and indeed, unshakeable, conviction of the Argentine negotiators that they would have to pay this duty.
  I feel certain that if it had been possible for me to go to them and say: "We are going to put a duty on your meat, but you can pass it on to the consumer in England," they would have said: "All right; you can put on 2d. or 4d. or anything you like." That is the real answer to the question as to who will
  2402
  pay the duty. It would be dishonest to pretend that we feel any certainty that the whole of the duty will be paid before it gets to the consumer, but there are a large number of agents, in production, slaughtering, packing, shipment and distribution, some of whom can afford to do what one may call "take up a bit of the slack." I believe that one of the things which will induce them to do so will be the increasing Dominions supplies which are not being taxed, and which offer an alternative to anybody who thinks that he is being unfairly treated by the Argentine producer.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I would like to know how that works out. Do I understand from what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that the Government mean to extend the allocation of the experimental quota on chilled meat? If that is so, there is no point in the Minister's argument about chilled meat.
  Captain WALLACE: The Dominions, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are entitled to an expanding share of the market. It would not be in order for me to go into what this is going to be. It is not the actual amount of the alternative supply but the fact of its existence. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) knows that it exercises a very salutary effect against any general rise in price. Actually, if ¾d. per lb. is added to the retail price of all imported beef—for this argument I am prepared to include Dominion beef as well—and other prices remain unchanged, the cost-of-living index figure will rise by approximately only half of a point. If the price of all beef, home and imported, were to rise by the same amount, ¾d. per lb., the cost-of-living index would rise by just under one point.
  We have heard a good deal to-night of the terrible effect of this proposal upon the poorest of the poor, and they are speeches to which it is difficult to be deaf. We are asked to believe, no doubt in good faith, that the poorest of the poor are entirely dependent upon Argentine chilled beef. I have had some figures extracted to show exactly what the proportions are. They reveal that 30 per cent. of the beef sold in London is home produced; in Cardiff, 50 per cent. is home produced. On the north-east coast generally, the figure is 58 per cent. and in Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow

  2403
  over 66 ⅔ per cent. of the beef is British home produced. Nobody can pretend that Glasgow is very much more prosperous than London. It seems to me that those figures completely knock the bottom out of any argument that the poorest of the poor exist solely upon Argentine beef, and will be disastrously affected by this proposal. I accept the challenge thrown out by the hon. Member for South East Ham (Mr. Barnes), and I know that he will be just as glad as I am to learn the position which those figures disclose.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: We do not wish to have any misunderstanding about this matter, and I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to take our own Scottish co-operative figures. They show that 87 per cent. of the beef consumed in that area, when we gave evidence before the Lane Fox Commission, was home killed; but the other 13 per cent. is eaten by the poorest of the poor.
  Captain WALLACE: I am glad to hear those figures, but I have given the very latest figures.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: You have to make out your case.
  Captain WALLACE: I am not trying to make a case. I am trying to tell the Committee the real facts, and if I am giving anything away in the process, hon. Members opposite are entitled to it and they can make anything of it they like. One of the most encouraging things was the statement of the right hon. Gentleman himself when he finished, that the co-operative societies who, I imagine he would claim, cater very largely for the working class, were the best customers of the British farmer, not only in the matter of quantity but in the matter of quality. Here again, therefore, I think that he and I can shake hands on that, and agree that perhaps the case is not quite so bad as it was painted.
  There is one small point which I should like to put in here. A question was asked by the hon. Member for East Ham South with regard to the relation between the specific duty of ¾d. per lb. and the 20 per cent. ad valorem duty. I am informed that the 20 per cent. ad valorem is calculated on the declared value of all the chilled beef that comes in, so it may be said that it is a sort of re-hash of all the joints. Perhaps, before 1 leave
  2404
  this subject, I might also remind the Committee that the bulk of the frozen beef which may indeed really be said to be the beef eaten by the poorest of the poor—namely, 2.4 million cwts. out of the 3.2 million cwts., which is roughly 11 per cent. of the total consumption of beef and veal—comes, not from Argentina, where it will bear this duty which is supposed to be so iniquitous, but from within the Empire; and there is nothing in these proposals to alter the price at all.
  Finally, I do not think it is possible to dissociate this question of hardship to the consumer from the question of the purchasing power of consumers in general. I know that I shall find a considerable amount of agreement with that on the other side. Therefore, without wishing in any way to be provocative on an occasion like this—and I think you will agree, Sir Dennis, that I have let a good many hares run past my nose during the evening—I feel bound to remind the Committee that during the past few years many millions of people have had their purchasing power very substantially increased by the r égime which we are told swindled the electors, though the electors only 13 months ago appear to have taken a very different view of it.
  This is one of those Resolutions upon which one cannot really end up with a rousing peroration, because there is, as I have tried to point out, an immense amount to be said on both sides on almost every aspect of this problem. The whole scheme of which this duty forms a central and integral part has been carefully, and, indeed, laboriously, contrived to secure a just balance between a large number of conflicting interests. The taxpayer will continue to bear part of the burden of the subsidy, because we cannot afford to sacrifice our trade relations with Argentina, for the very simple reason that, if we do sacrifice them, we shall put more people out of work. The duty is high enough to give the Dominions an adequate preference, and I think that few people, even those who would have liked to see the Dominions pay something, would dispute the fact that we ought to give the Dominions some preference. The duty is not, in my view—and I say it honestly and in all sincerity to the Committee in general and to the hon. Member for Burslem in particular—so high as

  2405
  to be a serious burden to the consumer, and certainly it is not such as to jeopardise the many other benefits which we on this side of the House hope and believe will flow from the general policy of which this Ways and Means Resolution is only an incidental part.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. RILEY: I beg to move, in line 3, after "thirty-six," to insert "until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven."
  The purpose of the Amendment is to limit the proposal to a period of 12 months. I only want to use in its support the excellent arguments used by the Minister himself. He said he had to admit that we had been discussing a proposal which was largely in the realm of conjecture. He also said that the passing of the Motion would not affect agriculture at all. In other words, he has admitted that the proposal, as it stands, is a leap in the dark. We do not know what is going to occur. Who is going to bear the burden of the duty has not been demonstrated. For that reason I move the Amendment.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  10.22 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am afraid the Amendment could not be accepted. The view that we take is that this must be regarded as part of a longer policy and a longer scheme than acceptance of the Amendment would make possible. For example, the agreement with Argentina is for three years, and it was fully visualised during the discussions with the representatives of that country—
  Mr. MacLAREN: On a point of Order. At the beginning of the discussion the
  Deputy-Chairman distinctly ruled that there must be no reference to the Argentine Agreement at all, and we were debarred from discussing it.
  The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think the hon. Member is mistaken. I have informed myself of what the Deputy-Chairman ruled, and at present I have been unable to see anything out of order in the references that have been made to the Argentine Agreement.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: To limit the operation of the duty to one year is a course that we could not adopt, and I must ask the Committee to resist the Amendment.
  10.24 p.m.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: In that case I shall ask my hon. Friends to divide against the Government. The ridiculous attitude that they take is best illustrated by the report of the Milk Reorganisation Committee. There you had exactly the same sort of thing operating, a subsidy for milk, and after the most careful inquiry they are asking the Government now to change the position and put the charge back upon the Treasury and take it off the consumer. In this case, obviously, from the last reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, the position is that he does not know whether it is to be paid by the consumer or not. In those circumstances we say that we know that it will be paid by the consumer. We ought to check it up at the end of 12 months and have the right to revise it. Therefore I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 205.

  Division No. 43.]

  AYES.

  [10.25 p.m.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Chater, D.

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Adamson, W. M.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

  Cocks, F. S.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Daggar, G.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

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

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Dobble, W.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelty)

  Bonfield, J. W.

  Ede, J. C.

  Groves, T. E.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Batey, J.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Bellenger, F.

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

  Hardie, G. D.

  Benson, G.

  Foot, D. M.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Bromfield, W.

  Frankel, D.

  Hayday, A.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

  Gallacher. W.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Burke, W. A.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Cape, T.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Cassells, T.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Holdsworth, H.

  Hollins, A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Jagger, J.

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Owen, Major G.

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

  John, W.

  Paling, W.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Johnston. Rt. Hon. T.

  Parker, J,

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Thurtle, E.

  Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)

  Potts. J.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Price, M. P.

  Viant, S. P.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Walker, J.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Lathan, G.

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Watson, W. McL.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Ridley, G.

  Westwood, J.

  Leach, W.

  Riley, B.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Lee, F.

  Ritson, J.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Leonard, W.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Rowson, G.

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Logan, D. G.

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Lunn, W.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Mac Laren, A.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Maclean, N.

  Shinwell, E.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Short, A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Montague, F.

  Silkin, L.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S)

  Simpson, F. B.

  NOES

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

  Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

  Liddall, W. S.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Dugdale. Major T. L.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

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

  Duggan, H. J.

  Lumley, Capt. L. R.

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

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

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

  Dunglass, Lord

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

  Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

  Eastwood, J. F.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Assheton, R.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

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

  Emery, J. F.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

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

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Entwistle, C. F.

  Magnay, T.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Errington, E.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

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

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

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

  Everard, W. L.

  Markham, S. F.

  Balnlel, Lord

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Maxwell, S. A.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Fleming, E. L.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

  Belt, Sir A. L.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Blindell, Sir J.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Ganzonl, Sir J.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'str)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Munro, P.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Bull, B. B.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Grimston. R. V.

  Penny, Sir G.

  Butler, R. A.

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Perkins, W. R, D.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Hanbury, Sir C.

  Plugge, L. F.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Cary, R. A.

  Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

  Radford, E. A.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

  Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Cazalet, Capt V. A. (Chippenham)

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Rankin, R.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmou'h)

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Christie, J. A.

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

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

  Hoare. Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Holmes, J. S.

  Remer, J. R.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

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

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

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

  Hunter, T.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Rowlands, G.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Russell, R..J. (Eddisbury)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

  Salt. E. W.

  Cross, R. H.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Leech, Dr J. W.

  Scott, Lord William

  De Chair, S. S.

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Selley, H. R

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Donner, P. W.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  Lewis, O.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  2408

  2409

  Simmonds, 0. E.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

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

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Titchfield, Marquees of

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Touche, G. C.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Spens, W. P.

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Wragg, H.

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

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

  Turton, R. H.

  Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

  Wakefield, W. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Ward and Dr. Morris-Jones.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

  Main Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 123.

  Division No.44.]

  AYES.

  [10.35 p.m

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

  Errington, E.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

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

  Patrick, C. M.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Everard, W. L.

  Penny, Sir G.

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

  Flldes, Sir H.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

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

  Fleming, E. L.

  Plugge, L. F.

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

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Radford, E. A.

  Assheton, R.

  Ganzonl, Sir J.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Ramsbotham, H.

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

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Rankin, R.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

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

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Balnlel, Lord

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Remer, J. R.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Grimston. R. V.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Hanbury, Sir C.

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

  Belt, Sir A. L.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Rowlands, G.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Russell, R..J. (Eddisbury)

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Salt. E. W.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

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

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Sandys, E. D.

  Bull, B. B.

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

  Scott, Lord William

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Hoare. Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Selley, H. R

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Butler, R. A.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Hunter, T.

  Simmonds, 0. E.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Cary, R. A.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

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

  Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Cazalet, Capt V. A. (Chippenham)

  Leckie, J. A.

  Spens, W. P.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Leech, Dr J. W.

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

  Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Lewis, O.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

  Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Sutcliffe, H.

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

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Tate, Mavis C.

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

  Lumley, Capt. L. R.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

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

  Titchfleld, Marquees of

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Touche, G. C.

  Cross, R. H.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Magnay, T.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Denville, Alfred

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

  Donner, P. W.

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

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  Markham, S. F.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

  Maxwell, S. A.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

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

  Dugdale. Major T. L.

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Wragg, H.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'str)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Munro, P.

  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

  Emery, J. F.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Ward and Sir James Blindell

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Entwistle, C. F.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  NOES

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Potts, J.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Hardie, G. D.

  Price, M. P.

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

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Heyday, A.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Henderson, J. (Ardwlck)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Ridley, G.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Riley, B.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Ritson, J.

  Batey, J.

  Hollins, A.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Bellenger, F.

  Jagger, J.

  Rowson, G.

  Benson, G.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Bromfield, W.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Shinwell, E.

  Cape, T.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Short, A.

  Cassells, T.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Silkin, L.

  Chater, D.

  Kelly, W. T

  Simpson, F. B.

  Cluse. W. S.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Daggar, G.

  Lathan, G.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Davies. R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, J. J.

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

  Dobbie, W.

  Leach, W.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Lee, F.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Ede, J. C.

  Leonard, W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Logan, D. G.

  Viant, S. P.

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

  Lunn, W.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Foot, D. M.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Walker, J.

  Frankel, D.

  MacLaren, A.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Gallacher, W.

  Maclean, N.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Westwood, J.

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Mathers. G.

  Whiteley, W.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Messer, F.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Montague, F.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

  Williams. T. (Don Valley)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Naylor, T. E

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

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

  Owen, Major G.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Paling, W.

  Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

  Parker, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Mr. John and Mr Groves.

  Motion made, and Question put,

  BEEF AND VEAL ADDITIONAL CUSTOMSDUTIES.
  That —
  (a) as from the sixteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, there shall be charged on the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of the classes and descriptions specified in the first column of the following Table, not being Empire products (in addition to any other duty of customs for the time being chargeable thereon), duties of customs at the rates specified in the second column of that Table: —

  Class or Description of the Goods.

  Rate of Duty.

  (i) Beef and veal preserved in any airtight container (including edible offals of beef and veal, but excluding
  sweetbreads)

  Tongues

  20 per cent. of the value of the goods.

  Other Goods

  10 per cent. of the value of the goods.

  (ii) Extracts and essences wholly or in part derived from beef or veal

  10 per cent. of the value of the goods.

  2412
  Provided that no duty shall be chargeable by virtue of this Resolution in respect of any sausages or pastes, and no duty shall be so chargeable on the importation of tongues or jellied veal before the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution and any other Resolution of this House;
  (b) goods chargeable with duty by virtue of this Resolution shall, for the purposes of the Import Duties Act, 1932, be deemed not to be goods chargeable with a duty of customs by or under an enactment other than that Act;
  (c) where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that any goods are being imported with a view to the re-exportation thereof after transit through the United Kingdom, or by way of transhipment, the Commissioners may, subject to such conditions as they think fit to impose for securing the re-exportation of the goods, allow the goods to be imported free of any duty chargeable by virtue of this Resolution;
  (d) Section six of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879, shall not apply to goods (whether British or foreign) chargeable with a duty of customs by virtue of this Resolution, but where any goods of a class or description so chargeable are re-imported into the United Kingdom after exportation therefrom, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that

  2413
  any duty chargeable by virtue of this Resolution in respect of the goods was duly paid, and either—

  (i) that no drawback of any such duty was allowed on exportation; or

  (ii) that any such drawback so allowed has been repaid to the Exchequer;

  then, if it is further shown as aforesaid that the goods have not been subjected to any process abroad, the goods shall be exempt from any such duty;
  (e) it is expedient to make, in connection with the imposition of the duties aforesaid, provision wth respect to drawback of duties, and for enabling the
  Treasury to repeal or reduce duties having regard to commercial agreements;
  (f) In this Resolution the expression 'Empire products' has the same meaning as in Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the Finance Act, 1919, as amended by any subsequent enactment.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."—[Lieut.-Colonel Colville.]
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 123.

  Division No. 45.]

  AYES

  [10.47 p.m.,

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

  Duggan, H. J.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Ounglass, Lord

  Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

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

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Magnay, T.

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

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

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

  Ellis, Sir G.

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

  Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. cl Ldn.)

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  Markham, S. F.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Emery, J. F.

  Maxwell, S. A.

  Assheton, R.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

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

  Entwistle, C. F.

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

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

  Errington, E.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Everard, W. L.

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

  Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

  Flides, Sir H.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'str)

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

  Fleming, E. L.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Balnell, Lord

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Munro, P.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Nall. Sir J.

  Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Ganzonl, Sir J.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Belt, Sir A. L.

  Glucketein, L. H.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Blindell, Sir J.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Granville, E. L.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Plugge, L. F.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Ponsonby, Col, C. E.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Procter, Major H. A.

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

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Radford, E. A.

  Bull, B. B.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Burghley, Lord

  Hanbury, Sir C.

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Rankin, R.

  Butler, R. A.

  Hannon. Sir P. J. H.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

  Remer, J. R.

  Cary, R. A.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Ropner, Colonel L.

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

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

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

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Hoare. Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Rowlands, G.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Holmes, J. S.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Christie, J. A.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Salt, E. W.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Hunter, T.

  Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Sandys, E. D.

  Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Scott, Lord William

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

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Selley, H. R.

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

  Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

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

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Simmonds, O. E.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Cross, R. H.

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Lewis, O.

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Spens, W. P.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

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

  Denville, Alfred

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

  Donner, P. W.

  Lumley, Capt. L. R.

  Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

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

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  Macdonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Turton, R. H.

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

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Windsor-Clive, Lleut,Colonel G.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Titchfleld, Marquees of

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Wragg, H.

  Touche, G. C.

  Ward, Irene (Walisend)

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Sir George Penny and Lieut.-

  Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

  NOES

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Price, M. P.

  Adamson. W. M.

  Hardie, G. D.

  Pritt, D. N.

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

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Hayday, A.

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Henderson, J.(Ardwick)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Ridley, G.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Riley, B.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Ritson, J.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Hollins, A.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Batey, J.

  Jagger, J.

  Rowson, G.

  Bellenger, F.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Salter. Dr. A.

  Benson, G.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Bromfield, W.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

  Jones, A. C. (Shiplev)

  Shinwell, E.

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)

  Short, A.

  Cape, T.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Silkin, L.

  Cassells, T.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Chater, D.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Lathan, G.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Daggar, G.

  Lawson, J. J.

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

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Leach, W.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Dobbie, W.

  Lee, F.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Leonard, W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Ede, J. C.

  Leslle, J. R.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Logan, D. G.

  Viant, S. P.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Lunn, W.

  Walkden, A. G.

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

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Walker, J.

  Frankel, D.

  MacLaren, A.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Gallacher, W.

  Maclean, N.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Westwood, J.

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Messer, F.

  Whiteley, W.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Montague, F.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Noei-Baker, P. J.

  Wilson, G. H. (Attercliffe)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

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

  Owen, Major G.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Paling, W.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

  Parker, J.

  Groves, T. E.

  Parkinson, J. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Potts, J.

  Mr. John and Mr. Mothers.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).
  10.55 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move,
  "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 31) Order 1936, dated the twentieth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twentieth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."
  This Order proposes as from the 24th November a minimum specific duty of 2s. per dozen rubber aprons as an alterna-
  tive to the present duty of 20 per cent. The goods concerned are aprons and overalls manufactured of rubber, balata, or gutta-percha, but it does not concern goods of proofed cloth or other rubberised textile fabric. The competing goods come from Japan and Germany and the home trade is able to supply goods of a heavier type which sell at about 1s. The German goods come in at from 3s. to 3s. 6d. per dozen and the Japanese at from 2s. to 2s. 9d. There is no doubt that the home production can he stimulated to do the entire trade, which is worth about £60,000 a year. The Japanese, who entered the market only in 1933, have already too large a share.
  10.57 p.m.
  Mr. ALEXANDER.: At this late hour we are not going to have a long Debate, but I think that it is almost tragic to

  2417
  listen to the kind of speech we have just heard—a perfectly callous speech from the one time Free Trader, the one time lecturer in Free Trade economics, who is now so double-dyed in his new-gotten heresies that he is perfectly callous. Here is a comparatively small item in the list of fiscal crimes of the Government, but although it is small, it is important to the working-class woman. The working-class woman of later years has put off the old coarse sackcloth apron. She is now better dressed and wears a rubber apron as she does her work about the house. Because she can get these things pretty cheaply, the Government say, "Let us tax them." I am really amazed at the way this Government goes down hill day by day. I am thoroughly ashamed of them.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I am amazed at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He gets up day after day saying that he is protecting the British worker, and yet to-day he is putting in an appeal for Germany and Japan, both of which countries are not democracies. I can approve the action of the Government in protecting the home worker instead of the workers of Germany and Japan.
  Resolved,
  "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 31) Order, 1936, dated the twentieth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twentieth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."

  DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ACT, 1934.
  11 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I beg to move,
  "That the Clearing Office (Turkey) (No. 2) Order, 1936, dated the twenty-seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."
  We have been dealing for some hours past with the question of beef and veal. I wish now to turn the attention of the
  2418
  House to Turkey. This Order provides for the establishment of an Anglo-Turkish Clearing Office, for the payment to that Office of debts due for Turkish goods imported into the United Kingdom, for the disposal of the sterling collected by the Clearing Office in the manner provided by the Agreement of 2nd September, 1936, between His Majesty's Government and the Turkish Government, and for the administrative measures necessary to secure the observance of the Order. Briefly, the position is this: Prior to the agreement of 2nd September trade payments were regulated by the Anglo-Turkish Payments Agreement of 4th June, 1935, and that Agreement provided that debts due from Turkey for United Kingdom goods imported into Turkey should be paid in Turkish pounds to a special account at the Central Bank of Turkey. On the other hand, debts due to Turkey from the United Kingdom for Turkish goods imported into this country were payable into a sterling account at the Bank of England. Payment by United Kingdom debtors to the sterling account was not, however, compulsory, and the account, therefore, received only part of the sterling due to Turkey, with the result that arrears accumulated, and by September of this year they had accumulated to the equivalent of about £1,000,000 sterling. Long delays were therefore being experienced by exporters in this country in receiving payment for their goods exported to Turkey. To remedy this position, a new agreement was made providing for the establishment of an Anglo-Turkish Clearing Office to which it would be compulsory for United Kingdom debtors for Turkish goods to pay their debts. In view of the delay which had previously occurred in securing payment by United Kingdom exporters to Turkey, the establishment of a compulsory clearing, which was desired by the Turkish Government, was considered essential for our trade.
  I have a word of apology to offer to the House. A Treasury Order was made on 8th September, and under the Debts Clearing Office and Import Restrictions Act of 1934 this Order should have been laid before, and approved by, Parliament by 29th November, that is, within 28 Parliamentary days of the making of the Order. I regret, however, that by a pure oversight this was not done, and the

  2419
  Order lapsed on 29th November. The Act, however, provides for such eventualities and provides that such lapsing of an Order shall be without prejudice to anything done under it or to the making of a new Order. The position, therefore, was regularised by the making of a new Order on 27th November, to operate as from 30th November, and that is the Order which we are laying before the House to-night. These clearing offices are not a desirable expedient if they can possibly be avoided, but the Turkish Government have for some time insisted that foreign trade should be conducted in this way, and for over a year what was happening was that a clearing was in existence with Turkey which was effective only at one end. We want to make it effective at both ends, and that is what this Order does.
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. BENSON: I must say that I was rather surprised at the careless apology which the Financial Secretary threw to the House for what is really a grave dereliction of Parliamentary procedure. These Orders are made under the Act of 1934 and they must be approved within 28 Parliamentary days or lapse. That approval is not merely a conventional piece of machinery; it is something a great deal more than that. It is a safeguard given to this House so that it may control and check the actions of executives; but so little do this Government care about the rights and privileges of this House that they actually forgot about it; and when they do put themselves right all they have to offer is a very casual apology offered with a smile, as if the matter were a joke. One would have thought that on this particular Order the Treasury would have been especially prompt to see that it had early sanction from the House.
  This Order was made on 8th September, seven weeks before the meeting of Parliament, in non-Parliamentary time, but one would have thought that when Parliament laid down that an Order shall not run for more than 28 days without Parliamentary sanction an Order which had been running for seven weeks without Parliamentary sanction would be submitted for sanction at the earliest possible moment. Instead, the Government have run the Order for 28 days, and,
  2420
  indeed, 44 days of Parliamentary time will have elapsed before this Order will have received sanction. In the face of those dates the House ought to have had a far more serious apology than was offered by the Financial Secretary. He said they had forgotten it, but as a matter of fact they did not forget it later than the 27th November, because the Order set forth is dated then. However, it was put on the Order Paper of the House of Commons only last week, 10 days or a fortnight after they had recollected, and the Order itself was available to Members of this House in the Vote Office only yesterday. It is true that it was laid on the Table of the House, but it was only available in the Vote Office yesterday. When they did recollect they might at least have taken steps to see that the matter was brought to the notice of the House at the earliest possible moment.
  With regard to the Order itself, like all these clearance Orders, it can operate only if the imports into this country are as great as or greater than the exports from this country. Exporters can receive payment only as a result of the accumulation of a fund from imports sufficiently large to pay them. In the case of Turkey the reverse is the position. Our exports to Turkey are greater than our imports from Turkey, so that in no circumstances, while that balance of trade exists with Turkey, can we pay the total amount of the debts due from Turkey to this country. In this Order, we find that the normal trade situation is made worse.
  Before I pass to that point, I would mention that the last trade figures obtainable, those for 1930–34, show a balance of trade for those five years of £1,000,000 between ourselves and Turkey, which is, in fact, an adverse balance for the Clearing Account of £1,000,000. In this Agreement which we have entered into with Turkey, only 70 per cent. of the total amount of money due from imports from Turkey, to be paid into the Clearing Account for the payment of debts to this country, is available. The other 30 per cent. is earmarked as money for the Central Bank of Turkey. Not only have we insufficient imports from Turkey to pay for the exports, but of the imports that come in, 30 per cent. is taken out of the Clearing Account and is not available for the pay-

  2421
  ment of debts to this country. I am not sure, although it may have the effect of making some sterling available, whether it is not likely to be more harm than good. Had there been no agreement at all exporters to Turkey would have realised that they were exporting at their own risk. With a clearing house there may be an entirely false sense of security. Exporters may feel that the existence of a clearing agreement means that they will get their money. Under the Agreement as it stands they cannot possibly get more than 70 per cent. of it. The clearing agreement into which the Government have entered makes it by no means certain that English ex- porters to Turkey will receive payment.
  11.13 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I hope that the House will not think, because I spent a short time in apologising to-day for the oversight as a result of which this Order was not taken earlier, that I did not sincerely apologise for the situation. The hon. Member must not imagine that errors of this sort do not take place even in the best regulated Departments. If some day he finds himself in a position of responsibility in any of the Departments, I am sure that he will realise that errors occasionally take place. I would correct him in one respect. The Order has been available to hon. Members since 7th December.
  Mr. BENSON: I applied for it at the Vote Office on Wednesday last, and they had not got it and had never heard of it. I wrote to the Stationery Office, and although there were two or three days in which I might have received it, I received it only this morning.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am sure that the Order was available on 7th December, and I will look into the matter of the hon. Member's experience. I agree that when Parliament has set down machinery for dealing with an Order of this nature the machinery should be strictly complied with. I have told the House that this was an oversight. In regard to the point which the hon. Member raised about the balance of trade with Turkey, it is the case that in former years the balance was quite perceptibly in favour of this country, but that tendency has decreased until, in 1935, the balance of trade was very close
  2422
  between exports and imports. In the first nine months of this year the balance was still very close, but was slightly in favour of this country. Imports from Turkey are, however, heavier in the last quarter of the year, so that it may well be that the balance will be of a different nature over the whole of this year. At the same time I agree that exporters should be rather cautious, and should not rush into trade in the belief that payment will be made certain because this Order has been made. I would join issue with the hon. Member on the point that the Order will make no difference to traders' prospects of payment. What used to happen under the voluntary clearing arrangement was that many people who imported goods into this country from Turkey paid for them, not through the special account in this country, but direct to the exporters with whom they had trading relations, so that the special account did not receive all the sterling it should have done. Any information that hon. Members may wish to have on this matter they can readily obtain from the Clearing Office, which is in Cromwell Road, opposite the Natural History Museum.
  Mr. BENSON: Does not the Financial Secretary agree with me that a mere equalisation of our trade with Turkey will not meet the necessary balance, but that, in order to meet the 30 per cent. of free money for the Bank of Turkey, we shall have to have an adverse trade balance with that country of something like 50 per cent.?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The question of the 30 per cent. is not a new feature; it was in the earlier agreement of a year and a half ago. A certain free balance was left to Turkey for non-commercial payments. I am quite sure that the arrangement which has been made is much the best that can be made in the interests of exporters in this country, who up to the present have experienced serious delays in getting payment. At the same time I would re-echo what the hon. Member has said about the need for some degree of caution in trading with Turkey.
  Resolved,
  "That the Clearing Office (Turkey) (No. 2) Order, 1936, dated the twenty-seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-

  2423
  six, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Pontypool Gas and Water Company, which was presented on the 24th day of November and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Hartlepool Gas and Water Company, which was presented on the 25th day of November and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Watford and St. Albans Gas Company, which was presented on the 25th day of November and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of St. Ives, Cornwall, which was presented on the 25th day of November and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (RECRUITING).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]
  11.20 p.m.
  Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I wish to raise the question of the relations between the Labour Ministry and recruiting. It is well known to hon. Members that recruiting, especially for the Regular Army, is now in a very bad position. There was a Debate last week during which it was brought very vividly before my eyes. I put a question the other day to the Minister of Labour.
  2424
  We have no fewer than 1,600,000 unemployed and I asked that when men went to the Employment Exchanges for a job the officials should be allowed to give to men of recruitable age a pamphlet showing the advantages of recruiting in His Majesty's Army. I was told that that was impossible. The Minister said that he would allow Employment Exchange officials, if an applicant for a job asked for such a pamphlet, to give him such a pamphlet, but that he could not allow these officials to take the initiative in the matter, and that men of a recruitable age who were suitable for the Army must judge for themselves. He would allow the official to take out a dusty pamphlet from under the counter and hand it, with a blush, to one of these applicants, as though it were some indecent literature. In an ordinary industrial district, anyone who has a factory has the right —and often uses it—to write to the Employment Exchange and say he has occupation for six more hands. When men turn up for jobs at the Employment Exchange, the officials ask them whether they would like such a job, and they take it.
  What I claim is that it should be allowed that His Majesty's Army should be put on an equal footing with the ordinary private industrial employer, and that a man should be allowed to judge for himself whether he would care to have employment in His Majesty's Army. I do not want compulsion at all. The official would simply say to these men, "What about the Army, old boy? If you like to think about it, here is a pamphlet which will tell you all about it." I do not want him to make unemployment benefit dependent upon it in any way; but when you ask a man to go into an industrial concern, he should have an equal choice of going into His Majesty's Army.
  11.23 p.m.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I also was raising this matter the other day but was prevented from going further because of the Motion on the Paper. I desire to draw attention to the terms of an official memorandum, which has recently come into my hands, issued by the Ministry of Labour to officers in Employment Exchanges forbidding them to volunteer any information as to terms of enlistment in the Army to applicants for jobs.

  2425
  "Ministry of Labour. Confidential. Ex-change officers may on request give applicants information with regard to conditions of enlistment, including the name and address of the nearest recruiting officer.
  It is important, however, that Exchange officers should in no circumstances spontaneously volunteer information or suggest to applicants the desirability of enlisting in His Majesty's Forces."
  There is no idea of compulsion. It is simply that they should be told. When the Prime Minister a short time ago pointed out that there was no more honourable or manly occupation than that of serving in the Army, especially as men could also learn a trade, and when we know the bad state of recruiting—the anti-aircraft defence of London is 16,000 men short—it is surely an extraordinary thing that servants of one of the great Departments of State should be forbidden even to mention the fact that recruits are required for the Army.
  Mr. ELLIS SMITH Mr. ELLIS SMITH rose—
  11.25 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.- Colonel Muirhead): I am sorry to intervene in front of the hon. Member, but I think he will realise that there is not much time at my disposal to reply.
  Mr. SMITH: You have had one point of view only, and not that of the unemployed.
  Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I do not contest the correctness of the regulations to which the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) referred. I do not know how a confidential document came into his possession. These regulations were, however, instituted originally in 1919 and they have been continued by Governments of various political complexions. I should like to disabuse the House of any idea that there is an attitude on the part of the Ministry of Labour or the exchanges antagonistic to recruiting. The proof is that information is given at the Employment Exchanges if it is asked for. A poster agreed upon by the Services giving the addresses of various recruiting offices has been exhibited at the exchanges for several years and recently, in response to Service demands, we have agreed to put up pictorial posters also and to ensure
  2426
  that Service leaflets are available in the public rooms of the exchanges.
  What has actuated the Ministry' throughout has been a positive attitude and not a negative attitude. We have been anxious to ensure the maximum efficiency for the exchanges in serving the national needs as a whole. Two million and a-half placings a year are now effected through the medium of the exchanges, and a considerable number at the present time are in connection with the Defence programme. The expedition with which these placings were fixed has been due to the spirit of confidence which has been built up over a long period between the exchanges and those who ask for places and those who have places to offer. We are extremely anxious that nothing should he done to shatter or injure in any way that confidence.
  It is no good denying it—it is not the fault of the Ministry of Labour—but there is in this country in public opinion a strong dividing line between military and civil life. If one were to treat service in one of the Forces as though it was what one might call on a par with an ordinary civil job, one would either have to make it a job, or give the impression that it was a job that would carry disqualification for benefit if it was refused.
  Mr. E. SMITH: That is what they want.
  Sir A. KNOX: I definitely said not.
  Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am merely putting the alternative. On the other hand, if it is a job which can be refused without disallowance being involved, it does appear to put service in the Forces in an inferior category as compared with service in a civil job. The Ministry recognise the urgency of the recruiting question, and that question, as I have said before, is being actively examined in all its aspects. The Ministry is co-operating with the Service Departments in order to try and improve conditions in the Services, and particularly in trying to ensure that there is a better and fuller provision of jobs in civil life for men when they leave the fighting services.
  Mr. JOHN: Why not do it before the end of their service?
  Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I believe that the Ministry by working along those lines will be acting in a much better way to help the Services to get the men they require than by diverting the
  2428
  Exchanges from what are their most effective functions.
  It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE ENGINEERS).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE ENGINEERS).
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (WATERGUARD STAFF).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (WATERGUARD STAFF).
  ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH.
  ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH.
SCOTLAND.
  SLUM CLEARANCE, GLASGOW.
  SLUM CLEARANCE, GLASGOW.
  HOUSING, GLASGOW.
  HOUSING, GLASGOW.
  BUILDING INDUSTRY WAGES.
  BUILDING INDUSTRY WAGES.
  HOUSING (EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS).
  HOUSING (EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS).
INDUSTRIAL DISEASES
  DERMATITIS (FRENCH POLISHERS).
  DERMATITIS (FRENCH POLISHERS).
  CARDROOM WORKERS (RESPIRATORY ILLNESS).
  CARDROOM WORKERS (RESPIRATORY ILLNESS).
  SHOPS ACT (HEYWOOD).
  SHOPS ACT (HEYWOOD).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (McGOWAN COMMITTEE).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (McGOWAN COMMITTEE).
  TRANSPORT (BY-PASS ROAD, CORBRIDGE).
  TRANSPORT (BY-PASS ROAD, CORBRIDGE).
AGRICULTURE.
  WHEAT SUPPLY.
  WHEAT SUPPLY.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (QUOTAS).
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (QUOTAS).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (SHRIMP IMPORTS).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (SHRIMP IMPORTS).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  IMPORT DUTIES ORDERS.
  IMPORT DUTIES ORDERS.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  STAMP DUTY (TRANSFER DEEDS).
  STAMP DUTY (TRANSFER DEEDS).
  SPAIN (MEDIATION PROPOSAL).
  SPAIN (MEDIATION PROPOSAL).
  BEER AND SPIRITS PRODUCTION.
  BEER AND SPIRITS PRODUCTION.
BRITISH ARMY.
  RECRUITS, YORKSHIRE.
  RECRUITS, YORKSHIRE.
  MEAT AND BUTTER SUPPLY.
  MEAT AND BUTTER SUPPLY.
  RECRUITS' RATIONS.
  RECRUITS' RATIONS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  LINSEED IMPORTS.
  LINSEED IMPORTS.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS (SPORTING CARTRIDGES).
  MERCHANDISE MARKS (SPORTING CARTRIDGES).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES.
  COAL INDUSTRY (MINES INSPECTORATE).
  COAL INDUSTRY (MINES INSPECTORATE).
  TIN MINES, GREAT BRITAIN.
  TIN MINES, GREAT BRITAIN.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  DISALLOWED BENEFIT.
  DISALLOWED BENEFIT.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, GLASGOW (ALEXANDER B. CAMPBELL).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, GLASGOW (ALEXANDER B. CAMPBELL).
  IRON-ORE, FOREST OF DEAN.
  IRON-ORE, FOREST OF DEAN.
  AFFORESTATION.
  AFFORESTATION.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (FLOORING).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (FLOORING).
PALESTINE.
  JUDICIAL, DECISIONS (REPORTS).
  JUDICIAL, DECISIONS (REPORTS).
  TEL-AVIV (HARBOUR).
  TEL-AVIV (HARBOUR).

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ORDERS.
MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have to convey to the House the following Message from the King:
"I have received your Addresses, praying that the Government of India (Federal Court) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Audit and Accounts) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Governors' Allowances and Privileges) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Federal Legislature Amendment) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Defence Appointments) Order, 1936, the Government of Burma (Governor's Salary, Allowances and Privileges) Order, 1936, the Government of Burma (Legislature) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1936, the Government of Burma (Defence Appointments) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Commencement and Transitory Provisions) (No. 2) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Family Pension Funds) Order, 1936, the Government of India (Provincial Legislatures) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1936, and the Government of Burma (Audit and Accounts) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before your Lordships' House, but subject, in the case of the Family Pension Funds Order, the Provincial Legislatures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, and the Burma (Audit and Accounts) Order, to the Amendments approved by your Lordships' House. I will comply with your request."

INSTRUCTIONS TO GOVERNORS OF INDIAN PROVINCES AND THE GOVERNOR OF BURMA.
MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have to convey to the House a further Message from the King:
"I have received your Addresses, praying Me to issue Instructions to Governors of Governors' Provinces in India and to the Governor of Burma in the form of the respective drafts laid before your Lordships' House. I will comply with your request."

DEFENCE: ROYAL AIR FORCE RE-EQUIPMENT.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the statement recently made by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence that he is not satisfied with the output of airframes for the Royal Air Force re-equipment programme, this House may be assured that all the resources of the aircraft industry in this country are being fully utilised; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to a subject which I outlined in my previous remarks in your Lordships' House in October last. Indeed, the recent statement made by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence in another place makes imperative your Lordships' consideration of the progress of aircraft production for the Royal Air Force re-equipment and expansion programme. The matter gives rise to great anxiety to those who, like myself, have had some fairly considerable and lengthy experience of aircraft matters in all its branches. In common with other members of your Lordships' House I have a somewhat intimate knowledge of the subject and this knowledge makes us realise very definitely the need for offering constructive criticisms and suggestions in anything that we might say relative to this matter. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will bear with me, and agree that others of us who are concerned with aviation may be able to offer helpful suggestions to the noble Viscount the Minister for Air in the tremendous task which faces him.
If there were any doubt in your Lordships' minds of the necessity of inquiring into the present position it may be

975
briefly justified by referring to the Government programme initiated in May of 1935, when it was promised that seventy-one new squadrons would be formed by March, 1937. It is now December, 1936, and but thirty of these new units have as yet materialised, although since 1935 the urgency of the situation has vastly increased. I should therefore like to ask your Lordships to bear with me for a few minutes whilst I outline the existing position of the aircraft industry, an industry which, unfortunately, is divided within itself. Like any house in such circumstances it cannot stand as a permanent and satisfactory structure unless the cause of this division is removed and real unity and single-mindedness of purpose are established. It will be the desire of your Lordships and of every responsible person that the aircraft industry should, whilst serving the urgent purpose of the present expansion programme for the re-equipment of the Royal Air Force, at the end of this period be in such a position that it can continue to uphold worthily British prestige in the markets of the world. There can be no two opinions as to the desirability, nay, the imperative necessity, of our having an aircraft industry which is in a position to bring to this country a growing volume of trade which will enable us to keep our place as the foremost producer of both civil and military aircraft.
In his various speeches in your Lordships' House on this subject the noble Viscount the Minister for Air has referred to the "aircraft industry," and your Lordships would naturally have had the impression that the entire aircraft and aircraft equipment manufacturing facilities of the country are referred to. As I pointed out in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago, this is in fact not so, as the Air Ministry policy followed without deviation since 1920, divides the aircraft producing facilities into two distinct categories—that of the approved and that of the unapproved firms. The approved firms, selected, as your Lordships may remember, as far back as 1920, were originally limited to four aircraft engine manufacturing firms and eighteen airframe manufacturers. Since then, by retirements, amalgamations and mergers, these approved firms have been reduced to twelve aeroplane manufacturing
976
organisations, the four aircraft engine manufacturers remaining.
Since 1920 many new firms within the category of aircraft engine and airframe constructors have been created, but all of these are classed, as your Lordships will be aware, as unapproved, and there is no case on record for the past sixteen years of one of these unapproved organisations being promoted to the approved category, although quite recently an approved airframe manufacturing firm became an approved aircraft engine firm. The unapproved firms, some sixteen in number, represent a capital outlay of approximately £5,000,000, and I would like to emphasise to your Lordships that it is prudent and in the interests of economy that the whole capacity of these firms should be fully utilised in the national interest prior to the setting up of any fresh organisations financed from Government funds. The situation is such that the approved companies have an agreement with the Air Ministry that all invitations to tender and orders for new designs and productions shall be confined to them.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I feel that I must intervene at once. That is not so. It is perfectly open and always has been open during the whole period of time for the Air Ministry to place contracts wherever it pleases. What is more—this is no new invention of my own, but has been the case for many years—whenever the Air Ministry has placed a contract with an aircraft firm it has always been a term in that contract that the Air Ministry could use the designs of that firm and get the engine or machine made by any other firm. I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to mislead your Lordships' House.
LORD SEMPILL: I thank the noble Viscount for his remarks. There appears to have been some doubt on the part of the Air Ministry as to the policy of restriction of design, for towards the latter part of last year the non-combine firms were asked to tender for the design of a high speed military machine, and the tendering firms were particularly encouraged to submit designs of a radical kind. This break with tradition was quietly abandoned without any explanation after many firms had spent a considerable sum of money for which they

977
have received so far no recognition or recompense. With the historical background which I have briefly explained to your Lordships an industry has been created, as I have previously mentioned, which is divided against itself. There are, in fact, within the aircraft industry two distinct parties—the approved firms, who naturally seek to maintain their position, and the unapproved companies who are fighting to be included. It is common knowledge in the aviation world that at the present time very strong representations are being made, by the representatives of unapproved firms to the approved companies, that steps should be taken to do away with privilege and to co-ordinate the industry as a whole.
It is interesting to record that a similar ring situation in aircraft manufacturing circles existed at one time in America and Germany, but the air authorities in those countries, unlike our own authorities here, saw that stagnation in design had resulted from this ring system of approved firms and decided to open the door to the Fresh air of competition. In consequence, new firms are now on the approved list of the Governments in question and are competing with the older firms. This has probably helped the recent great advancement in aeronautics in the countries in question and is ore explanation of the favourable position in which the constructors of civil aircraft in the United States in particular find themselves in the world market, at this moment. The motives which actuated the two countries mentioned were perhaps different, but in the case of the United States the change of policy was undoubtedly dictated by financial considerations, as it was found that the previous state of monopoly made for higher expenditure. But, what is at present a matter ox the greatest moment is the profound influence that their civil designs have had upon the character of our most advanced military types. I shall have to dwell on this point as later in my remarks its full significance will become evident to your Lordships.
Your Lordships will appreciate it cannot be left to an industry to adopt a policy which reflects far-sighted statesmanship, if a strong body within itself is not seeking to promote at all times those things that are best for the industry as a whole, but which is perforce weighing all matters in the loaded scales of
978
its own immediate interest with its judgment biased by sectional prerogatives. It is from the products of the unapproved firms in particular that the present supplies and the future designs of civil aircraft will be largely drawn. In a time of national emergency these organisations should be given an opportunity to share in the expansion which has been decided upon. In explaining the shadow scheme, the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Air, omitted to visualise the effect on these firms, or to explain to your Lordships the logical result of their being left out in the cold. Entirely on their own initiative and at their own expense the organisations in question have built up technical and production facilities which make them entirely suitable to be entrusted with a share in the re-equipment programme. These organisations are, for the most part, managed and staffed by those who have left the service of the approved firms because they felt their opportunities cramped and confined. The splendid work they have done already increases the admirable potentialities they possess. If they are not now allowed to participate in the fullest measure, the inevitable result will be to transfer all their skilled designers and mechanics to the shadow firms. That, in fact, is already taking place to some extent, and it means their loss to the creative side of the industry. Further, it will lead to the setting back of our position as suppliers of civil aircraft, and not least, when the shadow factories at present visualised are no longer required, this expert personnel will find itself without employment and without the hope of being re-absorbed in the aircraft industry which will, as the result of the Air Ministry's present policy, be reduced to a skeleton organisation so far as the civil side is concerned.
When explaining the, shadow scheme the noble Viscount informed your Lordships in the White Paper that he had called the well-known automobile manufacturers into consultation with him, but he has said nothing about calling the aircraft industry as a whole into consultation. Although it is my intention to confine myself to constructive remarks, I am sure your Lordships will allow me to utter a word of suggestive criticism on the course taken in this

979
emergency. When there is such a huge demand for aircraft production, unequalled in modern times, surely the reasonable and immediate step for the Air Ministry to take would be to go to the whole aircraft industry and say to them: "Gentlemen, we need during the next few years a production of aircraft which will tax you beyond your present capacity. We want you to co-ordinate the whole of your industry in such a way that every available source of supply or asset you have may be applied to the immediate purpose in view." Air Ministry failure to have done this lays a very heavy responsibility on the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Air, particularly as he has in fact decided to create a shadow industry outside the realm of the aircraft manufacturing organisation.
I want to assure your Lordships that I support the principle of the shadow industry in its right place, but the support of a high principle does not mean that we must of necessity accept the mistaken application of this principle. In criticising the action of the Air Ministry I do so only with the desire to put forward an alternative constructive scheme which it is not yet too late for the noble Viscount to put into effective operation. The noble Viscount may have had it in his mind that had he pursued such a course he would have got into an embarrassing situation at the end of the expansion programme, by having encouraged the aircraft industry to make great extensions in factory plant and machinery only to find, at the finish of that period, that the industry was burdened by a o millstone round its neck of extensions for which there was no future use, except in the melancholy event of war. With this in view he too readily jumped to the conclusion that he could cut out any possible embarrassment in this direction by the creation of the shadow industry.
I believe, however, that your Lordships will agree that a suggestion which I am about to make—made as it is as a compromise to the existing status of the sections comprising the aircraft industry and one which would perhaps be welcomed in that respect by the authorities concerned—is worthy of the close consideration of the noble Viscount, and it is put forward with a view to assisting him in the quandary with which he is faced. I submit, my Lords, that a sound and constructive
980
policy would be for the Air Ministry to bring the representatives of the whole of the existing aircraft industry together to invite their co-operation and to define their requirements broadly on the following lines. The firms on the present approved list and those who are now in the unapproved category are invited to co-operate fully for the purpose of assuring the Air Ministry of a given supply of aircraft and aircraft engines. In order to achieve the intended production the constructing firms will be required to make addition as necessary to their factory plant and equipment, the cost of which will be borne by the Government. The purchase price or rentals of these extensions and the cost of upkeep when not in use will be agreed and guaranteed by the Air Ministry so that at any future time they can, if they so desire, buy or rent the factories from the Government after the present emergency has passed. If at that time they have no wish to do so they can at least be assured against loss by the action of the Government, who will have guaranteed the agreed payment for care and maintenance. The approved and unapproved firms will have the same opportunity of participating in the re-equipment programme to the extent of their present resources and capacity for expansion, but those firms mainly engaged on civil work will be expected to keep their existing programmes going and expand them.
By this arrangement the whole industry would have been co-ordinated and strengthened, and the Government would have ensured that the best use was made of every bit of available experience in the form of management, design, and technical and skilled personnel. At the end of the present expansion programme the industry would be provided with ample capacity to carry on with what will presumably be regarded as a permanently increased volume of aircraft replacements and progressive re-equipment. The Air Ministry could then decide who in the future should enjoy the limited orders which it would pass out to the industry on what I would hope would be a similar basis to that successfully adopted in the United States of America, to which I have already referred: selection on merit. The other firms would return to concentration upon the civil markets with organisations right up to date, well-equipped, with great potential strength

981
for ample production, but again without the embarrassment of the upkeep of too vast a plant and equipment. They would therefore be in a powerful position to take a lead in the civil aviation markets of the world.
Undoubtedly the development of new designs and technique in this sphere would be invaluable to military progress, and those making substantial contributions in this field should be encouraged to apply their art to military requirements without having to scale the almost impregnable barrier of privilege when that time came. The policy I propose recognises that the essential in any situation of emergency is the existence of organised bodies of trained specialists, experienced in working together and ready and capable of absorbing an increased number of personnel as the pressure rises, without confusion or inefficiency. Had the noble Viscount taken that action at that time he would have saved the country millions of pounds spent in creating, without due preparation, a shadow scheme outside the aircraft industry. What has actually happened is the result of not consulting and co-ordinating the aircraft industry: the Ministry is faced with an industry which is lighting amongst itself for the spoils when it should be working wholeheartedly and with single-mindedness in co-operation to obtain the very best possible results.
I should perhaps state at this juncture that three of the unapproved or non-combine firms have received one order each from the Air Ministry, but this is begging the whole question, as the firms mentioned have ample additional capacity and all their efforts to induce the Air Ministry to utilise it have failed utterly. At the same time it should be stated that the Air Ministry are indebted to certain unapproved firms for the supply of monoplanes for training purposes. The new types of Service aircraft are largely of monoplane design, and the only firms who were able to supply aircraft of similar construction to train the new pilots being recruited while the Service types were being built were the organisations which the Air Ministry had refused to place on their approved list. This country has been lamentably behind other countries in the design of monoplanes, which are
982
now being adopted generally for all purposes, and there was therefore definite reason why these unapproved firms, who had had the foresight to concentrate on this type of design, should be given an opportunity to share in the design and construction of Service aircraft.
We have therefore a substantial part of the aircraft industry, the unapproved firms, with an adequate capital of some £5,000,000 sterling, being thwarted in their efforts to get work from the Air Ministry, except in the cases to which I have just referred, where the necessary training machines could not be obtained elsewhere, while this section of the industry has been struggling to uphold British civil aviation prestige abroad. At a time when it might be expected to share in a programme which would strengthen its position it is being despoiled by the section comprising the approved firms on the one side and by those who have been given the terrific task of organising the shadow scheme on the other. So we see the dismal picture of a Ministry, which could be and should be strengthening the aircraft industry at the present time, by its mistaken action inadvertently disorganising and destroying one section of it. One deplorable result of the lack of support given to that section of the industry which has been chiefly employed in civil work, which has not escaped the attention of the noble Viscount, is the permission which he has recently given to a British-subsidised air line operating from these shores to buy American equipment. Since that decision the Dominion of New Zealand has followed the example of the Home Government and sanctioned the purchase of similar equipment to replace British machines on their air lines.
Again I feel your Lordships will agree that the noble Viscount cannot escape criticism in this matter, as he is as much responsible for civil as for military aviation. In view of his expressed intention to safeguard by every means in his power the interests of the manufacturers of civil aircraft, he should have been looking ahead and placing orders for the right type of aircraft with British firms. As it seems, by our meagre support of British air lines—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Pardon me, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment on that argument? Is it suggested that

983
His Majesty's Government should place the orders which are usually placed by civil air lines? Is that really what the noble Lord is suggesting?
LORD SEMPILL: In answer to the noble Viscount's remarks, it is suggested that His Majesty's Government could have facilitated a situation whereby the firms specialising in that matter could have made more progress than they did and have therefore avoided the placing of orders with America. In view of the expressed intention to safeguard the manufacturers of civil aircraft, he should have placed orders along the lines suggested or facilitated the placing of those orders. Your Lordships should appreciate that some of the things that have been said might be construed by the uninformed as being a criticism of the British aircraft industry. This is not so. The British aircraft industry is like all other British industries. When freed from hampering restrictions and unnecessary interference, British industry has always proved itself capable of competing successfully with foreign competitors. While it will succeed with a certain amount of the loading of the dice against it, there is obviously a point beyond which it cannot go. A striking example of this in the aircraft industry is that owing to the archaic system of testing new aircraft, it has admittedly been years before a new type gets into production.
The plain fact is that the elaborate technical and testing departments of the Air Ministry, which were built up to ensure our technical supremacy in aircraft, defeated their own object, in that their main energies were devoted to equipment and not to superiority of performance. Such was their careful and conscientious application to detail that by the time prototype aircraft were fitted with the various accessories and items of equipment to the satisfaction of the specialised departments of the Air Ministry, and the aircraft tested and passed as ready to be put into production for Service use, the design was six or seven years old. A case in point which might be referred to is that of the night bomber produced by one of our oldest firms, designed some years ago, the first production model of which has just been delivered, and of course its performance is hopelessly inadequate to compete with modern machines possessed by other countries. This system has proved a great embarrassment to the
984
noble Viscount and your Lordships must sympathise with him, for not only has it prevented the production of machines until they were obsolescent, but it has tended to foster a lack of initiative amongst the designers of the supplying firms who thus lacked the inspiration of knowing that their efforts would get prompt recognition.
Faced with the urgent need of expanding the Royal Air Force he found himself with the alternative of speeding up production of obsolescent types which under the system in vogue comprised our first-line aircraft, or take the bold and unprecedented action of ordering in quantity from up-to-date designs hurriedly prepared by the designers of our manufacturing firms. To his lasting credit the noble Viscount, when faced with this impossible situation, cut through red tape and threw himself entirely upon certain manufacturers in the aircraft industry for support. As he has stated in public utterances, he has made a virtue of necessity by adopting a procedure which he has rightly described as ordering "from the drawing board.'' One must admire the courage shown by the noble Viscount in coming to this decision, which throws a great onus of responsibility on our aircraft designers and manufacturers, and if this policy succeeds, as we all sincerely hope and trust it will, although it is most disconcerting to have to admit in the case of one of these new machines at least that these anticipations are not being realised, we shall owe a great debt of gratitude to the designers attached to those aircraft firms who have been responsible.
The noble Viscount will undoubtedly endorse my statement that those selected firms did not fail him and that within a very short time they were able to produce an entirely new set of designs for machines in various categories, which will, it is hoped, result in the Royal Air Force attaining a standard comparable with that of other countries. Colour is lent to this possibility by a recent statement made by the noble Viscount that all the countries of the world were coming to him to buy our new machines. Although your Lordships can hardly believe he desired to convey that included among those aspirants were the great Powers of Europe, with the possible exception of Russia, we do know that the predicts of our aircraft industry have

985
always appealed to those smaller countries who have not been in a position to build their own equipment, although of late years we have lost trade in certain directions to other countries.
In the light of policy now decided upon by the Air Minister it is perhaps pertinent to ask what is to be the function of the elaborate, and within its scope admittedly competent, machinery, comprising the scientific and technical research organisation of the Air Ministry. Are the personnel to be loaned to the constructing firms to assist in the inevitable teething troubles to which the new types will be subject as they pass along the band of mass production? The noble Viscount claims that years will be saved by the method which has been adopted; and I have quoted one case which illustrates the truth of this contention. Are we to assume that when the present emergency has passed this time-wasting machinery will be reinstated, or is it the intention to disband an institution which it would now appear can be dispensed with?
I submit, my Lords, that we cannot afford to lose any technical or scientific skill or experience in aircraft matters. Knowledge of aviation has been built up by dint of supreme application; every available source must be conserved and utilised if we are to remain a first-class Power, but it must be rightly directed. If through the competency of our aircraft designers the risky policy of ordering "off the drawing board" is justified in this instance, we cannot make such a practice a normal procedure. Even if the noble Viscount's confidence is proved to be based on sound conjecture, we must not rest on the present programme. New designs both of military and civil aircraft and aircraft engines must be encouraged and a number built and tested out so that we shall never have to take such risks again. There is no finality in aircraft performance and we must always be in a position to build craft of the very latest design in such quantities as may be necessary. There is no doubt whatever of your Lordships' desire to see the rearmament programme of expansion proceed with the utmost dispatch, and there can be no doubt of the wish and intention of the noble Viscount the Minister for Air to speed up the expansion of the Royal Air Force, which is his special responsibility. I
986
have emphasised and dwelt upon one fundamental reason, as I see it, why he has not so far been able to press forward as rapidly as we should have liked.
The noble Viscount has inherited an out-of-date system, useful perhaps in the leisurely times of secured peace and prosperity, but shown to be entirely inadequate to meet the present emergency, and many examples could be instanced to prove what a handicap it is under present circumstances. I will quote but two. In the recent armament debate in your Lordships' House a question was asked as to the Air Ministry's attitude to the use of heavy calibre armament in aircraft, and the noble Viscount has told your Lordships that his advisers are not convinced of the superiority of the use of this type of attack over that with machine guns of smaller calibre. Be that as it may, the Air Ministry, it is understood, have placed a development order with an approved firm of aircraft manufacturers for a cannon engine, a power unit which experience shows will take from three to five years to develop. If this is so, the irony of the situation is that a firm of British unapproved aircraft engine constructors are in the position to offer the Government an up-to-date cannon engine thoroughly tested out at the present moment, and adopted as standard equipment by our gallant allies across the Channel, and used by them in considerable numbers in their latest fighting aircraft. Although the noble Viscount has indicated the Air Ministry policy in regard to this new form of armament, I would emphasise to your Lordships the desirability of not falling behind in its development. It is admitted that the type of cannon engine to which I have referred, the constructing licence of which has been acquired by a British firm, is of foreign origin, but I would point out that its adoption, at least for trial purposes, would not be a precedent in the use of foreign design as, to quote only one instance, the Ministry has adopted a controllable pitch airscrew of American origin which is to be put into production in quantity in a shadow factory to be built for the purpose.
I feel that your Lordships are unaware, and I am compelled to the conclusion that the noble Viscount is unaware, how vitally the sectional differences of prerogative of the firms within the aircraft industry are affecting the task to which he

987
has put his hand. As a result of the policy the Air Minister has embraced, a courageous policy which, I repeat, does him credit, there is a lamentable though perhaps inevitable hiatus during which production is slowed down. The new designs of aircraft which have been decided upon necessitate a vast amount of preliminary drawing office work, and the drawings have not been available to ensure the full concentration on production of the approved firms, particularly in regard to airframes, and the, sorry spectacle is to be observed of certain firms within that category coming to the unapproved firms to ask them to give them work in order to keep on their skilled personnel. The unapproved firms, who might be busier with civil production had they received more support, in fulfilling requirements of British air line operators who are purchasing with Air Ministry approval foreign equipment, are no better placed. Your Lordships will be surprised, when it has been so emphatically stated in this House that there is a dearth of skilled labour, to know that hundreds of skilled men are being paid off weekly by the combine as well as the non-combine aircraft-producing firms.
I desire to state most definitely that I am, as I am sure your Lordships will realise, not merely suggesting the introduction of measures to harmonise the domestic differences of the aircraft industry, but that steps should be taken to eliminate any weakness which is calculated to clog the machine, the efficiency of which is so essential for the purpose in view. It would be absurd to minimise the difficulties the noble Viscount has had to surmount and still has to surmount. Let him therefore first insist on putting the house in order so that all concerned may give of their best in the gigantic task which lies ahead. The noble Viscount has taken a bold line in the right direction in trusting certain experienced designers in the aircraft industry in this emergency, and they have not let him down. In this he has broken the shackles of tradition; let him continue the courageous course and be determined that he will use all the aircraft administrative, managerial, technical and skilled personnel in this country, irrespective of precedent, together with all the specialised manufacturing resources, and their capacity for expansion, of the
988
approved and unapproved firms. The Treasury have already approved financial grants to approved firms for the extension of plant, which, I submit, should be extended to unapproved firms. If this is not enough then bring the shadow scheme into full operation.
The noble Viscount has a momentous rôle to fill. Of all those who are responsible for the defence of this country he, as the Secretary of State for Air, stands closest to the great problem this country has to solve. On the decisions he may make the destiny not only of this country but of the world may depend. The noble Viscount has a great opportunity, nay, an inviolable duty, to ensure that nothing is left undone which will secure the safety and welfare of this country. If he does this, he will deserve and obtain the lasting gratitude of present and future generations. We have a Royal Air Force with splendid personnel, of the utmost efficiency, being rapidly augmented by the cream of our young manhood. I suggest to your Lordships that this magnificent arm of defence should not suffer a shortage of the necessary aircraft and equipment which is seen to be the result of that most un-British policy of relying on a "ring" or combine of one section of the manufacturers concerned. Your Lordships will be under no misapprehension of the urgent need for the pilots of our Air Force to become familiar with new types of high performance machines, and how necessary it is that no stone should be left unturned which will ensure the required equipment being available at the earliest possible moment. May I therefore seek the assurance requested in the Motion I have submitted and trust that if this cannot be given, as I am sure your Lordships will realise that it cannot be given unequivocally, His Majesty's Government will assure your Lordships that steps will be taken to co-ordinate the whole aircraft industry of this country and utilise it to the full extent without further delay? I beg to move.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I have listened with great attention and interest to the speech which the noble Lord has just read; I gather that he was not in his place in your Lordships' House on June 17 last. I wish to take the opportunity to-day, however, of asking the noble Viscount the Secretary of State a

989
question of which I have given him private notice, and which is not alien to the Motion on the Paper. That is, if he can give us some information as to the work, and the progress of the work, which is being done by Sir Hardman Lever's Committee. A reference has been made from time to time to the work of this Committee, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the noble Viscount was very wise in availing himself of the advice and the assistance of men of such experience and knowledge as Sir Hardman Lever and his colleagues. As the House and Parliament are adjourning almost at once, I think it would be of some interest both to Parliament and to the country if the Secretary of State could tell us on this occasion what is being done by that Committee.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies—to which reply I look forward with keen anticipation in view of the very strong statements by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches—may I say a few words on behalf of the Opposition? I want to apologise to the noble Lord for missing the first few minutes of his speech, but I shall have to read the whole of it to-morrow in order really to grasp its full significance. It was so packed with statements and facts and attacks and compliments to the Air Ministry and other details that, unlike the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I did not grasp the whole meaning of it; but I heard enough to make me reluctant to intervene in this pretty quarrel. In speaking from this side of the House I must not be taken as endorsing everything that fell from the noble Lord, if I had managed to appreciate all he was saying. I have known the noble Lord for many years now from the hectic days of 1916 and 1917 and I have always regarded him as knowing this particular subject very intimately indeed. I understand from such information as I have been able to gather, as I ventured to say on the last occasion when we had a full dress debate on defence, that the shadow scheme gives us an enormous potential which can be put into operation at very short notice when the occasion arises.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are actually in production.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, but the new shadow scheme factories themselves will not be built for some months yet. They
990
are in the process of formation. They will have a sort of trial run, and will be put into part production, but then they will be able to multiply that production to an enormous extent when required. The criticism I ventured to make on the last occasion—not a very serious one—is that it might have been started rather earlier. I think I am right in saying that the shadow scheme, the factories and plant, are being paid for by the State. How is it proposed to amortise the capital expenditure of that great undertaking? That is a matter that more affects another place, but it would be interesting to know what the finance of the scheme is. It seems to me that the problem before us is to obtain an answer to this question: Is there sufficient emergency to-day to justify using every possible means of producing parts of aeroplanes, parts of engines, planes, etc.? Some people say there is, that the situation is very critical and that we ought to be acting with tremendous energy to utilise every possible man and machine and tool and jig that we can lay hands on for aeroplane construction. Or is our rate of actual production now sufficient? I do not know; that is the Government's responsibility.
But I think one is right in asking this: Is there free competition in design? I do not know. I have heard the statements which were made by the noble Lord this afternoon repeated outside, and I know there is a certain amount of criticism, but I have no means of checking its accuracy. That, however, is one question that needs clearing up. Do the Air Ministry allow open and free competition in producing the best possible types of engines and machines for certain particular purposes? And I think also that the noble Viscount might consider answering that question put by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, which has been repeated several times, twice at least, by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and which is repeated in certain circles continuously: Is it a fact that we are behindhand in large monoplane designs compared with other countries?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will answer that at once. Certainly not.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very glad to hear that. That is, at any rate, a very

991
useful intervention that I have drawn from the noble Viscount. On this side of the House—I must repeat this on every possible occasion because I do not think it can be said too often—we are in favour of nationalising the war aircraft industry, and we are in favour not only of nationalising but of internationalising all civil aviation, and if our policy could be adopted we would have none of these difficulties.
Having said that, I want to make a suggestion to the noble Viscount. In the case of the world's Navies, we are given very full information about the exact strength of all the principal Fleets of the, world. We know how many warships there are, of all types, their speed, their armament, their tonnage, the horse power of their engines, and other details of that kind. We have laid on the Table of Parliament every year a most useful Return known as the Dilke Return, which gives all these details of the seven or eight principal naval Powers. I wonder if it would be possible to issue some sort of return of that kind, not giving away secret information, but stating the relative strengths as far as can be ascertained, of the different air Powers. I quite appreciate the plea of public interest and the need for secrecy, but there must be some more information that could be given. Deliberate attempts are being made by certain newspapers to alarm the public as to our alleged weakness in the air and the tremendous strength and lead other Powers have over us, both in numbers and design. I do not know if there is any justification for these alarmist statements or not. I think the Government might consider—I do not want an answer from the noble Viscount to-day—the advisability of issuing some statement once a year, if possible, showing what the relative strengths are. If it is possible to do that in the case of Navies, is it not possible to have more information than we have at present with regard to Air Forces?
I want to say this in defence of the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Air, if he will allow me to defend him for a moment, and on behalf of the policy of his Department; and now I address myself directly to the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. If we go "all out" now and manufacture a tremendous number of aeroplanes of various types, and
992
they are not needed, we shall find ourselves later on with a lot of semi-obsolescent machines. In other words, the longer you can hold back from your great production the better. You will thereby have more up-to-date machines. That is always the case with regard to any armaments, whether you are making a mechanised force for land fighting or warships or any type of armament, but it is particularly the case with aircraft, because the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, knows as well as anyone in the House that this is an industry that has developed and is developing with giant strides. The existing machines of to-day will be obsolete or semi-obsolete or obsolescent in twelve or eighteen months' time. The rate of progress of aeronautical engineering is tremendous, and of the Services that are holding back at the present time from building more machines than is absolutely necessary, I suggest that the Air Ministry is the one with that duty most clearly defined.
Just two other points. I must return, if I may, to a question I asked before about the cannon engine. That was the part of the noble Lord's speech with which I found myself most in agreement. I am not very happy about this cannon engine, quite frankly, and I was not altogether satisfied with the noble Viscount's reply on the last occasion. It is quite possible to build to-day armoured aeroplanes with all the vitals armoured, and machine-gun bullets will be practically useless against such machines. I, myself, for many years, even during the War have thought the large calibre gun would have the advantage. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, knows that certain papers from my pen reached the Air Ministry, when I was on the Admiralty War Staff, urging them to go very much further into the matter of heavy calibre cannon to be carried in flying machines. The French Government have this engine. We can get the designs and the jigs and the drawings right away. If it is a fact, as has been stated in the French newspapers, that they supply these to the Russian Government, we surely can get them too. I do not want the noble Viscount to say anything that is not in the public interest, but I would like an assurance that this matter is being seriously considered.
The other question—it may sound a little cynical but it is not really intended

993
to be cynical—is: Is there an Air Attaché in His Britannic Majesty's Embassy in Madrid? I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of the unhappy situation in Spain, but there the latest designs in machines are being tried out in actual fighting. I had related to me a conversation by a Frenchman the other day who was saying: "Of course we Frenchmen are against any kind of intervention in Spain. We would not think of anything of that kind, but we are glad to find that our fighters are faster than the Germans." There are lessons to be learned in Spain to-day. We are not intervening in that sense. Cur intervention is more moral intervention in the wrong direction. But we have a unique opportunity of finding out a great deal about the actual performances on service of the air machines of other countries. We on this side of the House will await the reply of the Air Minister with great attention, but, apart from the one or two questions I have put and the two opinions I have expressed, we take no sides in this quarrel.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, let me deal first with one or two points raised by the noble Lord opposite. He Las asked me whether it would be possible to produce a return, year by year, of the strengths of Air Forces in all countries. I dealt with this matter rather fully when I spoke in the big Defence debate in this House. We do, as a matter of fact, give more information about Air matters than probably any other country in the world. The British Government would welcome a very wide disclosure all round of the reality of Air strengths, and I go further and say a disclosure of future programmes. I believe that would be a very, useful thing in a world which is very suspicious, as I said in the last debate, in a world where, if one does not know, one is bound to magnify, and where certainty does give assurance. But, as I said on that occasion, that kind of disclosure would be one-sided. We would welcome any wide measure of disclosure of strengths from the principal Governments of the world, and if at any time we could get that, we would be only too glad to co-operate to the full in such disclosure. But I am sure the noble Lord will realise that it would be quite true to suppose that every country
994
possesses a good deal of information which it cannot disclose. He would not ask for that, nor certainly would he ask me to make disclosures on behalf of this country which might be damaging and unwise if one cannot get similar facts disclosed by other countries. I am entirely at one with him, that if we could get a wide measure of publicity I believe it would be a thoroughly good thing.
I am not going to enter into a technical argument with him on the desirability of the cannon as against the machine gun. If I may say so I do not ever intend, as long as I am Service Minister, to make the mistake of trying to usurp the whole functions of a General Staff in my own person. We must be guided in these matters by the considered views of a General Staff. I can give the noble Lord this assurance, that the last thing in the world the Air Staff of this country are doing is thinking in terms of the past. They are thinking all the time in terms of the future, of what the future aeroplane is going to be like. Whatever decision we may conic to as to the relative merits of this or that kind of armament—and whether that decision in the long run be right or wrong, nothing except the sad arbitrament of war can ultimately settle, and perhaps that will not completely settle, such argument—that decision, I can assure him, will be taken without prejudice as the result of experiment and as the considered judgment of a Staff that is looking always to the future and the possibilities of the future, and not at all relying on experience merely of the past.
The noble Lord asked a question about the shadow scheme, and I will deal with that. I know he is a keen advocate of the shadow scheme, and I think practically everybody in this House is, too, except the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. He asked what steps are being taken to amortise the cost of the Government factories of which he so fully approves. I cannot really answer that. As a matter of fact that is all bound up with the way that the whole armaments programme is paid for. As the noble Lord knows, a large part of that is being paid for out of income. Some of the cost will not be able to be met out of income, and will necessarily be met by borrowing. I think the simple thing to do is to take the whole of the armament programme together. Taking it by and large, and

995
having in view the great contribution which is made out of national income as compared with what has to be met, and will have to be met, in future out of borrowing, the noble Lord may take it that this is not being treated as a borrowed capital charge, but probably is being paid for at a much more rapid rate than even the most liberal principle of amortisation would demand.
I come now to the interesting essay, if I may say so, which was read to the House by the noble Lord who moved this Motion. I always feel it—and I apologise for it—much more difficult to follow a read essay than I do to follow a spoken speech like that made by the noble Lord opposite. That is my misfortune, and therefore I may not have appreciated all the points which the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, read out. So far as I was able to follow it, it seemed to me that the great majority of the questions which he raised had been most exhaustively dealt with in the three days' debate on Defence which took place in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord repeated a certain number of misstatements, if I may say so, which he made on a previous occasion. I ventured, as regards those which I thought it really immediately necessary to correct, to take the rather unusual step of intervening in his reading in order to make plain that certain suggestions he was making were very remote from the truth.
He stated—and indeed he read the statement out again; I am sure it was his mistake, because he had it already written down—that we were precluded from placing contracts with any firms. That is absolutely untrue. I hope the noble Lord will not repeat that statement again. There is no agreement of any sort or kind entered into by the Air Ministry, or so far as I am aware any Service Department of State, which ties that Department up to placing orders with any particular firm. Indeed, if it were so, I should never have launched the great scheme of the shadow factories. Let the noble Lord disabuse himself of that mistake once and for all, and do not let him repeat it again either in this House or outside it. It is perfectly true that a large number of important orders have been placed with a large number of well-established firms. Is that bad business? Is that foolish policy? After all,
996
the noble Lord said to me—and indeed I recognise it without his admonition—that I have got a very responsible job to fulfil. Believe me, my Lords, I realise that to the full. I may fail in it, but it will not be for the want of trying to do my best, and it will not be for want of getting the very best advice I can, inside the Government or outside it, in any industrial part of the great adventure on which I am engaged.
Let the noble Lord really pay some attention to great industrial opinion on what is an industrial question. Let him study the views of men like Lord Weir. I do not shelter myself behind anybody for a second. I take full responsibility for anything I do in my Ministerial career. But let the noble Lord take and consider and compare the suggestions he has made to the House with the considered, impartial opinions of a man like Lord Weir, with his unique industrial experience and his unique experience of the Air Ministry and air needs, the man, indeed, who created the Air Ministry and the Air Force in the War, the man who was responsible, I suppose, during his great tenure of office, for producing every kind of aeroplane that took the field in France. Let the noble Lord consider the considered view given in this House in our recent debates of a man like Lord Hirst, speaking with tremendous industrial experience, speaking, as he told your Lordships, not only from his own personal experience of industry but as the spokesman of perhaps the greatest of al the industrial organisations in this country, the Federation of British Industries, and also, I think, for all the chambers of commerce. He recorded as his considered opinion and their considered opinion that the course of industrial practice which we were pursuing was wise and sound. I do not seek for a moment to be a judge in my own cause, but I do suggest that when you get impartial opinions of men of great experience such as those, they are at least to be weighed in the balance against the homilies which have been addressed to me by the noble Lord.
I shall not weary your Lordships with a very long speech, because I really dealt with so many of these points at great length on a previous occasion. Let me turn to one or two of the things that the no ale Lord suggested. Let me take in the first place something that appears

997
as part of his Question. I am asked to do this by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence because of the words that appear in the noble Lord's Motion. The words are:
"whether, in view of the statement recently made by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence that he is not satisfied with the output of airframes for the Royal Air Force re-equipment programme…"
I am asked to say by the Minister for Coordination of Defence, who cannot be in this House to speak for himself, that he never made any statement to that effect at all. So far as he has made a statement, or I have made a statement, neither of us has ever said that programmes have been up to original forecasts, but so far as he has made a statement he has said that he was reasonably satisfied with the progress which has been made. Do not let us, therefore, frame a Motion by representing a Minister, who is not here to answer for it, as saying something he has not said. I am here to answer, and I answer both for him and for myself when I say that is a misrepresentation of the attitude of the Government.
Let me put in a few sentences really what is the answer to the noble Lord. What we are engaged on is a programme. It is not a case of going to this or that firm and saying: "Could you produce something for me?" As I ventured to say on the last occasion you cannot buy aeroplanes as you buy a box of mixed chocolates. My noble friend Lord Hutchison, with his great experience in the War, knows that there is nothing more hopeless than to try to go into great military preparations with a mass of different types of material. To do that is asking for trouble. My sole job, and the job of all of us, is to get a particular programme carried out in the most effective way. It is a very large programme. It includes a vast number of aeroplanes and a vast number of air engines, but the design of the aeroplane in every case governs the engine. Those aeroplanes which have been selected for the programme are those which in the considered opinion of the Air Ministry are the best type which can be produced within the period of the plan, the best types for their work. We have to take great care, while seeking to get really good types, to reduce the multiplicity of types as much as possible.
998
I am going to speak quite frankly to the noble Lord. He has talked about a lot of firms and suggested that it would be a very good thing if we could buy this or that product. But if those products are not of the least use to the programme I would not say "thank you" for them, and I should be wasting public money if I ordered them. It rather reminds me of the divinity student who, when asked to give a list of the minor prophets, said that here it would be well to give a list of the Kings of Israel and Judah. He did not reach a very high place in the divinity paper. It is no satisfaction to me to be offered bits and pieces which we do not want. It is essential that all who can play a part should come in and be willing to play that part, but not to play a part in producing what they would like to produce: they must produce what is required to meet the national need and produce what the programme of the Services requires. If the noble Lord can tell me of a firm which is prepared to take a sub-contract for a particular type of machine that forms a part of the programme, a firm that is efficient to produce it, and that cannot get a subcontract from the main contractors, I or my director will take up the case to-morrow. Let him give me particulars if he has them, but do not let him, directly or indirectly, try to divert us from the main object of getting this programme through, or ask us to substitute something quite different which would not be of the least value for our purpose.
I was not very clear whether the noble Lord was congratulating me or not upon ordering off the drawing board. On a previous occasion I thought he said it was very unwise. I have no doubt that it was wise and right. We could very easily have ordered machines of an older type, as I said on a previous occasion, and we could have got them in large quantities. That would have been wrong. When we saw the chance of getting production of machines of new type of high performance, although the prototypes had not been proved, we deliberately took the risk. We placed orders for those machines. It is true that that has caused, some delay, but that is being made up. There is not a country in the world that has not had that kind of delay. But observe what happens. A big production order is placed ahead of

999
the proof of design. Material is ordered, the factory is laid out, jigs are provided, and all the work is carried forward to such a point that the moment you have overcome the difficulties which you always get in a new type you can go ahead with production. You do not have to wait years to get the big mass of machines coming forward. You have got a big contract there swinging forward. You may have had a delay of months, but you will have saved years in the case of some of the important machines. What is wanted in air programmes and in other programmes is that firms should do the job that is required of them.
I apologise to your Lordships for repeating so much that I have said before, but exactly the same points have been raised by the noble Lord. If you had control, every one of these firms would be taken over to-morrow and told to do exactly what is required for the programme. I do not believe for a moment that it is beyond the good will and capacity of industry in this country—of which I have seen so many evidences—without control, to get co-ordination so that firms will do what is required of them. When the shadow factories policy was put before your Lordships' House I did not think that any member of the House had any doubt about the wisdom of that policy. The noble Lord has talked about lack of experience. What does he mean by that? I have not asked these firms for designs. The designs are there, the machines are laid out, and what I want now is production, big production. Does he really suggest that certain firms which he has talked about, small firms, have a greater production experience than vast motor manufacturing companies like the Austin, Standard, Daimler, Humber, people who are in this shadow scheme? Could he suggest such a thing? I think that aircraft production as this shadow scheme works out may learn not a little from the great production knowledge of these vast motor firms. I am quite sure that we should have been very foolish not to take this step.
What has been the anxiety which has been expressed? Noble Lords sometimes sit on the Cross Benches who have great experience of strategical needs. Their questions always are: "What are your plans? Are they paper plans or are they real?" Those are pertinent
1000
questions. By the shadow scheme, under which you take great firms which in war would be diverted to war use, give them experience of the kind of production that will be required of them in war and set up the State-owned factories side by side with their own, managed by them with all their experience, are you not doing exactly the thing that our critics have told us, and rightly told us, hat we ought to do: not only to be planning the war potential but also to be making sure that the war potential can be an effective reality if ever the time of danger comes? The shadow theme is the considered policy of His Majesty's Government. I do not apologise for it for a single second, and I tell the noble Lord that there is not the faintest chance that we shall abandon that scheme in favour of any of those which he has put forward to-day.
The noble Lord asked whether we were going to abandon our scientific work at the Air Ministry, and if not, how we were going to use it. Of course we are not going to abandon it. Incidentally, I had the experience, only a week or two ago, of a very difficult manufacturing proposition which had defeated the manufacturers of two countries being solved by a technical member of the Air Ministry staff. It is now going into production in both countries—this and the friendly country of origin. How is the whole of the work done at the great research establishment at Farnborough, where the greatest of the designers come, I was going to say, almost day by day? It is done in the only effective way in which research is applied: it is done, of course, by the day-to-day contact of the technical branches of the Ministry, of those engaged in the technical research which goes on at Farnborough and places like that absolutely all the time, with the manufacturers who are engaged in production. That is the only way in which such a plan can work.
I do not want to say more about the noble Lord's speech and the problem that he has raised, but the Motion he has made and this occasion lead me to make some observations from a national point of view about the formation of new companies. The noble Lord was not for a moment advocating anything of that sort; I am not suggesting that; but I think that certain events have made it desirable

1001
that I should take this opportunity—a convenient one—in your Lordships' House to make a considered statement on the part of the Government on this subject. If a company is launched purely as a speculative enterprise, that is not my concern, except in so far as I share with other Service Departments a natural anxiety that the limited resources of skilled labour should not be unnecessarily dissipated. But when suggestions are made in a prospectus on the lines that the formation of a particular company would put it in a position to undertake Air Ministry work, or words of that sort, then I think have a duty to speak, for such vague phrases might well lead investors to suppose that there was some connection between such a company and the Air Ministry and they would be gravely mistaken in making any such assumption. Where a company is engaged on Air Ministry work, or has been invited to undertake such work, the company is fully justified in stating the facts, and would, I am sure, do so with perfect accuracy and fairness; and great extensions have been made by a number of firms in their factories to enable them to undertake their work under the programme. But a case such as I have referred to, of a new and speculative concern, is wholly different.
I have tried on several occasions, and again to-day, to make the position plain. We are committed to a very large programme. That programme is represented by a great number of aeroplanes and engines of approved types. Our job is to get that programme produced. The direct orders are placed. Both the firms with whom the direct contracts have been placed and their sub-contractors will have plenty of difficulty in securing the necessary labour, particularly of the skilled labour and personnel. They are also making great demands on the machine tool industry, which is being most helpful. The Defence programme must be carried out. We are, however, most anxious that these programmes should be executed with the minimum interference with the regular flow of civil industry. But, after consultation with my colleagues and with their full approval, I feel it my duty to say that the Defence programmes and the work of the great civil industries of this country will not be helped but hindered at this time by
1002
an unnecessary and speculative dissipation of the labour and manufacturing resources of the country.
My noble friend Lord Mersey asked me a specific question about the work of the Hardman Lever Committee, and I am very glad to have the opportunity of making clear the work on which they are engaged. We at the Air Ministry are very deeply indebted to them for much valuable work, and for work which at the outset of our programme was quite invaluable. At the outset I invited Sir Hardman Lever and his colleagues to help me as regards the general principles which should govern our contractual relations with firms, the data which should be afforded by contractors, and the application of those principles in a number of specific cases to the detailed work of our Contracts Department. In regard to the latter class of work I should like to say how much we are indebted to Mr. Reeve, who has very wide experience and who in liaison, with the Lever Committee gave our Department great help.
At that time—and I go back to the time shortly after I took over—the Air Ministry was engaged on an expansion programme in advance of the programmes which have since been authorised for the three Services. The development of these programmes, the programmes of all the Services, has led to the establishment of a Treasury Inter-Services Committee, which is working regularly to ensure co-ordination and common action in the field of Service contracts. That Committee is continuously at work. Of course, individual contracts are and must be the responsibility of the Minister concerned, but in certain special cases of particular importance and novel character, as, for example, the agreements with the firms managing the shadow factories, the terms of those agreements have throughout received the special consideration of the Treasury and of Ministers. These particular agreements have been altogether outside the purview of the Lever Committee. In the light of altered circumstances I considered how I could best utilise the experience of Sir Hardman Lever and his colleagues, and I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is of the greatest value. It appeared to me that there were two functions which they could perform, and perform, indeed, better than anyone else. The first was as advisers on questions of

1003
principle, and the second was as arbitrators in cases where the Air Ministry and a particular firm were unable to agree on the terms of a contract.
The detailed day to day work of a contracts department, the fixing of prices in particular contracts, must be the responsibility of a Minister and his staff. Nor, indeed, would it be possible to ask the same people to act as advisers on the detailed terms of a particular contract, and subsequently to act as arbitrators on that contract in case of dispute. It is the latter position, that of arbitrators, which the Lever Committee will occupy in relation to individual contracts. At the same time I am glad to say that I shall have their valuable advice on questions of principle. I am glad the noble Lord raised this, because it gives me an opportunity of making that position plain, and it gives me also an opportunity of saying, on behalf of myself and of my staff, how much indebted we are to the Committee for their work. Anybody who knows, as some members of your Lordships' House can recollect, the remarkable work which Sir Hardman Lever did at the Ministry of Munitions in the War will, I think, agree that we are fortunate to have the assistance of a man like that. I apologise in one sense for having gone again over the ground which I covered in an earlier debate, but I think it was necessary in the circumstances, and I am glad to have had an opportunity of making certain statements which I think it was really desirable should be made.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask before the noble Viscount sits down whether he can answer the question which I put to him, as to the presence or otherwise of a British Air Attaché at Madrid?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, we have not got an Air Attaché at the moment in
1004
Madrid, but that does not prevent us from knowing a certain amount about what is happening.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I have listened with very close attention to the remarks which have been made to your Lordships by the noble Viscount, and I should like immediately, if I may do so, to apologise to the Minister for Coordination of Defence through the noble Viscount, for having inadvertently misrepresented the views which he expressed in the House of Commons with regard to the hold-up of air production. I gather from the noble Viscount that he is doing all that is possible to bring about the fullest possible use of all the facilities in this country for aircraft production. I gather that the noble Viscount said in his remarks that he had not been fully able to follow some of the pints that I raised, but I hope he may be able to take the opportunity of doing so upon another occasion. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: Can the noble Viscount the Leader of the House say anything about further business?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, it is proposed that the House shall meet at eleven o'clock to-morrow morning, and take some purely formal business. There will be a Royal Commission at half past eleven, after which the House will be adjourned for public business other than judicial business until Tuesday, January 26, or such earlier date as the Lord Chancellor may appoint.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before five o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
THE LORD SPEAKER THE LORD SPEAKER acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill, [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY (POWERS) MEASURE, 1937.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
Sixty-ninth Report, being the Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Queen Anne's Bounty (Powers) Measure, 1937: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed.

CLEARING OFFICE (TURKEY) (No. 2) ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the provisions of the Order raise important questions of policy and principle which have been accepted already by the House when passing the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1939, under which the Order is submitted for approval; that the Order is founded on precedent inasmuch as similar Orders have been submitted for the approval of Parliament under the Act although these Orders dealt with other countries; that in the opinion of the Committee the, Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PONTYPOOL GAS ORDER, 1936
WATFORD AND ST. ALBANS GAS ORDER, 1936.
HARTLEPOOL GAS ORDER, 1936.
ST. IVES (CORNWALL) GAS ORDER, 1936.
BOGNOR GAS ORDER, 1936.
BURGESS HILL AND ST. JOHN'S COMMON GAS ORDER, 1936.
BATH GAS (No. 2) ORDER, 1936.
SOUTHAMPTON GAS ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petitions have been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

KIRKBURTON SHELLEY AND SHEPLEY GAS ORDER, 1936.
TAUNTON GAS ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders; that they have considered additions proposed by the Board of Trade and recommend their adoption by the House; that in the opinion of the Committee there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it is necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

TOTTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that a petition against the Order has been presented by the Hitchin Urban District Council and that having considered the points referred to in subsection (6) of Standing Order No. 212, they are of opinion that there ought to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee:
Read, and agreed to.

INDIA AND BURMA (BURMA MONE- TARY ARRANGEMENTS) ORDER, 1937.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), for affirmative Resolution and referred to the India and Burma Orders Committee.
FIREARMS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House: Bill to be printed as amended.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
First Report from the Joint Committee, being a Report on the Firearms Bill [H.L.] made, and to be printed. The Minutes of Evidence (with the Proceedings of the Joint Committee) laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.

Preamble
The House met at half past eleven of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The Lord Faringdon—Affirmed.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have a Message from His Majesty the King, signed by the King's own hand:
" I have received with deep satisfaction the loyal Address of the House of Lords upon My Accession to the Throne. The Queen and I thank you for the expression of your devotion. You may be assured that it is My determination to do all that lies within My power to safeguard the liberties of My people and to promote their prosperity and contentment. I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon My Reign. "

INDIA AND BURMA (EXISTING LAWS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PUBLIC ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Prohibition of uniforms in connection with political objects.
1.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, any person who in any public place or at
838
any public meeting wears uniform signifying his association with any political organisation or with the promotion of any political object shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that if the chief officer of police is satisfied that the wearing of any such uniform as aforesaid on any ceremonial, anniversary, or other special occasion will not be likely to involve risk of public disorder, he may, with the consent of a Secretary of State, by order permit the wearing of such uniform on that occasion either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "meeting "and insert "visibly wears any distinctive dress or insignia signifying his membership of or adherence to any association prohibited under Section two of this Act shall be guilty of an offence. "The noble Lord said: I think it was very generally agreed in the Second Reading debate that whilst the intentions of this Bill were quite clear the definitions contained in it were very far from clear. In particular I do not think the Government themselves dispute that no definition of what is a political uniform is possible. At any rate, if it is possible it is probably not advisable. That is, of course, an understandable position, but it is surely very hard on the subject if he has no means of knowing whether or not he is about to commit an offence or whether or not he has committed an offence. There seems no particular reason why he should be placed in such jeopardy without at least the question having been given the fullest possible consideration.
The suggestion which I venture to put before your Lordships assumes that the person whom Clause 1 intends to hit is the person who belongs to a prohibited or illegal association. The mere wearing of a black shirt or a green boot is not in itself offensive. It is only when the wearing of the black shirt or the green boot signifies that you are a member of an association which is out to usurp the functions of the police or the military that you become an offender. In fact, being deprived of the possibility of defining what is a political uniform, my Amendment attempts to meet that difficulty by suggesting that evidence that you are a member of an illegal association is shown by your wearing the insignia of that association, and therefore you can be prosecuted. I regret that I

839
am no lawyer, and I had hoped that some of the legal members of your Lordships' House might have grappled with this difficulty in a better way, but I submit that my Amendment means all that the Government want and deals more fairly with the citizen. I have yet to learn what objections, if any, there may be to the course which I humbly suggest your Lordships should follow. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("meeting ") to end of line 18 and insert ("visibly wears any distinctive dress or insignia signifying his membership of or adherence to any association prohibited under Section two of this Act shall be guilty of an offence ").—(Lord Phillintore.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships will see that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has on the Paper an Amendment to leave out lines 11 to 18—the proviso in subsection (1). In order to save the noble Lord's Amendment I will put the question in this way: that the words from "meeting "to the end of line 10 stand part of the clause.
LORD STRABOLGI: My noble friends rather like the look of this Amendment, and we are not shaken in that by the explanation given by the noble Lord who introduced it. There is, however, some little doubt in my mind. Let me say at once that I would like to bring in the matter of insignia as well as uniform. I remember that at the beginning of the Great War some very pungent articles were written by Mr. H. G. Wells in which he suggested a levy en masse of citizens to act in case of emergency, and he suggested that they should wear brassards so that they might not be treated as regulars and shot accordingly. It is quite conceivable that people with ingenuity might get round the words in the Bill and I hope that the Government can do something to meet the cogent arguments put forward. I should have thought that some words dealing with insignia might come at the end of Clause 2. Otherwise, unless I am mistaken, this Amendment somewhat narrows the Bill. We want to get rid of the parading of political uniforms; we are all agreed there. If I understand the Amendment it would narrow the Bill to this extent, and that in addition you would have to put in something dealing with provocation by the wearing of uniform obnoxious in certain places—red
840
shirts in Park Lane or black shirts in the Mile End Road, and so on. I hope the Government will do something to bring in insignia in such a way as not to narrow the Bill.
LORD WRIGHT: The noble Lord who roved this Amendment rather appealed to any lawyers who might be present in the House to-day. May I therefore say s. few words particularly on one point to which he has drawn attention—namely, I is view that there should be a definition of the word "uniform. "With the greatest respect to those who have suggested that there should be a definition, I venture to express the view that it would be most unwise and indeed disastrous to attempt any definition of that word. The word "uniform "is a perf.3ctly simple word in the English language, a word in common use and a word to be construed according to the understanding of ordinary people. When you see a man in Italy in a complete black c3stume you know that he is wearing a uniform. I have not seen them, but I believe there are to be found in this country, in not inconsiderable numbers, individuals who wear a somewhat similar uniform. Nobody doubts that that is a uniform, and it is that evil which this cause is intended, primarily, to meet and dispose of.
There are two difficulties which may hive to be considered. One is that if the word is not defined it may be possible for people to sail very near the wind and to produce something which they think will not be considered a uniform. That danger would be much accentuated if you had a detailed definition, because that would give so much more warning to the it -disposed individual as to what he should avoid. I do not feel impressed by that difficulty. After a somewhat long and tedious experience of construing Acts of Parliament, I have come to the conclusion that one of the greatest difficulties in draftsmanship is too much elaborati3n, too much definition. Take the case of a stipendiary magistrate, who, so far as my knowledge goes, may be assumed to be a person of judgment and knowledge of the world, and suppose he has brought before him a case in which a man is wearing something which he says is not a uniform but which is very like a uniform: 14 will decide on the facts of that particular case whether or not it is a uniform. If he is wrong in that decision, or

841
if it is questioned, the matter can be taken to the Crown Court and adjudicated on by a Court consisting of the Lord Chief Justice and two Puisnes, or a Court sincerly constituted.
I do not myself believe that when it comes to a practical question there will be any real difficulty about the meaning of the application of this word "uniform. "I am speaking simply from such experience as I have had, and with the greatest respect to any others who have taken a different view, but I am bound to say that this is my settled conclusion on this question of whether any objection can properly be taken to the word "uniform "simpliciter. I do not think that the culprit, if he wears a uniform, or something so like a uniform that a Court holds that it is a uniform, has any ground of complaint. I think it is quite clear enough for the ordinary purposes of criminal law.
The proposed Amendment which the noble Lord has moved would be very inadvisable for two reasons. One is that it would take out of the Bill something which is generally regarded by the country at large, and was so regarded by the House of Commons, as of vital importance. It would narrow the Bill, in the words of the noble Lord who has just spoken, in a most vital sense. The other reason is—and this is more a matter of law--that it would have the effect of throwing a very great burden upon the prosecution. The prosecution could not move a step in their proceedings until they had established. the existence and character of the organisation referred to in. Clause 2; whereas, of course, the whole purpose of Clause 1 is simply to prevent the wearing of political uniforms—a comparatively simple matter. The word "insignia, "it seems to me with submission, would be a very obscure word, infinitely more obscure than "uniform, "and would not, so far as I can follow from the Bill itself, in any way fulfil the purposes of, or add to the advantages provided or sought to be provided by Clause 1.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): After the observations which have fallen from various noble Lords, I think the Committee will excuse me if I do not say what I had originally intended to say but direct such remarks as I can towards clearing up some difficulties which have
842
been raised. I think that my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, and indeed my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls, thought that this Amendment, by referring the question of uniforms to Clause 2, narrowed the Bill very considerably. What I should like to point out is that in the case of the uniform you already have to establish the existence of the organisation, because you have to prove the association of the accused with a political organisation. That requires "organisation. "Now all you have to establish under the second alternative, under paragraph (h) of subsection (1) in Clause 2, is that it should be organised and equipped. If you equip a person with uniform, you have both the conditions. You are possibly in some ways even widening the clause. You have only to have a political uniform and the fact that it is equipped.
You have further, of course, the intention to display physical force, and I was very forcibly reminded, when the suggestion was made just now, of the words of the noble Marquess, Lord Dufferin. He said, when he referred to political uniforms:
" Political uniforms ' may not sound, in words, of a very great importance, but in practice we all know that once you take politics into the realm of uniform you are making politics something more than a matter for civilians. "
That, of course, is the intention. You are taking politics into the realm of physical force in promoting any political object. If my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls objects to the word "insignia," that is a reason, perhaps, why it had better be replaced by some such word as "badge." I do not know whether he would agree to the Amendment with that alteration.
My noble friend the Marquess of Zetland gave us a definition when he said:
" The definition given in standard dictionaries is that the expression uniform ' connotes sonic dress, or at any rate the substantial part of some dress, and that the wearing of a mere emblem such as an ordinary rosette would not be regarded as uniform, and that the dress or part of the dress must be distinctive and peculiar to the persons wearing it."
We should remember that people dressed in ordinary double-breasted grey flannel suits are not distinctively dressed. You could not call that a uniform. But suppose that fifty or a hundred people turn

843
up at a meeting all dressed in similar grey flannels with the addition of a. rosette or any emblem; I think you would there have at once the very mischief that this Bill was intended to avert, and have it in a very aggravated manner. My noble and learned friend who has just sat down has assured us that "uniform" is a common word in the English language. I quite agree, but would he say that it has a common significance in the English language? 1 have looked for the definition given by my noble friend the Marquess of Zetland, and I have been unable to find the dictionary in which his definition occurs. I have been through ten dictionaries and have found nothing in any way resembling it. I found the word "uniform" as an adjective defined as "something similar to itself," and I can only say that there is nothing uniform in the definition of "uniform" given by various lexicographers. There is, of course, one other expression to which I ought to refer: "visibly" wearing. Supposing somebody likes to wear this uniform in circumstances in which it is not a crime; he wears it and then goes off hurriedly to a meeting. If he puts on a greatcoat I venture to submit there is no mischief occurring, and that makes it a little less offensive.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I ask the noble Marquess a question? What will be the position if the members of an organisation invariably wear a helmet, which is the most visible of all things, and the most conspicuous? If you get people walking on parade and if they do so with a tin helmet, will it be regarded as equivalent to the wearing of a uniform?
LORD SALTOUN: I suppose the uniform depends upon the reason for which it is worn. Surely a uniform is anything by which any group of men distinguish themselves from the rest of mankind for any purpose whatever. That I imagine to be what the Government wish to suppress when it is used for the purpose of introducing physical force in politics. That, I think, is the real point of the Amendment, because if that is really the meaning of uniform, then anybody who wears a party badge of any kind is guilty of wearing a uniform. That I believe is the case. I believe that the cropped heads of the Roundheads who
844
fought against Charles I were uniforms. The object of the Amendment, so far as I can make out, is to confine the attack upon political uniforms to those which the Government really wish to attack and which the Government believe to be a danger to the reign of law, which I believe to be the greatest political principle which can be supported at any time.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): The Amendment would give effect, if carried, to a suggestion which was made in the course of the Second Reading debate, I think, by Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, a and naturally the Government have given their most careful consideration to it with a view of seeing whether it would or would not interfere with the carrying out of the objects which they have in view in introducing this Bill. They have come to the conclusion that it would seriously interfere with the carrying out of the objects which we have in view. It was quite clear from the speech made by Lord Phillimore, who moved this Amendment, that the view of the Government on this question differs substantially from his view. The noble Lord said that the mere wearing of a uniform, or rather a political uniform, was not offensive. In tie view of the Government the mere wearing of a uniform for political purposes is most undesirable, and it is the unanimous view of the police authorities, who are responsible for maintaining law and order, that the mere wearing of a uniform is in itself provocative, and that once you get one organisation wearing a uniform you very soon get other organisations copying that example and wearing uniforms also.
Why does the noble Lord want to wear a uniform in his politics? Surely politics is this country are purely a civilian matter. We do not want to militarise our politics in this country, as has been done in certain other countries. Surely the example of those countries who have militarised their politics is one which we in this country do not want to follow, and I am beginning to wonder whether Lord Phillimore, under the impeccably respectable outer garments which he wears, may not be found to be we acing a shirt of green, brown or even black. It is very undesirable in our view that uniforms should be worn at all

845
for political purposes. A great deal has been said about the difficulty of deciding what constitutes a uniform; and the noble Marquess asked me whether a large number of people wearing tin helmets would be regarded as wearing a uniform. Under the provisions of the Bill that would be a matter for the Courts themselves to decide. The noble Marquess no doubt has his own view as to what the answer to his own question would be, but since this is a matter to be left to the decision of the Courts I do not myself venture to give a definite answer to his question.
Then, I am not at all sure that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment will realise quite what the effect of it might be. In practice, if the Amendment was carried, it would be almost impossible to proceed against any one wearing a political uniform until a case had been brought against someone for organising a body for the purposes which are prohibited in Clause 2 of the Bill, and it would therefore enormously handicap the authorities in bringing to an end the undesirable practice of wearing political uniforms even when they were used for the purposes prohibited in Clause 2 of the Bill. It will probably be within the knowledge of many of your Lordships that this is a question which has had to be seriously considered in recent times not only in this country but in many other countries, and in such countries as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland, countries governed more or less on the same sort of constitutional lines as we are in this country, have all found it essential to prohibit absolutely the wearing of political uniforms.
Now may I say one word with regard to the phrasing which the noble Lord proposes to introduce in place of the word "uniform"? He would prefer to use the words "distinctive dress or insignia." In the view of the Government those words are by no means an improvement on the word "uniform." They would make it an offence for any one to wear a badge or an emblem of any kind, and we think that it would be too drastic an action to make the wearing of badges an offence. I hope, therefore, that in view of what I have said the noble Lord will be willing to accept the view of the Government on this matter, and will agree with us that it really is the wearing
846
of a political uniform that we wish to prohibit.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am rather horrified to find that I have been poaching on what were really the preserves of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. The truth of the matter is that some of us thought over this subject for several hours after the debate, and I think it was lost sight of that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, had made very much the same suggestion that I have made. I regret that I did not leave it to him, because he would undoubtedly have made a much deeper impression on the Front Bench than I am able to make. On the other hand, I do not feel that it is a weakness that I have his support. I would like to get clearly from the Government what is their attitude in this matter. I appealed to the law and I got from the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls the judgment, if I may put it that way, that a magistrate would be able easily enough to say what uniform was. That is not my point. My point is, can the ordinary citizen tell what uniform. is? When he gets to the magistrate he has already suffered the indignity of arrest, and possibly, to my mind, unjustifiable arrest.
I think that the noble Marquess who replied for the Government did not throw much light on this. At one moment he said that I should agree with him—as I do—that we do not want to introduce military dress or military anything else into politics. He made a rather sweeping statement that any sort of dress which distinguished a political organisation was to be deplored. Does he mean in so many words that the Conservative Party voter or the Liberal Party voter or the Socialist Party voter is not to wear his Party dress? I dare say that is not a great loss, but does he mean it? I believe that in some constituencies a Conservative Party voter wears no less than three different badges or articles of dress. Is that uniform or is it not uniform I Can anybody say? On the other hand, when discussing the words suggested by me (to which I do not cling), the words "distinctive dress or insignia," the noble Marquess said that was going too far. Altogether I do not understand whether the person aimed at by Clause 1 is the same person who is included in the association aimed at in Clause 2. If he

847
is—and I have thought up till now that he was that person—it seems to me that his real offensiveness entirely depends on whether he is a member of an organisation which attempts to usurp the functions of the police. Therefore it is from that quarter that you should strike it.
I cordially agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wright, that it is not advisable to define what is uniform. What I am attempting to define is the offence, and the offence is being a member of an organisation which is illegal or which has been stopped or restricted. Being a member of that organisation you wear a dress showing that you are a member of it, and therefore you strike fear into the hearts of peaceful citizens. Surely that is the Government's policy. If it is not, I submit that it is not clear from the Bill what that object is. I think in the circumstances I ought to go to a Division.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): May I ask the noble Marquess this: Where is there any prohibition in the Bill, as it would be amended, requiring that the main bodies should be prosecuted before the wearer of the uniform can be convicted?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I do not quite follow the noble Lord's question. What I said was that if this Amendment were carried it would be practically impossible to proceed against the person wearing a political uniform unless you

CONTENTS.

Halifax, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Dunedin, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hindlip, L.

Argyll, D.

Ridley, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Swinton, V.

Jessel, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Manners, L.

Bath, M.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Milne, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Reading, M.

Aberdare, L.

Portal, L.

Zetland, M.

Addington, L.

Portsea, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Amulree, L.

Redesdale, L.

Airlie, E.

Arnold, L.

Rennell, L.

Albemarle, E.

Basing, L.

Rhayader, L.

De La Warr, E.

Cautley, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan william.)

Iddesleigh, E.

Sherborne, L.

Iveagh, E.

Davies, L.

Stanmore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Elton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Munster, E.

Faringdon, L.

Templemore, L.

Onslow, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Wigan. L. (E. Crawford.)

Plymouth, E.

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

Wright, L.

Gainford, L.

had proceedings against someone under Clause 2.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): Perhaps I did not make myself clear, but I thought the noble Marquess had the Bill before him, and I wondered where that impossibility occurred and, if it does occur, would he explain where it is?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Under the noble Lord's Amendment it would not be an offence to wear a political uniform unless the person who wore it was a member or an adherent of an organisation prohibited under Clause 2. It is really at that point that what I described as the substantial difference between the noble Lord and the Government exists. The noble Lord asked me again what is the policy of the Government. The policy of the Government is to prohibit the wearing of political uniforms at all. That is the policy of the Government—not only in the case of persons who are banded together with a view to usurping the functions of the police or under paragraph (b) of Clause 2 (1), but to make it an offence to wear a political uniform at all. I quite agree that there is a difference of view between the noble Lord and the Government and that difference, I am afraid, will continue to exist.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 6.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Mansfield, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.[Teller.]

Phillimore, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lawrence, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (1). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to leave out words permitting the chief officer of police in certain circumstances to grant the right to wear uniforms. I was very surprised indeed to hear the reiterated and forceful explanations of the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for India, on the Amendment of Lord Phillimore. He said that it was undesirable that uniforms should be worn at all for political purposes. I was so struck by his words that I wrote them down. In the same forceful and clear phraseology he said that the policy of the Government—I listened with the greatest attention to this statement of the policy of the Government—was to prohibit the wearing of uniforms at all. This new definiteness is most refreshing. I go on to read the rest of the subsection and it says that, provided the chief officer of police is satisfied, he can give permission on any ceremonial, anniversary, or other special occasion.
I should have thought that if there was something provocative and irritating to the ordinary lieges in the wearing of these foreign, alien uniforms, to allow them on certain special and formal occasions would be even more annoying to the general public. What really have the Government in view? Funerals of political adherents in certain countries where there are disorders frequently give rise to the fiercest of street fighting. In France even, and certainly, I believe, in the North of Ireland, such funerals have led to many broken heads. I grant the Government weddings. If people wish to get married in black shirts or red shirts, these are happy occasions, so let them have them so long as they do not drink too much. But imagine on Armistice Day the feelings of ex-Service men and others on seeing parades of these provocative uniforms. After all, what is a ceremonial occasion? Any parade, any procession of men, is ceremonial. The daily parade of a regiment is ceremonial. The mustering of men on the quarter deck of a man-of-war for prayers is ceremonial.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: But not political
LORD STRABOLGI: "Ceremonial" can be in connection with anything. And then apparently permission can be given for these uniforms to be worn subject to the Secretary of State, who may be sympathetic and give a very wide interpretation of the measure. My noble friends are very disturbed about these words which make a very large hole in the Bill and, if I may be allowed to say so, nullify the firm words used by the Secretary of State for India. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, leave out lines 11 to 13.—(Lord Stralolgi.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment, and for a very good reason. It has been made abundantly clear that this clause has not been an easy one to draft. It has been very difficult to define the word "uniform," and it has been extremely difficult—in fact impracticable—to give a set list of organisations which should be exempt from its provisions. In view of these facts it has been necessary, as is again abundantly clear, to legislate in the very widest and most general terms. When you legislate in very wide general terms it is highly desirable to have some elasticity in your Bill because otherwise, of course, you have to have an amending Act should it subsequently appear that you have legislated too drastically against, in this ease, organisations which perhaps should not be included under the working of this measure. The noble Lord opposite made great play with the speech of my noble friend behind me about the undesirability of political uniforms, and indeed I fully agree with every word my noble friend said, but the point that we are really aiming at, when we are trying to crush political uniforms, is the disorder they create. It is not so much the uniform we are trying to kill: it is the disorder consequent upon that uniform that we are determined to eradicate from the State.

851
I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this exemption is only to be granted by the chief officer of police in consultation with the Secretary of State when he is convinced, knowing his own district, that it will not involve any risk of public disorder, and I suggest to the noble Lord that if he had read those few words which occur in line 14 of page 1 of the Bill he would not have produced those particular arguments in favour of leaving out this proviso. We do not want to deal harshly with an organisation which is not going to provoke public disorder, if any such exist, or may exist in the future, and we think that it is right that we should give this permission through the chief officer of police, should he be convinced in his own mind that no public mischief will result from a procession upon an anniversary or whatever the occasion may be, and after consultation with the Secretary of State, who, after all, remains to be shot at in Parliament should a mistake be made by him in accepting the advice of the chief officer of police. Under those conditions and with those safeguards we think it is right that we should have this elasticity in the clause.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not want to press this Amendment, but I am still very dissatisfied even after the explanation of the noble Marquess. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, to take note of what the noble Marquess said. He said that the object of the Bill is to prevent disorder. I thought one of the objects was to prevent this example of wearing uniforms from spreading, and thus to prevent any disorder that might be likely to arise if it became the fashion to wear political uniforms. When every political Party begins dressing itself up you are asking for trouble, and I thought the object of the Bill was to prevent that, but now it appears that that is not so and that its object is to put down disorders. I think the words are open to abuse and are dangerous, but I do not propose to press the matter.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2
Prohibition of quasi-military organisations.
2.—(1) If the members or adherents of any association of persons, whether incorporated or not, are—
852

(a) organised or trained or equipped for the purpose of enabling them to be employed in usurping the functions of the police or of the armed forces of the Crown; or

(b) organised and trained or organised and equipped either for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force in promoting any political object, or in such manner as to arouse reasonable apprehension that they are organised and either trained or equipped for that purpose;
then any person who takes part in the control or management of the association, or in so organising or training as aforesaid any members or adherents thereof, shall be guilty of an offence under this section:

Provided that…
(3) If upon application being made by the Attorney-General it appears to the High Court that any association is an association of which members or adherents are organised, trained, or equipped in contravention of the provisions of this section, the Court may make such order as appears necessary to prevent any disposition without the leave of the Court of property held by or for the association and in accordance with rules of court may direct an inquiry and report to be made as to the affairs of the association and make such further orders as appear to the Court to be just and equitable for the application of such property in or towards the discharge of the liabilities of the association lawfully incurred before the date of the application or since that date with the approval of the Court, in or towards the repayment of moneys to persons who became subscribers or contributors to the association in good faith and without knowledge of any such contravention as aforesaid, and in or towards any costs incurred in connection with any such inquiry and report as aforesaid or in winding-up or dissolving the association, and may order that any property which is not directed by the Court to be so applied as aforesaid shall be forfeited to the Crown.
(4) In any criminal or civil proceedings under this section proof of things done or of words written, spoken or published (whether or not in the presence of any party to the proceedings) by any person taking part in the control or management of an association or in organising, training or equipping members or adherents of an association shall be admissible as evidence of the purposes for which, or the manner in which, members or adherents of the association (whether those persons or others) were organised, or trained, or equipped.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the organisation of a reasonable number of persons to be employed as stewards to assist in the preservation of order at any public meeting held upon private premises, or the instruction of those persons in their lawful duties as such stewards, or their equipment with badges or other distinguishing signs.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in paragraph (a) in subsection (1), to leave out "enabling them to be employed" and insert "employment." The noble Lord said: I think I had better anticipate any suggestion that I hanker after a tie of any particular colour in order to show my political principles. My chief political principle is a belief in the rule of the law, and I am in no way, nor wish to be, a supporter of any organisation that wants an authoritarian State. The noble Marquess in charge of the Bill pointed out a moment ago that the Government had been unable to make a list of the societies that they wished to include under a. Uniforms Bill, and those which they wished to exclude, and if the Government are unable to do that I do not see how the ordinary citizen can do it. My principal criticism of both Clause 1 and Clause 2 is this, that Clause 1 states that anybody who does a certain thing is guilty of an offence, and the next clause states that no prosecution shall take place except by the Attorney-General. I venture to think that it is a menace to the rule of law that people should go about careless whether they commit an offence under the Statute knowing that, although they may be committing an offence, they will never be prosecuted. That is the form of the Bill, and the object of my Amendment is to make it possible for people who read this Bill when it is passed into law to know whether they are committing an offence under Clause 2 or not.
It appears to me that the word "enabling" in paragraph (a) either has a meaning or has no meaning. If it has no meaning it is better out of the clause. Under the Bill as it stands it is an offence to manage an association which trains members for the purpose of enabling them—that is, of giving them the capacity—to usurp the function of the police or military. If the Amendment on the Paper be adopted it will only be an offence to train members for the purpose of usurping these functions. We all know what our purposes are, and if we are engaged on perfectly innocent purposes we can go ahead knowing we are not offending. If on the other hand we are not engaged on perfectly innocent purposes the Attorney-General no doubt will quite rightly attack us. At every agricultural show in the country you see Boy Scouts used for the purpose of traffic
854
control or other similar duties. They are chosen because they have learned to obey and to use their wits. By reason of that they are better than other boys and are very useful in discharging the functions of the police. That is an instance at the bottom of the scale. It will be quite as easy to point out that Automobile Association scouts, whom nobody wishes to attack, are definitely trained to perform the functions of the police.
The noble Marquess who replied for the Government on the Second Reading said he did not think that anybody could say that men co-operating with the police were usurping their functions. If the Amendment be adopted that is a perfectly good answer, but as the Bill stands that is not a good answer because there can be no doubt at all that persons capable of discharging the functions of the police or military are ipso facto in changed circumstances capable of usurping those functions. The purpose referred to in the Bill is "enabling," it is not the purpose of "employment." That is why I have substituted the word "employment." If this is not done then Boy Scouts in a low degree and the Automobile Association scouts in a very high degree, and a host of other useful organisations in between, will all be in doubt as to whether or not they are covered by the Bill. Of course they know perfectly well they will never be prosecuted, but that to my mind makes the position worse, because it allows men to think that it does not matter what is in an Act of Parliament provided they know they are safe.
It is possible that I may be given the answer that these words "enabling them to be employed" are necessary to enable the Government to prove purpose. I do not think that really can be the case, because if your Lordships will consider the wording of subsection (4) of this clause, you will see that the powers of proof introduced there are so great that I do not think that if there is legitimate cause for prosecution there can be any difficulty in proving purpose. There is one other small point that has reference to the consequential Amendment to paragraph (b) which I have on the Paper, in which I propose for the words "enabling them to be employed" that there should be substituted the word "employment". The change from "employing

855
them" is intended to deal with a case, which occurred to me as possible, of a society training its members and then handing them over to another society for the purpose of employing them to usurp the functions of the police. I think the word "employment" will avoid that difficulty, and is therefore the proper word to be used.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("enabling them to be employed") and insert ("employment").—(Lord Saltoun).
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I can sympathise very warmly with the object which the noble Lord has in view in moving this Amendment. If I understood him rightly his fear is that under the clause as at present drafted such organisations as the Boy Scouts and the Automobile Association scouts, and any number of others—I think he said a whole host of other societies—might come within the mischief of this clause. I think the noble Lord must have overlooked exactly what is said in this clause. If the noble Lord will look at subsection (1) (b) he will see that it refers to bodies of persons
"organised and trained or organised and equipped either for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force in promoting any political object…"
Surely the noble Lord does not suggest that Automobile Association scouts are employed for promoting a political object, and I should have thought it would be equally true to say that Boy Scouts are not organised for promoting a political object.
LORD SALTOUN: I think I must have expressed myself badly, because the noble Marquess does not seem to have appreciated my point. The point is that when you have trained people with certain qualities those qualities can be used either for a legitimate object or for an object that is not legitimate. In the case of the Boys' Brigade, if they are not able when we have done with them to undertake and usurp within the limits of their strength the powers of the military, we should have failed in our task and we should not have given them the training we desire. It is not that I think that they will be used in that way, but our purpose is to give them the capacity although we do not direct their minds and wish them to be used in that particular way.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: What I have said I think still holds good. The important words are "promoting any political object." If the noble Lord will read subsection (1) (a) he will see that it refers to a body of persons
"organised or trained or equipped for the purpose of enabling them to be employed in usurping the functions of the police…"
Surely it cannot be maintained that the Automobile Association scouts are being organised or trained or equipped for the purpose of enabling them to be employed in usurping the functions of the police. That is really the whole point. I want to make it quite clear to the noble Lord that really the fears he entertains are groundless. He may ask: "Well, but in those circumstances what objection have you to accepting my Amendment?" The objection which the Government have is the objection which the noble Lord himself mentions. If this Amendment were carried it would be perfectly possible for the manager of a political organisation of this kind to lend the people he had organised to somebody else and escape scot free himself. It was really for the purpose of preventing him being able to do that that the clause was drafted in the particular words to which the noble Lord objects. I hope I have succeeded in satisfying the noble Lord that really the risks he fears do not exist, and that it is very desirable that these words should remain in the clause.
LORD SALTOUN: I do not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved in subsection (3), after "made" ["inquiry and report to be made"] to insert "as to any such property as aforesaid and." The noble Marquess said: I move this Amendment because in the text of the Bill as it stands there seems to me, by an unintentional oversight, to be a gap in the machinery. The scheme of subsection (3) is apparently this: if the Court is satisfied that an association has committed an offence or appears to have committed an offence under Clause 2 (1) the Court then has power to grant an injunction restraining that association from parting with any property held by or for it, and it then has power to order an inquiry and report into the affairs of

857
that association. The gap appears to be that, whereas the injunction covers property held by or for the association, the inquiry and report are restricted to the affairs of the association itself only. Therefore if an association had a trust company which held all its funds, and that trust company used its funds for the purpose of equipping members of an association for an illegal purpose, that company should be the subject of inquiry too.
I think the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill agrees that the Amendment is necessary. It is merely to extend the inquiry and report over as wide a field as is given by the injunction. It is to allow the inquiry and report to be made not only into the affairs of the actual association, but also into the affairs of any company formed ad hoc for the purpose of holding its funds which otherwise, under the words of the Bill as they now stand, would altogether escape the inquiry and report. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, after ("made") insert ("as to any such property as aforesaid and").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: All I can say is that we are very grateful to the noble Marquess for his Amendment which we are very glad to accept. He has pointed out an obvious deficiency in the machinery of the Bill, and, if I may say so without impertinence, being a younger man, it shows what a very valuable acquisition this House has lately received.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "any person taking part in the control or management of an association or in organising, training or equipping." The noble Earl said: I have not put down this Amendment because I am satisfied with it or because I hope it will be carried by your Lordships. I must confess at the outset that I have not been able to draft an Amendment which actually meets the objection which I have to this subsection of Clause 2. At the same time I sincerely hope that we may have the assistance on this point of the noble and learned Lords whom we have the good fortune to have with us this afternoon. I should like to point out that we have no lawyer either on the Opposition or
858
on the Government side this afternoon, and that this is particularly unfortunate when we are dealing with a measure which, if passed through Parliament, would modify very considerably our code of criminal law. I therefore feel that the appeal which I should like to address to those noble and learned Lords who are with us is one with which all members of your Lordships' House would wish to associate themselves, and I am making it on this Amendment because I feel even more strongly here than I shall feel later on the need for the advice of an eminent member of the legal profession.
The object of this subsection is to lay down what evidence, when adduced in a Court of Law by the prosecution, will be regarded as valid if used against a political Party or organisation that is accused of being run on military lines. It is perfectly clear that a political party or organisation, not being a corporate body, can only be convicted or acquitted on the basis of the behaviour, the publications, the actions or the written words of its supporters brought in evidence against it. What are the supporters of such a body? We may divide them into three categories: there are the officers, there are the members, and there are the adherents or the hangers-on. When this subsection was first introduced into another place it was so drafted that the supporters whose actions could incriminate a political party included its members and its adherents, without even a definition of the term "adherent." That, clearly, was far too wide and gave an opportunity for the enemies of such a party to make use of the agent-pro-vocateur or, indeed, of casual spectators at a political meeting. On the Report stage in another place the subsection was considerably narrowed and its present form was adopted.
If I am not mistaken, the subsection as drafted at present would make an organisation of this kind only responsible for the actions of its officers; not even for the actions of its members, far less for the actions of its adherents. That seems to us to be far too narrow. What we desire is that the happy mean of a reasonable responsibility of a political association for the actions of those with whom it is directly associated and for whom it is directly responsible should be

859
accepted. We feel that the object of the Government might be defeated if this clause were left in its present very narrow form. What I want to ask for, therefore, is that between now and the Report stage of the Bill the Government should give the subsection further consideration in order to find a form of words which would really meet the object which I think both we and the Government have in view. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, leave out from ("by") to ("members") in line 24.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I have naturally given very careful consideration to the point which the noble Earl has just raised, but I am afraid I cannot really offer him very much hope that anything will be done between now and Report. I speak with all due deference to noble and learned Lords, but as a layman I see the point in this way. It has been necessary to a small extent to alter the Common Law of evidence in order that a Court may have the opportunity of obtaining evidence of the nature of the organisation the leader of which is being prosecuted. It would be quite impossible under the normal law of evidence—I speak with all due respect—or almost impossible in most cases, to obtain sufficient evidence of the character of an organisation unless some subsection such as this were put into the clause. On the other hand it was thought in another place, and we feel very strongly now, that it would not be right that evidence should be admissible—and I would remind your Lordships that the evidence is only admissible; it is not conclusive, it is weighed on its merits—unless it came from the speeches, the actions or the pamphlets of responsible members of the organisation in question. We cannot possibly—as I think the noble Lord said, and I think he agrees with me—open the door to agents-provocateurs, or to the low-class hangers-on of an organisation who might give evidence for their own purposes against the leader. Therefore these words are inserted into the Bill, and I suggest to your Lordships that they accord with all our common notions of justice: that no evidence should be admissible in such a case unless it came from a man who had occupied an accredited and responsible
860
position in the organisation. I think, therefore, that the noble Earl and I are at one, and I cannot see why he wants to leave out words which fulfil our purpose admirably.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Our objects are exactly the same, precisely identical; but the noble Marquess is surely excluding the evidence of members of an association. If I read this clause rightly in its present form, it is taking into account the evidence of officers:
"any person taking part in the control or management of an association or in organising, training or equipping members or adherents"—
but not necessarily members themselves. That surely defeats his object. I am not going to press this point—naturally, because, as I said, I do not like my own Amendment. I feel, however, a great deal of uncertainty, and I hope that the Government will give further consideration to this subsection. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "organisation" and insert "employment." The noble Marquess said: If I may, with your Lordships' permission, I will take the whole of my "organisation" Amendments together. If they are so taken, subsection (6) of Clause 2 would read as follows:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the employment of a reasonable number of persons as stewards to assist in the preservation of order at any public meeting held upon private premises, or the making of arrangements for that purpose, or the instruction of the persons to be so employed in their lawful duties as such stewards, or their being furnished with badges or other distinguishing signs."
The object, of course, of subsection (6) is to remove any doubt as to the practice of promoters of meetings on private premises of arranging for stewards to assist in the preservation of order, but it was suggested to us, and some people were afraid, that as at present drafted subsection (6) might allow political organisations to maintain large standing armies of people under the pretext, of course, that that army was only intended for use as stewards at various meetings. In our opinion the subsection as amended would be an improvement on the words as at present drafted, and I think it would prevent any such possibility arising.
Amendnent moved—
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("organisation") and insert ("employment").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
LORD ARNOLD: The Amendments suggested by the noble Marquess are undoubtedly an improvement on the subsection as it stands in the Bill. In fact I will go further and say that his Amendments are a great improvement, but I am sorry that I cannot give him top marks for them, because I am not satisfied—and this is a very serious subsection—that the words do in fact sufficiently protect the position. I have two or three Amendments down to this clause, but I may not have to move them all. That will depend upon what emerges from the discussion. As the Bill was originally introduced, this subsection was not in it at all. It was inserted in another place because it had been suggested that the legitimate employment of stewards might conceivably be held to be contrary to the Bill, and the subsection, as unamended, was put in. A very long discussion took place in another place upon the subsection, and as a result the Government undertook to consider what had been said, and we now have their Amendments.
The main point is this. Does the subsection, as now read out by the noble Marquess, sufficiently definitely prohibit the taking round from one town to another of an army of stewards for the purpose of assisting in keeping order at public meetings upon private premises? It has been alleged. that that is what has been going on—in fact an army of trained stewards, who have used unnecessary violence at meetings not only in one town but in more than one town, and I think we should all agree that that ought not to happen and ought not to be possible. It is going beyond the ordinary functions of stewards. Incidentally, may I say that the ordinary purpose of stewards is not for keeping order but seeing people to their seats. It is mainly the duty of the chairman to keep order at a meeting if he can do it. Apparently there has been what can be called an army of stewards, trained and organised, who have been going round from town to town, and disgraceful and violent scenes have occurred at meetings. It is desired to stop that.
It is with a view of stopping that, in addition to other precautions, that I
862
have put down an Amendment to the effect that these stewards shall only be employed "locally"; that is to say, you cannot take them from London to Edinburgh, as was in fact done. About 150 stewards were taken from London to Edinburgh, and disgraceful scenes occurred at Edinburgh. It is true that they led to prosecutions, but that is a very cumbrous procedure, and may not cover everything. If possible, there should be better machinery for dealing with the matter than that. The Government, by changing the word "organisation" to "employment," and putting in the other Amendments which the noble Marquess has read out, claim that they have sufficiently protected the position and that under the subsection as it now stands, combined with other clauses in the Bill, it will not be legal to do what we all want to prevent being done—namely, the taking from town to town of an army of trained stewards. I join in the appeal of my noble friend Lord Listowel. We have two very eminent Law Lords here. I am not at all complaining that on the Government Bench there is no lawyer. We are accustomed to that here, but these are very difficult matters, and our chance is now. It does not matter twopence what is said about the meaning of the clause, but what does matter is how it will be construed by the Courts, and it is our duty to see, here and now, that the words are sufficient and unambiguous.
Again and again Amendments have been inserted in Bills which have led to great litigation, and there has been great doubt about what they meant. I remember reading a biographical notice of the late Lord Sumner, in which it was said that "sometimes he appeared almost to take delight in construing Acts of Parliament differently from what the Legislature intended." If that was so, then there is all the more reason why we should take every precaution to see that we get the words right. I cannot see that the substitution of "employment" for "organisation" has the conclusive virtue which the Government appear to think. In my view you want something more, and for that reason I have put down an Amendment to insert the word "locally." That would mean that the stewards can be employed from the neighbourhood or district in which the meeting is held. I do not say that I am

863
Entirely satisfied with the word "locally"—I am not—but at the present moment it is the best I have been able to do. It is a very difficult matter, but I should have thought that the united intellects of the Government, the Home Office and the Government draftsmen could have evolved something which would make the clause more watertight than it is at the moment.
That is the main submission I want to put to the Government. If they can convince your Lordships that the subsection, as amended by the noble Marquess, is sufficient, beyond any peradventure, to stop what it is desired to stop, well and good, but for my part, and I have looked at it very carefully and with every good will, I cannot see that the position is sufficiently protected. I know that you can go back to Clause 2, and say that with Clause 2 there what I fear under Clause 3, subsection (6), cannot happen. I should like to hear arguments about that, because subsection (6) modifies Clause 2, and was put in for that purpose. The Home Secretary said in another place that, whilst he was not convinced it was necessary to put in the subsection, on reflection he thought perhaps that it might be safer to put something like this in, as there might conceivably arise the difficulty which had been suggested. That shows how very complex these matters are. I should like to have a further statement from the Government. What would give me the greatest relief would be that one of the noble and learned Lords who are here would say that they are satisfied that the words mean what the Government say they mean and that the position is sufficiently protected. I think if that could be done your Lordships would feel assured. The point is a very serious one, because if this loophole is in the Bill it will go a good way to undo the usefulness of the Bill.
LORD WRIGHT: I would begin by protesting in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Roche and myself against being placed in the invidious position of being treated as the only lawyers present in the House. I see my noble and learned friend Lord Dunedin, I see my noble and learned friend Lord Amulree, and I see my noble and learned friend Lord Alness, so that
864
an invidious responsibility, I think, is being placed upon us. May I say a very few words about the question which has been raised, simply as a question of construction, in so far as it occurs to me? No one, of course, can be other than sympathetic to the proper employment of stewards, and no one desires that that excellent function should be abused. The difficulty, as I read subsection (6) as originally drawn, was the word "organisation," which seemed to suggest—I think did suggest—preparations made beforehand which might be on a very elaborate scale and might be such as to be capable of application in different parts of the country. Therefore, as I understand it, the new proposed subsection avoided that word "organisation"—a word which also rather throws one back to the offence dealt with in Clause 2 (1). That word was avoided, and the word "employment" was substituted.
Now the employment which is permitted must be, according to the language of the clause, an employment of a reasonable number of persons as stewards, and it seems to me that the word "reasonable" there ought to afford all the protection which the noble Lord who has just spoken desiderates. No Court would for a moment hold, as I see it, that the use of 150 stewards, brought from London to Edinburgh, at a public meeting was an employment of a reasonable number of stewards. The number would be quite unreasonable, and the mere fact of their being trained and organised, as I understand, might bring them within the offence set out in Clause 2 (1). With great respect to what the noble Lord has said—and I quite sympathise with the difficulties which he feels—I should not myself like to see the word "locally" added. It would, I think, unduly restrict the operations of people who want to employ stewards. I think the clause itself is only dealing with the employment of stewards for some particular public meeting. It deals with the employment of a reasonable number of persons as stewards to assist in the preservation of order at any public meeting—it is an employment, I think, for the purpose of that meeting. I do not know what word could be inserted, but I think the word "locally" would not quite give effect to what the noble Lord desires, and I should myself think

865
that the language as it stands would meet all that he requires. I can only say how it strikes me at the moment, but I should, as at present advised, prefer to see it stand as it is now suggested with the noble Marquess's Amendments.
LORD JESSEL: We have had a most interesting speech from the noble Lord opposite, but I should like to know what this meeting was at Edinburgh at which there were employed 150 stewards sent from London. Was it the Labour Party Conference? Perhaps the noble Lord will reply. But it seems to me it all depends on the size of the meeting. If there were 3,000 or 4,000 people at the meeting surely 150 stewards would not be excessive. I remember one meeting at Premierland, at which Mr. Walter Long made a distinguished speech, attended by at least 3,000 people and a great many stewards were employed. I may say that most of them were given double pay if there was no row, which is a good way, I think, to get stewards to look after a meeting. I should like to know a little more about this meeting at Edinburgh. At the same time, as the Master of the Rolls has said, it all turns on the word "reasonable." What may be an excessive number for a small meeting would not be at all too many for a very large meeting.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: In this very interesting discussion I am inclined to think that the Government proposal is certainly the wiser, for it seems to me that to attempt to define the word "locally" would make confusion worse confounded. What does the word "locally" mean? Would it mean, within the same constituency? It might well be that the meeting would be of a kind which was not affected by constituencies. If it is to be within the same town, it might mean that you could not bring people in from just across a river, as in the case of Manchester and Salford. If it were to mean the next ward the results, I suggest, would be even more ridiculous. While it is perfectly true that a certain organisation in this country, which is directly the cause of this measure being introduced, does go round with a vast number of stewards to protect its leader from attack, not merely in towns of the size of Edinburgh but small places like Dumfries, that is no reason for assuming that it would not be legitimate to have a peripatetic body of stewards.
866
I have no doubt that members of your Lordships' House who have been candidates for another place have suffered from the attentions of peripatetic bands of hooligans who have followed you from meeting to meeting. Sometimes they have come from the constituency one is contesting, sometimes from outside, but there are many areas in this country where it would scarcely be advisable to speak unless one had a considerable number of stewards in reserve, and it might be, and even is, essential to bring them in from outside. In these circumstances, although the position is an exceedingly involved one, I think it would be wise on the whole to leave it to the good sense of the law to decide how far the presence of the stewards is necessary, whether their numbers are excessive or not, and whether the whole attitude of those controlling the meeting was really what it ought to have been or was intentionally of a provocative character.
LORD ROCHE: I intend to offer only a few observations in the same sense as the observations of my noble friend Lord Wright, the Master of the Rolls. I take it that the object of this clause is, in the first place, to hamper the activities of quasi-military organisations, bodies who would operate by force, whether those bodies pretend to belong to the Right or to the Left in politics, while at the same time subsection (6) is intended not to hamper the employment of a reasonable number of stewards as we have long known them in this country, in order to preserve liberty by allowing the people who hold a meeting to express their opinions. I suggest that my noble friend was perfectly right when he said that the use of the word "employment" was better than that of the word "organisation," which originally stood part of the Bill, in effecting the first object—namely, in hampering the activities of the quasi-military organisations. For that reason I suggest that the adoption of the Amendment would be proper.
At the same time it is perfectly true—and I only say this as the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, asked for our opinion—that the Amendments which stand in his name would in my view unduly operate to diminish the employment of stewards as was understood in old time and before we were troubled at all by quasi-military organisations. I join in the protest

867
of my noble and learned friend with regard to our being over-much appealed to. There are lawyers who are more experienced than ourselves in the House, and it was only out of courtesy to the noble Lord and to your Lordships that we responded. But we must not be asked authoritatively to lay down what magistrates in the country will decide. We can only give the Committee our own opinion.
LORD ARNOLD: As in the circumstances I will not move my Amendment to insert the word "locally," perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words before this Amendment is disposed of. First of all, I would like to express profound apologies to the distinguished legal Lords who are present apart from the two noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches. It so happened that I had not seen them, that is all. I am a crushed heap of apologetic misery in having overlooked their presence, because there are some very eminent legal Lords present. I thank the noble and learned Lords very much for responding to the request that they should give their views on this matter. I have listened to what they have said with the greatest interest. I entirely agree—in fact I said so—that better words could be devised than the word "locally" to protect the situation. It was with a view to getting something done which would make the subsection more watertight that I put this Amendment down and that I have spoken as I have done to-day.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wright, raised the question about a reasonable number of stewards. I can connect that up with the question which the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, asked. There was this meeting. I am simply taking account of what was said in another place. It was a Fascist meeting in Edinburgh, and the statement made was that 150 stewards or thereabouts were taken from London to Edinburgh. The Usher Hall in Edinburgh, where the meeting was held, will hold 2,500 to 3,000 people. It might be held that 150 stewards for such a meeting was unreasonable—that is one to twenty. But I do not think it would be unreasonable to have one steward for every thirty or forty people. That would mean you would have from seventy-five to a hundred stewards, and you might have as much mischief done by them as
868
by 150. As the noble and learned Lord said, we are all agreed that the word "employment" is a great improvement on the word "organisation," but you are laying it down in an Act of Parliament that it is permissible to employ stewards in this way without any restriction as to where they come from or as to the other points which I have mentioned. Therefore, I am not entirely satisfied, but I will not move my Amendment to-day. I will confer with my noble and honourable friends here and elsewhere as to whether we shall take any further steps on the Report stage.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: The next Amendment in subsection (6), to leave out "to be employed," is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("to be employed").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: The next Amendment is also a rafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("instruction of those persons ") and insert ("making of arrangements for that purpose or the instruction of the persons to be so employed").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My last Amendment to subsection (3) is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("equipment") and insert ("being furnished").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (6), after "equipment," to insert "on such premises." The noble Lord said: This Amendment I can deal with very briefly. It is put forward with the same object as the previous one in order to make the position doubly sure. There may be no need for this Amendment. Is it possible, if these words are not put in, that these badges and so forth which the stewards can have are not confined to be worn upon the premises where the meeting is held? They may be worn in

869
the streets. It is true that in certain circumstances, if that were done, it would come under the previous clause of the Bill, but are there any objections to making it clear that these badges for stewards must not be worn outside, but only worn at the place where the meeting is held?
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, after ("equipment") insert ("on such premises").—(Lord Arnold.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I really do not think this Amendment is necessary at this place. After all, we know political uniforms are not affected by this clause. They are prohibited in any case, and I do not think it is necessary to say, supposing a steward is going along in the Tube to a meeting, that necessarily he must be prohibited from wearing his badge if he so desires. That would be an unnecessary prohibition, and I think the point in any case is not of great importance.
LORD ARNOLD: I did riot suggest it was of great importance, but I thought it was worth raising. If that is the Government's view, I will leave it at that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved in subsection (6), before "badges," to insert "suitable." The noble Lord said: Is there any objection to putting in the word "suitable" before "badges"? Do you not otherwise run the danger of stewards being dressed in a way that may approximate to uniform? If you put in the word "suitable," I think it would be an additional precaution, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, after ("with") insert ("suitable").—(Lord Arnold.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I am sorry I have to be so stubborn. I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. It is impossible to imagine what is a suitable badge. What is the definition of the word "suitable"? It would be a danger to put a word of that kind into a Bill of this character.
LORD ARNOLD: If that is the view of the Government, I am sorry, because would point out that the word "suitable" would not only apply to badges but to other distinguishing signs. I cannot see that there is any objection to
870
the word being inserted, and I think it would be a very real safeguard.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Powers for the preservation of public order on the occasion of processions.
3.—(1) If the chief officer of police, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any procession is taking place or is intended to take place and to the route taken or proposed to be taken by the procession, has reasonable ground for apprehending that the procession may occasion serious public disorder, he may give directions imposing upon the persons organising or taking part in the procession such conditions as appear to him necessary for the preservation of public order, including conditions prescribing the route to be taken by the procession and conditions prohibiting the procession from entering any street or public place specified in the directions:
Provided that no conditions restricting the display of flags, banners, or emblems shall be imposed under this subsection except such as are reasonably necessary to prevent risk of a breach of the peace.
(2) If at any time the chief officer of police is of opinion that by reason of particular circumstances existing in any borough or urban district or in any part thereof the powers conferred on him by the last foregoing subsection will not be sufficient to enable him to prevent serious public disorder being occasioned by the holding of processions in that borough, district or part, he shall apply to the council of the borough or district for an order prohibiting for such period not exceeding three months as may be specified in the application the holding of all processions or of any class of procession so specified either in the borough or urban district or in that part thereof, as the case may be, and upon receipt of the application the council may, with the consent of a Secretary of State, make an order either in terms of the application or with such modifications as may be approved by the Secretary of State.
This subsection shall not apply within the City of London as defined for the purposes of the Acts relating to the City police or within the Metropolitan police district.
(3) If at any time the Commissioner of the City of London police or the Comrnissioner of police of the Metropolis is of opinion that, by reason of particular circumstances existing in his police area or in any part thereof, the powers conferred on him by subsection (1) of this section will not be sufficient to enable him to prevent serious public disorder being occasioned by the holding of processions in that area or part, lie may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make an order prohibiting for such period not exceeding three months as may be specified in the order the holding

871
of all processions or of any class of procession so specified either in the police area or in that part thereof, as the case may be.
(4) Any person who knowingly fails to comply with any directions given or conditions imposed under this section, or organises or assists in organising any procession held or intended to be held in contravention of an order made under this section or incites any person to take part in such a procession, shall be guilty of an offence.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved, in subsection (1), before "procession," where that word first occurs, to insert "public." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is really inspired by some of my noble friends behind me who have shown by their own Amendment, which I hope they will subsequently withdraw, that the purpose of the Government is not altogether clear. The purpose of the Government is, quite obviously, that all the processions which are dealt with by this clause should be public processions, and therefore we propose wherever the word "procession" occurs in the clause to preface it by the word "public." Later I propose to move an Amendment in Clause 9, the Definition Clause, to define a "public procession" as "a procession in a public place." With that explanation I hope that some of my noble friends behind me who have suggested many Amendments to the same effect will be satisfied.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, after ("any") insert ("public").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: On this question I will ask the noble Marquess whether he can give the Committee a definition of a "public place," and whether that definition will be inserted in the Interpretation Clause. I would particularly ask the noble Marquess whether a church which is open for public worship is a public place or not.
LORD PHILLIMORE: May I say before the noble Marquess replies that I should be very much obliged if he would define what is a procession in a public place or a private one.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I am very grateful to my noble friend who has just spoken for reducing the first question that the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, addressed to me to a
872
reductio ad absurdum. It is quite impossible to define every single word in a Bill. Noble Lords really must take a little on trust. I cannot possibly promise that at any stage or however long I thought about it I could give a definition of a "public place"; therefore it follows that, as I have not a definition, a definition will not be inserted in the Bill. As to the question whether "public place" includes a church I can give the noble Earl the definite assurance that a church will not be a public place.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I cannot help thinking that I have read in some Act before now a definition of a "public peace. "It may have been only for the particular purpose of that Act, but I should have thought that a definition might be found in previous Acts of Parliament, and perhaps the matter will be looked into before the next stage of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I will look into it again. I think in fact it will be found impossible to define "public place," but it will be looked into.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Would it be possible for the Government to consider—I know there is little time, but it is the Government who are rushing this Bill through—before the Report stage excluding certain places from the expression "public place." There is the question of a churchyard, and the question of the grounds of an ecclesiastical establishment. All these may be used for processions. I think the point is genuinely one of some importance, and I would be grateful if the noble Marquess would consider the possibility of defining that certain particular places are not public places.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: In reply to the appeals which have been made we should be only too pleased to look into the point. I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be familiar with the actual phraseology of large numbers of Acts of Parliament, but I think myself that the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, is correct in saying that in certain Acts "public place" has been defined. I think it has been defined in certain of the Police Acts. I am certain the definition "public place" includes a street, but whether it is desirable or not to insert in this particular Bill a definition of a "public place"

873
either as it has been defined before or as modified to suit the particular provisions of this Bill I do not know, but I am prepared to look into it before the Report stage.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for the assurance he has given us and for having met us in that way. There is one thing I should like to mention—I mentioned it privately but it might be well to remind the noble Marquess—and it is whether, if "public place" includes a street, it might not be complicated by the Fact that the phraseology in line 25 is "any street or public place."
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: We will look into that.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to leave out subsections (2) and (3). The noble Lord said: This is not a legal question so far as I know. It is a perfectly plain issue of policy—or shall I say of nerves? Surely we are getting rather unduly nervous of each other and of our fellow subjects when we say that at the instigation of a chief officer of police, who perhaps has had a bad night or two, backed up by a possibly frightened local authority, the Home Secretary may prohibit any procession whatever for as long as three months in any given area. I do not suppose that the Committee will agree with me in this, and if they do not I do not propose to go to a Division, but the Bill does seem to me to ignore the value of these processions as a safety valve. After all, I am retaining under my Amendment subsection (1) of this clause, which enables the police to divert any procession in any particular direction, or prohibit it from going in any particular direction. But to say that a body of people who wish to go for a walk shouting, for instance, "Down with Lord Dufferin," should not be allowed that salutary exercise seems to me, if I may say so, foolish. What harm does it do Lord Dufferin? None whatever.
Is it not an established process in our history? How much more troublesome the Chartists Would have been, if they had not walked about the country and occasionally stopped at a good country house about supper time and had a good meal from the squire and then gone on somewhere else! How much more
874
troublesome the Suffragettes would have been! And is there the slightest reason to suppose the Duke of Wellington's Government, with the Home Secretary included, would not have jumped on those processions in favour of the Reform Bill which took place before 1832? It seems to me that really we are treating ourselves as if we were the last suburb of Cawnpore or Lahore. There is no necessity for this drastic measure. On the contrary, it is most advisable that this safety valve should be allowed.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to save the next Amendment, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I will put the Amendment in the form: that line 30 as far as the word "police" stand part of the clause.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I have put my name down in support of my noble friend Lord Phillimore on this Amendment, and I should like to say immediately that I am very much impressed by the arguments he has brought forward on the general question. I hope that the Committee is as much impressed as I am. But I am going to deal with a particular issue and that is the religious issue. The subsections in question give power to the police to prohibit all processions of all classes and characters, and that includes undoubtedly religious processions. I want to ask a question on that. I am afraid the noble Marquess will think that my interrogations are rather persistent, but they arise from a genuine desire for information. Is this power really a new power or not? The point was raised by noble Lords opposite in the Second Reading debate, but I do not believe they got an answer. So far as religious processions are concerned, is this a new power which is being granted to the police? It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that a very important religious procession was prohibited in 1912. That was a Roman Catholic procession. I am wondering how far this power is in fact new.
If it is new, I would venture to make three comments. In the first place, it is a question on which there might easily be very keen feeling. In the second place, if this power is to be taken there

875
really should have been some opportunity for consultation and consideration on the part of a large number of persons. There has not been that opportunity, owing to the fact that this Bill is being treated as an emergency measure. In the third place, I would point out that there was no mention of this question in the very able speech which the noble Marquess made in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. He then described processions as "a traditional and hallowed way of expressing disagreement, or even agreement, with the policy of the Government." I am now referring to processions with a very different object. I would venture to ask whether if this Amendment is not accepted the Government will consider excluding the religious issue altogether from this Bill, which is drafted to deal with a totally different range of questions, and leave this matter open for later and fuller consideration.
LORD ALNESS: Perhaps although, as the noble Lord who moved this Amendment said, this is not a legal question, and although I am a lawyer, I may be permitted as a Scotsman to deal with it. The noble Earl who has just sat down asked the question whether or not this is a new power. Speaking for myself I am amazed at the moderation of the two subsections which it is now proposed to delete, because they are fenced with safeguards to which I shall allude in a moment. I would say in reply to the noble Earl that, so far from this power being a new one, it has been in existence in Scotland for many years and has worked extremely well. The power was conferred by the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, more than forty years ago, upon the magistrates of burghs to regulate or prohibit processions. The word "procession", being used in its most general form, would cover of course religious processions. That power has been moderately used. In addition to that there are certain City Acts in Scotland which confer a similar power. For example, the Edinburgh Corporation Act gives the Edinburgh Corporation power to prohibit processions. That, I hope, answers my noble friend's question about novelty.
I am informed that in England—I will not make any comment—no such general power exists at the moment, but it is now
876
proposed to follow what I may perhaps without offence term the good example of Scotland in this instance. If noble Lords will be so good as to look at the subsections they will see how restricted is the power which it is proposed to confer upon the chief officer of police. The intendment of the section, as I understand it, is that the power should exist in urban districts, where exceptional circumstances make it desirable, but it does not extend to rural districts. Moreover, the power cannot be exercised even in the modified and limited form in which it is given without the consent and cooperation not only of the chief officer of police, but also of the local authority and of the Secretary of State, who, of course, as noble Lords know, is responsible in his place in Parliament to answer for the use or, if it is conceivable, the abuse of the power. I have informed your Lordships that this power has been tried out safely for many years on the other side of the border, and, in its limited character in these subsections, I venture to suggest that it would be a great mistake to delete them.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Is there not something to be said for the retention of these subsections in the interests of the people arranging the processions themselves? Is it not possible that some day the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, might be leading a procession himself and might find himself wishing that the subsections he now seeks to strike out had remained in the Bill?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Earl, Lord Iddlesleigh, has taken exception to the possibility of religious processions being banned. Unfortunately, as far as Scotland is concerned, and I believe to a lesser extent in Liverpool and other places in England, various religious processions have led to disorder and sometimes even to bloodshed. In these circumstances I think it would be advisable that religious processions, although they could not well be banned on political grounds when they had started, but which often degenerate into religious-political brawls, might well be kept within the scope of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: After the admirable speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness, there is really very little left for me to say. I agree

877
with every word he uttered, and I am happy to think that not for the first time the people of this country are going to follow the example of the people whose usual domicile is further north. No one will suggest, I think, for a moment that the people of Scotland are not as tenacious of their liberties as any other people in the world, but they have realised long since how desirable it is that this power of prohibiting processions in very exceptional circumstances—it is only in very exceptional circumstances that it would be used—should exist.
It is quite true, of course, that the police under the Common Law, in pursuance of their duty of maintaining order, can stop a procession when it has actually assembled, but in the circumstances which we contemplate to wait until a procession had actually assembled would be to wait until it was too late. It is very possible that, if the police waited until the procession was about to start, their action in prohibiting it would be more than likely to cause immediate disorder. It is in order to place the police in the position in special circumstances of being able for a limited period to prohibit processions in advance that these subsections are included. I need not say more about the safeguards included, because they have already been stated—the safeguards of the agreement of the local authority, the publicly elected body, and of the Secretary of State, who of course is answerable to Parliament. All these safeguards surely make it quite certain that the powers given in these subsections will not be abused. In these circumstances I regret that I cannot oblige my noble friend by accepting the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, near the beginning of subsection (2), to leave out "is of opinion" and insert "has reasonable ground for apprehending." The noble Earl said: I think your Lordships must agree that the exceptional powers that the Government propose under these subsections are in themselves desirable, and that occasion may arise when it becomes necessary to prevent processions from being held in certain areas in order to save the inhabitants of those areas from the effects of riots and public disorder. At the same time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness, and
878
I think most of the other noble Lords who have spoken, have laid great stress on the desirability of safeguards against abuse of this very important power. The object of my Amendment is to provide an additional safeguard beside those which are already included in Clause 3 (2).
I envisage the possibility of the abuse of this power unless the Bill is amended. Let us take a concrete example. A chief of police in a certain town decides that a procession which a certain political Party is to hold ought to be banned, in order to prevent serious breaches of the peace, for a period of two months. He then applies to the local authorities for their consent to his decision. The local authorities, if they have given their consent, appeal to the Home Secretary in order to have their decision confirmed. In the first place, the chief of police, the local authority and the Home Secretary are people with definite political sympathies and antipathies. They will be biased to some extent, if they are human, by their political feelings. If there were a Conservative chief of police, backed up by a Conservative local authority, backed up by a Conservative Home Secretary, a Labour or Socialist procession might well be banned. In the opposite case, with a Socialist chief of police, a Socialist local authority and a Socialist Home Secretary, noble Lords opposite might well have misgivings about processions organised by responsible elements in their own political Party. The object of this Amendment is to take the whole matter out of the sphere of politics.
We should like to see a right of appeal to the Courts against a decision of this gravity taken in these circumstances. It is perfectly clear that if the chief of police has in public and, if necessary, in the Courts to give his considered reasons for acting in this way, he will be less likely to act hastily or with bias, and the public will have a more certain guarantee that such action will only be taken in the exceptional circumstances that warrant it. They will have some assurance that a perfectly unbiased and unprejudiced mind will be able to express itself on the circumstances of the case. That is the sort of thing that we want to do by getting this Amendment put into the Bill. A very similar Amendment was moved to subsection (1), in which these

879
words have actually been included. The two subsections are not, of course, identical. The noble Marquess will notice that subsection (1) says "has reasonable ground for apprehending," and that those words have taken the place of the words "is of opinion." I am not saying that the two subsections are the same; they are not. I am saying that if a guarantee of that kind is given in order to prevent the abuse of the power to alter the route or alter the place of a procession, it ought also to be given to prevent abuse of the farther-reaching power to cancel processions altogether. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, leave out ("is of opinion") and insert ("has reasonable ground for apprehending").—(The Earl of Listowel).
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I think that the noble Earl who moved this Amendment is under some misapprehension when he tries to argue that, because these words are put into subsection (1), therefore they should be put into subsection (2). I would remind him, if I may, that there is a very great difference between the two subsections. In subsection (1) the Chief Constable forms his opinion and, having formed it, he acts upon it immediately and there is no one to say him nay. He routes the procession or does whatever the powers conferred upon him allow him to do. Therefore we thought that in that case it was right that there should be some possible form of appeal against his decision. But it is a very different position in subsection (2), because, as the noble Earl who moved this Amendment points out, this subsection so bristles with safeguards that the chief of police who tries to do wrong will, in fact, find it. impossible.
After all, his opinion merely sets a train of events in motion. He thinks that the procession ought to be banned for such and such a period; he then has to go to his properly-elected council and persuade them that his opinion is right; then, if they agree with him, the Secretary of State has to affirm again that his opinion was right. Even supposing that all those three people are animated by these low political motives which the noble Earl suggested might influence them, nevertheless the Secretary of State stands to be criticised before
880
Parliament for any decision he makes in the matter which was obviously animated by political bias. On those grounds alone, therefore, the safeguards are quite adequate as the Bill stands.
There is, however, another very great reason—and I will urge it upon your Lordships, because it is important—why these words should not be here inserted. As the noble Earl said, the purpose of their insertion is that at some time there should be an appeal to the Courts against the decision of the chief officer of police. This subsection is a very peculiar subsection, and one which we hope will apply very seldom in the future. It is an emergency subsection, upon which the chief officer of police will act when he feels that there is a really grave and immediate danger. In that sort of case I suggest to you that it is highly important that action should be taken swiftly and at once, as swiftly, that is to say, as the conditions of obtaining the consent of the council and of the Home Secretary allow. If this appeal to the Court which is in the noble Lord's mind is put into this subsection, one of two things will happen: either the noble Earl means that he thinks there will be a possibility of appeal against the chief officer's decision before the procession is made—
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: No.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: The noble Earl thinks not, and so he will agree with me that that would be fatal to the whole purpose of the clause, because that would cause delay. We do not want the organisers of processions to be able to get an injunction of some kind preventing action. The only way in which legal effect could be given to the noble Earl's Amendment would be that after the procession had been banned the person who organised it would continue to hold it and, when charged under subsection (4), plead in his defence that as the chief officer of police had not acted on reasonable grounds in the first place, therefore the whole conviction must necessarily fall to the ground. Those, as far as I am advised, are the only two possibilities that might follow upon the insertion of these words. As far as the second of those possibilities is concerned, do your Lordships really consider that this is a

881
valid defence? A man holds his procession in defiance of the Home Secretary, in defiance of his local council, and in defiance of the chief officer of police. The local council has endorsed the opinion of the chief officer of police, the Home Secretary has endorsed it, and Parliament may have endorsed it either by its silence or its votes. Do you really think that in any court of law it would be a valid defence to say that, after all those people had endorsed the Chief Constable's decision, he had no reasonable ground for making it? He may be wrong, but right or wrong he must have had reasonable ground for all those people to agree with him.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think, if I may say so, that the noble Marquess has given an extremely good and well reasoned answer to the observations that I have just put forward. At the same time, I should like to point out to him that the gravest objection that might be raised was that an appeal might be made at the earliest possible moment, that is to say, before the procession was held, in which case the whole object of the clause would be defeated, because the Executive could not act in an emergency. There is considerable difference of opinion between lawyers on that point, which again is one on which we should like the most learned legal authority. So far as the second occasion on which the charge might be brought against the chief of police is concerned, I think that although, as the noble Marquess said, it is not one likely to be borne out in the Courts, it would act as a further safeguard, not so much in the use of it as in the possible use of it, and make the chief of police more careful not to do anything in haste or in a, state of bias. Although I am not going to press my Amendment, as it has not been supported, I feel that the greatest number of safeguards are required, and that further safeguards, if not of the kind I have suggested at least of some other kind, should be inserted before this Bill becomes law. I am not, frankly, satisfied that the public has every possible guarantee that its present right of self-expression by organising processions will not be curtailed more than is required for the preservation of public order, but I will simply register my dissatisfaction and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: The Amendments down in my name are all drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 35, at end, insert ("public").
Page 4,line 40, after ("all") insert ("public").
Page 4,line 40, after the third ("of") insert ("public").
Page 5, line 15, after ("of") insert ("public").
Page 5,line 18, after ("all") insert ("public").
Page 5,line 19, after the second ("of") insert ("public").
Page 5,line 23, after ("any") insert ("public").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava).
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Prohibition of offensive weapons at public meetings and processions.
4.—(l) Any person who, while present at any public meeting or on the occasion of any public procession, has with him any offensive weapon, otherwise than in pursuance of lawful authority, shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), after "him," to insert "with intent to cause a breach of the peace." The noble Lord said: This is the question of the offensive weapon if brought to a meeting or public procession, and the words which I have put forward for insertion are "with intent to cause a breach of the peace." In other words, I am seeking to make it impossible, or improbable, that a purely innocent person shall be proceeded against for bringing some weapon, which can be described as an offensive weapon, to a public procession or public meeting. For instance, we know that Long John Silver had a wooden leg, that he did a great deal of execution with it, and that he was not a very reputable person. Still, a one-legged man cannot do much in a procession without his wooden leg, and if subsequently he takes a swing with it, and that is to be treated as an offensive weapon, where are we? In fact, it is in all these cases a question of definition, and I submit that the only way to define what is an offensive weapon is to define it by its purpose. If you bring an offensive weapon with intent to commit a breach of the peace, well and good, you can be

883
prosecuted, but if not, you will go free. I hope that the Government will in this case accept this Amendment, or that at any rate, if they will not accept it, they will explain what is an offensive weapon in their view.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, after ("him") insert ("with intent to cause a breach of the peace.")—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD STRABOLGI: May I in a few words support the Amendment? I think, if I may be allowed to say so, that it is very necessary. Take the case of a bottle. I am told that damage is sometimes done in night clubs by people who lose their tempers and who use bottles as weapons. A man may be assisting in a public meeting or procession as a spectator with a bottle in his pocket, and if a riot breaks out and he happens to be apprehended—innocent people are sometimes apprehended—he may be held to have been attending a public meeting or procession with an offensive weapon, because other people, with intent to commit a breach of the peace, have armed themselves with bottles. There was the case mentioned by Lord Saltoun, on the Second Reading, of a man with a walking stick. There was a time when it was the fashion of the jeunesse dorée of the period to carry a big cane, and I can imagine that being held to be an offensive weapon, especially if the person carrying it bore the badge of some political party. Yet he might be perfectly innocent.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The two noble Lords have made a persuasive appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment, but in spite of that persuasion I am afraid I am not in a position to do so. If I followed Lord Strabolgi aright, he spoke about hitting people over the head with bottles at night clubs coming under the mischief of this clause, but surely he will not argue that a mêlée at a night club would come under the wording of public meeting or public procession. I should hardly have thought so.
LORD STRABOLGI: I said I had heard of bottles being used at night clubs, but not at processions, although I imagine they could be with very serious effect.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: They might be, and in that case it would be a question for the Courts. If a person at a public procession walked about with a bottle in his pocket and happened to be charged with an offence under the particular section, the Court would have to decide whether the bottle, in the circumstances of the case, should be described as an offensive weapon. But really the object of this clause is to prevent people who take part in public meetings and in public processions from carrying with them offensive weapons. There is no object in carrying with you an offensive weapon at a public meeting or in a public procession unless you have some intention of using it; and if the Amendment were accepted it would be quite possible for a man taking part in a public meeting or in a public procession, with a large number of stones in his pocket, to say that he had not committed an offence because he was a collector of fossils. There appears to me to be another objection to the noble Lord's proposal because it would give rise to this really almost absurd situation that, provided a person had lawful authority, it would be no offence for him to possess an offensive weapon with intent to cause a breach of the peace. I do not know whether the noble Lord has realised that that is what would be the effect of his Amendment. For these reasons I regret that I cannot accept it.
LORD SALTOUN: May I ask whether a lady's hatpin is an offensive weapon?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: It would no doubt depend on the use which was made of it.
LORD SALTOUN: May she take it to a meeting? That is the point.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: That is a matter which she would have to decide for herself.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): The Secretary of State has just defined, in replying to the last question, an offensive weapon by the motive of the person using it, which is exactly what my noble friend Lord Phillimore said was so excellent and I understood the Secretary of State to say was entirely wrong.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Prohibition of offensive conduct conducive to breaches of the peace.
5. Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved to leave out "to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence" and insert "to incite racial or religious prejudice whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved on behalf of my noble friends. The present state of the law, I understand, is that if a man behaves badly at a public meeting, uses abusive language and so on, as is frequently done when political feeling runs high, and there is no great harm done in the long run—there is a great deal of exaggeration about this question—then in the ordinary way, I believe, he is fined 40s., or in default, a week's imprisonment. But now the Government come along with this Bill and propose that this man shall be liable to a maximum penalty of £50—I admit it is a maximum—or three months' imprisonment, or both. I think that can be used oppressively against the subject at times of political excitement, I want to narrow the new offence, for so it might be construed, to those who incite racial or religious prejudice, which I imagine the Government want to put down, and there they have our support.
This incitement to racial or religious prejudice was dealt with, if I may say so, with great force and ability by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in his admirable maiden speech on the Second Reading, and I am sure he carried the whole House with him. Indeed the whole of Parliament is, I believe, determined to put down this cowardly and anti-British outburst of anti-Semitism which has caused such suffering, fear, and disgraceful disorder in the East End of London and one or two other centres of population. There we are with the Government, and we want to punish these people, some of whom have plenty of money behind them, some of it from foreign sources, as the Home Secretary said in another place. But this same
886
power may be used against the poor collier, perhaps in the North of England, who goes to a political meeting, gets excited, calls the speaker a liar—which he probably is—and then becomes liable to a fine of £50 or three months' imprisonment, and it is ruin for him.
I want to say something about so-called disorders at ordinary political meetings, of which I have had some experience, with other noble Lords. I have been shouted down on political platforms, I have been threatened with murder. I remember going into a remote town in Wales on a winter's evening to oppose Mr. Lloyd George at the height of Mr. Lloyd George's power. As I came into this darkened town a bell was ringing like a tocsin, and I was met by two or three alarmed political supporters of mine who said: "We are so glad you have come, Commander Kenworthy, they are going to murder you to-night." I went into a hall packed to suffocation. It was a hall full of people really seething for trouble, where, the previous night, a most accomplished orator of my Party—I was in the Liberal Party in those days, I was supporting the anti-Lloyd-George Liberal—Captain Wedgwood Benn, a predecessor of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, had not got a word in. Fortunately I saw a very large coastguard sitting in there. I had a private word before the row started, and he promised to stand by me. The candidate began. They would listen to him neither in Welsh nor in English. I tried in English for a long time, and eventually I began to talk about Ireland, struck a responsive note, and got in a five-minute speech. But during the whole of that campaign in Mr. Lloyd George's stronghold that was the only five minutes of free speech allowed. No one was any the worse for it. It was wrong, against all our principles of democracy, but our candidate got a very big poll. He did not win then, but he carried that seat at the next Election.
In the constituency I had the honour to represent in the North of England, in Hull, my opponents in certain wards, I am sorry to say, used to get shouted down at every Election. That embarrassed me because it lost me votes, and I knew it. I used every endeavour to prevent my excited supporters from doing it. I said: "Go out canvassing. Don't go to your opponents' meetings, then you

887
can behave yourselves," and this had some effect. But my opponents, supporters of noble Lords opposite, used deliberately to provoke the people. They used to send people down from London—it was admitted afterwards. I was always on very good terms with the opposing candidate, and afterwards we used to talk about the events of the campaign, and he used to admit it. He said: "Oh, yes, it did me good." And some of these professional speakers from the Central Office were very adept at provoking people; they went down to the Division and insulted the electors. No heads were broken. I suppose there were a couple of black eyes on polling night, but most of it was comparatively good humoured. Well, under this Bill, all these people—including the speakers from the Central Office, of whichever Party it was—would be liable to these very heavy penalties.
I really think that we need a sense of proportion in this case. The calling out of interjections at public meetings may be bad manners, but it adds to the liveliness of the occasion, and in those days when I used to have a lot of public speaking—indeed I do to-day—I welcomed the heckler. If you know how to deal with him, and especially if you deal with him courteously and wittily, you can very often bring him over to your side. Some people, if they are met with a few boos and interruptions at a meeting, spread exaggerated reports in the Press that their meetings are being broken up, that the violent Reds have been smashing up the Conservative meetings, and things of that sort. No, there is a good deal of exaggeration in it, and if the spirit behind this clause is carried too far it is going to reduce the politics in this country to a farce. No one is more intent than my noble friends to preserve the rights of free speech and no Party, in its early days especially, has suffered more from organised hooliganism than ours. But I think this particular clause goes too far in preventing ordinary manifestations of public indignation which sometimes are very good and useful. In fact, my complaint in this country is that people do not protest enough. They put up with far too much. I do not advocate violence, but the public are becoming too mealy-mouthed and allow abuses to continue without sufficiently denouncing them. But when it comes to provoking
888
religious or racial feeling against what must always be a, minority, that is cowardly, and in that regard I would support the Government in the strongest possible penalties. For these reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, leave out from ("intent") to the end of the clause and insert ("to incite racial or religious prejudice whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence ").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD JESSEL: I should like to say a word upon this Amendment before the Committee part with it. The noble Lord has given a very interesting description of his electioneering experiences. I can sympathise with him, because I know that any one who speaks, as I used to do in London, has to go through the same experience as the noble Lord has done. He talks about the public being mealymouthed and all the rest of it, but your Lordships must recollect that the noble Lord is well able to take care of himself, having been champion boxer of the Navy, and so he does not mind a row. To a less strong individual, however, it can be a very painful experience. What is the good of a meeting if nobody can speak? I have been at meetings where not a single word has been heard from anybody. There has been a continual howl and noise all over the place. What is the good of that kind of thing? I quite agree with him that to have a dull meeting is not at all amusing. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition made a very interesting speech last night at a public banquet in responding to the toast of "The Houses of Parliament," and I heard him complain that this House was a dull place, that you never get a cheer, never get a "Hear, hear," or an interruption. Perhaps that would make our proceedings more lively. I agree that heckling done in a decent way certainly elicits answers from the candidate and makes the meeting go, but the organised opposition which goes on, especially in certain parts of London, on the part of the noble Lord's Party especially—
LORD STRABOLGI: Against us.
LORD JESSEL: —does no good at all. Surely we can leave it to the discretion of the chairman. To say that you should have a general row at a meeting—I cannot see the good of that to anybody. As

889
regards this particular Amendment, it seems to me a pity to single out one or other kind of incitement. It would be difficult to put such a clause into practice, and I think it better to leave it in general terms, as the Government have put it down, rather than pass a discriminatory Amendment of this kind. Only the other day there appeared a letter in The Times from a man who knows the East End better than anyone else, strongly complaining of the rowdyism that goes on now at public meetings in the East End. If this Bill does anything to prevent that rowdyism and allows free speech and the free expression of thought in a quiet manner, it will have done a very great service to the community.
LORD SALTOUN: I was very interested in Lord Strabolgi's experiences, and I also paid great attention to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, on the Second Reading when he detailed to us the difficulties of his political career. In both of them I noted a non-recognition of what very often does occur in the case of speakers on our side. That is that organised bands of men come together and follow a candidate round, especially in a place where he has a lot of opposition, intent on starting and keeping up turmoil at meetings and ending very often, as it all tends towards, actual physical violence. That is a thing that candidates on our side have frequently to face. I have been very fortunate myself in political speaking. I have never had any trouble, but that does not make any difference, because I know of many cases to the contrary. I think the difficulty of this clause is rather the other way, because I do not think any candidate will really invoke this clause. It would not be to his interest to do so, and my fear is that the clause will remain a dead letter.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the argument of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, as to the value or otherwise of persistent interruptions. I would like, if I may, to bring the Committee back to the specific Amendment which is before us, and which is to limit this clause to the incitement of racial or religious prejudice. I agree with Lord Jessel when he says it would be very unwise to single out that particular offence, however large it
890
may bulk in our political life at the present moment. This Bill is not going to be a. Bill that will pass away in three or four years. It is going to stay on the Statute Book for a long time, and it would be unwise at this moment to be carried away by our immediate concerns and not go for the more fundamental concern, which is the preservation of free speech.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not want to press this, but in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, who complained of speakers being followed about by organised gangs, may I point out that that is dealt with in Clause 6, the one that follows? I am not resisting Clause 6. I think there is something very valuable in Clause 6, but Clause 5 does not deal with people who go round in gangs breaking up meetings. This clause would apply to a fellow who gets up and asks "What about the means test?"
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD STRABOLGI: That might be held to be provocative if it prevented the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, from finishing his speech. I am not in favour of breaking up meetings at all, but I do want to resist anything which in my opinion will limit the rights of the subject to protest. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6, 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Interpretation, etc.
9.—(1) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:
"Chief officer of police" has the same meaning as in the Police Pensions Act, 1921;
(4) The powers conferred by this Act on any chief officer of police may, in the event of a vacancy in the office or in the event of the chief officer of police being unable to act owing to illness or absence, be exercised by the person duly appointed to act as deputy for the chief officer of police.
LORD GATNFORD LORD GATNFORD moved in the definition. of "Chief officer of police," to insert "Third Schedule of the" before "Police Pensions Act, 1921." The noble Lord said: I am not going to press this Amendment if it cannot be accepted. I bring it forward because I know that

891
the public as well as many of your Lordships dislike very much legislation by reference. In the earlier clauses of this Bill the words "chief officer of police" occur frequently, and great responsibility is placed upon him. I am sure the ordinary member of the public would like to know who the chief officer of police is. The reference in Clause 9 is to the Police Pensions Act, 1921, but that Act is a little bit complicated. You have to refer to Section 30 of that Act, and there you find that the expression "police area" means "one of the areas set forth in the first column of the Third Schedule to this Act," and this Schedule speaks of "police authority," "chief officer of police," and so on. Then you have to find out what the Third Schedule refers to in order to discover what really is the definition of the "chief officer of police."
I should like it to have been set out in this Bill who the chief officer of police is. That is rather complicated, because there may be five different chief officers of police. One is the Commissioner of the City of London Police, another the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police District; then there is the Chief Constable in a county, and the Chief Constable in a borough, and the Superintendent or other officer having chief command of the police in connection with the River Tyne within the limits of the Acts relating to the Tyne Improvement Commissioners. It is too much to insert all that, but I suggest to the Government that if it could be referred to as in the Third Schedule any person who wants to know would be able to ascertain by reference who the chief officer of police might be. If this Amendment cannot be accepted at the present time, I suggest that it might be considered before the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, after ("the") insert ("Third Schedule of the").—(Lord Gainford.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Lord will realise that I have had no notice of this Amendment. I would not like to accept it forthwith because there might be technical objection to its acceptance. At the same time I am bound to say that, listening to the noble Lord, I thought that what he said in support of the Amendment was entirely
892
reasonable, and, subject to there being no technical reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, I shall be glad to bring it forward on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved to insert at the end of subsection (1) "'Public procession' means a procession in a public place." The noble Marquess said: This is the definition of "public procession" which I promised to embody in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, at end insert ("Public procession' means a procession in a public place").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "appointed to act as deputy for" and insert "authorised in accordance with directions given by a Secretary of state to exercise those powers on behalf of." The noble Marquess said: This is a technical Amendment, but I shall be very short. It is in order to provide a deputy to fulfil the functions of the chief of police, who may be ill or absent or may have died, and whose office has not been filled. The question does not really arise as far as the county police are concerned, because a deputy always is appointed, but, in the case of a borough police force, very often a deputy is not appointed, or if one is appointed his functions are limited to internal discipline of the police force and matters of that kind. It is in order to make it perfectly plain that a deputy should be appointed to discharge the duties laid upon the chief police officer by this Bill that this Amendment is inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 22, leave out ("appointed to act as deputy for") and insert ("authorised in accordance with directions given by a Secretary of State to exercise those powers on behalf of").—(The Marquess of Dufferin, and Ava.)
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD JESSEL: May I ask what is meant by "recognised corps"? Certain religious bodies, like the Church Lads Brigade, have corps which are run by

893
religious institutions. Are they recognised corps, and would they come under this Bill
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: It is rather a difficult question, and I have had very short notice. I understand that a recognised corps is a corps that is recognised by the Secretary of State. I cannot go any further than that.
LORD JESSEL: I would be very much obliged if, on the Report stage, an. answer could be given, because considerable alarm has been expressed by some of these bodies.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, before going into Committee I would like to say a word or two with regard to a matter which I have previously mentioned in this House. In accordance with the suggestion of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, no discussion took place on the Second Reading, and I take this opportunity of referring to a subject which I have mentioned on four or five previous occasions in connection with Expiring Laws Continuance Bills. Section 2 of the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, applies the procedure to purchase for the various purposes mentioned in Part 1 of the Schedule to the Act. Amongst these are the provision of aerodromes under the Air Navigation Act, 1920, and the power to make purchases under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935. There are certain powers which are renewed annually under this particular measure. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the circumstance that this is not a very tidy way of legislating, and I Suggest to my noble friend that steps should be taken to regularise this procedure and put it into some Statute which would make it
894
permanent. Obviously the Government intend to apply this method of purchase to matters other than those in connection with purchases for the purposes I have mentioned, and I suggest that they should take the matter in hand at an early date and put it into some permanent Statute.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE): My Lords, I do not know what the noble Earl would wish, but perhaps I might clear up the point which he has just raised. It is a point which he has raised on other occasions, and various promises have been made to him in the past by representatives of the Government who have spoken from this Bench on the question of bringing the particular Act into some form of permanent enactment. Most of the points which have hitherto been covered by this Act are now dealt with by permanent Acts, such as the Air Navigation Act and the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act. Now the only authority which really has to do with the use of this Act, which is to be continued, is the Public Health Department. I have been in touch with my colleagues who assure me that the Government mean, at the earliest possible date, to bring this into the form of a permanent Act. I cannot give what I may call a closer date than the earliest possible moment. I assure the noble Earl that I will express his views to the Government.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I think this is an opportunity to raise one or two questions in connection with the Special Areas Act, which comes under the series of measures now presented for renewal. It is especially convenient to do this, as quite recently the Commissioner for England and Wales has presented his third Report. I want to take this opportunity of expressing the widespread disappointment which so many feel at the continued decay of the Special Areas and of the failure of the Government to introduce before now a Bill which would amend and strengthen the Act which we are asked to pass again. Of course, a good deal has been done under the Act. I do not want to minimise in the least the valuable work which has been done by the Commissioner, and the number of

895
very useful measures which he has succeeded in carrying out. With the cooperation of others he has arranged for the transfer of a number of the men from the districts. He has started a good deal of work, temporary work it is true, but work which will leave behind useful results, and he has also given a great deal of help to various organisations dealing with welfare, education and other things, which have helped to keep up the morale of those who are suffering from prolonged unemployment. Then of course we recognise, and recognise gladly, that to a certain extent even these districts have benefited by the revival of prosperity throughout the kingdom.
But, when all that has been said, the hard fact remains that there are over 280,000 men registered as unemployed, among whom are 25,000 juveniles under the age of eighteen, 40,000 between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four—though it is only fair to say that a considerable number of these have had occupation from time to time—and at the other extreme 24,000, I think that is the figure, of older men who have been out of work five years or more. The matter can be put in a rather different way. It was put by Professor Marquand in his book on planning for South Wales, when he said that if you took from that district alone 60,000 men and dissipated them into thin air you would still find left plenty of men to do the work available, and you would still find unemployment there in the same proportion as you find it elsewhere in the country. These dry and cold figures mean an enormous amount of unhappiness and misery. Mr. Malcolm Stewart refers to it in his Report. There may not be actual starvation, but there is deterioration in physique and, what is often worse, there is great mental suffering—I think he uses the expression mental agony—on the part of men who year after year are unable to do any work and have no prospect of doing any.
You find whole communities which have over them the paralysing shadow of unemployment. If this is felt by all men, it is felt especially by the younger men. There are some striking passages in his Report referring to this. He says that these younger men have grown up in an atmosphere of idleness. They have
896
never had a chance of experiencing the inspiration of work or the pride of earning a living for themselves and their families. He says that "they are in fact demoralised by the seeming inevitableness of unemployment." I know that it is sometimes asked why these younger men do not join the Army. I think there is a twofold answer to that. A large number of them are not physically fit to join the Army. Prolonged unemployment has injured their physique. But quite apart from that, it would be the worst possible thing for the Army if in it there were several thousand men who had been driven there simply by tie recruiting agency of the fear of starvation. It would be one thing to have national service applied to all classes throughout the country; it is quite another thing to compel through hunger men from one district to join the Army.
In these districts you have a vast mass of unemployment, and at the moment, as far as I can see, there is no prospect of any material improvement. Mr. Malcolm Stewart says that practically all that is possible has been done under this Act. He has, he says, perhaps carried out all the major schemes that are possible under it. He has made a number of recommendations which I hope will be kept in mind when the Government introduce the Bill which they have promised to introduce after Christmas. Your Lordships need not be alarmed. I do not propose to go through the twenty recommendations which he suggests at the end of his third Report, but there are two or three recommendations to which I want to allude. First of all, he points out in all his Reports how he has been somewhat unexpectedly hampered in his work by various restrictions and regulations which I think at the outset he hardly anticipated. In the first of his Reports he mentions nine different ways in which he has found himself checked in his work by some unexpected regulations. In the last Report he returns to the same difficulty.
More than once you find in his pages mention of the fact that he has been unable to do this or unable to do that by the terms of the Act. He points out also that he is not able to take any direct action. He says the Commissioner can propose the initiation and prosecution of

897
any number of measures, but in questions involving new principles or substantial expenditure of public money he is obliged to get the agreement of the Minister, who in turn has to comply with normal departmental practice in regard to Treasury sanction. The result is that the Commissioner is one stage further from final authority in matters of expenditure than an ordinary Government Department. He ends up by saying that the procedure which generally has to be followed in dealing with important administrative issues "can hardly be described as rapid or direct."
In regard to finance he says in his Reports that he can lot supplement any grant which has been made or promised by a Government Department for some specific purpose. If, for instance, a Government Department promises 60 per cent. towards the cost of a road which will give a good deal of employment and the local authority rind themselves unable to raise the ether 40 per cent., he may by the terms of the Act be unable to give anything. Let me take another instance. He is unable to assist local authorities because grants are payable to them, and the word "payable" has been defined as relating to money which: might be paid in the future if they ask for help for certain specific purposes. Therefore he is unable to give financial assistance towards the construction of roads, bridges, tunnels and so on. Again, he is unable to make any grant for new industries operating for profit. Undoubtedly there ought to be restrictions over granting money in that respect, but this has operated in such a way that he has been unable to encourage new industries to go into this area. Again he has been unable to make grants towards migration schemes. He is unable to make grants for the establishment of hostels to which boys who have been removed from these districts might be sent. He does not make here any specific recommendations as to what might be done, but he quite clearly hints that the way out of the difficulty is to appoint—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Portal, has mentioned this on previous occasions—a Minister without portfolio who should devote the whole of his time to the work of these areas, who would think and plan for them, and the whole of whose energies would be devoted to the attempt to restore prosperity to these districts.
898
Now I will turn to another class of recommendation—recommendations for the reduction of unemployment in these districts. In regard to that there is, of course, the possibility of removing some of the younger men who have been out of work for a long period. This policy has been carried out, I think, with great success. A very large number of young inert have been transferred, and the rate of transfer has greatly increased during the last eight months. I do not criticise that in the least. I believe it to be absolutely necessary that where there are no possibilities of work the younger men should have the chance of moving else-where. But I want to point out a drawback connected with it. You take away the cream from the milk; you leave behind the older men, the men who have little initiative, and you leave those districts in a very much weaker condition. The special investigator who wrote two very interesting articles in The Times a few weeks ago said:
"As a sole policy it would leave behind an ageing, shrinking population, living poorly, costing the country a lot, anxious for work but sometimes lacking the will."
This policy of transferring people from the districts is probably coming rather near its limits.
Next there are various proposals for reviving industry in the districts. I only want to refer to one of them, for it sounds a singularly attractive proposal—namely, that the Government should help in setting up, possibly should undertake the whole expense of setting up, the plant for producing oil from coal. This would give the men an opportunity of returning to their old work; it would produce what is urgently required in this country, and it would produce it in districts which are not so exposed to air raids in case of war. I think it is correct to say that where oil has been produced from coal in other countries, that has been very largely due to the support which has been given by the respective Governments. But, most important of all, the proposals made by the Commissioner are those which are concerned with persuading or encouraging new industries to come into these areas. This is really the key to the whole situation. You will never get prosperity in some of these areas again unless you are able to encourage new industries to come into them.

899
If there had been time, I should have been very tempted to say something about a somewhat drastic proposal which is made by the Commissioner—namely, that in future the area round London should be put out of bounds for the building of new factories in the hope that, when the capitalists found themselves unable to look towards London for places for their new factories, they would look towards the Special Areas. But, of course, even if London were put out of bounds in this way, that would not be sufficient to induce industrialists to move to these areas. Positive attractions must be held out, and the Commissioner makes several suggestions such as exemption from rates, special privileges in connection with Income Tax, and loans at a low rate of interest for a long period. I do not want to go into any one of those details, but what I do want to press as strongly as I can is that I think it is now generally agreed that there can be no revival of industry in these districts without positive Government help, and that it is necessary for the Government to plan and to hold out special privileges and advantages in the exceptional case in which these districts now find themselves. Unless that is done in a new Bill, the new Bill may make slight improvements here and there but it will not deal with the core of the question. What I want to press upon the Government as strongly as I can is the importance of further planning in these districts, so that industries may be encouraged to come into them.
There is one other thing I want to say. I am very thankful to hear that a Bill will be introduced soon after Christmas. but I hope it will not only be introduced but also speedily passed into law. The matter is one of really great urgency. The various plans and proposals made by the Commissioner are not new. Most of them are found in Lord Portal's Report, made when he was investigator for South Wales. Many of them are found in the Commissioner's first Report of eighteen months ago. Most of these proposals have been before the Government for a considerable period, and the matter is urgent, because every month's delay means more suffering and distress to the people in these districts. A few months or even a few years are a very short period in the history either of a city or of a nation, but the three or four
900
years which are short in the history of a nation are a very long period in the life of a human being. Every month that is allowed to pass means that the iron of unemployment enters more and more into the personality of the individual and there is the greater danger of his drifting into the ranks of the unemployable.
If I may venture to do so, I will quote a sentence from that very moving account of his own life which is given by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who leads the Opposition. Speaking of his own experience of unemployment, he says:
"It leaves its sinister mark upon both mind and character, and it may so take the light out of a man's life that he lives there after in a darkened world. When wages are again forthcoming hunger departs, but memory remains."
It is to obviate, as far as we can, memory becoming bitter from prolonged unemployment that I hope the Government will do its utmost, not only to bring in a comprehensive Bill, but to bring in a Bill which will deal at once with this most urgent and difficult problem.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to add a few words to the very effective speech which the right reverend Prelate has delivered. We are at a new point; we have a new Commissioner for the Special Areas and we have a promise from His Majesty's Government, which they will undoubtedly fulfil, to produce a new Bill, and I hope a new policy, in the coming year. I should like, if I could, in a few words to urge upon the Government, as the right reverend Prelate has done, the pressing character of this problem. I hardly need remind your Lordships of the sort of problem with which we have to deal, but let us bear clearly in mind the difference between general unemployment and the unemployment in these "black spots." As far as general unemployment is concerned, every sign is on the whole favourable; things are moving in the right direction. But these black spots remain a running sore, of which I venture to say that this country ought to be heartily ashamed.
I had the advantage not long ago of meting a deputation from South Wales, from Merthyr Tydfil, and the speakers who came from that town explained to us that the adult male unemployment of that town amounted to 60 per cent., and I

901
think in some parts of the town to 70 per cent. Just conceive, my Lords, what that means in demoralisation and misery! This is not a new thing I think I am right in saying, and I shall be at once corrected if I am wrong, that there has been going on for nearly seven years a state of things approaching to the description which I have given. It is clear that, if it is within the compass of administration or legislation, we ought to find an effective remedy, or effective remedies, for such a state of things as that. I am sometimes surprised at what I must call, if I may be allowed to do so, the pedantry of some criticisms which are made against State assistance such as I have described.
How can it lie in the mouth of a Parliament and a country which has got the Poor Law arid the system of the "dole" to shrink back as if it were something rather shocking that we should be asked to subsidise, for example, new industries such as the right reverend Prelate has mentioned in these areas. I cannot understand how people, with the legislation and the law as it exists in this country for the relief of distress, and for the subsidising of the individual—what is called the "dole"—can shrink, from what I must call a. pedantic feeling, from the necessary expenditure for bringing industry back to these spots. The right reverend Prelate has said that that is the key of the situation, and I believe he is perfectly right. You must produce, if you can, in those black spots, either a revival of old industries, or the introduction of new industries, and I think the right reverend Prelate is right in thinking that it must be rather the introduction of new industries than the revival of old. But the point is to provide the necessary money from the general taxpayer in order to wipe out what I must call a disgrace to this country—the continuance of these black spots.
I am afraid that there are some influences which are rather difficult to overcome—that there is a certain jealousy of a competitive spirit which sometimes checks the good impulses which the Government or Parliament may have in these respects. I do not pretend to be familiar with everything that happened at Jarrow, but I must say that I have been shocked by what I heard. Why was the revival of the steel industry in Jarrow stopped—effectively stopped? It could have been
902
done. Of course it was said: "if you revive Jarrow, you militate against the success of other steel industries all over the country." What a selfish reply. My Lords, these steel industries all over the country live upon the protection which this Parliament has given them. The action of Parliament itself has made their success, and yet they resist an impulse, I believe a, perfectly genuine impulse, of compassion and shame in this Parliament and in this Government to put right, if possible, the unemployment in Jarrow. If I am wrong, I hope I shall be corrected. I have no desire to slander any man or any body of men, and if I have clone so I apologise to your Lordships, but I say that it does not lie in the mouths of people who are benefiting by the protective policy of this country to resist the necessary effective action of Parliament to help these black spots, these areas such as exist on the Tyne, and such as was shown in the case of Jarrow. I do not know whether it is too late to do anything there, but I give it as an instance of what ought to be resisted when we deal with this subject.
I know how short time is, and I am not going into details, but I merely recite the fact to which the right, reverend Prelate has called your attention, of the Parliamentary difficulties which arise if there is interference by Government Departments with the Special Commissioners. All that Should be got rid of. We want to shake off the shackles which check the Government. I know they desire to help these places, and I hope they believe, what I certainly believe myself, that the great body of public opinion in this country—not only in the House of Commons and in this House, but right through the country—is anxious that they should act promptly in relieving these black spots. Let me call your Lordships' attention to one figure. I believe the capital expenditure which has been engaged up to now in these areas is about £2,000,000. I am not quite sure whether I am speaking of the black spots generally, or only those in Durham and on the Tyne, but I think it is generally, and I believe that there are further commitments which are now definite of £5,000,000. Just consider these figures. Five million pounds! Compare that figure to the figure of the relief which is now going on in these areas in the shape of Poor Law relief

903
and the "dole." The figure this year amounts to over £7,000,000. Not £7,000,000 capital, but £7,000,000 a year is spent in relief.
In this connection if you will allow me to use such an epithet, compare this miserable £5,000,000 of capital with the £7,000,000 a year given in outdoor relief and in "dole," and just think for a moment if you capitalised £7,000,000 a year what sort of figure you would have. You would have at least £200,000,000 capital. So that really, my Lords, we need not shrink from a really generous expenditure, even if we were niggardly in the matter, if we really realise that at present, in mere relief which has no future to it, and is purely negative relief, and is not fertile in any way, we are now spending what is equivalent to £200,000,000 and that money could be used by the Government for the relief of these distressed areas with immense effect. I do not suggest of course any particular figure for the Government to use, but I want your Lordships to realise how much money is being uselessly spent now—when I say "uselessly" the relief of distress is not useless, but it does not lead to any revival. But if we can get these industries to work again it means happiness and prosperity instead of misery and demoralisation. Therefore I would venture to urge upon your Lordships, not merely because of the misery and demoralisation of these areas, but upon a purely financial ground, how liberal the Government might be in their new policy, and yet be within the limits of prudence and wisdom. I earnestly urge upon them therefore—as I am sure my noble friends desire to do also—to have the courage to embark upon this policy without reserve, to do something to wipe out what I have described as a disgrace to this country.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, no doubt it is very difficult at this hour and in this particular manner to discuss what is admittedly a problem in the very forefront of national emergency. But this is the only opportunity, I suppose, of bringing this matter before your Lordships and before the Government until they bring in their promised Bill. I do not think the Government can be surprised that we continually press upon them the urgency of this matter. I should
904
like to support what has been said by the Bishop of Winchester and so sincerely and. forcibly by the noble Marquess. To speak the truth, we are getting a little tired of speeches with which we have become almost too familiar in this matter—speeches which assure us that the Government are giving the most careful attention to all the recommendations of their Commissioners, that they hope very soon to introduce useful reform in this matter and the like speeches which were rather wittily described in another place as having the character of gramophone records. It is not really assurances of a sense of the importance of the matter, bur definite, bold and constructive proposals that the country demands. And the plea of the Commissioner cannot be resisted that in this matter it is a case for the adoption of unconventional principles.
I do not want to elaborate what has been already so effectively said in the two speeches to which we have listened, least of all to inflict any figures on your Lordships. May I only mention one or two which have struck my imagination. In the North take Sunderland. Thirty per cent. of the unemployed in Sunderland have been unemployed for more than three years. Take the area of Durham County Council. One out of three of the insured workers is unemployed, and about 30,000 have been unemployed for more than three years. Or turn to South Wales, to Merthyr Tydfil, to which the noble Marquess alluded, where 75 to 80 per cent. of the people are unemployed, many of them young men who have never been employed at all.
May I supplement what the Bishop of Winchester said, quoting the Report of the Commission:
" It is hardly surprising in the circumstances that young persons with this background and upbringing should be ready victims of all manner of demoralising influences.…It is these young men who present the most tragic aspect of the problem of the Special Areas, and one fraught with great danger to the State."
I do not think the position could be put better than by one who has himself undergone some of this trouble, in his very remarkable book which is called "Cut of the Pit" Consider this:
" The Durham pitman has always been noted for his independence…but that's going now, and in some ways it's the

905
greatest tragedy of all; men who earned a. hard living, were disciplined by the iron discipline of the put, were proud of themselves and their work, now coining cap in hand to take anything that's offered."
He ends by saying "It's a…business"—using an adjective which I will not presume to mention in these august premises. That is a cry from the reality of the situation.
And let us not forget the other side, the astonishing patience and courage and even continuance of hope when hope long deferred may have made the heart sick, which characterise these people, I am sure in South Wales, and to my knowledge in the North of England. Here I feel bound to say that in no respect have I reason to admire them better than in this, that I know from these areas, particularly the County of Durham, that the one thing that these people, finding it hard to live themselves, refuse to let down has been the support of the churches to which they belong. Whether it be their economic plight or the wonderful patience with which they have endured it, there is a double claim, not only on sympathy—that is obvious—but upon resolute and determined effort.
If we turn to the measures which have been taken, I must say I think my friends of the Party represented opposite have been a little too contemptuous of the efforts that voluntary societies have made, at least to relieve the tedium of idleness and to maintain the morale and physical fitness of the unemployed. I think they have -been less than generous in recognising the good that has been done. After all, they will remember that this is the only way in which the general public have been able to give effect to their sympathy and to rid themselves of the imputation that they have nothing but sympathy to offer. In many ways good has been done, and I am sure the position of the workers, both in the North and in South Wales, would have been infinitely worse if it had not been for the way in which these voluntary efforts have maintained at once their muscle and their morale.
But of course these are only palliatives, and we must look deeper than what has already been done. A good deal has been done and is proposed in regard to land settlement. I understand that the Commissioner regards his commitments
906
in that direction as taking £2,000,000 out of the £7,200,000 for which he has budgeted. But that is a very costly business, and it only affects a few carefully picked families. It cannot go very far to meet this immense difficulty. Then there is, secondly, the transfer of labour. It is good up to a point. It is necessary, in some respects it is natural, but I do beg your Lordships and the Government to consider that it brings as much regret as it brings hope, because it leaves these communities, as my right reverend friend has said, deprived of all the youth and energy and leaves behind communities of middle-aged and old persons. In the words of a very forcible paper written by a member of the Labour Party in another place, it leaves these places cemeteries of old people and buried hopes.
When I think of the pride that these communities, especially in the North of England, took in themselves, how sons were proud to follow their fathers into the pit, how whole communities were knit together in virile strength, I cannot bear to think of the great majority of the younger men leaving and abandoning these places to the middle aged, the old, and the dying. Therefore, however much may be done in the way of transfer, it does not take us to the heart of the problem. It is obvious that the only solution—it is a mere commonplace to say so—is the introduction of new work. No doubt a great deal has been done. I am the last to deny the efforts that have been made, particularly on Tyneside, where there has been some real improvement, and I suppose the new Team Valley Estate may be taken as an example which may yet be followed elsewhere. I think there are over a thousand employed there already; but beyond Tyneside there is little sign of the inflow of these new industries and, with these new industries, new hope. The tide, such as it is, has not reached South Wales. I do not know why it is that there should be this apparent reluctance on the part of industry to embark on that area. It may be that the rates there are mounting beyond control, arid I think there is much that the Government will consider in the suggestion of the Commissioner that in places such as that there should be some relief of the rates given by the Government. But it is not for people like me to

907
suggest these remedies. I am not an expert. The Government have recourse to all the expert assistance that is needed.
I do indeed think that the problem of Greater London calls for some consideration. It is swelling to such an extent that it has become almost a danger. One-fifth of the whole population is in Greater London, and I am told that within the last five years the number of insured workers in London has grown by over a quarter of a million. This is due mainly to the introduction of new industries which, so far as one can see, might equally well, and with far greater value to the community, have been introduced elsewhere. All I ask—and I am sure that the request comes from all of us—is that in this matter, as the noble Marquess has said, the Government will be prepared to take a bold and constructive line. I think it was The Times newspaper which said that it surely was not to be admitted that it is beyond the resources and the machinery of the modern State to prove itself capable of removing the reproach of these areas.
I pause for a moment at that word "machinery." There is a great deal of machinery in the modern State that is admittedly hindering and hampering the solution of this problem, and I know that some people, like the Commissioner himself, have felt that some of their proposals get lost in the corridors and entangled in the red tape of public Departments. I am sure an immense amount may be done to assist in trying to get rid of these needless difficulties. Certain it is that this is, and will prove to be, a test of economic statesmanship, one of the most necessary, one of the most severe, that ever any Government has had to meet, and it is the hope of all of us that by boldness of imagination and courage of action His Majesty's Government may prove equal to the test.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, in a few words I should like to support everything that has been said by the speakers who have addressed the House already, and in doing so to tell the Government that this vital subject is one which is not only debated in the country and debated in another place but which I am sure concerns every member of your Lordships' House. We are now discussing the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Probably
908
some of us would have desired to move the omission of the Special Areas Act from the Schedule of that Bill. In the discussion in another place, however, it was agreed that the Special Areas Act should come to an end in any case on May 31 next year instead of on March 31, 1938. The Government, we understand, have promised to introduce new legislation at the earliest possible moment dealing with the subject which we are now discussing, and particularly with those abnormal conditions in the Special Areas. I entirely agree with what fell a moment ago from the most reverend Primate that this is a matter of extreme urgency. We cannot ignore the time factor. We have had so many promises in the past that all these questions were going to be considered and dealt with that I am not exaggerating when I say there is a feeling of profound disappointment and despondency, especially in South Wales and in the other distressed areas and "black spots," that no drastic measures have so far been elaborated and carried into effect by the Government.
We have had the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Portal, we have had the Report of the Commissioner, and there is ample material obviously for new legislation, so that the Government cannot tell us they have no material upon which to base the new legislation which they have promised. I suggest that this whole question of unemployment should be regarded from a new angle and that the Government should introduce a new policy. During the last few years—at any rate since the operation of the insurance scheme—we have spent something like £1,000,000,000—£991,000,000—in endeavouring to deal with unemployment. What have we to show for it? A great army of unemployables. Therefore I suggest that this is a matter that cannot be dealt with piecemeal, but is one to which we must endeavour to apply a bold, courageous policy. After all, your Lordships will remember, it is not a new problem. I remember many discussions in pre-War days in another place on this vital question of unemployment. When the War came there was no unemployment, because there was a terrific demand for workers, and as the result we had an accelerated process of mechanisation of industry from one end of the country to the other. That mechanisation and displacement of labour

909
continued after the War, and I believe it is in a large measure responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves. That this situation has persisted for so long is in my opinion due to that fact and to the increasing mechanisation that goes on every year.
The Government must not regard this as a permanent feature in the social life of our country. We must not throw up the sponge. There has always been some measure of unemployment, and there always will be a certain amount of it. During the past few years there has been, first of all, industrial depression, followed by financial stringency. That has been an excuse, possibly, for lack of effective action on the part of the Government, but I would point out to your Lordships that that depression and financial stringency have been, to a great extent, removed, and that there is in consequence a complete change in the attitude of the public throughout the country towards the question of unemployment. The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place:
"I think it is particularly the position of South Wales which is afflicting the conscience of the House."
It is not only afflicting the conscience of another place, but, also the conscience of our fellow-countrymen, and I believe it is also afflicting the conscience of your Lordships' House.
I believe that one of the reasons for this new attitude on the part of the Government is the glaring contrast between prosperity in many parts of the country and terrible poverty in other parts of the country. In the Midlands, and in the South Eastern Counties, there is a boom of prosperity, but in South Wales and the North and other places, poverty is still rampant and unemployment stalks abroad. It is this terrible contrast which has struck the imagination of the people of the country, and especially the representatives of the people, and they now demand that something drastic must be done, to end this state of affairs. Then there are the Commissioners' Reports which have been already alluded to drawing attention to this problem. It is true there is a decline in the number of unemployed. The fact that the figure of 2,900,000 has now been reduced to something like
910
1,600,000 means that this problem is neither so huge nor so intricate as it was formerly, and with the revival in trade and the return to prosperity which many parts of the country are experiencing at the present time it has become a feasible and practical proposition to deal with 1,600,000 unemployed, whereas formerly it was a gigantic problem to have to deal with 2,900,000. Therefore we ought to demand from the Government that they shall not be satisfied merely with providing palliatives.
We ought to ask that in the new legislation that is promised there shall be a recognition of what I may describe as the principle of the right to work. In the past we have recognised the principle of the right to subsist, and we have handed out millions of pounds in unemployment relief; but surely in an industrial community such as ours we are responsible not only for seeing that the unemployed man does not starve but also for seeing that he has an opportunity of doing some useful work. Therefore I suggest, whatever legislation is introduced, that that principle should be recognised, because I believe that the vast majority of unemployed people really do want work. I know there are some who say that there are thousands of unemployed who will never work again, but the truth of the matter is that many have never had an opportunity of working. In the Report of the Commissioner and in other documents we are told quite clearly that the vast majority of unemployed people would be only too glad to work if they had an opportunity of doing so. Therefore, I suggest that what we want to try to do is to extinguish unemployment, and the only way we can extinguish unemployment is by providing work and in that way get rid of the "dole."
I am afraid it is impossible at this late hour to deal fully with this question. No one wants to disparage the work which has been already done, and I think the right reverend Prelate was right when he said that the two things which are essential are, first of all, a revival of basic industries, and, secondly, the introduction of new industries. That point was put very forcibly in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In South Wales our basic industry is the coal trade. The vast majority of the

911
companies in South Wales are concerned with the export of coal to other countries. As your Lordships know, in pre-War days this was a very prosperous trade, and its prosperity was built up on the quality of the coal which was sold abroad, the proximity of the collieries to the sea-board, and the shipping facilities which were available. These factors still exist, but post-War conditions have been such that, owing to the competition of oil and the diminution of trade, and especially trade with South America, to the chaotic condition of the exchanges and to other reasons, the pre-War prosperity of this great industry has seriously diminished.
As a result of legislation during the past few years, and as a consequence of the efforts which foreign Governments have made to support the coal industry in their own countries, there have been inroads of foreign coal into the markets which were previously supplied by the South Wales coalowners. Your Lordships will probably know that since 1929 the amount of coal exported from South Wales has dropped by something like 10,000,000 tons. That is due not only to the causes which I have already described but to the fact that foreign coal-owners are subsidised and assisted by their respective Governments. For instance, in Germany to-day on all the coal sold inland there is a charge of 6s. per ton which is utilised to subsidise the export of coal from that country. We in this country have had to fight not only the ordinary natural competition of other coal-fields but also the. subsidies and Government support which have been accorded to them. Your Lordships will probably agree that that is a very unfair condition of things and that it subjects the coal trade in South Wales to unfair competition.
Not long ago the Government made an agreement with the Scandinavian countries which had the effect of increasing the export of coal from the North-East Coast to ports in Scandinavia. The result of that agreement so far as South Wales was concerned was very disastrous because the Polish coal which had hitherto gone to Scandinavian ports was diverted to Mediterranean and other ports where it came into competition with South Wales coal. Therefore we feel that the Government should do something now to assist the coal industry in South Wales.
912
What we suggest is that they should give us a subsidy to break down the unfair competition which now exists. For my own part I have always been opposed to subsidies. I have always been in favour of free competition and fair competition. But when one finds that our competitors abroad are subsidised by their respective Governments, then it appears that there is no possibility of our being able to compete successfully unless our own Government are prepared to assist the industry.
Allusion was made by the noble Marquess who spoke a few minutes ago to the iron and steel industry. It is quite true that that industry has been assisted by the Government in order that it might secure a fair share of the quotas under international agreements. A short time ago the Government agreed that a 50 per cent. tariff should be imposed upon imports of foreign iron and steel unless fair quotas could be agreed upon. That tariff was never put into operation because immediately the Government came to the rescue of the industry it was possible to agree upon fair and reasonable quotas. We feel that a similar policy should be adopted by the Government in dealing with the coal trade and assisting it to fight the competition with which it is faced. There is also a proposal made in the Commissioner's Report that the Government should assist the coal industry by helping to finance propositions for extracting oil from coal. Already a great many experiments have been undertaken privately in connection with this, but it really is far too costly a proposition for any private enterprise to engage in it successfully. It is a matter which calls for Government assistance. There are many other ways in which the Government could assist the coal industry in South Wales. We understand that they are going to introduce a Rill for the nationalisation of royalties. In that connection they could assist, if they wished, by equalising royalties and wayleaves and so helping to relieve the industry of a great many burdens which it now carries.
I come now to the question of new industries. I gather from the Commissioner's Report that it would be exceedingly difficult to compel promoters of new industries to establish their plants in the Special Areas. He does not suggest that the Government should take compulsory powers to make then do so. Therefore we come back

913
to the promotion of public works and utility companies. In connection with the Government's defence programme I would like to suggest consideration of proposals which have been made from time to time for the construction of underground hangars and even, possibly, underground aircraft factories. We all know that the whole strategy of warfare has been revolutionised, and that in future everything will depend upon our ability to defend ourselves against a surprise attack. So long as the present system of competitive national armaments exists, we shall always be liable to a surprise attack, especially from the air. The Government have already recognised the importance of husbanding our resources in oil and in food and they have appointed a new food department under the Board of Trade. I would suggest that they should go still further and find out what is necessary for the defence of the country in providing underground storage accommodation for food and oil. That matter also is referred to in the Report of the Commissioner. The configuration of the country in Glamorgan offers considerable scope for the provision of underground hangars and also underground storage of oil. I understand that in Germany and in France considerable provision for underground storage of this kind has already been made. In one place alone I believe there is an underground hangar capable of providing accommodation for 130 aeroplanes. Therefore I will return to the suggestion which I ventured to make a few moments ago, that the Government should consider these questions.
So far as South Wales is concerned, we appeal to the Government to assist in the revival of our basic industries and at the same time to take advantage of the natural configuration of the country in order to provide for our defensive requirements. The right reverend Prelate told us a few moments ago that there has been a lack of initiative and a failure to carry out the proposals which have been made from time to time by the Commissioner, and that this was due in very large measure to the fact that no Minister was directly responsible for seeing that the plans, schemes and proposals were carried into effect. I hope that this state of things will be remedied in the new Bill which the Government propose to introduce after Christmas. They
914
should consider, I suggest, a very old proposal which has been under consideration for many years—the creation of a Welsh Office analogous to the Scottish Office, so that we may have a Minister in Wales responsible for seeing that all these urgent reforms are carried out. Our patience in Wales is nearly exhausted. I sincerely hope, therefore, that when my noble friend replies he will be able to assure us that he means business this time, and that in the new Bill which we hope will be introduced in another place as soon as possible we shall see some real reforms which will extinguish, or go a long way towards extinguishing, unemployment in our country.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, we have heard a good deal about coal distillation as a remedy for the Special Areas. I am sure most of us are disappointed at the slow progress that is being made in finding new industries for these areas. I have never heard a really good reason why coal distillation has not been tried there. It cannot be from want of money, because the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in another place, said that the Government had spent over £8.000,000 in assisting the Special Areas and that if he could find suitable new industries he would gladly spend eight times that amount. We know that the worst of the Special Areas are the mining areas. What more suitable industry is there to start in a distressed mining area than coal distillation? Some noble Lords who represent the Government will say that coal distillation is too experimental. It is not experimental. There is a Government Board called the Fuel Research Board, composed of the greatest experts on coal in this country. They have examined over a hundred different systems of coal distillation, and to my knowledge they have reported on more than a dozen systems which in their opinion are technically efficient, by which they mean that these processes will do what they say they can do. Why not, then, bring coal distillation into the distressed areas if it is technically efficient? We want all the oil that we can produce for national defence. The Navy cannot guarantee a sufficient supply of imported oil in its present weak state. Some people are inclined to pin their faith on storing oil in large steel tanks. These, however, we know to be most vulnerable to aerial

915
attack. It is also proposed to store oil in subterranean tanks. Why should we spend money in making expensive subterranean tanks when nature already stores our oil below ground in the form of coal? All we need is plant put down at the pithead to extract the oil as it is wanted for our national necessities. I appeal to noble Lords representing the Government to show a little more energy, spirit of adventure and abandon, and to push coal distillation in the Special Areas even though they may think they are taking a risk.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I will not make the conventional apology for detaining your Lordships at this hour, because if there is any blame to be allotted it must be placed on the Front Bench opposite. We have had this debate several times, and if the Government had dealt with the situation, as they have constantly promised to do, we should not now be here making speeches remarkably similar to others we have made. I believe I could make exactly the same speech as I have made more than once before and it would be equally germane to the present subject. That seems to me to be the ultimate reproach to the Government. Speaking in another place on this Bill, the Chancellor seemed to me to show most regrettable complacency, and I am afraid that this com placency is the reason for this debate and the reason why we are so late. I trust that the unanimity which has been shown on every side of the House this evening will at last force the Government to relieve us from the necessity of attacking them on these grounds.
The Chancellor took credit for increasing employment in the Special Areas. That, of course, is entirely fallacious in our opinion on this side. Though it is true that the employment has slightly increased, it has not increased to anything like the extent that it has increased in other parts of the country. In fact, proportionately to the rest of the country it has not increased. We have just received the Commissioner's Report. I have made a list of all his proposals and, with the exception of four, which are very nearly consequential proposals, they are exactly the same as he made in his first Report. The Government asked that this Act should be put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in order that it may be carried on and that they may have
916
time to consider the Commissioner's Report and produce another Bill. A year has passed since the last Report, two years since the Commission was established, and at least five years since some-thing ought to have been done. The fact that the Government, within three months of the expiration of the Act unless it is renewed, must now, according to their own arrangements, have to the end of May to think out another Bill, seems to indicate that they have not spent the last year extraordinarily profitably. We s could like to have some hope, and I am afraid that I myself have little, that the Government will at last do something. As I think the most reverend Primate said, it has to be remembered that these months may seem short and busy to us who are well fed and well occupied, but in the Special Areas these months are a continuance of long-drawn-out catastrophe. I hope the Government will find time. There is time, and time can be made for a problem as urgent as this, if Parliament were convinced that the Government really had a scheme and intended to use it. Time could undoubtedly be made to pass it into law.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place said that there were five lines of approach to this particular problem. He mentioned the revival of these industries. We on these Benches are convinced that these industries can be revived under the system for which we stand. That is not a point of view which I am going to elaborate, but we believe it is capable of demonstration, although your Lordships have not been persuaded of that. Revival, to a certain extent, is possible. Very little has been done, if the Government will excuse me for flatly contradicting them, in this matter. The Commissioner has done his best but on his own showing has been hopelessly handicapped, and the new Commissioner will be equally handicapped, so that there seems little hope that more will be done than has been done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to suggest new industries, and also training estates. The latter must take time, and it is a form of development which does not, in my opinion, give vary much scope for dealing with the problem.
On the other hand, I should like to press upon the Government the desirability of placing in these areas the new

917
industries that are being forced into existence by the Government's rearmament policy. In another place it was said that it had not been found possible to place the new factories which are being built in these areas, because speed was of the essence of the problem of rearmament. That does not seem to me to be particularly convincing. Why is it easier to build munition factories in an area where there are comparatively few unemployed, or none at all, than it is to build them in these areas where you have unlimited labour waiting to be employed, and labour which has the reputation of being amongst the best and most skilled in England? In addition to that I have, on other occasions, urged upon your Lordships, and the Commissioner has urged upon the Government, and my noble friend Lord Ridley, who is a recognised authority on the subject, has also urged, the desirability of licensing new factories. There is no sign that the Government will do anything in this matter. For some reason the scheme has been turned down.
Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer turned to land settlement, which we know is a costly and slow business. I know that it has been and is being successful to a certain extent, and I should like to suggest, as does the Commissioner, that it might be done on a larger scale. Transference, the right reverend Prelate spoke of, as I gather, as a regrettable necessity, but one which is there. Finally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of social services, and on those lines I believe a great work has been done. The right reverend Prelate said that we, on this side, had been somewhat ungenerous towards those who were doing voluntary work in this direction. I assure the, right reverend Prelate that there is no lack of generosity on our part in this matter. As he said, it is a palliative, but a small one, in this matter, and one which we think ought not to be developed by private persons but taken in hand by the Government.
I will detain your Lordships only a short while in order to make one short quotation from one of the Government's enthusiastic supporters in another place, in order to show that my view in this matter is not partisan in any way. We have, on this side, tried most sincerely to help the Government as much as we
918
can by suggestion and advice. We have tried to give it in a spirit of the purest helpfulness. The honourable Member for East Aberdeen, Mr. Boothby, treating of the same matter and examining the Report of the Commissioner, said:
" 'Re-organisation of coal sales machinery, and reconsideration of the quota scheme.' This was held to be unsatisfactory and was not done. 'Reorganisation of iron and steel industry.' Not done. 'Establishment of central bureau of information to help industries to select factory sites.' Not done. 'System of licensing in specified industry to control erection of new factories.' Not done."
I could not improve upon that, and he, my Lords, is an enthusiastic supporter of the present Government, driven to extremity and weary of the mess.
I am just going to mention one matter which is perhaps not entirely germane to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but which is indicative of the Government's extreme unwillingness to cope with the problem. On the Special Areas Reconstruction (Agreement) Bill I was reproached by Lord Rhayader for the attitude which I took on the Bill. I think he did not appreciate that mine was not an attitude of opposition, but of criticism and doubt as to the efficacy of that Bill. That doubt seems most entirely to have been confirmed, for the performance of the Association under that Bill has not been very encouraging. I find that there have been 358 applications, of which 64 were out of order, 104 were indeterminate, 189 were genuine, and 14 loans were granted, amounting to £52,000. That seems to me to confirm the feeling which we have, and which it seems that the whole House has, that the Government are not doing anything: that their measures are insufficient and are not being pushed with the spirit which we all believe to be absolutely essential.
One of the new suggestions in the Commissioner's Report was the twentieth, and last. His suggestion is that preferential treatment involving unconventional principles is still required for the Special Areas. I have an idea that that is the stumbling block. As the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, one cannot help feeling that there is a certain pedantry in the Government's attitude. They are not prepared to take measures which may smack perhaps of our policy on these Benches. But I think that the Special

919
Areas are making Socialists on every side of the House and in every corner of the country.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I think you will all be agreed, after the debate that has taken place on the Special Areas Act that, introduced as it was in the first place as an experiment, that Act is undoubtedly in need of revision, and it is very gratifying to know that the Government have announced their intention in another place of bringing in another Bill. It was said to be an experiment when it was introduced. I do not think that the experiment can be said to have succeeded, except that it has been very useful in showing in what direction a further and more practical experiment can be made. I do not want to belittle what has been done by the Commissioner and his staff. Within the limits imposed by the Act of Parliament they have worked hard. But I would like to take this opportunity of suggesting to the Government one or two points which from a practical point of view and from an observation of the practical working of the Act do seem to me essential when a new Act is to be brought in.
The real limitation—which has been referred to by the Commissioner himself in his Report—is the question of the actual control of his activities. It has been suggested that the Special Areas Commissioner should be put under a special Minister of the Crown and that he should be given direct access to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other alternatives have been suggested. I do not know what is in practice the best way of getting the Commissioner rapidly and effectively into touch with the responsible heads of the Government, but I feel certain that that is one of the most important and essential things in order to make the Act a really operative measure. I would ask your Lordships to consider a comparison between expenditure undertaken by a local authority with the assistance of the Commissioner, and expenditure undertaken without the assistance of the Commissioner. In the ordinary way the local authority has to get a grant from a Government Department, and has but to satisfy that Department and obtain Treasury approval. In the case of the Commissioner, the local authority has to satisfy the District Commissioner, who then has
920
to get the agreement of the Commissioner in London, who then has to get the agreement of whatever Government Department is concerned; and he also has to get the approval of the Ministry of Labour under whose authority he is, and finally Treasury approval has to be given. I do not think that can be said to show that the machinery that is provided is as rapid as it might be for dealing with this very difficult problem.
From a study of the various Reports of Commissions, surveys and recommendations that have been made by innumerable bodies, starting in the first place from the Government's investigating Commissioners, it seems clear that the basis and real effect of the trouble—I do not say the cause of the trouble—is twofold. First of all there is the disorganisation of the finances of the responsible local authorities by the excessive cost of the public assistance in their areas. I would remind your Lordships that the average rate for public assistance purposes alone throughout the country is something like 2s. or 3s, whereas in Special Areas, particularly in the County of Durham, the rate is somewhere between 8s. and 9s. That is a situation which cannot allow the local authority to do the necessary work, and it cannot allow them to carry on their proper duties without assistance from the Commissioners. I think that taking a long forward view some measure either to equalise the rates, to make a special grant in addition to the block grant, or some other possible measure to reduce this enormous rate which has to be paid for public assistance, is required.
Another salient point is the measures that can be taken to revive the prosperity of these areas, which are to be found scattered in the various recommendations that have been made by the Commissioners and others for the encouragement of new and different types of industry in those areas. I would ask the Government to take a very serious interest in trying to work out these proposals and to introduce them in the Bill they are bringing in. I do not know how the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, which has been referred to, can really be involved in this particular Bill, although it is one of the important elements in helping the recovery of the districts. I would like to ask the Government, at the same time as they are considering what steps should be taken to amend the Act, to amend the

921
Act which enables the Special Areas Reconstruction Association to function. It has not been found in practice that there has been sufficient flexibility in the scope allowed for that Association's work to permit it to do very much that cannot be done by ordinary banking organisations; and that, so far as one can make out, was the intention and object of Parliament in setting up that Association.
There is one other point, and that is the question of the inclusion of new areas in the Special Areas Act, or the exclusion of areas which can be said to have recovered. It does appear that the basis for adding or removing any districts should be that of the unemployment percentage, combined with a figure for the public assistance rate, arrived at perhaps in much the same way as the weighting of block grants. But I would like to remind your Lordships that certain areas which appear to have made great recovery, due to an improvement in their percentage of unemployment have enjoyed this improvement by reason of the present rearmament programme. It, cannot be denied that a great deal of work has come, particularly to Tyneside, and I think it should certainly be borne in mind that the present rate of rearmament is not likely to continue very long, and if supplementary measures are not continued in that district, as well as in other parts of the Special Areas, I feel that the situation might very well repeat itself in a few years' time. I would like to repeat that it is useless for the Government to say that they do not know what to do, or cannot suggest what should be done. All the information and suggestions are practically unanimous from those who have studied the problem in practice, and I hope that the Government are prepared to make a further and much bolder experiment to try, to correct the economic balance of these districts.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, my excuse and, I hope, also my justification for detaining your Lordships at this very late hour is that I can claim to have some personal acquaintance with several of the Special Areas, having made a number of tours both on Tyneside and in Durham and also in South Wales with various members and colleagues of the Imperial Policy Group. The result of these tours makes me convinced that the wave of indignation which is passing
922
through this country now is well justified. In this matter the record of no Government for the last dozen years is enviable. I only hope that this present Government will take really drastic measures at once to put a stop to a position which is as cruel as it is humiliating to us as a country.
The conditions on Tyneside are deplorable, and in the Durham coalfields they are equally deplorable. It is not merely the sad spectacle of mile upon mile of empty wharves and empty pits. We were taken there by a public employment official to see a man who was supposed to be the one who had been longest out of work in that street. When we addressed this man he said: "Oh no, you mean my brother. I have not been out of work long." When we asked him how long he had been out of work he replied: "Only four years." His brother had been out of work for ten years, and every day every week during that period he had gone to the docks vainly looking for work. In some of the South Durham mining villages the unemployed are living under conditions in which you and I, my Lords, would not like to see our dogs housed. As far as South Wales is concerned the position is very similar. There we have, around Merthyr and down the Rhondda and similar areas, a long succession of villages whose names are unknown to, and unpronounceable by, people outside that district. In these villages are hundreds and thousands of unemployed, and in these main streets anything from 25 to 75 per cent. of the shops are closed simply because there is no money left to pay for the goods they used to sell, and those which remain open are selling goods limited in quantity and exceedingly poor in quality.
I would ask your Lordships to consider very briefly one or two of the recommendations of the Commissioner. I do not ask you to go through all of them. I am going to confine myself, chiefly, to a few which deal with this question of starting work, but not with relief works, agricultural schemes, and the like. First of all, as to the control of industry in Greater London. Although I dislike in principle all interference with industry, I think this is a, case where the Government should consider very carefully whether it is desirable to have this centralisation, both from the point

923
of view of assisting distressed areas and also from the point of view of national security, for the centralisation of these new industries in the London area is becoming, in these days of aerial menace, a danger to national safety. At the same time I should like to see the Government set up munition factories and other manufactures of the sort at Merthyr Tydfil and other particularly distressed parts of South Wales. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said that the public assistance rate in Durham amounted to 8s. or 9s. in the pound. In some parts of South Wales I believe it is 15s. or 16s., and in Merthyr. Tydfil the rate is close on 30s. Even with de-rating there is still a very heavy burden to be faced.
Recommendation No. 2 of the Commissioner deals with inducements to industry to go to distressed areas—that is, by assisting the manufacture of oil from coal and by investigating the possibilities of setting up a calcium carbide factory. At the same time it might be well to investigate the suggestion as to other inducements such as relief of rates and the reimbursement by the Government to the local authorities. Personally I think this goes a little too far and that any industry ought to pay at least a few pence in rates. With regard to long-term loans to industry, I should like to hear under what conditions that Corporation is at present supplying funds, because I have found in South Wales several small factories producing at a low cost and doing well in the matter of orders, but with no capital behind them with which to expand and produce more economically. Then there is the question of relief of men out of employment. It is suggested that every man who has been on the register for five years should be taken off. The Commissioner does not suggest how this should be done, but merely suggests that it ought to be done. I think it might be difficult to accomplish, but I hope the Government will investigate the matter. Then there is the question of the equalisation of the public assistance rates. This no doubt would meet with great opposition in other parts of the country, but I think it is well worthy of investigation if we are to see industry restored in South Wales. Lastly—and the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has stolen my thunder in this respect—I would urge
924
most emphatically the recommendation in favour of preferential treatment and unconventional treatment for the distressed areas.
To sum up, there are five reasons why we should deal with this matter and deal with it at once. First of all, there is the question of national prestige. Our enemies abroad—and they are not few—are for ever making capital out of the fact that we have a situation in various parts of our country such as we have been discussing to-day and which for our own self-respect ought to be abolished forthwith. Secondly, there is the political danger which arises. More and more, people are losing faith in all forms of established government. Sooner or later they are likely to swing into some more violent political movement, whether of the Right or of the Left, whether Red or Black; and may I say that I look upon Fascism as merely a modification of Communism. Then there is the question of financial waste. We are pouring million upon million into these areas year after year and obtaining no return save the satisfaction that we are, at any rate, keeping body and soul together in the people concerned.
Then there is the question of danger to health. The hospitals in South Wales are full of men and women suffering from intestinal troubles, particularly gastric ulcers. This is largely caused by insufficient food, and food wholly unsuitable in character and poor in quality. Although it is quite right to say there is no starvation in any of these areas, there is an appalling amount of malnutrition. Men, women, and children by tens of thousands are getting food which, although sufficient in quantity to keep them alive, is sufficient neither in quality nor in quantity to maintain them in a fair state of health. If ever an epidemic were to reach this country such as smallpox or even influenza, I shudder to think what the result would be in those areas where nine out of ten are suffering from malnutrition; and if ever disease breaks out it will not be confined to those areas. Finally, there is the ethical reason. I cannot believe that anyone who believes in Christianity can complacently regard the continuance of conditions such as we are discussing. I hope the Government are going to take drastic, if expensive, remedial steps. It is to their own interest

925
to do so. They will gain by it to-day, and in time to come their memory will also gain. I hope therefore that they will lose no time in taking measures to put an end once and for all to this appalling sore in our body politic.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, at this late hour naturally will have to try and condense my remarks on a subject which really demands a very close and long reply to the very excellent suggestions that have come from noble Lords. If I may say so, I thought that the right reverend Prelate was extremely helpful in all that he said and in the various suggestions that he put forward, and I was very much impressed with the speech of ray noble friend Lord Mansfield. I am proud of a fellow-countryman who can contribute as he has done to this debate. The reason why we have had this discussion to-day is that the Special Areas Act is in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Your Lordships will note that it is only extended for six months, that is till the 31st May; not, like other Acts, for a year. I think that shows more than anything can do that the Government have in view the bringing in at the earliest possible moment of a new Bill to deal with this very serious and difficult problem.
I was surprised by some of the speeches that noble Lords have delivered this afternoon. They seemed to think that the Government has not a soul and a conscience, and that soul and conscience belonged only to the critics. We are men. I can assure your Lordships that the Government feel the great responsibility of dealing with this problem. It is one thing to criticise, it is another to deal with such a very stubborn problem as this. The last Report from the Commissioners is a very valuable document, and no doubt will form the basis for the new Bill that is in process of being drafted. But I wish to point out that a good deal has been done since we last debated this problem in your Lordships' House. It must be remembered that the Act, which is known as the Special Areas Act, was, in itself, an experimental Act. That Act stated that certain ways of dealing with this terrible problem were going to be tried out, and the Commissioners attempted to start certain schemes. Those schemes are not of small dimensions. The original Act allowed expenditure up to about £2,000,000. That money has been
926
spent, and additional schemes have now been entered upon which will entail an expenditure of another £7,000,000 between the present time and the period when the next Act comes along.
Undoubtedly things will move forward rapidly towards developing schemes which, for the time being, it is difficult to begin. The beginning of schemes always has been the very great difficulty. I know from my own personal experience, being: in close touch with the industrial world in the North, how difficult it has been to get things going, and I am sure the Government are right in trying, as far as possible, to revive the old existing industries. They can much more easily be put in train to employ people in the districts in which they are carried on. That is particularly true, I think, of areas in Scotland, on Tyneside and in East Durham. I do not say it is so with regard to South Wales, but I will touch on that in a moment In certain of these areas which were dependent on the heavy industries, such as iron and steel and shipbuilding, there has been a definite improvement, and I am very glad indeed to see it. Not that there is any reason for self-satisfaction, but it does really give some hope that the additional powers, which I know the new Bill will give to the Commissioner, will result in further improvement, and will still further assist the attempt that is being made to remove this great evil.
I might say, in relation to South Wales, that the problem there is an extremely stubborn and difficult one to deal with. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, it is a coal problem. You see small narrow valleys with a village, a railway, a small river, and a coal mine. What new industry can we put there? It is a case either of reviving the pit or removing the people. Therefore, in South Wales you have a problem that in many cases will not be cured by new industries. The chief cure is to be found in a revival of the old industry. As my right honourable friend Sir Robert Horne said the other day in the other House, it is the revival of the export coal trade in South Wales that is going to do most good in reviving the hopes of employing the people there. I quite agree with the right reverend Prelate that it is very sad to see young, active, fine fellows taken away from those areas to Leicester and other places in the Midlands where they have been found work. As he said

927
it is the cream that is being taken away, but you must do something to try and help these people. We are removing something like 400 or 450 every month. That is, from one area to another, and it is not beyond possibility that many families will follow the pioneer youths into the new areas. As a matter of fact, I know cases where the older members of the family have followed the younger members into new areas. That at least is one of the things we have to do in facing the difficulty in South Wales. There the problem is peculiar and not at all the same as that in other areas.
I know that the Government realise what they are up against, and I feel sure the new Bill will give additional powers to the Commissioner to enable him to deal perhaps in an unorthodox manner with many of the problems. Noble Lords have referred to the establishment of new industries, and this is where I agree unorthodox methods will be necessary. I think a very great deal can be done to introduce new industries to take root in new places, but, business being business, you have to give some genuine inducement before new businesses will be established in these areas. I was very pleased indeed to read the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place when he said that he accepted, in principle, that unorthodox methods would have to be resorted to in dealing with these areas. I do not suppose any Chancellor of the Exchequer before him, with the possible exception of Mr. Lloyd George, has ever said what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said.
This is what he said:
"I will give an illustration. Take the proposals which the Commissioner makes for certain reliefs of Income Tax and rates for new industries. How is that to be done? I have not had time to think it out, because the Report has not been in my hands very long, but, as far as I can see, the simplest way to deal with it is that new firms should pay their Income Tax and rates in the ordinary manner on the assessments made in the ordinary way, and that they should then be recouped by the Commissioner to the extent of the relief to be given them."
In other words, they pay and then receive a rebate from the Commissioner of the money they have paid, which rebate will be provided by Parliament under the new Act. Therefore we see a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is bound to protect the money of the taxpayer, saying that he is going to tackle this matter on the
928
lines I have indicated. I think that gives us hope that some new thing is going to be done.
There is another point I should like to touch upon. Many of these unfortunate people have been unemployed for a very long time. Not only have they gone down physically, but their moral standard also has fallen, as a consequence of the agony of continued unemployment. Social services to tackle this aspect of the problem have already been instituted and have been helped by the Commissioners. I think that the movement in the direction of building up not only the body but the mind, in building up hope, has certainly done a very great deal for these people in South Wales. The Commissioner referred to it in his Report and he acknowledges the very great help he has had from various people. We cannot but thank those people for their help. It must be recognised, however, that the Government have also helped and that they are coming forward with money to help still further in the direction of social development and the general raising of the conditions of life in these areas. It must be remembered that many local authorities, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has pointed out, are not able, owing to the pressure of rates., to afford those social amenities which ought to be provided in these areas. There is a great deal to be said for the equalisation of rates, at least to some extent, and the Government have that in mind. Something will have to be done, and I know it will be done, in dealing with that very difficult problem of rating. It is one of the main reasons why new industries will not go to these areas. They fear the heavy rates that would come on their backs.
I would like to say one word in reply to the question why more munition factories are not set up in South Wales. On the same lines the noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about underground aerodromes and food storage. Your Lordships must remember that this defence programme is urgent, and that it is vital that we should get things done as quickly as possible. Factories have been started in Scotland and Durham and in Wales, but in order to get the necessary speed it has often meant that the old contracting firms have had to expand instead of new special factories being built in other places. I am satisfied that when thin need for speed is over the distressed

929
areas will benefit by the defence programme which undoubtedly must go on for many years to come. It is a point which is well known to the Government, and I know that all Departments have always considered the feasibility of starting new industries in the areas where unemployment is worst.
Another point raised by several noble Lords, and I think by the noble Marquess, refers to the number of factories that are allowed to come into the area of Greater London. I am certain that not only the Government but the London County Council hate this tremendous expansion of factories, with all the difficulties it entails in the matter of water supply, electricity and drainage, and the great and growing menace of the vulnerability of London, but if by some scheme of town planning you prohibit the arrival of new factories in the London area, there is no certainty that the factories would go to the distressed areas. They would probably go to Birmingham or to some other equally prosperous place. It is a difficult matter to get these factories, which come to Greater London in order to be nearer their market, to go elsewhere. It is only by inducements in the matter of Income Tax and rates that you will get new industries to go to the distressed areas. The Government have that in mind, and I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised the point. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Duke referred to the question of oil from coal, and various suggestions have been made that the Government ought to do this and do that.
May I say that all the speeches which have been made in this debate will be read most carefully by those concerned with the production of the new Bill. They will be read with every consideration, and I am perfectly certain that all those concerned are anxious to absorb new ideas. I have read in the Report of the Commissioner his complaint of the various doors that he had to go through in order to get at the money. Those ought to be removed as far as possible. Simplification of machinery is bound to be one of the most important things to be dealt with in the new Bill. I remember, when talking to Signor Mussolini on one occasion, suggesting that he had too much to do in dealing with five different Departments. He replied: "It eases my
930
work, I have no correspondence with those Departments." It is always true that the fewer Departments you have to go through to get to the Treasury the better.
This problem, which must be dealt with, is exciting the conscience of the people. It has been said that it is really rather a disgrace to the nation that these areas should continue to exist. I agree. It is with the object of trying to remove that terrible blight that the Government are going on with this new Bill. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more now about this problem. We shall have opportunities when the new Bill is introduced of discussing our plans. It is very easy to criticise and to minimise what the Government are doing. What I think we should do is to approach this problem as one which, as Mr. Baldwin once said in another connection, should be dealt with by a Council of State. This is no Party question. It is a question of the good of the nation and everyone must contribute to the common pool, as I must admit they have done to-day, believing that the Government honestly mean to get this great evil out of our midst. That I believe the Government will do, given time.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.

PART I.

1.

2.

3.

Session and Chapter.

Short title.

How far continued.

(8) 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 50.

The Public Works Facilities Act, 1930.

The following provisions, that is to say, Section two, except the words "or statutory undertakers'" wherever those words occur; in Section three, the words from the beginning of the section to the word "undertaking"; subsections (1) and (2)of Section six; Sections seven and eight; and the First Schedule.

LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE moved, in the references to the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, after "undertaking," to insert "Section five." The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is that when this Bill was being considered in another place a section was omitted from this Act which dealt with special Electricity Orders issued by the Minister of Transport. It is in order to have this simple method of procedure by Special Order and thus to save time and money that the Minister wishes this section to be retained. Since 1930 some 80 per cent. of the Electricity Special Orders coming before the Minis-
932
ter have been dealt with under this section, and if it were not continued by this Amendment, some of the poorer electrical undertakings would be placed in a difficulty and would not be able to promote Special Orders. I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, column 3, line 22, after ("undertaking") insert ("Section five,").—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.

VISCOUNT HARBERTON.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that Ernest Arthur George, Viscount Harberton in the Peerage of Ireland, has established his succession to the Viscounty of Harberton and his right to vote at any Elections of Representative Peers for Ireland which may be held in future under the Statutes in force relating thereto, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor made to the House of Lords this day, that Ernest Arthur George, Viscount Harberton in the Peerage of Ireland, has established his succession to the Viscounty of Barberton and his right to vote at any Elections of Representative Peers for Ireland which may be held in future under the Statutes in force relating thereto, to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

LORD VENTRY.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that Arthur Frederick Daubeney, Baron
934
Ventry in the Peerage of Ireland, has established his succession to the Barony of Ventry and his right to vote at any Elections of Representative Peers for Ireland which may be held in future under the Statutes in force relating thereto, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor made to the House of Lords this day, that Arthur Frederick Daubeney, Baron Ventry in the Peerage of Ireland, has established his succession to the Barony of Ventry and his right to vote at any Elections of Representative Peers for Ireland which may be held in future under the Statutes in force relating thereto, to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

GAS PRICES.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee and such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.