Sitting of 27 February 1936

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BARNSLEY EXTENSION BILL,
  Order [11th February] that the Bill be committed read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. HOPKINasked the Minister of Labour the total number of applicants to the Unemployment Assistance Board who have not received any money payment because they have found full-time employment before the decision of the statutory authorities in respect of their applications had been received by the officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. HOPKINasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider issuing an instruction permitting a determination to be made by the Unemployment Assistance Board to an applicant who has found work but has not received an allowance for the period he was unemployed owing to delay in submitting his application to the area officer of the Board?
    Mr. BROWN: The conditions under which a determination granting an allowance may be made are as laid down in the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, and I have no power to issue instructions purporting to modify these conditions.
    Mr. HOPKIN: Is the Minister aware that, under these conditions as they are working now a great number of men suffer?
    Mr. E. DUNNasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in
    614
    miners' households where unemployment assistance is being received the amount of such assistance is being reduced in consequence of the increase in wages recently secured by the miners; whether this is being done on instructions from the board; and whether this policy of taking advantage of an increase in wages will be reconsidered?
    Mr. BROWN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) on 20th February.
    Mr. DUNN: Is the Minister aware that the one shilling increase in wages which has been awarded to the miners is now being used, under the regulations, in order to relieve the Exchequer of part of the money which they ought to provide?
    Mr. BROWN: I have received representations on this matter from certain Members representing mining constituencies, and they are putting some points before me which I have promised to convey to the board?
    Mr. SHINWELL: What is the use of an increase in the miners' wages, if the household means of the miners are to be reduced in this way by the decision of the board?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member must know quite well, that the whole question arises on the determination of means.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is it the case that every miner who received increased wages is in a house where unemployment assistance is being received?
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is the Minister aware that, already, many parents have told their sons that they can leave home because of the deductions from the unemployment assistance grants, and that many have left home since they have had this increase in wages?
    Mr. LEACH: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to rectify this evil and injustice?

    WALES.
    Mr. HOPKINasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of constituting Wales as a separate region of the Unemployment. Assistance Board?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The board's organisation provides for a regional officer for Wales with an office at Cardiff. It has been found convenient and economical, however, to extend his jurisdiction to cover certain adjoining English districts.

    UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE BOARD.
    Mr. E. DUNNasked the Minister of Labour whether any special instructions have been issued to area officials of the Unemployment Assistance Board; and, if so, whether copies of such instructions can be supplied for the information of this House?
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give particulars of the circulars and instructions issued by the Unemployment Assistance Board to the local area officers; and whether he proposes to make all these available to persons who desire them?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) on l0th December last. I am still in communication with the board on the subject.

    JUNIOR INSTRUCTION CENTRES (MEALS).
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that an examination by the school medical officers reveals that 57 per cent. of the trainees at four junior instruction centres in the County of Glamorgan are suffering from malnutrition; and whether he will take steps to empower the local authorities responsible for these centres to supply meals as well as milk to trainees in attendance?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Local education authorities have no power to provide ordinary meals in junior instruction centres. Free milk is, however, being provided in the Glamorgan centres, and I am informed that the school medical officer expressed the view that since any food given at the junior instruction centres can only be a casual and temporary addition to the diet of the pupils, the milk available is more useful than any other food which could be suggested in the circumstances. I am, however, making inquiries into the adequacy of the existing arrangements.
    Mr. HALL: When the right hon. Gentleman replied to a similar question
    616
    in December he said that he was then considering the matter. May I put it to him that it is a matter which brooks no delay; that 57 per cent. of the boys and girls at four junior instruction centres have been found to be suffering from malnutrition, and that even one or two meals in a week would be of considerable assistance to them?
    Mr. BROWN: The question which was put in December was not in this precise form but with the information given by the hon. Member I will make inquiries.

    SERVICE PENSIONS.
    Mr. R. J. TAYLORasked the Minister of Labour whether service pensions are taken into calculation in assessing the allowances due to unemployed persons under the application of the means test; and, if so, whether he will take steps to put an end to this violation of the undertaking given to the House of Commons by his predecessor, and to rectify this imposition upon any ex-service men?
    Mr. E. BROWN: As a general rule service pensions are treated as part of an applicant's resources which are available to meet his needs, and I am not aware of any undertaking having been given that they should not be so treated. Section 38 (3) of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, provides that the first.£1 a week of wounds or disability pensions, as defined in Section 54 of the Act, shall be disregarded.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Will the Minister consider whether service pensions apart from disability pensions ought to be taken into consideration in this connection; and furthermore does this not seem a poor return from a grateful country to men who have served it?
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the Minister aware that there was considerable confusion on this question of service pensions when the matter was originally discussed; that great hardship is caused by the inclusion of these pensions in the household means; and, in issuing new regulations, will he take this matter into consideration and see whether something can be done?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows that this question was very fully discussed and was decided by the House, but I will bear in mind what he says.

    SUNDERLAND.
    Mr. STOREYasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the age distribution of the unemployed registered at the Sunderland, Pallion, and Southwick-on-Wear employment exchange and the Sunderland

    The following Table shows the numbers of unemployed men and women, in each age group for which particulars were obtained, registered at the Sunderland, Pallion and Southwick-on-Wear Employment Exchanges at 4th November, 1935, the latest date for which detailed figures are available.

    Age Group.

    Men.

    Women.

    Total.

    18–20 year

    …

    …

    …

    …

    993

    426

    1,419

    21–24 "

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,629

    374

    3,003

    25–34 "

    …

    …

    …

    …

    5,803

    357

    6,160

    35–44 "

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4,417

    200

    4,617

    45–54 "

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3657

    141

    3,798

    55–59 "

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,806

    31

    1,837

    60–64 "

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,452

    15

    1,467

    65 years and over

    …

    …

    …

    25

    2

    27

    Total, aged 18 and over

    …

    20,782

    1,546

    22,328

    Corresponding Statistics for Juveniles under 18 years of age are not available in respect of 4th November, but at 25th November the numbers unemployed, registered at the above Exchanges and the Sunderland District Juvenile Employment Bureau, in each age-group for which particulars were obtained, were as follows:—

    Age-Group.

    Boys.

    Girls.

    Total.

    14 and under 16 years

    …

    …

    542

    505

    1,047

    16 and under 18 years

    …

    …

    482

    450

    932

    Total, aged 14 and under 18 years

    1,024

    955

    1,979

    ALIENS.
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now considered the possibility of including in the future returns relating to the number of unemployed persons, the number of aliens included in such return, and the number of aliens in receipt of unemployment benefit?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Yes, Sir. The employment exchanges do not at present possess this information, and it would be a matter of great difficulty and considerable expense to obtain it.

    DARLINGTON.
    Mr. LESLIEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the amount of unemployment in the Darling-
    division juvenile employment bureau at the latest convenient date?
    Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    ton rural district, particularly at Middleton St. George and adjoining parishes in the eastern part of the district; and, in view of the fact that the working-class population at Middleton St. George and Low Dinsdale are chiefly dependent upon the Linthorpe-Dinsdale smelting works, which have been entirely closed down for nearly five years, whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to schedule the district under the special areas?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am aware of the difficulties resulting from the closing of the Linthorpe-Dinsdale smelting works, but the industrial situation in the neighbourhood of Darlington as a whole has improved materially in the last 12 months and the percentage of unemployment is now little worse than in the country as

    619
    a whole. It would not be practicable to deal with Middleton St. George and the adjoining parishes in the manner suggested, and I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Westhoughton on the 12th December, 1935, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    TRANSFERENCE (COAL MINES, KENT).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Labour how many men were medically examined before transfer from White-haven to the Kent coal mines during the three months ended 31st January, 1936; how many men were rejected as unfit; how many men were rejected as unfit on arrival at the Kent coal mines; the cost involved in transferring these men; and why all men cannot be medically examined before transfer?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Men are not medically examined before transfer to the Kent coal mines, but every care is taken to select men who are physically fit. The hon. Member will appreciate that medical examination before transfer would not guarantee that the men would pass the medical examination at the colliery. Two of the 35 men transferred from White-haven during the three months ended 30th January, whom I assume the hon. Member has in mind, failed to pass the colliery doctor; the cost to the Department of their transfer was £9 13s. 6d.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that when the men get to the Kent coalfield, they are medically examined?
    Mr. BROWN: Certainly.
    Mr. ANDERSON: In view of the fact that there are special circumstances attached to this mine, would it not be better for a standard examination to be set for these men before they are asked to go to the Kent coalfield, in view of a previous question to which the Minister has replied?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member was good enough to communicate with me about this, and as a result I have gone into the matter. He will see that out of 35 men, 33 passed the examination at the colliery. I cannot see, therefore, what advantage it would be if the test were made before the men left home when they would have to meet another test at the colliery.
    Mr. TINKER: Is it a rule of the Government now to have men examined for a, job?
    Mr. BROWN: It has nothing to do with the Government at all.

    CASTLEFORD AND PONTEFRACT.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Labour the number of applications for unemployment insurance benefit dealt with by the court of referees at Castle-ford and Pontefract, respectively, during 1935; the number allowed and disallowed; and the number disallowed on the ground that they were engaged in a trade dispute?
    Mr. E. BROWN: am having the figures extracted, and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as they are available.
    Mr. SMITHasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases in which additional allowance has been granted under the discretionary Clause in the Unemployment Assistance Regulations in the area covered by the Pontefract area office during 1935, and the approximate cost?
    Mr. BROWN: I am inquiring of the Unemployment Assistance Board whether this information is available.

    MINE-WORKERS.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed mine-workers registered as such; and whether the Government have any plan for their absorption into employment?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The numbers of insured persons aged 16–64 in the coal-mining industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain at 20th January, 1936, the latest date for which figures are available, were 164,967 wholly unemployed and 18,181 temporarily stopped. The policy of the Government has throughout been directed to the only effectual means of reducing unemployment, that is, by assisting in every possible way the recovery of trade and industry in this country The measure of success which has attended this policy is shown by the fact that the numbers of insured persons in employment in all industries increased between January, 1933, and January, 1936, by 1,084,000.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to the

    621
    registered unemployed in the coal industry, there is a vast number of other persons unemployed, and have the Government no plans for their absorption into employment at an early date?
    Mr. BROWN: A number of the million are those who were previously registered as miners.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Do we understand that the Government have no plans in contemplation beyond what has already been done?
    Mr. BROWN: We cannot debate that now, and I cannot be responsible for what the bon. Gentleman understands.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Has the hon. Gentleman any information with regard to the new proposals for the coal industry mentioned by the Lord President?
    Mr. BROWN: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can the Minister say how many of these men have lost their work owing to the operation of the Coal Mines Act, 1930?
    Mr. BROWN: Not now.

    INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (REDUCTION).
    Mr. MAGNAYasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a report from the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee on the state of the finance of the Unemployment Fund; and whether he can make a statement on the Government's intentions in the matter?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Yes, Sir. The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee have reported that the Unemployment Fund is, and is likely to continue to be, more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities and that the fund has a disposable surplus of something under, but approaching, £6,500,000 a year. The Committee recommend by a majority that in the case of persons aged 18 and over the weekly rates of unemployment insurance contributions by employers and workers shall be reduced by 1d. Two members of the Committee append notes of dissent making other recommendations for the disposal of the surplus. The Government have decided to adopt the recommendation made by the majority of the Committee. A draft Order for the purpose, to operate from July next, will be
    622
    laid before both Houses of Parliament in due course.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Would it not be in the best interests of the unemployed persons and of the country as a whole if, instead of reducing contributions by 1d. per person, the Government were to increase the benefits?
    Mr. BROWN: I hope that the report of the Committee will be in the Vote Office at 6 o'clock, and I suggest that Members should read the report before discussing these questions.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Has the Minister considered the recommendations of the Minority Report in the light of the great need in the country for more purchasing power among the working class?

    SPECIAL AREAS (HOUSING GRANTS).
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to' promote a short Bill to amend the Special Areas Improvement Development Act, 1934, to give the Commissioner power to make grants for housing direct to the local authority instead of the roundabout means of giving the same Exchequer moneys to housing indirectly, via the housing association?
    Mr. E. BROWN: No, Sir.
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Labour in whom the houses built with assistance from the Minister by the North Eastern Housing Association, Limited, will be vested when the capital from which such houses are built has been repaid?
    Mr. BROWN: The houses will eventually vest in the Association.

    FORTY-HOUR WEEK CONVENTION.
    Mr. ELLIS SMITHasked the Minister of Labour whether it is the intention of the Government at the 1936 Geneva International Labour Conference to support the 1935 convention of a 40-hour week?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the 40-hour week Convention, 1935, has been indicated in the replies which have been sent to questionnaires issued by the International Labour Office on the subject of the reduction of hours of work in

    623
    certain industries. The questionnaires and replies are long and I propose to circulate them in the form of a White Paper.
    Mr. THORNE: When sending a delegate to Geneva in July will the Government give him instructions to support a 40-hour week?
    Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman himself represent the Government on this matter?
    Mr. BROWN: There is another question on that point.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Do the Government propose, in connection with the 40-hour week, to do what has already been done in connection with the seven and a quarter hours convention—that is nothing?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member had better await the White Paper.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House "yes" or "no," whether the Government intend to support the Convention?
    Mr. BROWN: With regard to this question it is not possible to give an answer "yes" or "no" without going into a long series of propositions and that is why I propose to inform Members of the House at length on the whole position by means of a White Paper.
    Mr. LEACH: Is it not the case that the Minister is sitting on the fence?
    Mr. E. SMITH: When are we likely to get the White Paper?
    Mr. BROWN: Very soon.
    Mr. CHARLES BROWNasked the Minister of Labour whether he has been able to assist the International Labour Office to obtain the advice of textile experts in this country on the application of the 40-hour week to that industry; whether the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress have been consulted with regard to the matters in question; and what has been their response?
    Mr. E. BROWN: In view of the decision of the governing body of the
    624
    International Labour Organisation to place the subject of the reduction of hours in the textile industries on the agenda of the International Labour Conference in June next with a view to endeavouring to adopt a draft, convention by a single discussion, the director obtained authority to consult experts in those industries on the technical questions involved. He indicated that he wished to consult primarily persons belonging to the employers' and workers' organisations. The International Labour Office has, therefore, been in direct touch with employers' organisations and trade unions in these industries and members of the staff have both visited mills and consulted textile representatives. The director also asked that a Government expert should be nominated. It has not been found practicable, however, to nominate a Government representative properly qualified to give expert technical advice in all these branches of industry. In due course a report will be issued by the International Labour Office in preparation for the Conference and, in accordance with the normal practice, I shall consult the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations and the Trades Union Congress General Council with regard to the matters dealt with therein.
    Mr. C. BROWN: Is it a fact that the employers have adopted a policy of complete non-co-operation in regard to this matter?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I have told the hon. Member that the director has been in touch with the textile industries of various countries. I have no knowledge of the material obtained or to the extent to which expert advice has been given or sought in the various countries.
    Mr. C. BROWN: Can the Minister state more specifically why the Government have refused to nominate an expert of their own?
    Mr. E. BROWN: If the hon. Member will consider in fact that one expert would be asked to cover all these various industries—cotton, wool, silk, flax, hemp, jute and hosiery—he will understand me when I say that, in regard to the demand for the appointment of such an expert I felt rather like the man who saw a giraffe for the first time and said, "There ain't no such creature."

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
    Mr. E. SMITHasked the Minister of Labour whether he will attend the 1936 International Labour Conference?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Yes, Sir.

    POLICE CARS (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of people killed or injured to date by motor cars driven by any police officials while on duty or in uniform, and the amount of compensation paid or grants made to the next-of-kin of the person so flied and/or to the injured person?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): During the past 10 years 16 persons have been killed as a result of accidents in which the car or one of the cars involved was a Metropolitan Police vehicle. Compensation amounting to £2,731 was paid in seven of these cases. As regards the others, in eight cases no question of police liability arose, though in three of them small compassionate payments were made, amounting to £70; the remaining case is still under negotiation. The number of persons injured in similar accidents during 1935 was 110. Compensation amounting to £1,807 has been paid in respect of 41 claims; 12 are still under negotiation, and in the remaining 57 cases no question of police liability arose or no claim was made. Corresponding information for provincial police forces is not available.
    Mr. DAY: Have these payments been made in the nature of ex-gratia payments?
    Sir J. SIMON: I explained on a previous occasion that in cases where there is negligence on the part of the driver there is nothing to prevent legal proceedings being taken.
    Mr. DAY: Has a claimant an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in any way?
    Sir J. SIMON: If he has the right of action he has no reason to appeal to anybody. If there is a dispute it will be sent to the judge; if there is no dispute it will be paid.

    SILICOSIS.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider introducing further legislation to ensure prompter and easier certification of cases of silicosis in the mining and quarrying industry, and to ensure that compensation and measures for the recovery of the victims may be made more certain?
    Sir J. SIMON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) on the 13th of this month. If the hon. Member will be good enough to send me a statement showing where and how it is suggested that the medical arrangements and the procedure under the silicosis schemes could be improved, I shall be happy to consider it.
    Mr. LEACH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that both the law and the regulations operate very harshly towards these poor fellows?
    Sir J. SIMON: It is a very complicated subject, as the hon. Member knows, but I have the fullest sympathy with those who want to have the whole situation cleared up and made as simple as possible.

    AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
    Mr. GALLACHERasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the statement contained in Air Raid Precautions, Handbook No. 2, that respirators alone are insufficient to give adequate protection against vesicants, such as mustard gas and lewisite, and complete suits of oilskins are advocated for combating these gases, it is proposed to issue such suits to the civilian population at the public expense?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The handbook referred to is intended for the guidance of members of first-aid parties and others, whose duties might make it necessary for them to work in places where vesicants may be present in considerable quantities. The Government will provide protective clothing for these Services. One of the Government's recommendations to the civil population will be to remain indoors in a gasproofed room. The object of this is to protect them from vesicants in

    627
    liquid form and so do away with the need for protective clothing.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to ask the Government to put a question down to the League of Nations to abolish air-bombing so as to put an end to all this trouble?
    Mr. BELLENGER: Who is expected to provide gas-proof rooms in houses?
    Mr. GALLACHERasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Wing-Commander E. J. Hodsoll, a Home Office official, stated publicly on 23rd October, 1935, that the gas mask for the protection of the civilian population now being developed under his direction will only give immunity from poison gas for 15 minutes; whether this type of gas mask includes cardboard and string in its construction; and whether he is satisfied that this mask will afford genuine protection against possible gas attacks and not merely an illusion of protection?
    Mr. LLOYD: The gas mask referred to will give protection for at least 15 minutes against the highest concentrations of gas ever likely to be encountered. Against such concentrations as civilians might normally experience in time of war, this respirator will last several hours. No string will be used in the construction of the respirator and I can assure the hon. Member that the materials will be amply robust for the purpose required. I am satisfied that the respirator will give genuine and adequate protection. The Government would not be responsible for any respirator which, in their opinion, did not fulfil this condition.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: How much are these gas masks to cost, and will the entire working class have an opportunity of securing them free?
    Mr. LLOYD: I would like to see that question on the Paper.

    PRISON REGULATIONS (CONCERTS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Home Secretary whether it is in accordance with prison regulations that permission to a prisoner to attend a concert in the prison is made contingent upon his attending church service; and, if this is not the
    628
    case, will he make it clear to those concerned that no such bar to a prisoner's attendance at a concert should be permitted?
    Sir J. SIMON: In no prison is permission to attend a prison concert made contingent on attendance at church service. If the hon. Member has it in mind that sometimes a sacred concert is held on Sunday afternoon in conjunction with a church service, it is in such a case impracticable to separate attendance at the concert from attendance at the service.
    Mr. THURTLE: If I furnish the right hon. Gentleman with evidence in my possession that the practice referred to in the first part of the question does obtain, will he consider the desirability of making it clear that it should not?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am quite clear that there has been no condition of that sort attached. I have made inquiries, but if the hon. Member has an incident in mind I shall be glad if he will let me have it.
    Mr. LOGAN: Will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make arrangements for the hon. Gentleman to go to a service?
    Sir PATRICK HANNON: Will my right hon. Friend say whether ample facilities are afforded prisoners to attend church?
    Sir J. SIMON: There is every facility, of course, but I should never agree to making this a condition.

    PRISONERS (TREATMENT).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he has made inquiry into the case of Frederick Minall, aged 22, who hanged himself in Lewes Prison shortly before Christmas, 1935, following punishment; whether he was aware that Minall had always shown signs of mental instability; whether any investigation of his mental condition was made before he was committed to prison; and whether be will consider implementing the report of the Departmental Committee on persistent offenders and providing adequate facilities for dealing with offenders in non-penal establishments?
    Sir J. SIMON: Between December, 1929, and June, 1932, Minall was in a Borstal Institution, and his intelligence and mental condition were then regarded as "fair." His conduct while on licence was satisfactory and did not suggest mental instability. He was in Brixton Prison awaiting trial from 28th October to 25th November, 1935, and showed no signs during this period of any mental abnormality; nor did he show any such signs after his sentence. Whether, if there had been some special establishment for persistent offenders, Minall would have been sent to such an establishment rather than to prison seems doubtful, but in any event there is nothing in the circumstances of this case to suggest that his suicide can be attributed to his being detained in a prison rather than in such a special establishment.
    Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to reply to the last part of my question, as to carrying out the recommendation in the Departmental Committee's report?
    Sir J. SIMON: The question of preparing legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee will be considered as soon as the pressure of business permits.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Frederick McKillop, aged 17, hanged himself in Strangeways Prison, Manchester, on 7th November, 1935, while on remand for failing to return to a Home Office school after a holiday; that he had been questioned at Albert Street Police station, Manchester, and asked to sign an admission of thefts; that he attempted to commit suicide by swallowing coins shortly after his arrest; whether he is satisfied that reasonable consideration was shown for the condition of the boy before he was remanded to Strangeways Prison; and whether he will take steps to establish observation centres for the more humane treatment of cases of this kind in accordance with the unanimous recommendation of the Departmental Committee on young offenders nine years ago?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have made full inquiries about this sad case. The youth was arrested on 26th October as an absconder from an approved school. In view of his previous conduct the school
    630
    authorities thought it right that, instead of being brought back to the school, he should be charged before a court. While in police custody he swallowed some coins or discs, but there is no foundation for the suggestion that he was questioned by the police about thefts or asked to sign any admission of thefts. He was treated with proper consideration by the police and was taken to the local hospital for treatment. He was discharged from the hospital on 4th November, his condition being then normal, and taken before the court. The court remanded him to Manchester Prison for a report on his suitability for a Borstal sentence. In the prison he was kept under medical observation, and there are no grounds at all for thinking that his action was in any way attributable to the conditions under which he was detained. In whatever type of institution this youth had been detained it would have been necessary, in view of his history, to subject him to custodial conditions.
    Mr. CREECH JONESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Louis Henry Gardiner, aged 58, who died in Wandsworth Prison on 11th January of Bright's disease, having been committed on 2nd December under a three-months' sentence for loitering with intent to commit a felony; and whether, in view of the prisoner's condition at the time of his sentence, he will take steps to impress upon the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police the importance of a humane exercise of discretion and of regard to the present condition as well as to the past criminal record of the persons suspected, when making arrests for loitering with intent, when no crime has actually been committed?
    Sir J. SIMON: The man in question was arrested on 24th November and had been remanded to prison for a week before he was convicted and sentenced. His arrest was not in any way due to his past record, which was entirely unknown to the officer who arrested him, and while he was in police custody he did not complain of illness nor did he appear to be in need of medical attention. Police instructions already provide for the medical examination and treatment of any person who seems to be suffering from illness when he is brought to a police station, but it is obviously impracticable to pro-

    631
    vide for medical examination before arrest.

    YOUNG PERSONS (ARRESTS).
    Mr. LESLIEasked the Home Secretary the number of young persons between the ages of 14 and 18, and the number between the ages of 18 and 25, arrested and tried for criminal offences during 1935; and what proportion of these young persons were unemployed at the time the offences were committed?
    Sir J. SIMON: I regret that I cannot give this information. Figures are published in the annual volume of Criminal Statistics showing the number of offenders in the age groups 14 to 16, 16 to 21, and 21 to 30, but there are no figures showing how many were unemployed at the time the offences were committed. I am sending the hon. Member the figures in the Criminal Statistics for 1934—which are the latest figures available.

    STAG-HUNTING (SOMERSET).
    Mr. WATKINSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the stag-hunting incident at North Petherton, Somerset, on 21st February; and whether he is prepared to consider introducing legislation to make illegal such cruelty?
    Sir J. SIMON: My attention had not previously been called to this incident, but if the hon. Member will be good enough to forward to me any information in his possession I will consider it.

  TRANSPORT.

    TRAFFIC SIGNS (LONDON).
    Lieut-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZONasked the Home Secretary whether the tripods with blinking lights forbidding traffic temporarily in one direction in some roads in the Metropolis are placed in position after consultation with the Minister of Transport and, if not, on what grounds; whether these obstructions are, in future, to replace the methods of the Orders hitherto laid upon the. Table; and under what statutory power these obstructions are being used?
    Sir J. SIMON: Flashing signs, permitting the display of certain words, have been specifically authorised by the Minister of Transport under Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, for use in the Metropolitan Police District, and authority is being sought for the use of such signs displaying other words. The Commissioner of Police is empowered by Section 52 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, to give directions to constables for keeping order and for preventing any obstruction in the thoroughfares in any case where the streets may be thronged or liable to be obstructed. In order to give effect to these directions, constables are normally posted at the points concerned, but where the arrangements are likely to last for more than a few days, as many constables as possible are withdrawn in order to save manpower, and flashing signs are exhibited for the purpose of giving the necessary directions. These temporary arrangements are not intended to take the place of Regulations made by the Minister of Transport under the London Traffic Act, 1924.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: When the obstruction has been there for two or three days can we, according to the right hon. Gentleman's answer, ignore it?
    Sir. J. SIMON: No, Sir. I do not say that.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that these blinking lights are used, sometimes, for the purpose of prohibiting traffic and sometimes merely to draw attention to the surrounding circumstances, and that therefore their use is not uniform?
    Sir J. SIMON: I should like to have an illustration of what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

    POLICE PROSECUTIONS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Home Secretary to what extent it is the practice for the police to conduct prosecutions in courts of summary jurisdiction; and whether he can give the figures for the last completed year as between police and solicitors.
    Sir J. SIMON: It is the usual practice for a police officer, as informant,

    633
    to conduct the prosecution before a court of summary jurisdiction in cases which are not likely to present special difficulty, but I have no information which would enable me to say how such cases compare in number with those in which the prosecution is professionally represented.

    LICENSING HOURS (VARIATIONS, LONDON).
    Mr. ALAN HERBERTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that closing time in Kensington is now 10 p.m. and at Knightsbridge 11 p.m., in Hammersmith 10 p.m. and in Chiswick 10.30 p.m., at Lambeth 10 p.m. and at Westminster 11 p.m., at Notting Hill Gate 10 p.m., at Paddington 10.30 p.m. and at Marble Arch 11 p.m.; that it is possible for a man with a bicycle to take part in the closing ceremonies in three different licensing divisions on the same evening; whether this state of affairs has the approval of the Government; and, if not, will they introduce a measure to correct it?
    Sir J. SIMON: The differences in closing time referred to by my hon. Friend are due to the principle laid down by Parliament that in view of differing circumstances in different parts of the country, licensing justices should have a certain discretion in fixing permitted hours. Unless there is to be a fixed hour of closing over the whole country, provincial as well as metropolitan and rural as well as urban, a boundary line must exist somewhere, and I have no reason to think that a proposal to carry uniformity to this length would be generally approved.
    Mr. HERBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these variations are a principal cause of drunkenness or of excessive drinking, and is it not time the Government paid serious attention to this very important matter?
    Sir J. SIMON: We certainly pay attention to it, but the hon. Member will see that it is mathematically correct to say that if you have different rules in different places there must be a point at which the rules meet.
    Mr. EMMOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many closing ceremonies a man with a motor car can take part?
    Mr. SANDYS: Have there been many cases of people being had up for being drunk in charge of a bicycle?
    Mr. WISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the differences in local conditions between the districts specified in this question?
    Sir J. SIMON: Under the existing law that is a matter for the licensing justices to consider.
    Mr. MAGNAY: Would it not be the case that the speed of the cyclist would he a decreasing one the further he went?

    JEWISH SHOPKEEPERS (FASCISTS.)
    Mr. CHATERasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the methods of annoyance and persecution employed by Fascist organisations towards Jewish shopkeepers in the borough of Bethnal Green; and whether he will instruct the police to take any preventive steps?
    Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. This matter is engaging my close attention in consultation with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. While this class of offence may be difficult to detect and to bring home to offenders, it is intolerable that any section of the population should be subjected to these methods, and the hon. Member may be assured that the police will take every possible step to put a stop to them in this country.
    Mr. WATKINS: May I take it that the reply applies not merely to Bethnal Green but to the whole of London, and to Hackney in particular?
    Sir J. SIMON: It is a general principle.

    REMANDED PRISONERS (CARDIFF).
    Mr. S. O. DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Governor of Cardiff Prison has circulated to the parents of certain persons a lengthy questionnaire inquiring into the antecedents of the latter now committed for trial in connection with the Taff Merthyr Colliery dispute; that the questionnaire does not contain the appropriate caution that any information given may be used against the accused; and will he take immediate steps to prevent the continuance of this practice which

    635
    assumes in anticipation the guilt and conviction of the accused, and which causes added pain and anxiety to the persons involved and their families?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have already been considering this matter, and intend that in the future letters of inquiry of this kind sent out by the prison authorities shall contain a fuller explanation of their purpose, so as to avoid any possibility of such misunderstandings as have arisen in this case. The object of these inquiries is to enable the prison authorities to carry out their statutory duties of preparing reports for the use of the court as to the suitability of defendants for Borstal treatment. The information obtained is made use of only in the event of the defendant being convicted and in the event of acquittal is treated as entirely confidential. The parents are under no obligation to answer such inquiries.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the type of question put to the parents of young persons awaiting trial, particularly a question of this kind: "Are you prepared to give him (or her) a home and supervision when he (or she) is again at liberty?"? That definitely assumes the guilt and conviction of persons who have not yet been tried.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for giving me that example. It is not intended that there should be any such assumption, but in the interests of the young person himself it is very important that the court should know, at the time it has to decide, what can be done with the co-operation of the parents at home as distinct from having to send the young person to an institution. It is really an effort by the prison authorities to collect information on which the court can act; but I quite agree that there should he no use of a phrase which seems to imply the guilt of the young person.

  EDUCATION.

    MODERN LANGUAGES.
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider affording means in our educational system for an improvement in the
    636
    teaching of modern languages, so that our trades will have their staffs better trained to undertake, salesmanship abroad?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): My Department is constantly occupied in considering means of improving the teaching of all subjects of the curriculum, including modern languages, and with this end in view they are in frequent consultation with representatives of industry and commerce in order to ascertain their needs. I do not doubt that the importance of modern languages, both as a cultural subject, and regarded from the point of view of salesmanship abroad, is fully appreciated by local education authorities and governing bodies.
    Mr. DAY: Does the Minister agree that there is need for improvement in the system of teaching languages?
    Mr. C. BROWN: In view of the present state of world affairs, will the Minister consider teaching Russian in the schools?
    Captain PLUGGE: Is it not a fact that foreign broadcasting stations provide ample opportunity for the learning of modern languages?

    PENSIONS (SUPPLEMENTARY TEACHERS).
    Sir ROBERT YOUNGasked the President of the Board of Education in how many places the local education authorities have undertaken to grant pensions to supplementary teachers; what is the weekly amount of such pensions; and whether in any places, the supplementary teachers pay any contributions towards the expense of such pensions?
    Mr. STANLEY: I have no information enabling me to give my useful figures on this matter, but I understand that a number of local authorities have admitted supplementary teachers to the benefits of pension schemes conducted by them, whether under the Local Government and Other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922, or local Acts. In general, the rate of pension in these cases would not be fixed, but would vary with amount of service, final salaries and possibly other factors; contributions would be payable by the teachers.
    Sir R. YOUNG: Is this a matter entirely for the local education authorities, or have the Minister and his Department power to advise the granting of such a pension?
    Mr. STANLEY: It is a matter entirely for the local authorities.
    Mr. LEACH: If a local authority has had a member of its permanent staff transferred for any reason to the supplementary list, can the authority escape its superannuation obligations?
    Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

    RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION (DOMINIONS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the President of the Board of Education which of the British Dominions the system of education in the public schools does not provide for religious instruction?
    Mr. STANLEY: The information available on this subject is not easily summarised within the limits of a Parliamentary Question and Answer, and I am therefore sending the hon. Member a note containing such particulars as I have been able to collect.
    Mr. THURTLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show whether in New Zealand, which is a Dominion where no religious instruction is given in the schools, the morals are inferior to those of other Dominions?
    Mr. STANLEY: The information which I have as to the education and the morals of New Zealand will be found in the letter.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman cover the situation in the Province of Quebec?

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION (LEEDS).
    Mr. LUNNasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the inadequate school accommodation at Halton, in the city of Leeds; that the present school is old and unsuitable for the children; that all children over 11 years of age have to go long distances in tramcars or omnibuses to school; that in a Bill promoted by the Leeds Corporation in 1928 a Clause was inserted that a school may be provided within five years at Halton and that, to-day, agitation exists and petitions are
    638
    being signed by the parents for a new school; and what action the board will take to ensure adequate and healthy accommodation for the education of the children in this area?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am aware that the premises of the Halton council school are old, but I have no reason to think that they are inadequate for the numbers attending, unsuitable or unhealthy. I am informed that the local education authority will be prepared to provide new accommodation when circumstances justify it, but that they do not regard it as needed at the present time.
    Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to see me on the matter?
    Mr. STANLEY: Yes, certainly.

    DONCASTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Education what attitude he is adopting towards the proposal of the governors of the Doncaster Grammar School to throw the planning of the proposed new school open to competition?
    Mr. STANLEY: In the first instance, the Board expressed some doubt as to the wisdom of throwing open the plans to competition. The question has, however, since been discussed between representatives of my Department and of the local education authority; and I do not wish to interfere with the authority's discretion, if they are satisfied that this course is calculated to result in the production of a thoroughly efficient design for the new buildings.
    Mr. SHORT: When is this new school likely to be completed, in view of the deplorable conditions that prevail in the existing school?
    Mr. T. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a good many parts of Doncaster the authorities are getting anxious about the delay in providing ample school accommodation, and will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to expedite the matter?
    Mr. STANLEY: I can certainly give that assurance. We are very anxious to get it done as soon as possible.
    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Education how many pupils attend the Doncaster Grammar School?
    Mr. STANLEY: On 1st October last, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of pupils was 582.
    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Education on how many occasions during recent years the pupils attending the Doncaster Grammar School have been sent home owing to intense cold?
    Mr. STANLEY: I have no information on the subject; but I am causing inquiries to be made, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

    GRANT FORMULA.
    Mr. HOLLINSasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the simplification of the present grant formula for grants to local education authorities for primary, secondary, and technical education; whether he will substitute some other form of calculation for that part of the formula which reduces the grant by the amount of a 7d. rate; and is he aware that the operation of this formula places local education committees in a difficult position when making their yearly estimates?
    Mr. STANLEY: I understand the hon. Member's question to refer to the grant formula for elementary education as the grant on secondary and technical education is at a flat rate of 50 per cent. I have had the question of revising the formula for elementary education before me, but I have come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to gain some experience of the working of the Government's proposals for educational reform before considering whether any change in the grant formula should be made.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in consequence of the enormous fall in the number of the child population, particularly of the distressed areas, this formula is affecting the education rate, for example in places like Glamorgan and Monmouth?
    Mr. STANLEY: It is rather a difficult question. As the hon. Member knows, the depressed areas are assisted over and above the ordinary educational grant.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Our education rate has increased by Is. 6d. in the £ this year, owing to the fall in population.

    ARMAMENTS INDUSTRY (PROFITS).
    Mr. STOURTONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the rising prices of shares of firms that may benefit from rearmament; and whether he will reassure public opinion by indicating what principles govern the policy of the Departments concerned in placing orders for arms, aircraft, and equipment to ensure that manufacturers' profits are strictly limited?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. Friend to what I said on Monday last in replying to a question addressed to me by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Bradford (Mr. Leach).
    Mr. STOURTON: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that competent firms will be given an opportunity of tendering for orders.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I believe so. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a detailed question like that on the Paper.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government, simultaneously with its other preparations to meet the possible contingency of another war, will arrange for the preparation of a scheme, through the appropriate Department, to prevent profiteering in national necessities, and will have such a scheme drawn up in a form which will make it capable of immediate application?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member is referring to armaments, I can add nothing to the statements which have already been made to the House. The question of prices and profits in relation to other commodities in the event of a national emergency concerns many Departments, and the nature of the steps to be taken must depend upon the circumstances of the particular emergency. Arrangements are in hand to meet the contingency if it were to occur.

    AIR DEFENCE.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister, in view of his pledge to make the British Air Force equal in strength to that of any other country within

    641
    striking distance of our shores, which great Powers he includes in that category at the present moment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot amplify the statements already made on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Why does the formula, not include "within striking distance of the British Empire"?
    Mr. SANDYS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that unless we can be told the countries upon which the Government are basing their calculations, it is difficult for the House to form a just appreciation of the expansion programme?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The matters comprised in this question have been very fully debated in the House, and certainly will be debated again. I think assurances have been given which will convey satisfaction to my hon. Friend. It is a little difficult to make statements of a very definite nature Lo the House on a matter of this kind. The standard was laid down for this country, and it is for this country that the Government are primarily responsible. My hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), whom I do not think we had the pleasure of seeing in the last House, may remember that there were

    Deaths associated with vaccination and classified to Vaccinia

    Deaths classified to Chicken Pox.

    Deaths classified to Erysipelas.

    Under 5 years.

    Over5 years.

    Under 5 years.

    Over5 years.

    1933

    …

    …

    3

    31

    12

    296

    895

    1934

    …

    …

    5

    36

    10

    231

    1,227

    1935

    …

    …

    4

    Not yet available.

    Not yet available.

    CHLOROFORM POISONING.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Health the number of the deaths attributable to chloroform poisoning for the years 1933, 1934 and 1935?
    Sir K. WOOD: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to the number of fatalities in maternity cases?
    quite a number of discussions as to the comparative strength of the British Air Force and the Air Forces on the Continent. It was entirely out of the discussions which arose on that occasion that this formula was put before the House as the object of the British Government in the British Isles.
    Mr. MANDER: Is there not to be an Empire policy for defence?

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    VACCINATION.
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Minister of Health how many of the deaths associated with vaccination on certificates of deaths in the years 1933, 1934 and 1935, respectively, were or will be classified by the Registrar-General to vaccinia; and how many deaths under five and over five years of age, respectively, were or will be classified as chicken-pox and erysipelas during the years in question?
    The MINISTER OF HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the figures, so far as they are available, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    Sir K. WOOD: I would prefer that the hon. Gentleman should look at the figures. If he wants any further information, perhaps he will put down another question.
    Following is the answer:
    In 1933, 10 deaths from chloroform poisoning (five suicides and five accidental deaths) were registered in England and Wales, of which four were attributable to chloroform alone and six to liniment (aconite, belladonna and chloroform). The corresponding figures

    643
    for 1934 were four deaths (three suicides and one homicide), of which two were attributable to chloroform alone, one to chloroform and iodine, and one to liniment. The figures for 1935 are not as yet available.

    SCARLET FEVER (PINXTON, DERBYSHIRE).
    Mr. HOLLANDasked the Minister of Health the number of persons in the parish of Pinxton, Derbyshire, who were affected with scarlet fever during the months of November and December, 1935, and January, 1936; whether he is aware that complaints have been made regarding the unsatisfactory sanitary arrangements in this parish; and whether he is assured that such sanitary arrangements have no connection with this outbreak?
    Sir K. WOOD: The number of persons affected with scarlet fever during the time mentioned was, as I am informed by the local authority, 25. According to the report by the medical officer of health, no evidence has been found that the sanitary conditions contributed to the outbreak in question. I am informed, however, that the sanitary conditions at Pinxton are not regarded as satisfactory, and that the rural district council have under consideration a scheme for the reorganisation of the sewage disposal works of the parish.

    BURNING PIT-HEAPS.
    Mr. BELLENGERasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a burning pit-tip at the Harworth colliery, in the Bassetlaw division of Nottinghamshire, is causing a nuisance and is injurious to the health of the residents in the near vicinity; and whether he will take steps to have the nuisance abated?
    Sir K. WOOD: No recent information on this subject, which is primarily a matter for the local authority to deal with, has reached me. I will bring the hon. Member's inquiry to the notice of the local authority.
    Mr. BELLENGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this matter has been before the local authority, and that no effective action whatever has been taken? Is it possible for his Department to do something effective to abate this nuisance?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have already stated that this is a matter for the local authority. I will bring the hon. Gentleman's questions to their notice.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If the rural council default, have the county authority the power to step in and abate the nuisance?
    Mr. C. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the way in which a local authority can deal with this matter?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is a matter for them.
    Mr. BANFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for the Bill with regard to this matter which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have nothing to do with that.
    Mr. R. J. TAYLORasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the complaints coming from all the mining districts about the obnoxious fumes emanating from burning pit-heaps, he is prepared to introduce legislation to enable local authorities to take action in the matter?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. I understand that the main difficulty is not the absence of statutory powers, but the devising of practical methods for controlling the tips.

    NATIONAL PARKS (CANNOCK CHASE).
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the. Minister of Health what progress has been made toward a portion of Cannock Chase being preserved for a national park; and whether the adjacent authorities are supporting the proposal?
    Sir K. WOOD: A planning scheme for an area including Cannock Chase is being prepared by a joint committee upon which the local authorities of adjacent districts are represented.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
    Mr. A. HENDERSONasked the Minister of Health the number of widows who were refused pensions under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts during the years

    645
    1932 to 1935, inclusive, by reason of their husbands permitting continuity of insurance to be broken during periods of unemployment through failure to have their cards franked at the employment exchanges?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware that claims for pension have been refused for the reason given by the hon. Member. Failure to secure franks at the employment exchange does not necessarily involve loss of pension, because alternative evidence can be submitted in proof of unemployment.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in a number of eases which I have brought to the notice of his Department, the unfortunate widow has been deprived of pension on the ground that the husband, during the two-years standard period of insurance, has failed to have the necessary amount of franks put on his card, and, as a result, there has been a break in the continuity of his insurance?
    Sir K. WOOD: I should like it to be understood that all alternative evidence that is available will be taken into account.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman make that clear to the local authorities, in view of the fact that, under the regulations issued by the Ministry of Labour in reference to inconsiderable employment, which were discussed here last night, the number of these cases is likely to increase?
    Sir K. WOOD: I do not think that that is so, and in any case the officials are well acquainted with the matter.
    Mr. A. HENDERSONasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce legislation to allow small shopkeepers to become voluntary contributors under the National Health Insurance Acts?
    Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement regarding extension of insurance which I made in this House on 10th December last, and of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, when the new legislation is introduced, it will not he limited to small shopkeepers?
    Sir K. WOOD: I could not give that assurance.
    Mr. HENDERSONasked the Minister of Health the total number of widows who claimed pensions under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Con-tributary Pensions Acts during the years 1932 to 1935, inclusive; the number granted and the number refused owing to stamp disqualifications; and whether he will consider introducing legislation to mitigate the hardship caused by such refusals?
    Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the earlier parts of the hon. Member's question contains a number of figures, and I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The answer to the last part is in the negative. In a contributory scheme certain minimum conditions must be complied with, and the finances of the scheme will not permit any further relaxation of the conditions laid down in the Contributory Pensions Acts.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the scheme is by no means effective at the present time; and, in the event of his being satisfied that that is so, will he consider introducing legislation?
    Sir K. WOOD: It is a question of finance.
    Following are the figures:

    Claims to Widows Pensions in England and Wales.

    1932.

    1933.

    1934.

    1935.

    Claims received.

    86,420

    90,600

    83,570

    78,960

    Pensions awarded.

    80,170

    77,890

    70,790

    67,960

    Claims rejected.

    13,170

    12,050

    11,880

    11,450

    Details of the causes of rejection are not available, but it may be taken that the number which failed on contribution tests did not reach 10 per cent. of the total rejections.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Health, with regard to the case of a voluntary contributor under the National Health and Old Age Pensions Acts who removes to the Irish Free State, what arrangements are made to

    647
    enable such a person to continue paying contributions and to draw the pension there on reaching the age of 65 or, alternatively, to obtain a refund of the amounts voluntarily paid in?
    Sir K. WOOD: A voluntary contributor under the health and pensions insurance scheme who removes to the Irish Free State may in that country continue his insurance for pensions only, with an appropriately reduced contribution, and receive payment of the pension when it falls due. I am sending my hon. Friend a leaflet giving details of the arrangements. There is no provision for the refund of contributions properly paid.
    Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the uncertainty which exists among many insured persons as to the rights of becoming voluntary contributors in specific circumstances, he will instruct approved societies to exercise greater care in warning their members as to their rights and privileges under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts?
    Sir K. WOOD: Instructions on the subject to which my hon. Friend refers have already been given to all approved societies. I will consider whether any further steps can be taken to secure that full and correct information is given.
    Mr. HOLLINSasked the Minister of Health whether he is contemplating legislation to extend the National Health Insurance Act so as to include small traders and persons working on their own account; and, if so, whether he will take into consideration the reduction of the pensionable age at which spinsters may be entitled to the pension from 65 to 55 years?
    Sir K. WOOD: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement regarding extension of insurance which I made in this House on 10th December last, and of which I am sending him a copy. As regards the second part, I would refer to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Walthamstow on 20th February.
    Miss RATHBONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the system of
    648
    health insurance as affecting elderly women is a little better than a fraud, and even more so unemployment insurance, and will he instigate an inquiry into both forms of insurance as they affect women contributors, who are paying more than double what the benefits are worth?
    Sir K. WOOD: I deprecate this violent language.
    Mr. BELLENGER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that what the hon. Lady says is true?
    Mr. R. C. MORRISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider amending the present scheme of widows' pensions to include certain groups of widows in poor circumstances at present excluded from the scheme?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I assume that the hon. Member has in mind extension of the classes eligible for noncontributory widows' pensions. If so, I regret that this is not practicable.

    SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Kingston Town Council is making advances on mortgage, under the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, in respect of property on an estate the subject of numerous complaints by occupiers of serious structural and other defects; whether the town council has invited him to open an inquiry for the purpose of investigating the complaints referred to; and whether he is prepared to advise the Kingston Town Council and all other local authorities to withhold any further advances on mortgage of property on this particular estate, or on any other estates being developed by the builder in question, pending investigation of the allegations in respect thereto?
    Sir K. WOOD: My predecessor was invited to co-operate with the town council in an inquiry into certain allegations which had been mode in regard to one estate. These allegations were, however, the subject of legal proceedings, and I understand these proceedings are still before the courts. I understand that the council have made advances on a number

    649
    of houses on the estate, and that every practicable step has been taken to put right the defects complained of. It is, of course, a matter for the council to decide in any particular cases whether they will make an advance, and I see no reason to interfere with their discretion on this matter.
    Mr. HICKS: Is the Minister aware that, on the day following the passing of the town council's resolution, the builder issued a writ, and thus rendered an inquiry impossible? If the case, after the lapse of nearly 12 months, is now sub judice and is still before the courts, ought not the loans to be in the same position?
    Sir K. WOOD: It is a difficult matter to deal with a case in which legal proceedings are pending, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the council have taken steps to put the defects complained of in proper order.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter con-terns, not only Kingston, but a large 'Lumber of suburban areas in London?
    Sir K. WOOD: The question relates to a particular district.
    Mr. R. C. MORRISONasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider granting powers enabling local authorities to loan money to owner-occupiers of small dwellings for the purpose of redeeming mortgages at high interest rates and replacing them with advances under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. I do not consider that an amendment of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act in the sense suggested would be desirable.

    HOUSING ACTS (SPECIAL AREAS).
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to promote a short Bill to amend the Housing Act, 1930, and the Housing Act, 1935, to provide that rate contribution by local authorities in the special areas shall he optional?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am unable to undertake to promote legislation for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (E. WALL BANK, CASTLEFORD).
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Ernest Wallbank, 75, Wheldon Road, Castle-ford, an unemployed ex-service man, has been refused any relief except an order for admission to the workhouse by the West Riding Public Assistance Committee; and whether he will have inquiries made with a view to the case being reconsidered?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am making inquiries into this case, and will communicate further with the hon. Member.
    Mr. SMITH: Will the Minister, in making his inquiries, keep in mind the fact that this man had between 3½ and 4 years' service in France during the Great War; and will the right hon. Gentleman also satisfy himself that there is no prejudice against the man?
    Sir K. WOOD: I will make full inquiries.

    BLOCK GRANT (DURHAM).
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the number of unemployed persons in the county of Durham is greater now than in 1927, when the basis of the block grant was agreed upon, and the sole revision was in 1933, when a small measure of relief was provided; that the burden is still greater than the block grant formula intended; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce the load which the ratepayers are now bearing?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am aware of the increase in the volume of unemployment in the county of Durham since 1927, and would remind the hon. Member that the basis of distribution of the block grant payable under the Local Government Act, 1929, is, in accordance with the provisions of Section 110 of that Act, now being investigated in consultation with the Associations of Local Authorities with a view to determining what changes, if any, should be made with effect from 1st April, 1937. In addition to the block grant the county council is receiving since 1st March, 1935, a special grant (equivalent to a rate of Is. 4d.) under the Unemployment Assistance Acts.

    FOOD SUPPLIES (UNEMPLOYED).
    Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the consumption by families of the unemployed of meat, including beef, mutton, bacon, etc., and of eggs, is, like that of milk, only about one-third that of the average of the whole country, he will take the necessary steps, as in the case of milk, to ensure cheaper supplies to unemployed of these essential foodstuffs, and thus raise the low nutritional standards of these citizens?
    Sir K. WOOD: The consumption of the commodities mentioned as well as of other food stuffs by various classes of the community is a matter which receives the constant attention of my Advisory Committee on Nutrition, but the most effective steps that can be taken to raise nutritional standards are undoubtedly such steps as are being taken by the Government to reduce unemployment and increase purchasing power.

    SEWAGE SCHEME (MID-GLAMORGAN).
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to approve of the Mid-Glamorgan sewage scheme and recommend a grant-in-aid up to 100 per cent. of the proposed expenditure, in order to remove a menace to the health of these thickly populated valleys and help in absorbing the unemployed in this distressed area?
    Sir K. WOOD: A public inquiry into this scheme is being held on the 4th proximo to assist me in advising the Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales) on the merits of the scheme and the rate of grant appropriate.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    WAR LOANS (INTEREST).
    Mr. CHATERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state to the last available date the aggregate sum which has been paid as interest upon loans contracted for the purposes of the Great War?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will find in the National Debt Return (Command Paper 4996 of 1935) full particulars of the annual charges for interest
    652
    on the National Debt from 1913 to 1934 inclusive. It is not possible, owing to the various conversion and redemption operations which have taken place, to distinguish what portion of the whole represents interests on loans contracted for the purposes of the War.

    SPIRIT DUTIES (EVASION).
    Mr. RICHARDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that cheap spirits from Hamburg, Rotterdam and Spain are being added by importers to so-called Empire wines and wine cocktails, so that bottles containing these pay only is. 4d. duty, as against 8s. 5½ duty on the equivalent amount of alcohol sold as whisky; and whether he proposes to devise regulations to prevent loss of revenue and this form of encouragement to the consumption of ardent spirits?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the provision of the Customs law governing the fortification of wines in bond, and I am also aware of the comparison between the taxation of alcohol in the form of wine and in the form of spirits; with regard to the second part of the question, the matter is kept under constant observation, but I cannot say more at present.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what is meant by the phrase "alcohol, sold as whisky" and where it can be obtained?

    INCOME TAX ARREARS.
    Lieut.-Commander FLETCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a recent bankruptcy case in which some £16,000 arrears of Income Tax had accumulated over a period of years; and why such arrears were allowed to accumulate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers and I can assure him that the accumulation of these arrears did not result from any inactivity on the part of the taxation authorities in making assessments and endeavouring to obtain collection. A considerable part of the tax due was collected, and there is reason to expect that a considerable part of the arrear will also be collected.
    Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how bitterly

    653
    these repeated cases are resented by small taxpayers who have made the most gallant struggles to pay their own Income Tax and yet see this evasion practised by others?

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to assist the conversion of interest charges on loans upon public works constructed by local authorities as a means of reducing the burden of rates, particularly in the distressed areas of Great Britain?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Local authorities in Very many cases have been able to convert their securities to a lower rate of interest. Where that is impossible or not yet possible because the contract between the lender and the borrower does not give the borrower an option to convert at present, the State cannot interfere.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that high interest charges on public loans seriously affect the revival of industry in distressed areas and will he not put the matter right?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot add anything to my answer.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Minister of Health a lecture on the wisdom of conversion as applied to the Small Dwellings Act?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I never lecture the Minister of Health.

  DEFENCE SERVICES (CO-ORDINATION).

    PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.
    Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the intention of the Government in the matter of coordination of the Defence Services?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. This is a matter to which increasing attention has necessarily been devoted during recent months. It has been my experience that, apart altogether from defence questions, the all-round pressure of work has tended to increase in recent years, with a corresponding increase in the de-
    654
    mands upon the Cabinet and, in particular, upon the Prime Minister.
    When, as was explained in March last, in spite of all the efforts of successive Governments to secure international disarmament, it became clear that we could no longer delay active preparations for remedying the deficiencies in our fighting services, and when, over and above that, we were faced with our responsibilities as a member of the League of Nations in the Italo-Abyssinian situation, it was obvious that in the near future there were bound to be large numbers of important and difficult defence questions requiring unremitting attention. As there appears to be no likelihood of any diminution in the other demands upon the time and attention of the Prime Minister, it has become clear in the course of a thorough examination of the whole problem that, for the time being at any rate, he must have some special assistance in regard to defence matters. This, of course, does not mean that the Prime Minister can divest himself of the final responsibility for directing the co-ordination of defence, nor can there be any weakening of the responsibility of the individual Service Ministers.
    Bearing in mind these principles, we have reached certain decisions. Before saying what these decisions are I should, perhaps, explain that the Committee of Imperial Defence—of which the Prime Minister is Chairman—has long been, and must still remain, an essential link in all matters of defence. This coordinating instrument must be in a continual state of development and adaptation to meet the circumstances of the time, and when the Government set themselves to the task of working out the defence proposals now under consideration, they set up last July a special Ministerial Sub-Committee known as the Defence Policy and Requirements Committee, to keep the defensive situation as a whole constantly under review so as to ensure that our defence arrangements and our foreign policy are in line, and to advise the Cabinet and Committee of Imperial Defence in the light of the international and financial situation as to any necessary changes in policy or in the defence proposals. I have mentioned this important Sub-Committee so that the references to it that I shall make in announcing the decisions that have been reached may be intelligible.

    655
    It has been decided that, while the Prime Minister will retain, as be clearly must, the Chairmanship of the Committee of Imperial Defence and of the Defence Policy and Requirements Committee, a Minister will be appointed as Deputy-Chairman of these Committees to whom the Prime Minister will delegate the following duties:

    (i). The general day-to-day supervision and control on the Prime Minister's behalf of the whole organisation and activity of the Committee of Imperial Defence; the co-ordination of executive action and of monthly progress reports to the Cabinet, or any Committee appointed by them, on the execution of the re-conditioning plans; discernment of any points which either have not been taken up or are being pursued too slowly, and (in consultation with the Prime Minister or other Ministers or Committees as required) of appropriate measures for their rectification;

    (ii). In the Prime Minister's absence, taking the Chair at the Committee of Imperial Defence and the Defence Policy and Requirements Committee;

    (iii). Personal consultation with the Chiefs of Staff together, including the right to convene under his chairmanship the Chiefs of Staff Committee whenever he or they think desirable;

    (iv). The chairmanship of the Principal Supply Officers Committee.

    It will he the duty of the Deputy-Chairman to make such recommendations as he thinks necessary for improving the organisation of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
    The position of the Chiefs of Staff Committee will be as follows:—The individuals composing it have a double function: each advises his own political chief, and acting together the Committee preserves unimpaired the right to submit confidential reports of their collective military view to the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence. It is not proposed that meetings of the Chiefs of Staff Committee should normally take place under the presidency of the Deputy-Chairman. He will supplement the present activities and initiative of the Chiefs of Staff Committee by guidance and initiative of his own, his function being to ensure that
    656
    every aspect is fully considered and that difficulties and differences are frankly faced.
    As I said earlier, the Minister will be in a position to make recommendations as to any improvement that he thinks necessary in the organisation of the Committee of Imperial Defence. In any event, and for purposes of co-ordinated planning, the existing Joint Planning Committee, which consists of the Directors of Plans in the three Service Departments, will be supplemented by three officers drawn respectilely from the Navy, Army and Air Force, who will be graduates of the Imperial Defence College.
    The three new officers will hold official positions on the staffs of their respective Departments. Their work in their own Departments will be chiefly that of obtaining the necessary material for the preparation of joint plans. But their main work will be on collective plans prepared by the Joint. Planning Committee for submission to the Chiefs of Staff Committee.
    In addition, steps have been approved for the strengthening of the Secretariat of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
    Mr. ATTLEE: When does the Prime Minister intend to inform the House as to who is to act in this position?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In due course; I am not in a position to do that to-day.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the right. hon. Gentleman now in a position to inform the House whether or not there is to be a change in the present secretaryship of the Committee of Imperial Defence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing at the moment to add to that statement. It will, undoubtedly, be fully debated.
    Sir HUGH O'NEILL: Will the Minister who is to act as Deputy-Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence hold any other office, or will it be a whole-time appointment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that it will be whole-time work.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is it to be understood that it will be the practice for this important Minister to be in this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That I am not yet in a position to answer.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to inform the House of the name of the proposed Deputy-Chairman, and whether he is to be a Member of this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope, shortly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister three questions on business? Can he now state when the White Paper on Defence will be available to Members?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The White Paper relating to Defence will be available to Members in the Vote Office during the afternoon of Wednesday next.
Mr. ATTLEE: When is it proposed to have the discussion on Defence?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday and Tuesday of the week following.
Mr. ATTLEE: Does the Prime Minister think that it is reasonable that, the Government having taken months, Members of this House are to be given only two days, apart from a week-end, to consider this matter before it comes up for debate? It raises one of the biggest issues that we have had, and it is intolerable that we should not have more time.
The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot understand the heat of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government and the House have been working at high pressure for a long time, and, as far as I am concerned, I am only too grateful if I have a week-end to devote wholly to the consideration of any one subject. We are doing our utmost to get the White Paper ready. If it can be got ready on Tuesday —if we go on as we are doing now—and the House is now working overtime to do it—Tuesday would be the very earliest date on which we could get it ready. The difficulty, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is that the debate was promised to the House before the Service Estimates were introduced. The Service Estimates will be in the Vote Office next week and will be taken in rapid succession after this debate. As a matter of fact, even if this White Paper is issued on Wednesday, there will be Thursday, Friday and
658
Saturday, and also Sunday, if hon. Members have no objection to working on that day.
Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Prime Minister realise that in a matter of this kind it is necessary for discussions to take place between Members and for opinions to be obtained, and that the week-end is extraordinarily difficult for that purpose. It is true that the House is working at high pressure, but is it not right that the House should be able to do its work properly? How can the House deal with a vital and important matter of policy like this in far less time than is given to an ordinary minor Government Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: I will do my best to get the White Paper out the day before, and thus give it an extra day, but I can see no other course open to us if we are to bring it on before the debates on the Estimates take place, and we have worked with the utmost speed to get this work finished in time, as we understood that it was the desire of the whole House.
Mr. ATTLEE: Can the Prime Minister say what business it is proposed to take next week; and, secondly, how far he proposes to go to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The business for next week is as follows:
Monday: Discussion of the Opposition Vote of Censure with regard to Special Areas; Report stage of outstanding Supplementary Estimates; and Third Reading of the Milk (Extensions of Temporary Provisions) Bill.
Tuesday: First Allotted Day: Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account, Committee stage. A Debate on Unemployment will take place. Third Reading of the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Bill.
Wednesday: Private Members' Motions.
Thursday: Second Allotted Day: Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account, Report stage.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
It is hoped to make further progress during the week with the Unemployment (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill, the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill, and the Consolidated Fund Bill.
On any day other Orders may be taken as time permits.
We hope to-day to obtain the first five Orders.
Mr. ATTLEE: Are we to understand that on Tuesday the Government are putting down the Motion for the Third Reading of the British Shipping Subsidy Bill at the very end of the day, and does not the Third Reading stage become a farce when taken at a late hour The Third Reading is a very important stage, and the House should have a full opportunity for discussion, particularly on the British Shipping Subsidy Bill, on which a very important issue is to be raised. It is really becoming extraordinarily difficult for the House to do its business if we are to have the Third Reading of such important Bills taken at a very late hour.
The PRIME MINISTER: I have sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I have no desire or intention to make that a general practice. But I must remind the House once more, that at this particular period of the year, we are always up against fixed dates for the transaction of financial business, and I would repeat that we have not as yet attempted to take any Private Members' time. In the course of the next 10 days we have, in addition to Private Members' time, to debate the Opposition Vote of Censure and to provide two days for the Defence Debate. The time is therefore considerably restricted. I have no desire and no intention, more than is absolutely necessary at this time of the year, of following that procedure.
Mr. ATTLEE: Is it not now clear to the Prime Minister that he should have accepted the suggestion made from these benches and have arranged for the House to assemble earlier?

Division No. 65.]

AYES.

[4.2 p.m.

Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr. p G.

Bracken, B.

Clarke, F. E.

Albery, I. J.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Clarry, Sir R. G.

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

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

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

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Colville, L t. Col. D. J.

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

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

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

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

Bull, B. B.

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

Anstruther Gray, W. J.

Burgley, Lord

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

Apsley, Lord

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

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

Aske, Sir R. W.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

Assheton, R.

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Atholl, Duchess of

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Crooke, J. S.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cartland, J. R. H.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

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

Carver, Major W. H.

Cross, R. H.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Gary, R. A.

Crossley, A. C.

Baxter, A. Beverley

Cautley, Sir H. S.

Culverwell, C. T.

Belt, Sir A. L.

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

Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.

Bernays, R. H.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

Blair, Sir R.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Dawson, Sir P.

Blindell, Sir J.

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

De la Bère, R.

Borodale, Viscount

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Bossom, A. C.

Channon, H.

Denville, Alfred

Boulton, W. W.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Despencer Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Dodd, J. S.

Mr. TINKER: Will the Prime Minister arrange for an earlier time for discussion of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill? It has previously been discussed after 11 o'clock at night, and we think we ought to have it a bit earlier next time.
Miss RATHBONE: When will there be an opportunity of discussing the report of the Statutory Committee on Unemployment Insurance which was announced by the Minister of Labour to-day?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Order is not on the Paper yet.
Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply about the Pensions Bill to which I have referred?
Mr. BATEY: When is it intended to bring on the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill? We want to know.
The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not catch what I said earlier. I said that during the week we hoped to make further progress with that Bill. It is not put down for any particular time, and everything depends on what progress we make with business.
Mr. TINKER: The Chief Whip of the Government slipped it in after 11 o'clock last time.
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, 245; Noes, 127.

Donner, P. W.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Rowlands, G.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Kimball, L.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Kirkpatrlck, W. M.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Duggan, H. J.

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

Salmon, Sir I.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Latham, Sir P.

Salt, E. W.

Dunglass, Lord

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

Samuel, Sir A, M. (Farnham)

Dunne, P. R. R.

Leckle, J. A.

Samuel, M, R. A. (Putney)

Eckersley, P. T.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Sandys, E. D.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Levy, T.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Ellis, Sir G.

Lewis, O.

Savery, Servington

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Lindsay, K. M.

Scott, Lord William

Emrys- Evans, P. V.

Llewellin, Lleut.-Col. J. J.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Errlngton, E.

Lloyd, G. W.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Erskine Hill, A. G.

Locker- Lampson, Comdr, O. S.

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

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

Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

Smiles, Lleut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Everard, W. L.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Flides, Sir H.

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

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Findlay, Sir E.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Somerset, T.

Fleming, E. L.

McKie, J. H.

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J,

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

Ganzoni, Sir J.

Magnay, T.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

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

Maitland, A.

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

Giuckstein, L. H.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Goldie, N. B.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Storey, S.

Goodman, Col, A, W.

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

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Granville, E. L.

Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Maxwell, S. A.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

May hew, Lt.-Col. J.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Sutcliffe, H.

Grirmston, R. V.

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

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Moreing, A. C.

Tate, Mavis C.

Guy, J. C. M.

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

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

Morrison, W. S. (Clrencester)

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

Hamilton, Sir G. C.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Hanbury, Sir C.

Munro, P. M.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Hannah, I. C.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Touche, G. C.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

O'Neill; Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Harvey, G.

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

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel A. P.

Peat, C. U.

Turton, R. H.

Hepburn, P, G. T. Buchan-

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Wakefield, W. W.

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Petherick. M.

Wallace, Captain Euan

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Pilkington, R.

Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

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

Plugge, L. F.

Warrender, Sir V.

Holmes, J. S.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Porritt, R. W.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Hopkinson, A.

Pownall, Sir A. Assheton

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

Hore Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.

Procter, Major H. A.

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

Horsbrugh, Florence

Purbrick, R.

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Rankin, R.

Wise, A. R.

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Hulbert, N. J.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Hunter, T.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Kurd, Sir P. A.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Jackson, Sir H.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Jarvis, Sir. J. J.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Sir George Penny and Lieut. -

Keeling, E. H.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Adamson, W. M.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Hardie, G. D.

Amman, C. G.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Harris, Sir P. A.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Day, H.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Dabble, W.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Banfield, J. W.

Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)

Hicks, E. G.

Barnes, A. J.

Ede, J. C.

Holland, A.

Batey, J.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Hollins, A.

Beilenger, F.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Hopkin, D.

Benson, G.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Broad, F. A.

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

John, W.

Brooke, W.

Foot, D. M.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Frankel, D.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Chater, D.

Gallacher, W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Cluse, W. S.

Gardner, B. W.

Kelly, W. T.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Gibbins, J.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Cocks, F. S.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Kirkwood, D.

Compton, J.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon, A.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Grenfell, D. R.

Lawson, J. J.

Daggar, G.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Leach, W.

Dalton, H.

Groves, T. E.

Lee, F.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Leonard, W.

662

663

Leslie, J. R.

Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.

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

Logan, D. G.

Potts, J.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Lunn, W.

Pritt, D. N.

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

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Quibell, J. D.

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

McEntee, V. La T.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

McGovern, J.

Riley, B.

Thome, W.

Maclean, N.

Rltson, J.

Thurtie, E.

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland-, N.)

Tinker, J. J.

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Vlant, S. P.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Walkden, A. G.

Mander, G. le M.

Rowson, G,

Walker, J.

Marklew, E.

Salter, Dr. A.

Watkins. F. C.

Mathers, G.

Seely. Sir H. M.

Westwood, J.

Maxtor, J.

Sexton, T. M.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Messer, F.

Shinwell, E.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Milner, Major J.

Short, A.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Montague, F.

Silverman, S. S.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercllffe)

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

Simpson, F. B.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

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

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Paling, W.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Parker, H. J. H.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

  REFRESHMENT ROOMS AND LAVATORIES.
  That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to report upon the accommodation for Refreshment Rooms and Lavatories in the Palace of Westminster, do meet in the Chairman of Committee's Committee Room on Thursday, the 5th of March next, at half-past Two o'clock.
  Lords Message considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Sir G. Penny.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Sir Reginald Blair, Mr. Haslam, and Mr. Maitland; and had appointed in substitution: Mr.
  664
  Anstruther-Gray, Captain Ramsay, and Lord William Scott.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Holmes; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Richard Russell.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

PUBLIC REFRESHMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading To-morrow read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £27,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
    4.12 p.m.
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Committee will observe that this Vote is not a request for more money but an indication that the Appropriations-in-Aid which we expected to receive in support of our work this year did not come up to expectations. The Appropriations-in-Aid or this Vote, Vote 6 of Class VII of the Estimates, arise in this way: There are certain services which the Office of Works carries out for other Government Departments on, as it were an agency basis, a recoverable basis. An outstanding example and the main reason why this Vote is before the Committee this afternoon is the Post Office. We do some of the Post Office work. We put up the actual buildings of the telephone exchanges and -then recover from the Post Office a charge of 11 per cent. for the expenses of our architects, quantity surveyors and the like. We cannot get that money back from the other Departments for whom we have provided such service until we have completed the work. The main cause of this Vote coming forward this afternoon is to be found in the new Post Office expenditure for the year. The Post Office estimated for a new capital expenditure during the year of £1,365,000. We have underspent on that anticipated programme for new Post Office buildings by approximately £100,000. Therefore, we reckon to be approximately £11,000 down in our receipts this year as an Appropriation-in-Aid.
    690
    The next item is the Unemployment Assistance Board. When we framed our original Estimates in January, 1935, we anticipated that Part II of the Unemployment Assistance Act would come into operation and that we should have to provide, on a recoverable basis, for certain buildings and works for the Unemployment Assistance Board in connection with the carrying out of Part II of that Act. As the appointed day was postponed we have not had the expenditure, and therefore cannot recover the amount estimated for in the original Estimate as likely to be received from the Board as an Appropriation-in-Aid.
    I come now to Employment Exchange buildings. The reason why we are;tot getting back what we expected from the Ministry of Labour in this connection is clue to one general cause, and to one or two particular causes. The general cause is that in the last few weeks since Christmas, owing to weather conditions, it has not been possible for the contractors to make the progress they had expected on account of excessive rain and periods of frost, and several of the exchanges provided for in the Estimates last year will not be completed as rapidly as was expected. In regard to certain exchanges which were voted in the general Estimates early last year we have been held up and, therefore, cannot recover from the Ministry of Labour the 11 per cent. in respect of overhead charges.
    At Newcastle-on-Tyne we were on the point of buying a new site for the Employment Exchange. It was provided for in the Estimate last year, but the Ministry of Labour asked us to cancel the site and explore the possibilities of another. Unfortunately the alternative site has now been rejected, after discussion with the local authority, and it is too late to complete the purchase of the original site this year. Consequently, we shall not get our agency fee for this important exchange in the current financial year. Other Employment Exchanges which have been held up, and which are the cause of this depreciation in the Appropriations-in-Aid are in London; Acton, Shepherd's Bush and Hackney. In one of these cases the programme has been held up by difficulties with the vendors of the site in completing the conveyance. Until we get a satisfactory

    691
    legal conveyance and obtain full possession of the site, we cannot get on with the building and, therefore, we have not been able to recover the agency fees. I have explained, I hope, the way in which the deficiency arises in these Appropriations-in-Aid, and I hope it will satisfy hon. Members.
    4.20 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his detailed information. It is interesting to know that some of this underspending is due to the fact that the Department does not need the money originally intended to be spent on offices for the Unemployment Assistance Board. That is one way of breaking the news gently to us. This is the second stage in the grand retreat on unemployment assistance business. Considering the kind of offices which are being used in some parts of the country I should have thought that instead of coming to us with this Estimate of under-spending, the Department should have asked for more money in order to provide proper accommodation. I do not know who is responsible.
    The CHAIRMAN: Anything of that kind connected with policy does not come under this Vote. The First Commissioner of Works acts as a builder employed by the Minister of Labour or the Post Office, and the hon. Member will, therefore, realise that he cannot discuss the policy of these other Departments.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There are some Votes for which I am wholly responsible, such as the new Government buildings in Whitehall, put up by the Office of Works, but this Vote is "recoverable services." it has nothing to do with me as to whether the appointed day under the Unemployment Assistance Act was or was not postponed. All I have to explain to the Committee is that because it has been postponed there is consequently a decrease in the Estimates in respect of Appropriations-in-Aid as compared with the Estimates I presented to the House last year. It will be clear, therefore, that the policy of postponing or otherwise the appointed day does not arise.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he cannot say to the various Departments, "Look here
    692
    you are upsetting the whole of my programme?" Could not the right hon. Gentleman raise it at a Cabinet meeting?
    Mr. LAWSON: I am aware that on this Estimate the subjects which can be discussed are limited, but I think I am entitled to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has anything to do with policy as regards the Unemployment Assistance Board. Why is it that they are not spending the necessary money to provide proper accommodation instead of underspending?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what the hon. Member cannot do. That is a question which should be addressed to the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. LAWSON: Then it, comes to this, that we have to talk upon nothing in particular. Not only is the right hon. Gentleman's Department underspending in reference to the offices of the Unemployment Assistance Board but generally throughout the country the whole accommodation for the Unemployment Assistance Board is in a ramshackle condition.
    The CHAIRMAN: That, again, is not a matter which the hon. Member can raise on this Vote. I agree with him that it is rather difficult to find anything to say on the Vote.
    Mr. MAXTON: Say that the First Commissioner is in a ramshackle condition.
    Mr. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us upon which offices this money has been saved.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I did. I gave Newcastle as one example. The total amount of underspending in connection with the Unemployment Assistance Board is £16,705, and it affects this Vote to the extent of £1,850, that is, our agency fee. That is the underspending as regards what we anticipated would be the requirements of the Unemployment Assistance Board under Part II of the Act.
    Mr. LAWSON: Having made the point that there is very shocking and doubtful accommodation in respect of the Unemployment Assistance Board in all parts of the country, I will leave the matter. Take the Employment Exchanges of which the right hon. Gentleman has given us

    693
    particulars. It is difficult to deal with the question of the provision of Employment Exchanges in those parts where there is no provision.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot deal with that topic.
    Mr. LAWSON: Let me deal with the question of the Newcastle Exchange. I understand that no proper accommodation has been made for shelter for the unemployed, or for lavatory accommodation in that exchange. Why is it that in the design for that exchange his Department are not taking steps to make proper arrangements for shelter in times of cold and storm, and also to provide the necessary lavatory accommodation?
    The CHAIRMAN: This matter is entirely one for the Minister of Labour, and the First Commissioner of Works has no competence to deal with it.
    Mr. LAWSON: I submit that if the right hon. Gentleman has laid upon him the obligation of building an employment exchange, it is well within the limits of this Vote to ask that when the right hon. Gentleman is building that exchange he should at least make proper accommodation for the people who have to go to it.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman and the Committee by intervening at this point. The final design for this exchange has not been approved. The delay has been due to the problem of selecting a site. As a matter of fact, I am informed by my architects who are planning the exchange to the requirements of the Ministry of Labour that they are including a shelter.
    Mr. LAWSON: I am very pleased indeed to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is having that done. It is in line with the policy followed by the Ministry of Labour years ago of making proper arrangements for those who have to be catered for by the exchanges. One of the questions which has arisen in connection with the Newcastle Exchange is the provision of lavatories. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the council says it is not its duty to supply lavatories for people who have been called to the employment exchange, for which the council has no responsibility. I submit that it is time the right
    694
    hon. Gentleman had come to a settlement with that particular council on this matter.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would like to assure the hon. Member that the matter has been settled. The new site on which the exchange is to be built is exactly 100 yards from a large public lavatory provided by the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation.
    Mr. LAWSON: The position which the council takes up is that that particular lavatory is for ordinary public purposes, that the exchange is bringing a great many extra people to it, that considerably more accommodation is needed than exists at the present moment, and that it is not right that the council should be called upon to supply accommodation in a case where the Ministry of Labour is entirely responsible for bringing the mass of people together. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to discuss the principle that lies behind this matter, but it is the same with the London Exchanges. The Newcastle Council has a big grievance, in common with the councils and local authorities generally. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to ignore the claims that the councils have made in regard to this matter. The Trades Union Congress have been compelled to make many complaints in this matter, because their unions in various parts of the country have had to raise the question. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make investigations in this particular case, through the Newcastle Council, with a view to seeing whether it is not possible to arrive at an arrangement which will settle the matter. I know there are difficulties and that it is a very delicate matter.
    Mr. DENMAN: On a point of Order. Is it in order on an Appropriation-in-Aid to discuss the details of building Estimates? Is it not a fact that such criticism should come under the building Estimates proper, and that on an Appropriation-in-Aid the only subject that may be discussed is whether or not the appropriation is adequate?
    The CHAIRMAN: My Rulings have already been very troublesome to the hon. Member, but on the question of the Newcastle exchange I am prepared to allow

    695
    suggestions or criticisms on matters which the hon. Member thinks are within the province of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. LAWSON: I am surprised that the hon. Member, who is a supporter of the Government, should object to a discussion on a great social matter which is of considerable importance in all parts of this country. This matter comes within the competence of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and it is his business to see that these exchanges are properly built, and that there is adequate accommodation. There has been a complaint made, and it is no answer to say that a public lavatory exists within 100 yards distance of the exchange. That does not satisfy the council. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consult with the authority with a view to seeing that a settlement is arrived at as to where the responsibility lies and with a view to seeing that some of the disgraceful scenes which have arisen in various parts of the country because of this sort of thing are made a matter of the past. It is very difficult to discuss a matter of this kind at this time, but the question is an important one, and in the nature of things it cannot receive proper consideration under the ordinary Estimates, since then there are general debates upon unemployment insurance. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to seek a settlement of this matter and to ensure that proper accommodation is provided.
    4.40 p.m.
    Mr. KELLY: After the experience of my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, I must endeavour to restrict my remarks to the Office of Works and on matters which engage their attention. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or not the saving we are discussing is entirely due to bad weather or whether it is due to the fact that the Department have spent a considerable time in securing sites for this particular building. Further, I would like to ask whether there was delay because of his having had to consult with other people. On that I would ask him whether, in connection with the buildings for the Ministry of Labour and for the Post Office, he consults with the local authorities—either their town planning committees or their building Acts
    696
    committees—with a view to making his buildings conform with those in the town or with the plans that are laid before him? I know the claim is made by Government Departments that they have no need to consult anybody, but may put up any building they wish without having regard to the feelings of those having buildings in the vicinity. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any part of this saving is due to a delay caused by such consultations, and whether he has consulted with the London authorities particularly regarding the buildings for Employment Exchanges in various parts of London, some of which he enumerated in his opening statement.
    I would particularly draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Post Office, some of the buildings of which are much higher than the buildings around them. The Office of Works are responsible for the construction of those buildings, and I hope they have consulted the local authorities; if so, I am very sorry that the local authorities were in agreement that those very high buildings for telephone exchanges should be erected Further, is the fact that some of the money has not been spent due to the Office of Works having obtained the sites for some Employment. Exchanges required in London—for which the Ministry of Labour gave an instruction—but not having engaged in the work? We on this side of the Committee ate very much concerned about the conditions of some of the temporary exchanges and would like to know whether any part of the saving is due to the Office of Works not proceeding with the work that is required in order that people who are unfortunate enough to have to attend at the ex changes should be accommodated in buildings which are suitable for them and which are less uncomfortable than those now existing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will satisfy the Committee that he is consulting with the town planning committees and the building Acts committees in the various districts, and that he is not taking the line which was taken by some of his predecessors that a Government Department may do what it likes without consulting the local authorities.
    4.44 p.m.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I would like to emphasise the point raised by my

    697
    hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). We are particularly fortunate in having the employer of the Office of Works on the Front Bench at the present moment, and I hope he is noting the manner in which his subordinate is discharging his duties. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is not discharging his public duties, in that he has not provided lavatory accommodation in the building in question. He has said that there is a public lavatory within 100 yards. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever been in Newcastle or whether he is familiar with the climate there during some months of the year. I wonder whether he would like, if be needed to avail himself of the convenience, to walk 100 yards through sleet and snow and then return to the exchange again.
    I would like the Minister of Labour and the right hon. Gentleman to realise that they are not being fair on the staff of the exchange. What happens in these exchanges when there is inadequate lavatory accommodation is that men who have to wait very many hours there are given the use of the accommodation for the staff. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that if you have a staff in a large building with lavatory accommodation available for them, and there are large numbers of men hanging around, very often these men use the accommodation for the staff, and you get a very unhygienic set of circumstances arising. The right hon. Gentleman exposes the staff to a very undesirable set of conditions in not providing lavatory accommodation for the men on the building itself. I do not see why these particular Departments of the State should be exempted from a provision that most private undertakings have to fulfil.
    There is another point. Men who visit these exchanges have to hang about for very many hours, and very often there is a long queue waiting, while many of them hang around in the hope that applications for jobs will come in, particularly in the cities. It is always unpleasant to read in the Press that an unemployed man or woman has been carried out in a fainting state, and I would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman will consider providing suitable waiting rooms with seats. Very many of these exchanges are like quadrangles, with counters all round and an open space
    698
    in the centre, in which men hang about for very many hours. Is the right hon. Gentleman providing suitable waiting rooms in the new buildings, so that they can be a model for the other buildings which are to be constructed hereafter It is important that people who have to travel, it may be, many miles to an exchange and who have to stand on their feet a very long time should have seating accommodation provided for them, otherwise they may get faint very easily. I think we ought to look on the unemployed as ordinary members of society who are entitled to have the same amenities and facilities as other members of society and that we should not organise employment exchanges like barracks for a number of industrial robots who happen to be out of work.
    4.49 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIS SMITH: I want to make a few observations with regard to under-spending during the year on the Postal Loan Services, with particular reference to the post office at Euston Road, Eccles. The right hon. Gentleman will have control of the architects and surveyors in connection with these Post Office buildings. It is not often that we get an opportunity of doing so, but I want to congratulate the officials, through the Minister, on the policy which they are adopting in connection with this building and other buildings. When you consider the architecture of Post Office buildings, and particularly of this one, it is quite a treat to see it as compared with the old type of buildings. They are roomy, well lighted and well built, and they are a real credit to the Office of Works. But there is on this Vote an underspending during the year. I have been in a number of post offices, and I find that very often it is common on pension day to see old people standing there. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if in future, instead of underspending, he will consider the provision of seats for these old-age pensioners rather than that they should have to stand there as they do now awaiting their turns.
    With regard to employment exchange buildings, I want to support what has been said by the hon. Members for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). My father-in-law, during the Christmas holidays, was supposed to be signing on, and he complained to me about having to stand in

    699
    the open. I investigated that particular exchange, of which he complained, and I found that it was during an abnormal period, due to the large number of people who were signing on at Christmas time. At the same time, one is bound to be critical of the lack of accommodation at exchanges generally, and, therefore, I want to support the plea which has been made that the Minister should in future consider the provision of more accommodation, so that men and women should not have to stand in the cold, and also the provision of lavatory accommodation.
    4.53 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I realise that we cannot discuss policy on this Vote, but I gather that the Office of Works is responsible for the design and construction of these buildings that are under discussion. I hope the First Commissioner of Works will appreciate that unemployment is likely to be with us for a longer time than any of us would desire, and I hope that greater care will be exercised in the construction of buildings which the Office of Works may be authorised to construct—such care as is now evidenced in the construction of post offices, for instance.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is now rather up against another difficulty. When it is only a question of a Supplementary Estimate, we cannot discuss general policy. I have been unwilling to interrupt in so far as remarks hitherto could be hung upon the question of particular buildings in the Supplementary Estimate, but the construction of buildings generally, whether post offices or employment exchanges, cannot be discussed on this occasion.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I take it that it might be possible to discuss what has applied to other exchanges if it can be related to the Newcastle Exchange?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must not let this develop into what would be a Debate on general policy, and I must ask hon. Members to confine themselves very strictly to the particular buildings covered by this Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Then I will conclude by saying that I hope the Office of Works will appreciate the remarks already made
    700
    by my hon. Friends here relating to rest rooms and the like.
    4.55 p.m.
    Mr. DAVID ADAMS: I should be very sorry if the action of the right hon. Gentleman's Department were in any way to impair the situation in Newcastle, where there is a very strong feeling on this subject of the provision of lavatory accommodation, and we know that Newcastle has sent forward evidence in regard to it. I have been wondering whether this policy is not an extension of the policy of the Government generally, inasmuch as they are compelling the local authorities to bear a great deal of the burden of unemployment which we believe ought to be borne by the Government. If it is correct that this Department should not make this provision, why should not the Post Office extend that principle and order the Newcastle Corporation to undertake the necessary works in connection with the Newcastle Post Office? One matter is the same as the other, and if the principle is sound for the Office of Works, it would be sound also for the Post Office. Probably there has only been a little remissness on the part of the Department, and it will be rectified.
    4.56 p.m.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), as to the height of buildings, I can only say that in the programme of the Post Office there is no place in the London area exceeding the height allowed under the London building regulations.
    Mr. KELLY: What is that?
    Mr. ORMSBY-COPE: Well, what it was when we decided on the elevation to be allowed. Ever since. I have been in the Office of Works it has always been my endeavour not only, to conform to what the local authority regards as fitting, but on any important building scheme always to consult it, and I also preach to my architects and to my Department generally the duty of neighbourliness in the use of materials and the like. All that, however, is pretty definitely out of order on an appropriation-in-aid. I will re-examine this eternal problem of the respective duties of the local authorities under the Public Health Acts of providing lavatory accommodation for the public and the special duty that

    701
    may fall on a public Department in relation to people who have to remain on the premises for a considerable period of time. I am confident that neither at Newcastle nor at other exchanges is it the duty of my Department to provide what I call a public convenience, which is properly the job of the local authority, but where people have to remain for long periods for any given purpose, admittedly there must be emergency accommodation. We do not want, as I say, to have an overlapping provision with the local authorities.
    As regards seats, I hope my hon. Friends have visited some of our newest exchanges. We have grown in experience of housing design in the new exchanges. For instance, in the new big Stepney Exchange and the like, they will find the women's hall properly seated and regularly cleansed, and there is definite improvement, I think, each year in the design of our Employment Exchanges. It is the policy of nay Department to replace temporary buildings by permanent exchanges and steadily to learn from our experience in the working of these exchanges how best to design them for the convenience of all concerned. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith), and so too, I am sure, will my Department be, for the kind things he said about our rather brighter post offices. I fully realise what was in the mind of the hon. Member and I will bear it in mind.
    Mr. E. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question with regard to providing seats for old age pensioners?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will take up that matter with the Post Office. We have to do with the beautification of the buildings, the materials and so forth. With regard to seats it is often a question as to how they can be fitted into the accommodation that is required by the Post Office for other purposes.
    Mr. DAVID ADAMS: Should I be in order in raising the question of the type of fuel used?
    The CHAIRMAN: No.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, Brompton Cemetery, and certain Housing Estates."
    5.2 p.m.
    Mr. ORSBY-GORE: On this Vote it will be easier to keep in order. For the most part the Vote refers to works which are carried out by nay Department on behalf of other Departments. Item "E," Ancient Monuments, however, comes wholly within my own responsibility. Under this head we require an extra £3,000 this year, owing to the fact that certain work has proved more expensive than we anticipated. When I introduced the National Maritime Museum Bill I said that we were taking over the old premises formerly occupied by the Royal Naval School. The oldest portion, the Queen's House at Greenwich, which was built by Inigo Jones for Queen Henrietta Maria, was to be handed over as an ancient monument and opened to the public as such. That House had been used as officers' quarters for the staff of the school. When we came to deal with it we had to take away all the partitions, baths and the rest of it, and we found an enormous amount of most interesting, historical, internal and other decorations. We have been very carefully restoring them, taking off the heavy chocolate paint and getting down to the grey and gilt decorations of Inigo Jones' time. When complete it will be one of the most interesting buildings open to the public of London, and an ancient monument of which we shall be very proud. We are endeavouring to make a good job of it and I think the Committee will agree that the extra £3,000 is well worth spending on that building.
    Item F, Rents, is accounted for by additional accommodation required for the Air Ministry since the expansion last year, additional hiring in Victoria Street for the Admiralty, additional accommodation at Lion House, Bloomsbury, to deal with the registration in the Middlesex area, and additional accommodation for

    703
    my own department at 56, Victoria Street, to provide for increased staff. Owing to the congestion in Whitehall through the requirements of the Ministry of Health, the Board of Trade and my own Department, we are always having to hire premises, and I shall be very glad when T can get ahead with my new Whitehall building scheme. With regard to subhead G, for Cleaning, etc., the item is straightforward. It is almost impossible to estimate in regard to this matter beforehand, because it is so liable to fluctuation. There is a great amount of window cleaning and so forth to be done in Govern-merit offices up and down the country. We have done rather more this year than we expected. We have caught up arrears in that respect, and things are now in very good order. With regard to Item K, Furniture, etc., the Vote is almost entirely due to the extension of certain Government buildings and the creation of new ones, such as the Anglo-Italian Clearing House. There was accommodation also to be found for the Naval Conference and we had to provide furniture and services in London.
    Now I come to Item A, which relates to a new type of anti-gas school which has been decided upon by the Home Office. The Office of Works were asked to find the Home Office a house in the country, well away from town, or village or other centre of population, a remote country house, with sufficient park and sufficient belts of trees around it to provide the school which they require for training fire brigades, police, the St. John's Ambulance Association and Red Cross personnel, in what we may call anti-gas drill and various anti-gas subjects. We set out to search for such a building and eventually we decided on a house at Eastwood Park, in Gloucestershire. It lies 14 miles north of Bristol and 20 miles south-west of Gloucester, in a purely agricultural district. There is a sufficiency of land around the house and the house is of a type that can be converted for the purposes of the school. Accordingly, we bought it for the Home Office. The actual purchase price I think was cheap. Inevitably the major portion of the sum required is for conversion. We had to provide laboratories, technical stores, gas chambers and scientific and technical buildings, so that the horrible
    704
    gases could be loosed off and we could find the proper antidotes and appropriate means of dealing with the gases.
    I would point out to hon. Members opposite that the most far-reaching developments in chemical warfare have been the result of the very remarkable investigation and discoveries made in the laboratories of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics in Russia. We have to be prepared in this country in case of need—I hope the need will never come—to train a sufficient nucleus of personnel to help the people in case this awful kind of weapon is used against us. The duty which falls to my Department is to make sure that this work can be carried on in buildings where by their nature the use of these gases and the efforts made by various means to find protection against them will not injure anybody. We are satisfied, and I understand that the Home Office are satisfied, that in the buildings we are constructing in the centre of the 240-acre park, with its ring of trees around it and with no buildings in the line of any prevailing wind, we can safely carry on this work. It took a great deal of time to find a suitable place, but we think that we have found it and that we have satisfied the Horne Office. It is part of national requirements and part of national defence that this work should be carried out, and we have found the most suitable place where we can be equipped in the way necessary to deal with the chemical warfare problem.
    5.13 p.m.
    Mr. AMMON: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
    The whole Committee will join with me in congratulating the Minister on the acquirement of the Queen's House at Greenwich and putting it into such a condition that it will become a real national asset and a place of great cultural value. In moving the reduction of the Vote it so happens that for the second time this week I have had to voice what I think should be the protest of the House that on quite a side issue and on something tucked away in the corner of a Supplementary Vote the House has had an opportunity of discussing a question of great policy connected with the defences of the country. The other day I raised the question of the Naval Conference on a small Vote such as this, as to a certain amount of material that had

    705
    been supplied in connection with the emergency situation that had arisen. That was the first opportunity that they had had of discussing the Naval Conference.
    We are confronted with a Vote which, ostensibly, is concerned only with buildings and yet it raises for the first time a problem which is vitally bound up with the defence of the country and gives the House of Commons for the first time, an opportunity of discussing that problem. It is a problem which is particularly concerned with recent discussions on the question of a Defence Ministry. The First Commissioner of Works is an old Parliamentary hand and therefore he did not trail his coat or seek to bring out the possibilities which are hidden in this Vote. But it is only fair that the attention of the Committee should be drawn to the fact that something deeper and more significant underlies this Vote than the mere provision of accommodation for the training of certain officials who may have to deal with a certain emergency.
    First, I would venture to say that the Vote amounts to a declaration that the Government have embraced a policy of despair with regard to the whole question of defence and our relationship with other countries. It shows that in dealing with this particular and desperate new problem they have accepted war as inevitable and having so accepted it say: "We must proceed to see what we can do to save some of the population at any rate from its effects." But all the training that it is possible to give to civilians and others in this respect will be as a mere drop in the bucket compared with the range of devastation, ruin and loss of life which will arise from gas attacks should any future outbreak of war occur. The Government must accept a large share of responsibility for the fact that we are faced with this extraordinary situation. It is largely due to the Government's failure to give a lead that the nation has been brought on to the top of a devil's slide which is going to end in disaster should another war take place.
    Further, it ought to be said to the country that the sort of thing which is tucked away in this Estimate, so that it gives no wide advertisement of what the Government are doing, is also likely
    706
    to mislead people into a false sense of security and into the belief that provision can be made to protect them against the effect of gas attacks on this country. That is one of the points which aroused strong objections from the local authorities when the Home Office issued their circular of 9th July last. That circular called upon local authorities to make special provision in order to afford some shelter and protection to the population in the event of gas attacks on their areas. Almost without exception the local authorities took the view that the problem was too big for them to handle and that they had no right to give a false sense of security to the civilian population by accepting the suggestion that they could provide protection in such circumstances. It was on that aspect of the question that a great deal of difference arose between the Home Office and the local authorities, particularly the London County Council.
    I ask the Committee to consider the kind of attacks against which we are asked to set up these defences. It is well that we should have some idea of the potency of the various agencies which will come into use should any outbreak of war take place and of how ineffective any scheme of training or protection is likely to be against such agencies. First I quote the statement of Lieut.-General Von Metzoh, a members of the German General Staff during the War, who, like a good many other military officers on both sides, has written a book. Dealing with the possibilities of a new war, he makes special reference to chemical warfare as follows:
    "The tendency is for to develop rather than fall into disuse. The importance given to this question by the arming Powers is shown by the fact that one of the more important States has disbanded several large regiments in order to have more funds available for chemical armaments. In another country defence against chemical air raids has become the Sunday pastime of the population. A third has constructed several new centres of chemical war industries and every country that is not under any restriction concerning armaments is feverishly engaged in the development and perfection of the chemical arm… In some circumstances the use of war chemicals could enable one armed Power to take another by surprise with very serious if not decisive results and naturally this is the aim of the chemical armament industry.… The aim of war chemical laboratories all over the world is to produce a gas that is odourless, in-

    707
    visible, obtainable from the raw material available in the country itself, insusceptible to weather conditions, easily stocked, will penetrate any mask and of which the smallest possible quantity can saturate the largest possible space."
    That is a statement on the possibilites of a future war made by somebody who may be considered, from his own point of view, an authority. I turn to another authority nearer home, Dr. Hale, of the Dow Chemical Company in 1921, in an address entitled, "The War after the War," said:
    "The next war which will come in its time will he waged entirely with chemicals and high explosives usually together. Combatants as well as non-combatants will he supplied with suits of armour—a la Jules Verne's the Men from Mars—the mask itself will not suffice. The old time military manoeuvres must give way to chemical discipline."
    Major Lefebure one of the greatest experts on poison gas who conducted many chemical gas attacks during the War and afterwards worked with Imperial Chemical Industries writes:
    "We could, therefore, conclude that in the case of chemical warfare we have an agent far more capable of being worked up in secret to a service of new types able to contribute towards a decisive superiority of the aggressor, than any pre-war type and that the nature of this weapon as a casualty producer with great moral effect… is such as to represent a very important if not an overwhelming factor of decisive superiority in war."
    I suggest that statements like that from experts show how futile it is to suggest that we can set up any effective measures against such forms of attack or that anything that we can do is likely to afford adequate protection against them.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Is it the hon. Gentleman's argument then that we should sit down and do nothing?
    Mr. AMMON: I think that is a rather inane remark. The hon. Member might wait until I develop my case. The next quotation which I propose to give is probably of more significance in relation to the proposal which is now before us. Dr. Hilton Ira Jones, an American scientist, announcing in Chicago the discovery of a new poison gas described its effects in the following words:
    "It is a deadly poison and would destroy armies as a man might snuff out a candle. I do not believe the nations of the world
    708
    want to use it for warfare simply because it always kills. War, if it comes again and is to be deadly, will never be fought with shot and shell. It cannot be, for it is so much cheaper to destroy life wholesale with this new gas. It may be manufactured at the rate of thousands of tons a day and it costs much less than powder and cannon, yet it will destroy armies more thoroughly, more effectively, more quickly."
    Mr. BRACKEN: Who says this?
    Mr. AMMON: Dr. Hilton Ira Jones, one of the leading scientists of America. This brings us to the fact that the nations of the world are finding that modern warefare, in terms of ordinary arms, is becoming so tremendously burdensome and expensive that they find it cheaper to rely on the dreadful and devastating methods which are here indicated. Documents have been issued in connection with the League of Nations referring not only to developments on the lines indicated in the quotations which I have just read, but also to such methods as piercing poisons, poison bullets, bacteria germs, and war by plague. Major Lefebure in a publication called "Scientific Disarmament," has explained at some length the possibility of war by plague and war by poison bullets, and it is suggested that the spread of bacteria germs will be an essential part of any future war which may break out.
    Lest that might be taken as an individual opinion and discounted as the flight of fancy of an individual scientist, it is well to know that Professors Pfeiffer, Bordet, Madsen and Carmon were instructed to draw up reports for the League of Nations in 1928 on bacteriological warfare and war by plague. They pointed out the possibility of plague being deliberately promoted as a part of warfare. I imagine it was that which caused the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on 10th November, 1932, to say:
    "I myself happen to know of at least three inventions deliberately proposed for use in the last war that were never used—potent to a degree and inhuman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1932; col. 638, Vol. 270.]
    One wonders what were those inventions which the Prime Minister knew of but which have not been disclosed. I venture to think that they are suggested in the extracts to which I have drawn attention. It is not unrelated to this question to

    709
    note that on the eve of Armistice Day, 1932, the Prime Minister speaking on this subject, with some emotion and a deep sense of responsibility, deplored the position which to-day arises and which involves the maiming, poisoning, and slaughtering of defenceless women and children. He said:
    "The only defence is in offence, which means that you have to kill women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1932; col. 632, Vol. 270.]
    Two years later he said:
    "I have been occupying myself in studying questions of air raid precautions, and. I tell the House that I have been made almost physically sick to think that I and my friends and the statesmen in every country in Europe, 2,000 years after our Lord was crucified, should be spending our time thinking how we can get the mangled bodies of children to the hospitals and how we can keep the poison gas from going down the throats of the people."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1935; col. 372, Vol. 302.]
    A comment which the Prime Minister failed to make was that a sound international policy could prevent such a situation. We stood in the way of an international pool of aircraft —
    Mr. BRACKEN: Is it in order to raise questions on the Prime Minister's position in 1932 or 1933 or the whole question of the League of Nations on this Vote?
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gordon Macdonald): A Ruling was given on this question of the anti-gas school that we might widen the Debate beyond what would otherwise be allowed, but once or twice the hon. Member has gone rather beyond the Ruling in making reference to foreign affairs.
    Mr. AMMON: When the Naval Vote came up a similar point of Order was raised, and the Chairman of Ways and Means ruled that as this was an entirely new subject he would not restrict it and would allow the Debate to proceed on fairly broad lines. I have shown the Committee some of the possibilities and risks that are involved in the things that have to be dealt with in the proposal in this Vote. The Vote is less than the proverbial pill to cure an elephant in its ineffectiveness. Unless we are to spend undreamed-of millions in making preparations, no effective safety provisions can
    710
    be afforded for the community should there be any poison gas attacks on a large scale. No one in the House, and nobody on this side, would say that we must not provide as much protection as possible for those people who will be called upon in the discharge of their duties to render aid if such a situation arose. There can be no question about that. Even in that respect, however, it is as well that we should see exactly what such measures of protection can amount to. The fire brigades and ambulance brigades will be called upon, and no Government or local authority which had refused to supply adequate training and protection to the members of those brigades could stand before the wrath of outraged public opinion if, when the situation arose, it was found they had not done so. When we have said that, however, it means little so far as the community is concerned.
    I venture to bring before the Committee some of the steps that have been taken by the London County Council in regard to this matter. I do that because London has been declared by the Air Ministry to be in the position of most danger. The London County Council has a full knowledge of the responsibilities that are laid upon it, and it has laid down certain regulations for its officials and servants. The report of the General Services Committee on the 3rd December last said:
    "It is our earnest hope, shared we feel sure by every member of the Council, that it will never be necessary to put into operation precautions against air attack and that His Majesty's Government will make every effort to bring about by international agreement a state of affairs in which such an occasion could not arise. After very careful consideration we think that, on the understanding that it will be required to undertake only those services which are within its normal functions, the Council might agree to co-operate on the general lines indicated. We desire, however, to emphasise that the protection of the population against air attacks is a national and not a local responsibility. It is important that an impression should not be created that the Council is able to provide protection against the effects of air raids, and it would be unwise for the public to expect security as a result of the action which His Majesty's Government asks the Council to take."
    That indicates pretty clearly that the Council is fully seized of its responsibilities, but it ventures to point out that it is impossible, even with its large resources, to undertake the provision of

    711
    any adequate means of refuge should the occasion arise. The Council points out that it is a national responsibility. If the National Government are going to face this problem with the idea of accepting war as inevitable and that gas attacks are to be launched on this nation, the Council points out that with all its resources it cannot provide adequate protection. The Council has made arrangements to co-operate with neighbouring authorities such as West Ham and Willesden, which are closely linked up on its boundaries. The great question of expenditure arises in that respect. The London County Council resolved on the 3rd December:
    "That, on the understanding that any expenditure beyond that required for the normal maintenance of the council's services shall be borne by the State, the council do co-operate with the appropriate Government Departments in the formulation of a scheme of air raid precautions, including the allocation of accommodation for use as casualty clearing stations and base hospitals, the provision of the necessary fire protection service, the provision jointly with other bodies of ambulance services and any incidental matters."
    When all that has been said, to what does it amount? It amounts to a recognition of the tremendous wave of devastation that will come over the country if this sort of thing arises. Unless there is some discussion on a Vote like this and all its implications are shown, it is likely to mislead the country into thinking that some protection and defence can be provided. There must be more to lull the people into accepting as inevitable the terrible possibilities arising from the failure of world-wide statesmanship.
    I venture to point out that this is but the beginning of other forms of compulsion. When this has gone through, there will be a form of compulsion on the civil population to undergo certain air drill and regimentation in order that they might meet this new situation when it arises. That, surely, is a pretty terrible thing to contemplate, and it is not a far cry from that to compulsion in other matters. During the last few days we have been discussing problems concerned with the nutrition and education of our children. While we are discussing those things, it is a terrible commentary on our civilisation when we consider the possibilities that will bring them all to
    712
    nought, to disaster and to ruin, possibilities such as are inherent in this Vote in the direction of the development of chemical warfare.
    It is due to the Government's failure to arrive at any international agreement or to give any lead to the other countries in order to dispense with this sort of thing. I refuse to believe that there is no other way than a moral collapse of the nations which this kind of warfare must bring about if we are to accept it as inevitable. Our Amendment is moved as a protest on the first available opportunity that the House has had of discussing this question, which is part of the question of defence. We object to the way in which the Government are bringing forward the question of defence by hole-and-corner methods, by items tucked away in Supplementary Estimates so that one is never able to get a full view of the proposals. It is to protest against that more than anything else that I move the reduction of the Vote.
    5.44 p.m.
    Mr. BRACKEN: After listening to that long and rather turgid harangue of the lion. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) many people in the House might well say that the anti-gas school should be moved from Gloucester to Westminster. Has there been a more remarkable speech in the House than that delivered by the hon. Member? He first announced that the First Commissioner of Works, with Machiavellian skill, had come down to introduce an important Service estimate, and then ended by saying it was a futile affair, a pill to cure an elephant. It becomes necessary to ask the responsible leaders of the Labour party—if I may interrupt the late First Lord of the Admiralty who, I think, is one—whether they are opposed to the expenditure of a small sum of money for the purpose of providing some form of protection against air raids, gas attacks, and all those other fearful war menaces which were described so luridly by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. Do we understand that the Labour party are absolutely opposed to these experiments, which may save the lives of hundreds of thousands of the civilian population? I understand that the Labour party propose to vote against this Estimate. We ought to take careful notice of the attitude they take up when a sum of money is to

    713
    be spent on experiments, on research work, a subject on which there is no question of party alignment. We really do now understand what the Labour party stand for. They preached peace in the long and irrelevant speech to which we have just listened, and most of which was quite out of order—
    Mr. BENSON: On a point of Order. Is any Member of this Committee entitled to cast reflections on the Chair?
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gordon Macdonald): That is a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Has riot the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) been long enough in this House to know the significance of a token Vote?
    Mr. BRACKEN: I have been long enough in the House to know that we get interruptions such as I am getting now, and I have been here long enough to know that a former Under-Secretary of a Service Department ought not to do his best to resist, for party purposes, the efforts of the Government to prevent poison gas attacks on this country. The Socialist party are obviously very anxious to justify the extraordinary attitude they have taken up on this occasion, but I should not like to sit down without expressing the thanks of this side of the House to the Minister for the splendid way in which the Office of Works has been conducting its operations in the last few years. The Office of Works gets very few compliments, and I think the Minister is to be congratulated on setting such a very high standard in administration.
    This Debate has elicited one further instance of the absolutely futile, woolly, flatulent, stupid attitude of the Socialist party towards defence questions. They tell us on the one hand that they are anxious to defend the country and to save the civil population, but when the Minister responsible buys a small property in Gloucestershire for the purpose of anti-gas experiments, the Socialist party say "This is another effort of the Government to start a fearful European war. Three thousand pounds spent in Gloucestershire is bringing war nearer and nearer." Some of us on these benches think the Socialist party would do better to look into the activities of
    714
    their friends the Bolsheviks, who are now becoming quite respectable, and who are spending more money on this particular form of research than the Office of Works will spend in, perhaps, 20 years. If the gentlemen in Moscow are as intelligent as we are told they are and are doing what the First Commissioner is doing, why should the Socialist party want to reduce the Estimate by £100?
    5.49 p.m.
    Mr. EDE: I will not follow too far the examination of the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) into the relative value of party capital as made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and the party capital which he himself attempts to make. The pot calling the kettle black is never a very pleasing song to which to listen. I wish to address a few questions to the Minister with regard to this building. For the last 18 months of the War I was a non-commissioned officer in charge of one of the three shifts that mixed the gas which was supplied to the British troops, and prior to that I had the pleasure and honour of being under the command of Major Lefebure, who was alluded to by my hon. Friend. After the Armistice I was the acting warrant officer in charge of the dump at which the German gas was collected. So I have no doubt that if my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) had been here, he would have said I was admirably prepared to take my place in what my hon. Friend suggested was the place where gas masks ought to be worn. I listened to the extracts read by my hon. Friend, and I am sure the Committee will have noticed the difference between the tone adopted in Major Lefebure's statement and that adopted by these other people. There was an American professor who had gas to sell and he gave the most wonderful description of it. For three weeks I was attached to the American Army as a, gas instructor. They used to boast that they had a gas that was so strong that it would not merely kill people but bring back prisoners. It was a typical claim of the army which won the War in six weeks.
    I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has been asked by the Home Office to provide a building that will resist attacks from other gases than chlorine, phosgene and the very intricate

    715
    compound generally known as mustard gas. I have read what the German general would like. That is what every general would like. But gas which is of military value must have a certain density in relation to the air. It must be such that it can be liquefied reasonably easily and yet of a sufficiently low boiling point to turn into gas again even on a frosty morning. I feel that the number of gases which comply with all those requirements is very limited, if they are gases which can be produced at a reasonable price, because, as my hon. Friend said, the great advantage of gas warfare is its cheapness. I do not think I shall be challenged by any service Member of the House on this point: we were told in France, where our gas factory had to work to a very strict costings account, that we ought by means of gas to give the military the necessary amount of quietness on the front that was to be attacked at one-seventh the cost of a heavy artillery bombardment.
    I may be a heretic in these matters, but personally I feel that being gassed was a rather more comfortable way of being put out of action than getting a bit of shrapnel in the belly. At least, that was the view of a number of troops with whom I was associated. The whole business of war is beastly and horrible, but I am discussing this from the point of view of recognising that a situation may arise which may have to be met, and that there may be people on whom this country will use gas apart from our having to suffer its use on ourselves. I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he has been asked to provide a building which will resist some of the other gases alluded to in such general terms but which, I am sure, our Departments know about, because we have a Secret Service system which is at least as effective as the dirty spy system which the foreigner employs.
    I hope this matter may be put into its proper perspective, because in my view a great deal of the effectiveness of gas as used on both sides in the late War arose from its mystery in the eyes of the common soldier who had to meet it, whether English or German. I knew men who thought that because it was gas one must be able to light it, and I will guarantee, if there are in the House this
    716
    afternoon other Members who served in the ranks, that they will know of similar views among the troops. No one wants to create a feeling of unreasoning horror and terror at dangers that are not really in existence, or to create fears which will cause needless panic among the civil population. I hope nothing I have said will be interpreted as indicating that the use of gas or any other weapon in war is legitimate. I strongly hold the view that all our efforts should he directed to making war impossible in the future, but if the Government have reached the point where they think that war is inevitable they should take steps themselves to avoid creating in the public mind the feeling that there are all these fearful and wonderful unknown things which wicked scientists and worse generals are keeping in secret to let loose on the world when action commences.
    It is the duty of the Government to make sure that if war comes a sufficient amount of knowledge will be available to limit the evil that will come upon the world. After all, the effects of gas, while terrible for the moment, do not last so extraordinarily long and, also, the reactions of individuals to gas differ remarkably. A very high concentration of gas appears to have very little effect on some persons, and a degree of concentration which some persons might almost disregard will prove fatal to other and weaker persons. The effect of gas is also very highly localised. I want to be sure that in the event of a gas attack there will be available for the assistance of the population a sufficient number of persons who have been really trained. On that point may I say to the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) that there has never been any doubt about the position of this party. The matter was discussed at considerable length at the last conference of the party, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), who took a leading part in the discussion, justified the point of view which I have just stated.
    With regard to people going to live in the vicinity of the proposed gas school, what range does the right hon. Gentleman allow? Is it such that no effects will be felt from the experiments that are carried on in this estate? It is well-known that gas has been felt eight miles from the point of liberation. I do not

    717
    imagine that great quantities will be liberated at this place, but with a steady wind carrying gas along a defile at a sufficient concentration, the civilian population and domestic animals some miles distant along the line on which the gas is travelling might be in very great danger. Will arrangements be made whereby signals will be exhibited so that not merely the population and people walking about may know that danger is to be apprehended, but farmers and others in the vicinity will have the opportunity to remove their stock from any neighbourhood which might be dangerous?
    Will any compensation be paid to farmers whose crops are ruined? I recollect giving a demonstration on one occasion before His late Majesty in letting off gas, and we ruined the crops up to two miles away. If the Government are to do this sort of thing for national purposes, they have either to sterilise the land by a town-planning scheme or some such arrangement, or they will have to compensate the farmers for the crops that the Government will have pretty effectively sterilised after an experiment has taken place.
    I want to express my disappointment that 18 years after the Armistice, human ingenuity applied to the problems of peace should have been so futile that we are here discussing whether we ought not to take upon ourselves the problem of preparing to meet the most diabolical ingenuity of the most advanced scientists in the world in their efforts to wipe out humanity and civilisation. In order to make my protest against that I shall certainly vote for the Amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something that will reassure the country with regard to the vague terrors which, if they are held in time of war, might very well be a worse menace to us than the worst weapon an enemy could produce; and that we shall be able to discuss this matter with some sense of proportion, once we have admitted that the devilry of war is really possible.
    6.4 p.m.
    Mr. DUNCAN: I had no intention of speaking in this Debate, and I should not be doing so now if, when I interrupted the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), he had not called my
    718
    interruption an inane one. I interrupted to ask whether I understood him to say that the policy which he enunciated was that nothing should be done to try to assist the civilian population to have protection from possible gas attacks. So far as I could understand the burden of his speech, I was right and instead of my interruption being inane it was quite to the point.
    Mr. AMMON: Evidently the hon. Member did not understand me, for I gave a very definite statement and said that there could be no possible objection to providing adequate protection for the people who were doing this work, and I read out a series of Regulations which I had a hand in framing over the other side.
    Mr. DUNCAN: The point I was making is that he advocated that for the general civilian population there should be no protection, and no attempt at protection, against gas attacks. The hon. Member is a London Member, and so am I. I do not want to make any party question of this, because we both have tremendous responsibilities for the people in our areas. London, as has already been stated, is one of the most dangerous places in which to live if we are to be bombed. I cannot understand the hon. Member's attitude. Is it logical The hon. Gentleman said, and he repeated just now, that he was in favour of training the fire brigade, the ambulances, the water supply people and so on, to help to withstand gas attacks. Before that he had said—and he read out a long paragraph from scientists, generals and others to the effect—that there was no defence against gas attacks, I submit that that is an entirely illogical attitude. What will be the use of training the fire brigade if there be no defence against gas attacks? The fire brigade will be wiped out.
    I agree with almost every word of the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The danger of gas attacks is very much overdone. The history of offensive weapons has always proved that there is a defensive weapon to counter attack in the course of time. I think that such a defensive weapon is being forged now. It is an entirely illogical and irresponsible attitude for the Labour party to vote against this small sum of £8,000—whether it is a token

    719
    Vote does not matter—which will do something at any rate to protect the civilian population in the London which I help to represent.
    6.8 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: I am probably here in a more representative capacity than either the hon. Gentleman who is representing the Home Office or my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), because I am absolutely and completely ignorant and without any knowledge of gas. I have listened very carefully to what has been said and tried to find some reason for reassurance. I am very sorry that I did not find one. It is not enough to say, "We are engaged in experiments to find a defensive weapon against a gas attack," or that every time there was an offensive weapon there has always been a defensive weapon. That was said before the War, and every form of expenditure upon offensive and defensive weapons was justified by people who said, whenever the enemy had evolved a gun that would fire a shell to penetrate the steel of our battleships, "Ala, but our steel experts are already producing a steel to resist that shell."
    Then, of course, the reverse happened. We produced a gun to penetrate the steel of the enemy and we were reassured both ways, because if we had no defensive weapon, we had a more effective offensive weapon against the defensive weapon of the enemy. Exactly the same sort of reasoning is now being applied in regard to chemical warfare. Although the hon. Member for South Shields made a speech obviously full of expert knowledge and balanced judgment, as an ordinary member of the public I would tell him that I fail to find any reassurance at all in the statements he made.
    Mr. EDE: I did not want to give you any.
    Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member said that what we did not want to do was to create an impression in the public mind that these horrors were lurking in the laboratories of the nation, and may be let loose upon them when war is declared. If these things are done secretly, as they are done, and if we, are informed, as we were by the Prime Minister, that even during the last war
    720
    three inventions were known to him which would have been terrifying in their consequences had they been used, how can the general public be expected to feel anything else but the gravest possible apprehension as to what lies in wait for them in the event of war The very optimism expressed by the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) that those laboratories would find an effective defence against this warfare, when transferred to another part of the Government's activities, those in which they are engaged in trying to find a deadly gas, expresses itself in the hope that they may be able to find a gas against which no country will be able to find an effective defence. Exactly the same optimism that exists in regard to defensive measures exists in those Government Departments charged with the production of an offensive weapon. How on earth a poor, inoffensive member of the public is to be reassured by reasoning of that description I cannot understand.
    The reason why we are moving a reduction in the Vote and proposing to take it to a Division is not that we object to Red Cross work being done, or to hospitals where nurses can be trained in the effects of gas, or experiments can be conducted to find some means of defence against gas that is being produced elsewhere, but because we feel that this and similar proposals will have the effect, if it is not their intention, of diverting public attention from the perils that are involved. It is policy that creates the danger. This sort of behaviour and these projects merely divert public attention from the defects of policy. They create a false sense of security. They lead the public to believe that the warnings that are uttered of the menace of war are not true because we have such great scientists, such great experts and such an active Government that we are secretly preparing defensive measures for them.
    We do not object to doing humane salvaging work, but we know very well, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields will admit that if aerial warfare is let loose upon the crowded cities of this country, and gas attacks take place in populated regions, we shall not be able to provide any

    721
    effective way of defending the civilian population.
    Mr. EDE: I did not say we would.
    Mr. BEVAN: I did not say you did. It is because we feel that the public may be falsely reassured that we want to keep the full perils before the public mind. Because we want to concentrate the attention of the public upon the defects of policy rather than on the ability of our scientists, we shall go into the Lobby to vote against this expenditure.
    6.15 p.m.
    Lieut. -Commander FLETCHER: In discussing gas warfare, we must get the whole question into its right proportion and deal with it, on strictly realist lines. The simple duty of those who discuss it is to tell the exact truth about it, so far as the truth is known. The nation ought neither to be scared, on the one hand, nor deluded on the other. Every civilised country since 1919 has had a body of scientists working on this question of gas warfare, and their work is essential, not only in the interests of the Fighting Services, but in the interests of the civil populations of their countries. At the time when the War ended, it is common knowledge that there were gases in existence more effective than any that were used during the War, and, had the War gone on, those gases would have been brought into operation. It is only reasonable to suppose that since the War developments have gone on, and that there are even more effective gases available to-day, in 1936. It is very important to bear in mind that the discovery of each more deadly gas or means of more deadly gas warfare is immediately followed by research and experiment to find the antidote, and I would express the hope that, in this direction of research to find the antidote, the Government are unceasingly vigilent and active.
    Because we are dealing with what are very largely secret substances, of which the employment and full results are largely unknown, there is a tendency for their horror and deadliness and effectiveness to be greatly exaggerated in the imagination, and I think the Government will be very well advised, therefore, to disarm the possibility of panic by adopting a completely realist attitude. Gas warfare has come to stay, and when the
    722
    National Government of the future has blundered us into a war the civil population will have to face up to gas attacks. It is essential, therefore, to tell the people the exact truth, as far as it can be told in sober and unexaggerated language. As a people we are very good at facing up to things if we know exactly what it is that we have to face up to. It is unnecessary secrecy and mystery in these matters that causes so much scare and panic. My concern chiefly is that the Government are not envisaging the full range of this problem of gas warfare, or of the problem of the protection of the civil population. We have no objection, of course, as previous speakers have said, to everything possible being done and tried out for the protection of the civil population. I think the foreign policy of this Government is of a nature which has driven them into an immense rearmament programme, and that rearmament programme means immense financial stress for the whole country.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The Debate has been given a great deal of latitude, because this is a new Service, but the hon. and gallant Member is really dealing now with matters which should come up the week after next.
    Lieut-Commander FLETCHER: I was endeavouring to point out that, in addition to these financial burdens, the civil population, when war comes, will also have to bear the dangers to which they will be exposed by gas and aerial attacks, and that, in return for bearing those burdens and facing those dangers, the civil population deserve the very best that the Government can do for them in protection against such attacks. Our jingoes are very fond of saying, in defence of rearmament, that we must not send our sailors to fight in anything but the very best ships; and equally I think our civil population must not be exposed to the dangers of these attacks without the very best that is possible having been done for their protection. I hope very much that the activity of the Government in this matter is not confined to gas masks, but extends also to protective clothing.
    Aerial attack, when it comes, will cause damage to gas, water, electricity, and telephone services, and it is essential that in all large towns and cities break-down

    723
    services to deal with these emergencies should be organised forthwith and trained to the very last inch. That is another enormous duty before the Government in connection with aerial attack. Gas warfare is really a question of contamination and decontamination, and, just as we have had the battle between the gun and the armour, and between the ship and the mine, so we have now the battle between contamination and decontamination, one or the other of which will be on top from time to time. There is no reason to think that contamination will always be on top; there will be times when the decontamination services have outstripped the contamination services as, I believe, is largely the case at present. I hope that the Government are giving full attention to finding the antidote, and that they are devoting an adequate share of their research activities to decontamination services.
    6.24 p.m.
    Mr. PRICE: When I heard in this Debate that experiments were to be made in the use of gases and measures for combating them in a corner of Gloucestershire, I felt that I must put to the Minister one or two questions on matters in which I am interested. I live, and my constituents live, not at all far away from where these hellish experiments, or whatever they are, are going to be made; and, whatever may be the terrible broth that is going to Ire brewed, if any of it gets loose into the atmosphere, a south-west wind—the prevailing wind in that locality—may waft something across the Severn to my constituents and to the place where I live. Therefore, when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) ask what kind of compensation is to be provided for farmers, and what kind of precautions are to be taken against anything of this kind, I naturally desired to reiterate and confirm his fears, and to ask the Minister whether there is any danger of gas or any of these terrible chemical substances getting loose into the air, what kind of precautions have been taken, and what possibilities of compensation there will be for those who may be affected.
    I approach this matter entirely in a non-party attitude. I think we all agree that Red Cross work must be undertaken,
    724
    and that, as there is a danger that our civil population may be faced with attacks of this kind, everything should be done to try to minimise them. The real reason, however, why I shall go into the Lobby with my hon. Friends on these benches is, not in any way to hinder this Red Cross work, but as a protest against the international situation which has arisen and which makes these precautions necessary. If we had acted differently when there was a possibility of altogether abolishing air warfare and chemical warfare-the responsibility for which rests, not only with other countries, but also with this Government and the Government in the last Parliament—we should not be to-day in this Committee discussing the terrible things which have been discussed. I cannot, of course, enlarge upon that subject; it would he out of order; but that is the reason which compels me to go into the Lobby with my hon. Friends.
    6.27 p.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I think we shall all share the disappointment expressed by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that we in this country should have to be discussing a subject of this kind at this time of day, but I could not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) that this is a policy of despair. It is not; it is a policy of practical common sense. Certain misunderstandings have arisen in the Debate, particularly, if I may say so, in the speeches of the hon. Member for North Camberwell and of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), and I should like to spend a few minutes in dealing with them, because I believe there is a greater measure of general agreement than has appeared possible in the Committee so far. The hon. Member for North Camberwell quoted a certain German general who said that in certain circumstances an attack might suddenly be made on one country by another, with possibly decisive results. What would those circumstances be? Surely they would be that the country which was attacked had taken no precautions whatever.
    The point about precautions with regard to air raids, which I think the whole Committee will appreciate at once, is that

    725
    they cannot be made at the time when the air raid takes place, or immediately before; any precautions that are to be at all effective in regard to an air raid must have been carefully prepared months, and even years, before. That is the reason why His Majesty's Government could not possibly contemplate not taking the measures we are taking at present, but must take them now, not because we think that they will be needed, but because they must be there if there is even the faintest possibility that they might be needed in the future.
    The question remains to be dealt with whether any preparations that are made are quite useless, and merely give a false sense of security, as was suggested by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. I do not think that that is the case, and I think that the hon. Member for South Shields brought into the Committee a breath of common sense on this matter. After all, he has had practical experience of these matters, and he told us, among other things, one thing which he knows to be true, and which I am advised is true. I have to take the opinion of my advisers, because I am not a practical expert, but the hon. Member is.
    This question of the operation of gas and gas attacks is not as simple as it appears to writers in the sensational Press and irresponsible speakers. The hon. Gentleman pointed out the difficulties that arise, and it may even be that there are some further gases, which might be extremely poisonous in the small quantities in which they are produced in the laboratory, which could not be used for the purpose of gas attacks. I think we must first remember that it is relevant that every country in Europe, so far as I know, is taking precautions of the kind that we are taking, and I do not think they would be acting in that way if they supposed that these precautions would be completely useless. I should not like to minimise the danger of gas attacks, but I think it is most desirable that a proper sense of proportion should be held. I believe that the steps the Government contemplate and the advice they hope to give will go a good way towards minimising the danger from this form of attack should it ever be used. I think, perhaps, the most relevant point to-day is the question of the, actual efficacy of respirators and gas masks. The hon. Member for North Camberwell seemed to
    726
    believe that there are a number of gases in existence against which there is no protection by respirator or anything else. Any respirator issued or approved by the Government will give protection to eyes, nose, and lungs against any known poison gas that may be used in chemical warfare.
    Mr. BEVAN: For how long does the mask remain efficient?
    Mr. LLOYD: I said in answer to a question to-day that a respirator that would be considered suitable for the civil population had an efficiency of 15 minutes against the highest possible known concentration of gas that could be found in practical conditions, and it would last for several hours under the concentration normally to be expected in any kind of warfare of that kind.
    Mr. BEVAN: How long after the mask has been made does it remain efficient, not in the presence of gas?
    Mr. ANDERSON: May I also ask if it is a protection against the skin apart from the nose, ear and throat?
    Mr. LLOYD: I am advised that the gas masks will retain their efficiency for many years. Of course, the Government would take a very important question like that into very serious consideration. It is true that no gas mask will operate in regard to the skin, because there is a certain gas which produces blisters. It is for that reason that the Government contemplate advising the civilian population to take refuge in gas-proof rooms. This, again, raises rather a large question. It is contemplated that the Air Raids Precaution Department should issue a circular to householders advising them in what way rooms pan be made gas proof. It is not very difficult to make the majority of rooms gas proof. It is not altogether dissimilar from the kind of precaution that you have to take when rooms have to be fumigated after infectious disease. In this question of gas-proof rooms, as in some other departments of the subject, the more it comes to be known the less will people be impressed by the mystery which at present surrounds it. I can certainly give the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) the assurance that this question is being considered in all its aspects and that certain

    727
    other precautions and preparations are being made.
    That brings me directly to the question of the school. I think I can give the hon. Member for South Shields satisfaction. Instruction will be given at the school, which will include training in how to make rooms proof against all known gases. [An HON. MEMBER: "Instruction to whom?"] Mostly to officials of local authorities. The second question the hon. Member asked was in regard to the safety of the district surrounding the anti-gas school and he wanted to know whether there would be any conceivable danger to anyone there having regard to the fact that, if large amounts of gas were liberated, they might drift for several miles. That question has been considered most carefully, and that is one of the reasons why the relatively large area of 250 acres of open land was chosen to surround the school. The point really is that the greater part of the training will take place in gas-proof rooms in the school and only very small quantities of gas will be liberated into the open air. I can give the hon. Member the assurance that the area out-side the grounds is completely safe.
    Mr. EDE: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my first question, whether instructions are given to make the room in which the gas is kept, the walls of which must be so made as to resist certain gases, capable of resisting gases other than chlorine phosgene and the chemical compound commonly called mustard gas?
    Mr. LLOYD: I have, frankly, no information at the moment in regard to that, but I think I can assure the hon. Member that this building will be equipped in the most up-to-date way known to the experts of the Air Raids Precautions Department. I do not think we shall be behind-hand in the matter that he has in mind, but I will investigate it and communicate with him privately.
    I was asked who would be given courses at the school. The intention is that they should be for officials of police forces, fire brigades, local authorities, members of St. John's Ambulance Brigade, the British Red Cross Society and the corresponding Scottish societies. The intention is to give them a fortnight's course
    728
    to cover the whole field. There will be an examination at the end of the course as the result of which an instructor's certificate will be issued, and those who qualify as first-class instructors will be competent to conduct local anti-gas training. The cost of the staff of the school and of the instructional equipment will be borne by the Home Office and no fee will be charged for those who attend the course. They will, however, pay at the rate of 6s. a day to cover the cost of their food. Perhaps the House will feel that I have given sufficient information on the subject. I conclude by echoing the sentiments of the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton when I say that the whole Committee will hope that the nation will neither be scared nor deluded.
    6.41 p.m.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: I entirely agree that it would be rendering a very false service to the public to be guilty of anything that could fairly be described as scaremongering, but it would be a very great disservice to seek to remove from the public mind a wholesome fear if that fear is justified. I have in my mind what the hon. Gentleman has said with regard to houses. All over the country there are still large masses of densely overcrowded slums where the houses are unfit for habitation and the walls, windows and roofs, so far from being gas proof, are not watertight or airtight. It will be many years before very great inroads are made upon that problem. I need only mention the Exchange Division of Liverpool, part of which I represent on the Liverpool City Council and hon. Friends near me represent other districts of a similar kind. They are perhaps the worst slums in the country. I am not sure that they are not the worst irk Europe. Some progress is being made, but any kind of progress would be slow. Under existing legislation it is necessarily very slow. I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman realises that, while the problem is being tackled in this way, large masses of people will inevitably regard the Government's handling of it as class legislation of the worst possible kind, because the result of it will be that, the more money you have to spend on your house, the safer you will he. Every kind of precaution that can be taken by people with the meant to take it will be taken, and that may result in some measure of safety to those who have

    729
    adequate means. I want to know what the Government propose to do for those large masses of the slum population who have no means at all except what the tender mercies of the Unemployment Assistance Board will give them.
    It is not merely a question of the provision of masks. I do not know how far they will be provided, but it is clear that masks are only a, protection provided you are able to protect the rest of your body by having a gas-proof room in your house or having facilities for reaching gas-proof accommodation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Lying in your bath."] That has been suggested more than once. In my home there are three adult persons and a baby and we have only one bath. I do not know how far that will be a protection. In most of the houses to which I have been refering there are no baths. I hope that no one will regard it lightly because one uses the weapon of satire. It is very tragic indeed that for large masses of the population no kind of protection is contemplated at all. We on this side are entitled to say that in those circumstances, and in the absence of any undertaking from the Government to do anything for these masses of people, all that has been said during this Debate to calm the public mind is merely a delusion and a snare.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Supposing the health of these people is adversely affected as the result of going to these instruction classes, will compensation be paid, and by whom?
    Mr. LLOYD: I cannot reply definitely to a question of that kind without notice, but the hon. Gentleman will recollect that in the majority of cases they will be employés of local authorities.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Am Ito understand that the Government have not considered that aspect of the question, that they are to ask local authorities to co-operate in this matter, and that then the local authorities are to be burdened with the responsibility of dealing with the compensation side? Is it not a matter which should be cleared up without further delay?
    Mr. LLOYD: The hon. Gentleman must not assume that the Government have not considered the matter, because I am
    730
    not able to reply at once upon a point which really does not arise directly. Certainly we will consider it.
    Mr. ANDERSON: This is a very serious matter. Are not the local authorities to know what they are to do? Has the chief of the fire brigade or some such person to go blindfolded to these classes without any knowledge as to what his position is to be later on?
    Mr. KIRBY: Are we to take it for granted, from what has been said by the Under-Secretary, that they do not propose to supply the service except as regards instruction in the schools; that the duties will be thrown upon guides, associations or local authorities, and that the Government will simply provide the instruction?
    6.49 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Then I understand that the unemployed will not be invited to Gloucester for a fortnight's holiday? I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State is prepared to have a consultation with the Minister of Labour on this matter? We have heard much about realism, and it is difficult for me to appreciate that Members listening to this Debate can really be in a state of sanity when looking at this problem. We have to contemplate, from what we have heard, that many scores of thousands of our people will perhaps in the near future be faced with peril, and yet at the same time the Government are prepared to continue their present policy. I know that I should be out of order if I related this question to foreign policy, but the whole of this matter rests entirely upon foreign policy, and it is difficult to repeat the essential principle underlying the question without relating it to foreign policy. If this proposal is to be made effective every member of the community will have to be supplied with a gas mask. I presume that in homes where there are large families a gas mask will have to be supplied for every member of the family, including very small children, however many there may be, and that every father and mother and child will have to be taught how to use it. Cattle might also have to be taught to use gas masks, and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price), interested as he is in agriculture, will realise that his farmers may be faced

    731
    with the loss of a substantial number of their stock.
    The more one discusses the question, the more absurd it becomes. Apart entirely from the experiments which have been conducted by the Home Office and by the Research Council, one knows that there is really no protection against bacteria and other forms of warfare which will take place in the future. I have never been in a gas attack, but I have been subjected to gas fumes and have on many occasions been made unconscious by coal gas when working underground. No one is able to anticipate exactly when this sort of thing is likely to take place, either on the surface or underground. You may be working in a very decent chamber in the mine, with a good circuit of ventilation and a fairly strong percentage of oxygen, when suddenly you may be faced with a fissure and at once

    Division No. 66.]

    AYES.

    [6.54 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Paling, W.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Groves, T. E.

    Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.

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

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Potts, J.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Price, M. P

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hardie, G. D.

    Pritt, D. N

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Quibell, J. D.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Barnes, A. J.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Ritson, J.

    Bellenger, F.

    Holland, A.

    Robinson, W. A. [St. Helens)

    Benson, G.

    Hollins, A.

    Rowson, G.

    Bevan, A.

    Hopkin, O.

    Salter, Dr. A.

    Broad, F. A.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Brooke, W.

    John, W.

    Shinwell, E.

    Charletan, H. C.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Short, A.

    Chater, D.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Cluse, w. S.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Compton, J.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

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

    Daggar, G.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Dalton, H.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sorensen. R. W.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lawson, J. J.

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

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Leach, W.

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

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Leonard, W.

    Thorne, W

    Day, H.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dobbie, W.

    Logan, D. G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)

    Lunn, W.

    Waikden, A. G.

    Ede, J. C.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Walker, J.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Watkins, F C.

    Edwards, Sip C. (Bedwellty)

    Maclean, N.

    Westwood, J.

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

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Frankel, D.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Williams, E. J (Ogmore)

    Gallacher, W.

    Marklew, E.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Maxton, J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Montague, F.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Gibblnt, J.

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

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Naylor, T. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr. P. G.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Albery, I. J.

    Apsley, Lord

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Aske, Sir R. W.

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

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

    Assheton, R.

    Barclay Harvey, C. M.

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

    Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Button)

    Bernays, R H.

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

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

    Blair, Sir R.

    become unconscious. I have to assume that such things will take place. The enemy will see to it that it takes place as instantaneously as possible, and the idea that persons may be taught to be ready at the right moment to save themselves and every member of their family is an absurdity. While we intend to vote for a reduction of this Estimate, we must also protest against the policy of a Government who are riot prepared to set in motion the means to establish peace on earth, but who are prepared, apparently, to incur enormous expenditure for defence services, when, at the same time, their own policy is heading towards war.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £39,900, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 235.

    Blindell, Sir J.

    Ganzoni, Sir J.

    Peake, O.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Penny, Sir G.

    Borodale, Viscount

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

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Giuckstein, L. H.

    Petherlck, M.

    Bouiton, W. W.

    Goodman, Col. A. W.

    Pilkington, R.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Piugge, L. F.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Porrltt, R. W.

    Brown. Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

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

    Ralkes, H. V. A. M.

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

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmln)

    Bull. B. B.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Burghley, Lord

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Butt, Sir A.

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Robinson, J. R. (Biackpool)

    Cartiand, J. R. H.

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Cary, R. A.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Rowlands, G.

    Cautley, Sir H. S.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

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

    Hasiam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Salt, E. W.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

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

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Sandys, E. D.

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

    Holmes, J. S.

    Scott, Lord William

    Channon, H.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.

    Selley, H. R.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Clarke, F. E.

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

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn'S)

    Cobb, Sir C. S.

    Hunter, T.

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

    Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

    Jackson, Sir H.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

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

    Keeling, E. H.

    Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

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

    Kerr, Colonel C. 1. (Montrose)

    Smithers. Sir W.

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

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Somerset. T.

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

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Kirkpatrick, W. M.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    Courthope, col. Sir G. L.

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

    Spears, Brig. -Gen. E. L.

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Ht. Hn. H. H.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Crooke, J. S.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Stourton, Hon. J. J.

    Cross, R. H.

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Levy, T.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Lewis, O.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    De Chair, S. S.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Thomas, J, P. L. (Hereford)

    Denville, Alfred

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Dodd, J. S.

    McEwen, Capt. H. J, F.

    Titchfleld, Marquess of

    Donner, P. W.

    McKie, J. H.

    Toucne, G. C.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Train, Sir J.

    Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Magnay, T.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Turton, R. H.

    Duggan, H. J.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

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

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Dung lass, Lord

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Ward, Irene (Walisend)

    Eastwood, J. F.

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

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Mitchell. H. (Brentford and Chlswlck)

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

    Eimley, Viscount

    Moreing, A. C.

    Wlndsor-CIive, Lleut.-Colonel G.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Morrison, W. S. (Clrencester)

    Wise, A. R.

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

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Evans, D, O. (Cardigan)

    Munro, P. M.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Everard, W. L.

    Nail, Sir J.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partlck)

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Nlcolson, Hon. H. G.

    Foot, D. M.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fremantle. Sir F. E.

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

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    and Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin.

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    APPROVED SCHOOLS, ETC, ENGLAND AND WALES.
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in
    734
    course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Grants in respect of the expenses of the Managers of Approved Schools in England and Wales; the expenses of Local Authorities in respect of children and young persons committed to their care; and the expenses of the Councils of Counties and County Boroughs in respect of Remand Homes."
    7.4 p.m.
    Mr. LLOYD: An original sum of £90,000 was provided for approved schools, and the increased sum now asked for is due to the fact that the number of boys and girls going to these schools has been greater than was anticipated. The number has risen from 6,483 in 1933, to 6,816 in 1934, and the present figure is 7,430. For remand homes an additional sum of £4,000 is required, and that also is because there have been a larger number of boys and girls sent to these homes than was anticipated at the beginning of the year.
    7.5 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Everybody who is acquainted with the good work in the approved schools will pay tribute to them for what they have achieved. They have indeed a very difficult task to perform. The figures given by the Minister would indicate that juvenile delinquency in this country is increasing alarmingly. But the situation is not exactly that. The passing of the Children Act of 1933 extended the age of the young person from 16 to 17, and the increased number may be attributed in part to that factor. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman what is the intention of the Department in respect of these schools. I gather that magistrates —
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman can only raise that later on the main Estimates.
    Mr. DAVIES: Will the Under-Secretary tell us where these new approved schools are to be built? There is a complaint from the parents of some of these children that they are sent to approved schools that are too far away for them to visit, and that the expense of travelling is too heavy. I hope that the Home Office will bear in mind that these new schools should be located in places that will not be too far for the parents to visit. I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind also a point that has been raised on many occasions before. The boys and girls are not graded in these schools. Some of the boys want care, and do not require the severe training that is sometimes meted out to them.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Again I think the hon. Gentleman is raising a
    736
    matter that must come on the main Estimates.
    Mr. DAVIES: I think I am entitled to argue in connection with approved schools as to the method of handling those who are in the schools.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not on this occasion. The hon. Member can raise that when the new Estimates for 1936 come on. At the moment we are only concerned with the increased sum.
    Mr. DAVIES: I should have thought that the new schools would be built to put somebody in, and that putting somebody in these schools meant that children would be there. The hon. Gentleman should take note that in the new schools they should start the new process of handling these boys and girls. It would be appropriate that they should begin in these new schools to grade the boys and girls. There will, of course, be some boys there with just wayward tendencies, there may be boys sent there of rather criminal habits, and the point has been made that there should be certain schools set apart to deal with certain types of boys and girls. The last suggestion I would make to the hon. Gentleman is this. These new schools are apparently required because there is not adequate accommodation for the number of boys and girls sent to them by magistrates. I am informed that boys and girls "sentenced" to be sent to the schools are kept in remand homes for six and seven months, and I am told also that some are kept in hostels and go from their homes to and fro from the hostels for several months at a time because there is no accommodation for them in approved schools. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how long it will take to establish these new schools? Will the programme take two, or three or five years The proposal seems to me rather more urgent than the hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate. Will the hon. Gentleman also be good enough to indicate where they are to be located?
    7.11 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am terribly disappointed at the request for this Vote, and I am not prepared to excuse the additional demands as easily as my hon. Friend seems to do. He seemed to think that the increased age of commit-

    737
    ments under the last Children Act justified the demand for additional accommodation and staff. I do not know what other Members of the House thought when we were passing that Act, but I was under the impression that the net result of that legislation would be to reduce substantially the number of young children admitted to institutional treatment, that it would tend to expand the probationary system, that it would enable the judicial and educational authorities who had to deal with young people running off the rails or getting into trouble through some schoolboy prank or other, to deal with the matter by probation, and by more careful attention to these difficult types by the teachers in the ordinary schools. Now we find that the result is an increased commitment to an institution which, under whatever name you call it, is a prison. It is the halfway road to the Borstal Institution. The change of a name has made no essential difference to the fact that the boy who is committed to one of these places has a public stigma attached to him which is known to all his friends, and that he is committed there for a period of time beyond the normal school age. He is kept in strict confinement, he is allowed only limited opportunities of returning to his chums and home.
    I am tremendously disappointed, and I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell us how it has come about that the hope of all of us that the number of young people sent to these institutions would be substantially reduced, that the reformatory and industrial school under its new name would be a vanishing institution, has not been realised. It was hoped gradually to eliminate these particular institutions from our public life. Now they are on the increase. Are magistrates making use of their probationary powers? Are they trying to fill these institutions? Are magistrates being led into the belief that these new approved schools are an Eton and Harrow business and that they are conferring a benefit on the youngsters in sending them there? Why is it the case that the Home Office is now asking for a substantially increased sum and for powers to build eight new schools? I hope that I shall be in order in saying something about the type of school which this additional money is going to build.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is perfectly in order in inquiring what type of schools are provided for under the Bill.
    Mr. MAXTON: I want to ask what sort of school architecture the Home Office is establishing for these new schools. Are they to be schools or small-sized prisons? Are they to be built and equipped on the principles which apply to good secondary schools? Is the living accommodation to be the large dormitory, or are the boys to have living conditions which can compare with the home life rather than with institutional life? Are they going to have proper playing fields and a proper gymnasium? Are these schools going to be staffed by specially qualified teachers if possible, with the special psychological training which is desirable in the handling of difficult cases, or are they going to be staffed, as the old reformatory industrial schools were staffed, by a type of teacher who himself has got some sort of a black mark against him, which rather bars him from acceptable appointment in the ordinary educational life of the nation? Is it going to be the case of criminals being educated not by criminal teachers but by teachers who have not maintained their intellectual status or the moral character status which is expected of the ordinary teacher?
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: Surely that is a most unfair aspersion to make on those who are selected to run these special schools.
    Mr. MAXTON: I do not know. I never like to be unfair and I hope that I have made no unfair aspersions. I was speaking with a certain amount of knowledge, and I do not think that I was going beyond the known facts of the case. The representative of the Home Office is here, and I presume he will be able to defend these staffs. If he can give an answer and tell me that in staffing these approved schools they are looking for men of the highest qualifications and character and that the present staffs are of that type, I say in advance that I have no intention of casting aspersions on them. The point I was going to make is that this is exceptionally difficult educational work. I want to know whether the Home Office in the staffing of these new schools have this in mind, and are making the condi-

    739
    tions of services such as will attract the best type of man in qualifications and in character. If that is the case at the present time it has not always been so in the past. If the Under-Secretary has the necessary information available I hope he will give an answer to these points, and also to the additional question as to the location of these eight new schools, and inform us whether the increase in commitments to these schools is fairly generally distributed throughout the country or whether it is occurring only in particular areas, in those areas where magistrates take a different view of their responsibilities from magistrates in other areas.
    Mr. R. DAVIES: I am sure the hon. Member will pardon me when I say that I had intended to develop exactly the arguments which he has developed. I agree entirely with all that he has said. When I sought to develop my argument I was called to order three times.
    Mr. MAXTON: I kept in order all the time.
    Mr. R. DAVIES: Simply because it is you.
    7.22 p.m.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: I was not surprised at the speech of the hon. Member or at the interruption of the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) because I think the blame must rest on the Department and on the Minister in bringing forward this Supplementary Vote without any explanation whatever. There should have been a White Paper explaining these remarkable figures. The fact that this is a Supplementary Estimate is the serious matter. In the explanatory memorandum you will find the words:
    "Accommodation in existing schools has been exhausted and certificates have been granted to eight new schools since the commencement of the year."
    We have heard alarming statements about the increase in crime and its causes. They were interpreted in various ways according to the predilections of the hon. Member who was discussing the problem. Some of the increase, it is said, is due to the abnormal amount of unemployment, some to malnutrition and some to the administration of the law. I do think that we require an explanation why it is necessary to improvise this additional
    740
    accommodation. These are not brand new buildings. Not even the ingenuity of the Home Office can build new buildings in six or 12 months. This is improvised accommodation. The accommodation in existing schools has been exhausted and certificates have been granted for eight new schools since the commencement of the year. When the House is asked to vote sums like this the Department ought to take the trouble to provide an explanation in some kind of memorandum. We are entitled to say to the Under-Secretary that even on Supplementary Votes the Department should exercise just as much care to give full information to the Committee as they do when bringing forward the main Estimate.
    7.24 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has complained of the increased number of young people who are sent to these schools and has made certain criticisms in regard to that matter. It may be that magistrates in different areas do not adopt the same methods in sending children to these approved schools. He criticised the character of these schools and hoped that they would retain something of the home life. In many of these cases I think he would find that the home influence leaves much to be desired, and that it is well for the children that they should be removed from the influence of their homes.
    Mr. MAXTON: I have in mind the case of a man who becomes unemployed. He has a wife and family; surrounded by trouble of one sort or another. The children are not properly cared for. There is a whole group of boys and girls, and they are committed and taken away for five years because the family are in temporary difficulties. Can the hon. and gallant Member justify that?
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I think that our first consideration must be to help the rising generation in spite of the misfortunes which may have befallen their parents. If children are suffering through contact which is undesirable I think it is proper to send them away. I should like to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to this point, that there are complaints about these remand homes; that boys and girls who are sent to remand homes remain there

    741
    for weeks and months before being sent to an approved school. It is in the highest degree desirable that life in a remand home should be shortened. The children cannot be properly supervised and ought to go to an approved school as early as possible. I am glad that the Home Office are doing something to extend and improve the methods of dealing with the young in order to give them a better chance in life.
    7.29 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: I know that we must be rather careful in what we say on the Supplementary Estimate if we are to keep in order, and, therefore, I only desire to give reasons why an increase is needed in these schools without explaining how these reasons arose. What I may say is not hostile to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), although it may to some extent conflict with what he has said. A very disturbing state of affairs is arising in Sussex and the South of England generally. Whatever may be the effects of unemployment elsewhere, they are not to be found there, since there is no juvenile unemployment and very little other unemployment in that part of the country. Nevertheless, juvenile crime is increasing, and, rightly or wrongly—I cannot discuss the matter on this Estimate, nor do I express any opinion—more and more children are being sent to the remand homes or approved schools.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is the crime of a serious nature?
    Earl WINTERTON: Sometimes it is very serious. It might be interesting to hon. Members to glance at a list of the juvenile offences—I will use the more lenient term—for which the children in one of the most prosperous parts of England are being sent to these schools at the present time. It is this growth in the number which is the reason for the increase in the Estimates, for there is undoubtedly most undesirable congestion in some of the approved schools at the present time.
    7.32 p.m.
    Mr. KELLY: I was very sorry to hear one hon. Member say that he was pleased to hear that the Home Office is making more provision for sending children to the approved schools. I think there is too much
    742
    readiness on the part of my fellow justices to send young people to approved schools, often for offences which are mere pranks and which ought not to be the cause of taking the children away from their homes. I have often heard justices say that young people would be much better off if they were in these wonderfully-conducted approved schools. I would ask the Under-Secretary whether there has been any investigation into the causes of this increase, which has taken place since 1933, in the number of young people sent to the approved schools. I wonder whether there are many cases such as the one I came across about a fortnight ago, where a boy was sent to an approved school because he was unemployed, refused to continue at the instruction centre and had the good sense to refuse to enter—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now very close to challenging the decision of a court. As long as he deals with the matter on general lines he is in order, but as soon as he comments on a special case he is out of order.
    Mr. KELLY: I am not commenting on the sentence, but only pointing out the type of case which is responsible for these additional costs. Again, those of us who are responsible for the conduct of some of the colonies for mentally defective children—responsible for five or six thousand of the young people of this country—find that children are being sent to the approved schools and later transferred to colonies for mentally defective children. I should be glad if the Minister could inform us whether there has been any investigation into the causes of this increase, and I join the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in asking whether the increase is spread over the whole country or is peculiar to certain districts.
    With regard to the eight new schools, does this mean that children who are sent to the approved schools are to be sent to schools where there are other children who have not been to the approved schools? If so, could the Minister tell us where these schools are and the type of children, other than those sent from the approved schools, attending them? I have heard references to the influences of the home. If the bad influences of the home are responsible for juvenile

    743
    offences, we shall have to remove a great many of the children from the slums of this country because of the bad homes there and enter them in approved schools. That is not what any of us desires. We would rather improve the homes than have the young people sent to approved schools as they are being sent at the present time.
    Mr. EDE: The hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay) and myself sit on the same quarter sessions bench but we sit on different petty sessions benches, and at our respective sessions we have to face the problem of the astonishing increase in what the Noble Lord called juvenile crime.
    Earl WINTERTON: I agree that those words were inappropriate. I later used the words "juvenile offences."
    Mr. EDE: I understand that the recognised term at the Home Office is "juvenile delinquency." The number of young persons up to the age of 17 years who appear before the various juvenile courts has increased very much in number. The figures for the counties of Kent, Middlesex and Surrey show that a little over double the number of cases came before the courts last year than in the year before the Act was passed. I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that that should be so; but I would point out that there has been brought in an entirely new reason for sending a child to an approved school—the consideration as to whether the child needs care and protection. Undoubtedly the magistrates have used that power very freely, and I do not comment on their wisdom or lack of wisdom in doing so, but I know of one case of a tall youth, almost 17 years of age, who, when he was committed to the remand home, knocked over a couple of policemen and had to be taken to the remand home by four policemen. When I made inquiries, it was reported to me, as chairman of the county council, that the youth was before the court because he was in need of care and protection. It may well be that he was in need of moral care and protection, in spite of his hefty physical appearance and his capabilities on the physical side.
    744
    It must be borne in mind, however, that the question of care and protection has been introduced, and that on the day the Act became law one-third of the population of this country was under 17 years of age. The proportion was very high owing to the exceptional birth-rate in the years 1920 and 1921. I hope I shall be in order when I say that we have not yet made it a delinquency to be in a home that does not meet all the requirements of the magistrates—

    ROYAL ASSENT.
    Whereupon the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
    The House went, and, having returned:
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to
    Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) (Extension) Act, 1936,
    Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1936.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for grants in respect of the expenses of the Managers of Approved Schools in England and Wales: the expenses of Local Authorities in respect of children and young persons committed to their care; and the expenses of the Councils of Counties and County Boroughs in respect of Remand Homes."
  Mr. EDE: When you rose from your seat, Captain Bourne, I thought that I had transgressed the Rules of the House, and I was relieved when I found that it merely indicated the coming of an august visitor. The good of the child must be the paramount thought in the minds of the magistrates, and I join with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in the appeal to the Minister that the staff recruited for these eight new schools

  745
  shall be people who are qualified by temperament, experience and training for dealing with this particularly difficult type of child. If we can get these children back, as we generally do, into the path of good citizenship, education will have achieved a great triump. If we are to put these children who are inclined to err back into the category of good citizens it requires on the part of the staffs of the schools a particular temperament and outlook and the realisation of the causes that lead some children into what are called delinquencies. It is no use trying to impose the adult sense of right, wrong and justice on the child. You will never convince a boy that taking an apple is wrong.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now developing an argument that would be more appropriate to the main Estimate.
  Mr. EDE: I was trying to follow the point that was made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton in regard to the staff of the eight new schools. I do not wish to labour the point, and I would only say that I support everything that he said that was in order. I will not attempt to follow him along the very narrow road which he followed so successfully. I hope that the Minister will be able to impress on the staffs of these schools the importance of the task which the House has submitted to them in dealing with this section of the child population. While we do not like to see the figures that have been quoted, I believe that a great deal of the apparent increase is merely due to the fact that the new Act gave wider opportunities for bringing into the purview of the schools children who before were excluded and ought to have been taken in.
  7.54 p.m.
  Mr. SILVERMAN: Some of the previous speakers have spoken as teachers and others have spoken in their capacity as justices of the peace. I am speaking from my experience in the courts as a practising solicitor. I should like the Under-Secretary to tell the Committee with regard to the eight new schools whether any differentiation is to be made between these schools, to which are to be committed children who have been convicted of what the Act describes as moral delinquency and those children who
  746
  have not been convicted of any moral delinquency, but have been found by the court of competent jurisdiction to be in need of care and protection. It would add greatly to the value of the administration of the Act and would largely take away the sting from the increased figures in so far as they are due to the causes to which the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has referred if the Under-Secretary could see his way to differentiate in the way I have suggested. The Act of 1933 gave to the courts this new power, which might be of very great benefit but might also be of very great danger. I do not want to say anything in the way of criticism but my knowledge of the courts of competent jurisdiction which exercise that jurisdiction is this, and all of us whether we are on the bench or whether we practise before the courts know, that not all magistrates are of the same mind. Some have a forward-looking, progressive mind and others have not. The Under-Secretary will know what I mean when I say that the Department has always recognised that fact. It has attempted and in some degree succeeded in persuading benches in different parts of the country to form from among their number a select group of magistrates with special qualifications to sit in juvenile courts and to exercise jurisdiction over children and young persons.
  Without criticising anyone, it is impossible not to recognise that some magistrates who have more progressive minds have taken a more enlightened view of their functions under the Act than has been taken by other magistrates. That has sometimes had the result that children or young persons who have been found by the courts to be in need of care and protection, children who have not committed any moral or legal delinquency, have been taken away from the homes and sent to approved schools where they have been in association with young persons who have been convicted of moral delinquencies. One can easily see what the results of that might be if it were carried too far. It might possibly find children taken from an atmosphere which itself led to a justifiable view that they were in need of care and protection and, under an order of the court, taken into an atmosphere which was of greater danger

  747
  to their moral well-being, owing to the fact that the children and young persons among whom they found themselves were people who had been guilty of moral delinquency.
  It may be—and if it is so, I hope the Under-Secretary of State will be able to reassure me and a large proportion of the public in whose minds the same anxiety exists—that one way of dealing with the point would be to see that some of these schools are used exclusively for those young persons who have been guilty of repeated moral delinquencies, and another section of the schools for the purpose of sending young persons who have not been convicted of any moral delinquency of that kind, but who, for other and different reasons, have been found to be in need of care and protection.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. LLOYD: My first duty is to reply to the points which were put to me by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who has himself had considerable experience at the Home Office, as well as of many other questions. I should very much like to satisfy him if I could. He asked me, first of all, where these schools were being established. The answer is that they are, as he is aware, being established by local authorities, and, therefore, it is occurring all over the country in the places where the need is felt. With regard to the actual distribution of the schools, I could not tell him where every one of them is, but I understand there are some in London, Essex, Cheshire, and Sussex. With regard to the point about the period of time in remand homes, I think I can satisfy him on that point, because there are very few cases indeed in which the period exceeds two or three weeks of waiting in remand homes. The third question related to the time it would take to establish these schools, and when there would be enough schools. Eight new schools are open already, but we think it will take about a year to have enough schools altogether to meet the conditions which exists at the present time.
  Turning to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), he and several other Members raised the general question as to why there should be an increase in the numbers which fall
  748
  to be dealt with in this way. I think the hon. Member will recall that the age was increased, under the Statute, at which children could be sent to these schools and, of course, thus become care and protection cases. It has been the case, we believe, that local authorities have in fact been active in bringing these cases forward, and the courts have made more use of the Statute of 1933 than was expected at the time, but I do not think there will be many people in this Committee who would think that that was a fair ground for disquietude.
  With regard to dormitories, in the large schools there are large dormitories and in the small schools small dormitories, but in some of the smaller schools there are separate cubicles for girls. With regard to the question of teachers, a very important question indeed, I think it is true, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton said, that in the past, in the far distant days when these questions were only beginning, some of the teachers were not up to the standard that we should like to see to-day. The Home Office have been making great efforts to improve the standard, and I think the standard to-day is equal to that to be found in the public elementary schools, and we are continually making efforts to improve it. In fact, there is a report now before the Secretary of State dealing with this very subject. I think I can assure the Committee that we shall take every step we can to see that the qualifications of the teachers, which admittedly need to be high for this work if it is to be successful, shall be fully maintained and indeed improved.
  If I may say a word, in conclusion, about these schools, our past experience has been that they are training establishments, and in the part over 90 per cent. of the boys and girls in the schools have not got into further trouble. I think the Committee will agree that that is a not unsatisfactory figure. We hope to see it maintained, if not improved, in the new schools, and I ask the Committee to consider this Supplementary Estimate as one making further provision for a, very progressive social service.
  Mr. SILVERMAN: I would like the hon. Gentleman, before he sits down, to deal with the question I asked, namely, whether it is the intention of the Department to differentiate between the schools

  749
  which they will use for the housing of young persons committed after being convicted of moral delinquencies, and schools exclusively for children who have not been so convicted, but have merely been found to be in need of care and protection.
  Mr. FLEMING: Is there any ground for the suggestion that the teachers appointed to an approved school are of any lower qualification intellectually than those appointed to the ordinary elementary schools?
  Mr. LLOYD: None whatever at the present time.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: But is it not the case that the teachers in these schools have a less salary than the teachers in the ordinary schools?
  Mr. LLOYD: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), I have certain information on the subject, but I do not think it would be sufficiently complete for me to furnish to the Committee. I will give further consideration to the point.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.

    COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £131,360, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants in Aid."
    8.11 p.m.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The main items, in fact almost all the items, included in this Supplementary Estimate are due to the unfortunate dispute between Italy and Abyssinia. The first is a Supplementary Estimate of £23,000 in aid of Somaliland. The Committee will appreciate at the outset the grave difficulties and anxieties with which we were faced in this dispute, having regard to the close proximity of our own people. It was found necessary to spend this sum
    750
    of money, not only further to protect the frontiers, but in the main to prevent our own people getting into trouble on the other side. This sum of money which has been spent, the Somaliland Government had themselves to bear, but I think the Committee will agree that we are responsible for it.
    The next item has to do with something the principle of which I think the House itself has already accepted, because this sum was in connection with finding homes for the Assyrians. Originally it was thought that British Guiana would open possibilities, and the result was that an investigation took place, inquiries were made, and a, commission was appointed. It was ultimately decided that a more suitable place could be found, and here again we feel that it would be hardly fair for another than the British Government to bear the responsibility. The next item affects Kenya, where we have this peculiar situation, that 318 deserters from the Italian native forces crossed the frontier in January and are now being detained and kept by us. Again the Committee will understand that this is hardly a burden which we could ask Kenya to bear, with the result that the sum of £14,000 is necessary for this additional expenditure.
    Mr. KELLY: Exclusively for that purpose?
    Mr. THOMAS: Not exclusively. The same argument that I applied to Somaliland is equally if not more applicable to Malta. The Committee is aware of the difficulties which have necessitated this expenditure in connection with Malta. A total sum of £75,000 is required under this head.
    Mr. KELLY: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain in more detail the item in relation to relief of non-Malta born Maltese in Turkey?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am coming to that. It is a question of distressed Maltese British subjects in Turkey. In this case the Turkish Government passed a measure which gave a practical monopoly of all work in Turkey to their own people with the result that 1,250 Maltese who were there found themselves unable to obtain employment. Although British subjects,

    751
    they have practically no connection with Malta and they were left almost destitute. We felt a moral responsibility towards them, and part of the Estimate to which I now ask the Committee to agree, represents the provision that we have made for these unfortunate people.
    Mr. KELLY: Have they been brought back to Malta?
    Mr. THOMAS: No, and if my hon. Friend considers the matter I am sure he will appreciate the difficulty of dealing in that way with 1,250 men, women and children who have never seen Malta and have no connection with Malta, and who, because of this action in Turkey, have been practically deprived of their livelihood. To all intents and purposes, they are British subjects and, as I say, we felt a moral responsibility to come to their assistance. The next item is in connection with Boundary Commissions, one relating to the boundaries of Northern Rhodesia and the Belgian Congo, and the other to the boundaries between British Guiana and Brazil. It was not anticipated that this expense would be incurred but it has been found necessary to make this provision, and this item in the Estimate relates exclusively to it. The other item of telegrams on Colonial Service, including over-sea telephone calls, is due to two causes, first the unfortunate dispute between Italy and Abyssinia which has necessitated a great increase in both telephones and telegrams, and also, as I am sure the Committee will appreciate, the number of messages arising out of the death of His late Majesty.
    8.18 p.m.
    Mr. LUNN: This is a most unusual Supplementary Estimate. In the first place it is for the very large sum of £131,000. Then, at the bottom of page 6, we find this condition attached to it:
    "Any balance of the sum issued which may remain unexpended at 31st March, 1936, will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer."
    This is an unusual condition to appear in a Supplementary Estimate, and I do not think it is one that ought to be granted to any Government. When money is voted in this way it ought to be expended on the purposes indicated or
    752
    else revert to the Exchequer, as I understand to be the case with every other Estimate. There is another exceptional feature about this Estimate. Of the total sum, no less than £100,000 is for war services. In relation to Somaliland, British Guiana, Kenya, Malta and Aden money is being provided which in my view ought not to be on the Colonial Office Vote at all but on the Service Estimates. Because of information which we receive from various Governments, we state from the platform the cost of preparations for war. How can we be correct if we have Estimates from a Department like the Colonial Office which include money that is really money for war preparation and ought to be on the Army, Navy or Air Force Votes? I object to these sums being put down to the Colonial Office. There is a sum of £2,300 in respect of the Assyrian settlement, and expenses incurred by British Guiana. On Tuesday we discussed a Supplementary Estimate, under the head of the League of Nations, of £57,000, part of a total sum of £250,000 which was being granted for the settlement of the Assyrians. I contend that this £2,500 ought to have been added to that Estimate.
    Mr. THOMAS: I am anxious that there should be no confusion of thought about this matter, and there certainly ought to be no difference of opinion. I observed with interest and satisfaction that in the Debate on Tuesday, agreement was expressed on all sides with the Assyrian settlement, and I ought to explain that had we not taken the course of putting this sum on this Estimate it would have been deducted from the benefit which these unfortunate people will receive. The object of putting it on this Estimate is in order that the poor victims should not suffer by such a deduction.
    Mr. LUNN: There was no need for the interjection of the right hon. Gentleman because I was present during that Debate and everybody was agreed in sympathising with the poor Assyrians.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: On a point of Order. What have the Assyrians to do with this Vote? Is it not on another Vote that their case arises?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot have read through the Estimate

    753
    or he would see that this item occurs under the heading British Guiana.
    Mr. LUNN: It is part of this Estimate and I am not objecting to it and the right hon. Gentleman need not think that I am objecting to it. I am putting the point that we have had an Estimate already in connection with settling these people, and that ought to have comprised all the items. That is my only point with regard to it. I am not objecting to the £2,300, but I say that it should not have been in the Colonial Office Estimate. Items are included here with regard to boundary commissions. I have raised this matter before. There is the delimitation of the boundary between Northern Rhodesia and the Congo, and we ought to know whether this £1,000 is the final amount we shall be called upon to pay. Then a commission has been opened for the delimitation of the boundary between British Guiana and Brazil. The right hon. Gentleman might tell us how long the discussions are likely to go on and whether we shall have some more Estimates in future. I am not objecting to the money required in these Estimates being spent in the way described, but I object to so much of it being on the Colonial Office Vote and not on the Votes of the Service Departments so that we could know what we are paying towards war preparations and the continuation of any war, whether we are part of it or not.
    8.27 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can give us some details of the measures we are taking in connection with the ItaloAbyssinian dispute in Somaliland. It amounts to £23,000. I should also like some information on the next item, "Grant in Aid of Expenses incurred by British Guiana in investigating the possibilities of Assyrian settlement." I would like to know what that £2,360 has been spent on, because these Assyrians have been before the House practically since the War. Then there is a grant of £14,000 to Kenya. Kenya is well represented in this House and on the Government Benches. Great wealth is represented in Kenya and here we find a grant in aid to that country Again it is in connection with the Italo-Abyssinian dispute. I should like to know what it has been spent on and if it bas been spent in safeguarding the interests of Kenya
    754
    against the encroachment of the Italians. What contribution has been made by the Kenyans or by the white population? The next item is in reference to Malta, and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can explain the grant in aid of £12,000 towards the cost of relief of non-Malta born Maltese destitute in Turkey. There is a great difference in geographical situation between Malta and Turkey, and how does it happen that we are to provide this sum for those individuals? Why are we so sympathetic in this case? Here at home are two villages which I have in mind, Leadhills and Wanlochhead, that have been left destitute without any means of support other than what can be obtained from the Employment Exchange. The lead mines have been stopped for eight years and nothing is done to relieve the people.
    I believe that charity begins at home, but it ought not to end there. I am not objecting to extending the right hand of friendship to everyone beyond the sea, but why are we making this expenditure on individuals abroad? I do not understand their nationality; they are non-Malta born, which means they are not born in Malta, but they are Maltese destitute in Turkey. It is stretching things rather far to assist Maltese in Turkey to the tune of £12,000 when, if we appeal for assistance for our own folk, it is impossible to get it. With regard to the boundary commission for Northern Rhodesia and the Congo one-half of the expenditure will be recovered from the Government of Northern Rhodesia. In the case of the boundary commission for British Guiana and Brazil, however, there is no information whether we shall get any return from British Guiana. Is this commission looking after the interests of the folk in British Guiana, or after British investors and British capital? The statement appears:
    "The question whether this expenditure will be recovered, in whole or in part, from the Government of British Guiana will be considered later."
    Is it not rather a slipshod proceeding for a Minister with sage experience to come to the House of Commons with the statement that it will be considered later? That is not the way this Government deals with us. There is no "considered later" for us. We have to be ready with the facts every time

    755
    we go to any Minister of the Crown with any case which we wish to be investigated. Here, away abroad, the Government are prepared to stand good for £11,000 without any guarantee that that sum will be recovered, because nobody knows better than the Minister that Brazil is a country which has let us down as Russia was accused of doing, that is by never meeting its creditors. Brazil owes not only tens of thousands but millions to this country, and instead of supplying us with information this Minister, of all Ministers, calmly comes to the House and submits a statement like that. We should not pass this Estimate until we have had a statement clearing the air about this £11,000.
    Under the heading of "Middle Eastern Services" I find an item in respect of Aden. I recall that I stood against the Labour Government in this House when they transferred Aden to the Indian Government. To-day we here are no longer responsible for Aden, and yet we find an item of expenditure of £750 on Protectorate chiefs. I want to know who those chiefs are, and why, after we have handed over Aden to the Indian Government, we should be asked to pay this money. Evidently it is a very big job to pay over this £750 to these chiefs. Evidently they are away in the desert or somewhere else, because I see the next item is £250 for "miscellaneous expenses," and I take that to be the cost incurred in going to pay those chiefs in their inaccessible paying places.
    It makes £1,000 in all. Of course, it is nothing—nothing when we are giving it, away. A few years ago I was appealing foil some consideration for Scotsmen who were up against it and I could get nothing, and yet the first time the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had any surplus in his Budget he gave £2,000,000 to the Arabs in Palestine. When it is a question of assisting those in this country who are up against it through no fault of their own, but through the fault of the system under which we live, move and have our being, they are put under a means test. I want to know what means test has been applied to these chiefs. I want some information about this, and the Minister can take it from me that he will not get away so easily as he imagines unless he has a satisfactory reply. [Laughter.] There
    756
    are a number of Members in the House who are taking this as a joke. I wish their constituents were here. They would not regard it as a joke to see thousands and tens of thousands of pounds being distributed all round the Mediterranean while we here at home can get absolutely nothing. We shall see whether there is any cause for hilarity when the Minister has replied.
    The next item "Expenditure on special measures taken in connection with the Italo-Abyssinian dispute." This Abyssinian dispute is evidently to be a great cloak for covering up a whole lot of business, for allowing the Government to pay out money to a great many organisations and institutions. They would not get the sanction of the House under normal circumstances, and are proceeding under the guise of taking action to protect British interests. Half the expenditure will be recovered from the Government of India. That is £4,000 that we are standing in for. I want to know what that money is for.
    The next item is:
    "Appropriations in Aid: Contribution by Government in respect of special measures at Aden, £4.000."
    These items added together amount to about £176,000, in round figures. That is really nothing. I want the Minister to tell us what is happening to justify this Supplementary Estimate, and why it appears to be in respect of parts of the Empire for which this House is not responsible. I can never forget that I protested when the Labour Government transferred to India the government and everything else connected with the rock of Aden. I wanted it retained here, but that is beside the question. Now that it, is with India, and money is wanted for its extra protection, they still come here. Our men are there, and I have letters from them saying that the rock of Aden is one of the worst spots in the universe and the worst place in the British Empire for airmen or soldiers. It is a perfect hell on earth. That is their language to me.
    I want an explanation for that expenditure, in addition to an explanation of all the other items to which I have referred. All these are- in the Supplementary Estimate under the guise of measures made necessary because Italy is at war with Abyssinia. I want you to clear the air of my suspicions. A number of items

    757
    of expenditure are being covered up because of this war in Abyssinia. I hope the Minister will try to explain the matters which I have brought forward.
    8.48 p.m.
    Captain ARTHUR EVANS: I wish to refer to two items in the Supplementary Estimate because they involve a question of principle. If I understood my right hon. Friend aright when he dealt with the two items, A.3, Somaliland, £23,000 and A.12, Kenya, £14,000, he told us that some portion of the money was to be voted to those Colonies because of the expense to which they had been put to maintain deserters from the Italian or Abyssinian forces. I do not know what the international law on this point may be, but if we are to accept the financial responsibility of maintaining these deserters in what might well be the early stages of the campaign, without making any adequate request either through the League of Nations or direct to the Italian or Abyssinian Government for a refund from these charges, we might easily involve ourselves in an expenditure which is not justified. At a time when the national finances have to be watched with t he utmost care, we have no right to ask the taxpayers of this country to maintain the deserters or prisoners of war of one or the other nations involved in this unfortunate dispute.
    The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to the fact that under J heading it is estimated that a certain amount of money is to be reclaimed from India in relation to an expenditure of £8,000 associated with the Italo-Abyssinian dispute. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would have included a paragraph in the Supplementary Estimate saying that it was expected or hoped that a claim would be made against Italy for a refund of this money. We have a precedent in the case of Holland, where, during the War, a vast number of our troops, and Royal Marines in particular, were imprisoned for four years. If I remember correctly, Supplementary Estimates were submitted to the House to maintain our Forces under the protection of the Dutch Government. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be good enough to inform me what is the position in international law, and whether the Government have taken, or contemplate taking, steps to get a re-
    758
    fund of the expenses, either from the Italian Government or from the Abyssinian authorities.
    8.52 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: I do not wish to do more than refer to something which was mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans). I want to know where the ultimate expense for the maintenance of these deserters will lie. Wherever the ultimate expense is to be borne, I am concerned that these men, who are living on British territories, shall be treated with the utmost humane consideration, that they shall not be kept under prison conditions and that they shall be adequately housed and fed and given the maximum of freedom that is compatible with the international laws that govern the situation.
    8.53 p.m.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: May I answer the last question first? My hon. Friend would not expect me to give an answer as to what is the international law on the subject. [interruption.] It is no good asking, "What is the law?" Do not get into that strain of merely chipping. I will endeavour to give the Committee a fair statement of all my information. Nobody, and least of all my hon. Friend who interrupted me, would expect me, when a war is taking place, to give an answer to a technical question as to what is the international law on the subject. Is there any Member, certainly on that side of the Committee, who would dare say that we were doing wrong, while this unfortunate war is taking place and we find ourselves, because of our geographical position, in charge of a number of people who have deserted? It is not for us to ascertain the reason, but it is for us to do.
    My hon. Friend said in effect, "Treat them as human beings and give them the best possible conditions." We are in full agreement about that. I am not at this stage going into the merits of how, when or against whom a particular claim will ultimately be made. I am content to say that these poor unfortunate people find themselves in our territory, and that we would be less than human, and I would be less than human, not to come down to the House and say that they are costing us money and to ask the House to

    759
    realise that we could not anticipate this expenditure 12 months ago. That is why it is part of a Supplementary Estimate, I hope that both my hon. Friends will accept that as a fair statement of the position. It would not only not be competent for me to give a legal opinion, but I put it to the Committee that the legal aspect does not arise at this stage. We are all much more concerned with the human side, and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall have due regard to the points which have been made in that connection.
    Captain A. EVANS: After all, this is a matter of some importance, and, if I may say so with great respect, the right bon. Gentleman has made an attempt to answer a case which no one has raised. No one disputes for a moment the arguments he has used, but the point I want to make is that, while we admit, and it is obvious, that we have to take care of these men, we want to know whether a claim is going to be made subsequently against the nations concerned similar to that which we had to meet in respect of our prisoners of war during the Great War.
    Mr. THOMAS: I am sure the Committee will realise that it would not be proper for me to make such a statement on a Supplementary Estimate, and least of all on an Estimate which merely deals with the cost of maintaining these unfortunate prisoners. I do not think my hon. Friend can ask for an authoritative statement on that side of the question now. I know perfectly well what happened in the late War, but I do not want to say anything, and no Member of the House would expect me to say anything, that would aggravate the situation or cause difficulty. I content myself with stating the bald fact that this Estimate is made necessary by the unfortunate circumstances of the situation that we are endeavouring to meet, and all that the Committee is asked to do is to realise that this is a cost that Kenya could not be expected to bear.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) asked a number of questions to which he said he wanted answers, but I rather thought that on each of the items he mentioned I had endeavoured to give an explanation
    760
    in advance. I explained with regard to Somaliland, with regard to Kenya, and with regard to the position of the Assyrians. I told the Committee quite frankly that the close proximity both of Kenya and Somaliland to the war that is now taking place necessitated certain measures, but these are not warlike preparations. To describe them so is a travesty of the facts. These are not warlike preparations by our people, but measures to protect our own people against the war that is taking place and the consequences that may follow. That is the difference between warlike preparations and giving the ordinary protection that we are entitled to give.
    My hon. Friend also asked what was the reason for our responsibility for Aden. He pointed out that he took a certain stand with regard to Aden when the Government of India Bill was before the House, and that is true; but he has forgotten that, while it was ultimately decided to transfer certain territories in Aden to the United Kingdom, that transfer will not lake place until 1937. Therefore, we are responsible, and hence the expenditure. With regard to the other question, the answer is precisely the same as that which I gave with regard to Somaliland and Kenya. Aden, by its geographical position, is rendered subject to all the difficulties that I have explained in connection with Somaliland and Kenya.
    With regard to the question of boundaries, it is not for me to enter into the merits, but in each of these cases the boundary commission is a commission that will define the boundaries of certain territories which ultimately become our property, and, if a boundary is to be defined, we must have a competent person who will ax least see that our interest is adequately protected. That is the real object of the boundary commission. As my hon. Friend pointed out, he has raised several times, and quite rightly, the question of the delay that has occurred in the case of several boundary commissions. There is an item in connection with the boundary of British Guiana that has been brought about by the most unfortunate illness and death of two of the original commission. It was then found that the territory with which they were dealing was more difficult than anyone ever antici-

    761
    pated. We had to appoint substitutes in place of those who had died, and that is the reason for the additional Estimate. My hon. Friend's protest as regards Northern Rhodesia was quite legitimate. We have ourselves telegraphed out, and we hope that this will not only be a final Estimate, but that the task will speedily be completed. I agree with my hon. Friend that the overwhelming amount of this money is due, not quite to the Colonial Office, but it comes on to the Colonial Office Vote because the Colonial Office is responsible for giving the instructions. I would ask the Committee not to treat these items as warlike expenditure—
    Mr. LUNN: That is what they are.
    Mr. THOMAS: Let us be quite fair, because that suggestion will be misunderstood in the country. Take the case of Malta. Without saying anything that would complicate the foreign situation, I would ask whether any hon. Member, knowing the position of Malta, would deny that the Government were right and justified in taking, and would have been wanting in their duty, knowing the situation at Malta, if they had not taken, the elementary precautions that have been taken, not for guns, not for soldiers, but for the protection of the civil population against something that may arise—I put it no higher. I put it to the Committee that there would have been strong condemnation from the benches opposite, and from all quarters of the House, if we had not taken the elementary precautions that are indicated here. No solitary pound of this Estimate is for guns or anything of that kind; it is for protection to the civil population. In the case of Somaliland, again, will anyone say that those precautions ought not to have been taken, knowing our responsibility for dealing with the natives, and knowing perfectly well that they may be tempted, with possibly disastrous results to them, to cross the border into territory where a war is taking place? It was our duty to protect them against that danger and it was adequate protection in their own interests. That is the main item of this expenditure and I ask the Committee to accept it.
    9.5 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has taken this matter on
    762
    the wrong lines. There was no need to get so excited, because we were only querying the expenditure. We are the Opposition and we have a right to find out where the money is going. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to assume that we do not want to look after the prisoners carefully and well. There is no desire that they should be sent back to Italy. The question is whether there will be any attempt to get some of this money back from some other source. I assume that, when the debt comes to be reckoned up, the League of Nations will be responsible for some of the expense, and we have a right to ask if we shall get something back. It is not right that we should bear the greater part of the expense. Someone else ought to share it. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us at the moment whether we shall get any back, all right, but do not assume that we doubt him or that we do not want protection for these men. It is simply curiosity to find out where the money is going.
    9.7 p.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I notice that the Solicitor-General has come in. He might be able to elucidate the matter. We are asking what is the international law on this subject. If a nation is called upon to maintain prisoners or deserters from an army, shall we later on be able to make any claim against the Government concerned, or is there any other method by which we can be recouped? If the numbers increase, it might be a very considerable sum of money. In the late War there were methods by which the cost was recovered. There is no question as to the rightness of taking care either of Abyssinians or Italians or any other of the various tribes that may desert. We only ask if the Solicitor-General can help us to understand whether in future some part of the cost may be recovered.
    9.9 p.m.
    Mr. T. SMITH: We know how astute the Colonial Secretary is in debate. He rather suggested that we were objecting to the expenditure of this money. He knows perfectly well that we were not. When I interrupted him, I put a perfectly legitimate point. It is the duty of a Committee of Ways and Means to examine the objects for which the Government is asking money. If we allowed anything to go by without criticism or an interro-

    763
    gation, six months hence the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to say that we had not raised it when the Supplementary Estimate was before the House. In the right hon. Gentleman's Department there is information and there are men who know the law on the point. The right hon. Gentleman must not forget that he was guilty of the same practice on Tuesday of not giving the information that we had a right to expect. The Solicitor-General should be asked either to state exactly what is the position or promise to give it consideration and let the House know later.
    Mr. THOMAS: I am the last person in the world to be discourteous. I endeavoured to give an explanation to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and he accepted it. If any one wants to know what will ultimately be the legal responsibility for these prisoners and puts a question down on the Paper, I would see, if the question was addressed to me, that a proper answer was given. My only point was that neither I nor my Department would be competent to give an answer to a question which is essentially one for the Law Officers.
    Mr. LANSBURY: This is a question of law. A Law Officer is on the bench and it would be discourteous of him not to reply to us. The Colonial Secretary said we could put down a question, but we are not expected to give notice of questions in connection with the Estimates. This is a time when Ministers ought to be on the alert to answer any question that may be raised. I think the Solicitor-General should give us the answer that we have been waiting for.
    9.14 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I came into the Chamber and sat at the end of the bench and my presence was detected by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who raised what is undoubtedly an important and a very difficult point of law. It does not affect these Estimates. I do not think there is any dispute that this expenditure has been properly incurred. The question which is raised—it does not affect anybody's mind as to whether this particular Estimate should or should not be accepted by the Committee—is
    764
    whether in the future, this expenditure having been properly incurred and passed by this Government, there might or might not be in international law a claim for recoupment. My right hon. Friend has the primary responsibility in this matter, and I am certain that whenever it can reasonably be anticipated that there is any question on which the House or the Committee might desire the opinion of the Law Officers, it is the duty of the Law Officers to be present. The Committee will appreciate that this question —a proper and very important question to be considered at the appropriate time —is really one consequent upon the decision that the Committee will take to-night, and is not really relative to the actual position now before the Committee. I am in the hands of the Committee, but I cannot give a considered opinion as to what might or might not be the right under international law in this country in the future with regard to a claim for recoupment of this sum. I suggest with all deference that it is not really relevant.
    Mr. TINKER: It is relevant.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is not relevant to the decision which the Committee have to take to-night. Does anybody suggest that, assuming that we had no right to recoupment this money ought not to be raised?
    Mr. TINKER: No, we do not say so.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Solicitor-General should not try and put us in an awkward position, Because he is himself in an awkward position, he tries to put somebody else in the same position.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member commented upon a decision which I merely ask the, Committee to accept. It is a responsibility to the House that the Attorney-General should be here when a legal point requires to be answered. [An HON. MEMBER: "It does now."] The hon. Gentleman is wrong, it does not. Nobody will say that this Estimate should be or should not be voted accordingly as to whether we have a right in law. That is all I can say. I cannot with this notice give a considered legal opinion to the Committee on this matter, but I can assure every hon. Member that the point put to my right hon. Friend will be considered with the greatest care.

    765
    As I have suggested to the Committee, it is not really relative to the decision to be taken to-night.
    9.19 p.m.
    Mr. LUNN: The learned Solicitor-General has not helped us a little. If he had been present at the beginning of the Debate he would have heard the whole question of this liability raised in respect to items in this Estimate. He has not given an answer of any kind which is helpful to the Committee. We do not know at the moment what is the position, but we know what is to be the position. The point I raise is that while I do not disagree with the humanitarian views expressed, I object to Estimates of this kind being used when they ought to be attached to the Service Departments, and not to the Civil Service. If we have to spend money for war purposes of any description, it ought to be known that it is being so spent. We shall have to watch all the Estimates this year very carefully, both main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, to see to what extent warlike expenditure is to be

    Division No. 67.]

    AYES.

    [9.21 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Pcthick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hurdle, G. D.

    Potts, J.

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

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Price, M. P.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwlck)

    Prltt, D. N.

    Anderson, F. (Whitchaven)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Quibell. J. D.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Holland, A.

    Riley, B.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hollins, A.

    Ritson, J.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Hopkin. D.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Batey, J.

    Jenkins. A. (Pontypool)

    Rowson, G.

    Bevan, A.

    John, W.

    Saiter, Dr. A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)

    Shinwell, E.

    Compton, J.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Short, A.

    Daggar, G.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Sliverman, S. S.

    Davidson. J. J. (Maryhill)

    Klrby, B. V.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Klrkwood, D.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lawson. J. J.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Dobbie, W.

    Leach, W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)

    Lee, F.

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

    Ede, J. c.

    Leonard, W.

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

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

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

    Logan, D. G.

    Thurtle, E.

    Foot, D. M.

    Lunn, W.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Frankel. D.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Vlant, S. P.

    Gallacher, W.

    McGovern, J.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Maclean, N.

    Walker. J.

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    MacNeill, Weir, L.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Malnwaring, W. H.

    Westwood, J.

    Gibbins, J.

    Markiew, E.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Maxton, J.

    Wllliams, T. (Don Valley)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mliner. Major J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercllfle)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Montague, F.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

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

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

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Griffiths. G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Groves. T. E.

    Oliver, G. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Paling, W.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers,

    NOES.

    Albery, I. J.

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

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Allen, Ll.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'lul)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Assheton, R.

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

    Apslcy, Lord

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

    increased by reason of expenses in this way.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Move to report Progress.
    Mr. LUNN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    We are so dissatisfied with the explanation of the learned Solicitor-General that it is necessary that he should be given a few minutes in which to consider the position, so as to be able to tell us what is the international position with regard to prisoners of war or whatever they may be. It is in order to give the hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity to say more clearly what is the position upon this particular issue, that I now move to report Progress.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 191.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Penny, Sir G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fleming, E. L.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

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

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Petherick, M.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Ganzoni, Sir J.

    Pllkington, R.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Blindell, Sir J.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Goodman, Col. A. W.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Bostom, A. C.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Raikcs, H. V. A. M.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Rankin, R.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmln)

    Bracken, B.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Guest, Ma). Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll.N.W.)

    Remer, J. R.

    Brockiebank, C. E. R.

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Rlckards, G. W. (Sklpton)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Lelth)

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

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

    Hannah, I. C.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Bull, B. B.

    Harvey, G.

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

    Burghley, Lord

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Rowlands, G.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Salt. E. W.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

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

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

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

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

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Hunter, T.

    Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

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

    Somerset, T.

    Clarke, F. E.

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

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Colville, U.-Col. D. J.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Unlvt.)

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

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

    Latham, Sir P.

    Spender-Clay Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.

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

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

    Storey, S.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Leckle, J. A.

    Stourton, Hon. J. J.

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lewis, O.

    Strickland. Captain W. F.

    Crltchley,. A.

    Llewellin, Lleut.-Col. J. J.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

    Crooke, J. S.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Crookshank. Capt. H. F. C.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Groom-Johnson, R. P.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfleid)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Cross, R. H.

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

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Crossley, A. C.

    McCorquodaie, M. S.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Culverwell, C. T.

    McKIc, J. H.

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

    Davies. C- (Montgomery)

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Dawson, Sir p.

    Magnay, T.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Tltchfield. Marquess of

    Denville. Alfred

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

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Dodd, J. S.

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

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

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

    Duggan, H. J.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswlck)

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

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

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv'e.)

    Windsor-Clive, Liout. -Colonel G.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Morrison, W. S. (Clrencester)

    Wise, A. R.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Munro, P. M.

    Womerslty, Sir W. J.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Nail, Sir J.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Errington, E.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Erskine Hill, A. G.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

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

    Peake, O.

    Major Ceorge Davies and

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Peat. C. U.

    Commander Southby.

    Original Question again proposed.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. LUNN: I moved to report Progress in order that we might have a statement of the legal position on this question of the deserters. We have no Law Officer on the Government Front Bench at this moment, so I anticipate that we are not going to get an answer to that question. I admit that it may be a difficult matter; it may be as difficult as, or even more difficult than, the matter of the deserters from the Labour Government in 1931. It is a difficult question, but I think I ought to say that the
    768
    matter cannot rest where it is. The most I can say and the most perhaps that I can expect is that this matter will be raised again on Report stage, and that we shall expect an answer as to what is the law on this point.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No one has minimised the importance of the question. I have already indicated the complications that arise, and the importance of giving the proper position. I would answer my hon. Friend by saying that certainly between now and the Report stage the opportunity will be taken of considering the matter.
    Mr. LOGAN: The original Estimate was a sum of £718,401, and now the right hon. Gentleman is asking the House to agree to an Estimate of £131,360. I can understand in a place where there was no business really done people taking Estimates according to the word of a Minister. But what I am surprised about is that any responsible Minister, no matter who he may be, when there has been an increase of 100 per cent. would not be prepared to give information to the House that will relieve the difficulty. I am going to argue that where hospitality has been given to refugees we are justly entitled to know how far this liability is to be incurred by the nation. We are justly entitled to know where we stand. It may be that the Minister, in regard to this Estimate, does not know and that the Solicitor-General does not know, but there must be someone dealing with the finances of the nation who must know how we are going to arrive at our liability.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, if I understand him, is arguing the question which has already been decided by a Division, and he cannot raise a further discussion on that matter.
    Mr. LOGAN: I believe that in this House we have certain law officials who are regarded as an authority in relation to legal matters, and we are entitled to have that authority expressed in this House. I do not accept the expression of the right hon. Gentleman that he does not know—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to accept the decision of the Committee and not to discuss a matter which has been decided.
    Mr. LOGAN: As far as I understand, the decision of the Committee was given in regard to a matter upon which we wanted certain information, and most hon. Members who came in did not know what we were asking when giving their vote. The decision of the Committee has been given without those hon. Members who voted really knowing exactly what they were voting for. We had the Whips standing at both doors saying you must go into this Lobby —
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now entirely out of order.
    Mr. LOGAN: Am I to assume from your Ruling that a decision has already been taken in regard to the information we sought, that it is not obtainable, that we are not going to get the information, that the Law Officers are not able to say where the liability rests and that we have to accept the position that no information is to be given to the Committee?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must obey my Ruling.
    Mr. LOGAN: If the question has been answered it has not been satisfactorily answered; and it is no solution of the problem. I take it that I must accept the decision of the Committee as being—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not ask my Ruling on a purely hypothetical question.
    Mr. LOGAN: Then if the Law Officers are not able to give information appertaining to the finances of the nation—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now definitely for the third time transgressing my Ruling.
    9.39 p.m.
    Mr. PRITT: I want to suggest that this matter on which the Solicitor-General was momentarily and quite excusably unable to give information is very relevant. The Solicitor-General sought to ride off by saying that it was not relevant. I suggest that it is relevant for this reason. This House is the guardian of the public purse and has to sanction all expenditure. The Secretary of State brings before the Committee a Vote for a Supplementary Estimate which includes certain expenditure for entertaining belligerent citizens of a foreign State who have come into His Majesty's territory. The Committee may think that expenditure of that kind is expenditure which Parliament will have to sanction, but before the Committee is asked to sanction the expenditure it should know how it was incurred, whether it was inevitable that it should be incurred, and whether there is any chance of recoupment, although the matter of recoupment is a less important consideration.
    The Solicitor-General said that he could not answer. I am a good enough lawyer to know that that is a very honest and

    771
    frank statement; many lawyers cannot answer too complicated a question offhand. The Solicitor-General cannot answer, not because he has not read his brief, but because he was not given a brief. The question is, why have they incurred this expenditure and was it unavoidable? On a matter of pure law the Solicitor-General fears to tread, but I have no angelic qualities, and I propose to suggest what the law is. The law is that these people need not have been received at all; they could have been driven back. No doubt the dictates of humanity made it reasonable that they should he received, but if the Committee is to be asked to sanction the expenditure we should know why. The somewhat more remote consideration as to whether we can get back the money from the Sovereign State involved is a very simple question, and the answer in the terms of the Hague Convention is:

    Division No. 68.]

    AYES.

    [9.48 p.m.

    Albery, I. J.

    Dodd, J. S.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

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

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Loftus, P. C.

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

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

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

    Duggan, H. J.

    Mac Andrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Aake, Sir R. W.

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    McKie, J. H.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Magnay, T.

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

    Errington, E.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Barclay- Harvey, C. M.

    Erskine Hill, A. G.

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

    Bossom, A. C.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Everard, W. L.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Flndlay, Sir E.

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

    Bralthwaite, Major A. N.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Foot, D. M.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Lelth)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Morris, J P. (Salford. N.)

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

    Ganzoni, Sir J.

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

    Bull, B. B.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Morrison. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Burghley, Lord

    Gluckstcin, L. H.

    Munro, P. M.

    Burgln, Dr. E. L.

    Goodman, Col. A. W.

    Nail, Sir J.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Grldley, Sir A. B.

    Orr-Ewing. I. L.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

    Peat, C. U.

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

    Grimtton, R. V.

    Penny, Sir G.

    Chapman, A, (Rutherglen)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Petherick, M.

    Clarke, F. E.

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mti'rw'll, N. W.)

    Pllkington, R.

    Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

    Guy, J. C. M.

    ponsonby, Col. C. E,

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

    Hannah, I. C.

    Porritt. R. W.

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

    Harvey, G.

    Procter, Major H. A.

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

    Haelam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Rankin, R.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Holmes, J. S.

    Rathbone. J. R. (Bodniln)

    Crltchley, A.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Crooke, J. S.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. O.

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Groom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hunter, T.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Cross. R. H.

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

    Robinson. J. R. (Blackpool)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Ropner. Colonel L.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

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

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Rowlands, G.

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

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

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

    Leckie, J. A.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Salt, E. W.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lewis, O.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Denville, Alfred

    Llewellin, Lieut-Col. J. J.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    "In the absence of a special convention, the neutral Power shall supply the interned with…At the conclusion of peace, the expenses of internment shall he made good"—
    that is by the Sovereign State involved.
    9.44 p.m.
    Mr. ROLAND ROBINSON: The hon. and learned Member has told us that according to the terms of the Hague Convention we have a right to a recoupment of this sum of money. The Solicitor-General and the Colonial Secretary have promised that this opinion shall be verified. May I press the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further and say that if it is proved that we have a just claim for a recoupment of the money spent on the maintenance of these men, the Government will press that claim to its utmost extent?
    Original question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 102.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

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

    Sutcllffe, H.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

    Tasker, Sir R. I

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Somerset. T.

    Tate, Mavis C.

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

    Somervell, Sir D B (Crewe)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

    Wise, A. R.

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

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Herelord)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Storey, S.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Young, A. S. L. (PartlCK)

    Stourton, Hon. J. J.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Straus. H. G. (Norwich)

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYE—

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Commander Southby and Sir

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    James Blindell.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Potts, J.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Price, M. P.

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

    Holland, A.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hoillns, A.

    Qulbell, J. D.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hopkln, D.

    Riley, B.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Rltson, J.

    Banficid, J. W.

    John, W.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Barnes, A. J.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Rowson, G.

    Batey, J.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Salter, Dr. A.

    Bevan, A.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Shinwell, E.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Short. A.

    Compton. S.

    Klrby, B. V.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Daggar, G.

    Klrkwood, D.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhlthe)

    Davies, D. L. (Pontyprldd)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Davies, R. J. (Wetthoughton)

    Leach, W.

    Smith, T. (Normantcn)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lee, F.

    Sorensen, R. W,

    Dobble, W.

    Leonard, W.

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

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Leslie, J. R.

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

    Ede, J. c.

    Logan, D. G.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Lunn, W.

    Thurtle, E.

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

    McEntee. V. La T.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Frankel, D.

    McGovern, J.

    Vlant, S. P.

    Gallacher, W.

    Maclean, N.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Gardner, B. W.

    MacNeill, Weir, L.

    Walker, J.

    Garro, Jones, G. M.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Westwood, J.

    Glbbins, J.

    Marklew, E,

    Whlteley, W.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Maxton, J.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    M liner, Maior J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Montague, F,

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercllffe)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

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

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Woods. G. S. (Flnsbury)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Hardle, G. D.

    Paling, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

    Henderson, A. (Kingswlnford)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Local Authorities, Associations and other bodies under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges and other Acts; Grant in Aid of the National Council of Social Service; Expenses of Training, Transfer and Resettlement; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of the Industrial Court; and sundry services."
    9.51 p.m.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): Unless there are hon. Members who desire particular informa-
    774
    tion concerning the minor items under the various sub-heads, I do not think I need detain the Committee very long. I should not be here were it not for the fact that, owing to an unexpectedly low record of unemployment and a high register of employment, there has been a greater demand for stamps for the insurance cards than was foreseen when the Estimate was submitted last year. As the Committee know, the Exchequer contribution to the Unemployment Fund is an equal third with that of the employers and employed. Since there has been an excess of contributions over to the amount for which we estimated, we have the Parliamentary paradox that, although the Unemployment Fund benefits by a lower drain on its resources, the Ministry of Labour Estimates have to bear an increased cost, and I have to ask for the money to pay for the extra stamps.

    775
    That is the reason for this Supplementary Estimate, although, of course, small items, either increases or decreases, have to appear. But had it not been for this one item I should not have been asking for this money, a total of £450,000 for stamps. There are savings on the other side—items which I should be glad to explain if I am asked to do so by hon. Members—which enable me to ask not for £450,000, but for £300,000 net. It is as a result of more employment that more stamps were required, and I am quite sure the Committee will be very glad to give me the sum for which I ask.
    9.54 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I am sure the Committee does not grudge the right hon. Gentleman asking for this money on the grounds which he has just stated. We do not mind the Exchequer paying £450,000 more for the reasons stated by the right hon. Gentleman, but I intend to refer to the fact that this afternoon he made a statement which saved the Exchequer much more than it has been charged on this account. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must think the right hon. Gentleman a very useful Minister of Labour, since he is saving two or three pounds for every one that he is charging to the Exchequer. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about one item. This Vote deals with anticipated savings in certain subjects. One of them is £450,000 for courses of instruction for unemployed juveniles. That comes on Item L 2.
    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the reason for that saving. It seems to me extraordinary on the face of it that when we have just gone through a year in which it was stated, underlined and emphasised that the Government were going to do more things for juvenile training, in the first year the Minister comes here showing a saving of £450,000 upon the original Estimate. I do not understand that, particularly in view of the fact that there is an increasing number of juveniles from 14 to 18 years coming on to the register. On 25th November, the last figures that I could get, there were 110,000 between the ages of 14 and 18, but on 20th January there had been an increase of 141,000. Of this 141,000 some 73,000 were boys under 18
    776
    years of age and of those 73,000 there were 58,000 in the special areas.
    If any hon. Member went to the Library and looked up the Ministry of Labour Gazette he would be struck by the way in which practically the whole of the juvenile unemployed are concentrated in four of the eight industrial areas. That raises a very serious problem and one that ought to call for extraordinary consideration on the part of the Minister. I do not want to anticipate the Debate on Monday, and I am sure that hon. Members will have seen in the report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas sad, lamentable, almost fatal for the people of this country, references to the condition of the great masses of young people in those areas. I know that I shall not be allowed to extend the Debate to deal with that matter, but I know that one of the functions under this Vote is to deal with instruction and occupation. That is dealt with in Item L 2. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have never crabbed the work of juveniles moving from one area to another. As I have watched the trek of boys and girls from their homes—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not arise under Sub-head L.2.
    Mr. LAWSON: It says "cost of instruction and occupation for unemployed juveniles."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Subhead L.2 relates to grants to local authorities and other bodies.
    Mr. LAWSON: I am dealing with the item on page 12—courses of instruction and occupation for unemployed juveniles.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will look at Sub-head L.2 he will notice that that Sub-head on the Main Estimates is "Grants to local authorities and other bodies."
    Mr. WHITELEY: Surely the hon. Member is in order. Under Sub-head J there is reference to employment and training. My hon. Friend is dealing with juvenile training, which comes under Sub-head J.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That deals with grants to facilitate the movement of unemployed juveniles.
    Mr. LAWSON: Sub-head L.2 deals with the making of grants to local authorities for the purpose of instruction, and one of the functions of the local authority is to deal with the question of occupation and transference. They have special officers for that purpose. I do not want to expand the subject, except to say that I have seen boys and girls in great masses leaving their homes, with the know-ledge—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now raising a matter that can be raised on the Vote of Account dealing with the policy underlying these grants. The reason why this heading is before the Committee is that there has been an under-spending of £450,000. The general policy does not arise now.
    Mr. BEVAN: The transference of juveniles from one part of the country to another is entirely a matter of administration. It does not arise on policy. I know of no Statute under which that matter has been determined. It is a question of the administrative activities of the Ministry of Labour, and I submit that this is the only opportunity we have of reviewing the activities of the Ministry in the matter of transference.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is wrong. It may or may not be administration of the statutory liability of the Minister, but the question before the Committee as to whether this is desirable or otherwise is a matter to be raised on Tuesday on the Vote on Account, when I understand the Ministry of Labour's Estimates will be before the Committee. At the moment the only matter which arises before the Committee is why the Minister has spent less. The question of general policy is a matter to be raised on the main Estimates, which will very shortly be before us.
    Mr. WHITELEY: Are we to understand that we cannot discuss the question whether the £450,000 has been spent wisely or unwisely? Simply to put a question and not be able to criticise the spending of the money is to put us in a hopeless position. We might as well come here and close our mouths if we cannot criticise and say whether or not the money has been well spent.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The money has not been spent. Therefore the ques-
    778
    tion whether this money which has been spent has been well spent or not, does not arise on this occasion.
    Mr. WHITELEY: Is the Committee to understand that these increases set forth under Sub-head J cannot be discussed, and that we cannot discuss whether it is wise spending or otherwise?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is in order to discuss whether the £25,000 additional under Sub-head J is justified, but the matter which at the moment hon. Members can argue is the failure to spend £450,000. As that money has not been spent, it cannot be argued whether it has been wisely spent or otherwise.
    Mr. KELLY: Are we not entitled to discuss whether or not the saving that has been effected is the result of the Ministry of Labour not doing what it ought to have done in the transference of those juveniles from the North East coast and Durham?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think that is so, but the hon. Member was arguing whether or not it was desirable to transfer them at all, which is quite a different question.
    Mr. LAWSON: I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman what are the reasons for this saving. Are some of the local authorities not carrying out their duties? Is he quite satisfied that they are doing all they ought to do to see that these boys and girls are instructed and trained and properly attended to? The reason I want to know why there has been this saving is that it is the question of all questions, as far as the unemployed are concerned, upon which the Government have concentrated and in regard to which they have implied that they were going to do great things for the children between 14 and 18 years of age. It is an evil thing to have, I should say, more than three-quarters of the whole of the unemployed juveniles concentrated in a comparatively small area in the country, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to see to it that the policy of the Government is so framed, not merely that there is educational training for these children, but that by some means employment shall be found for them, so that—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is again getting beyond the rules of order.
    Mr. LAWSON: Then I will content myself by moving the reduction of the Vote.
    10.9 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: One can understand the right hon. Gentleman having joy in coming here and telling us about more employment, but there are several other items about which we want to ask questions. He will see that we are in a highly critical mood to-night, and that we are not prepared to allow these Supplementary Estimates to go through without questioning them. If the Minister tries to meet our queries, he will get away much better than if he does not try, and I hope that is understood on the benches opposite. There is nothing worse, they will find, than to treat us lightly, but if they treat us seriously, they will get away with it. Under the heading of "Telegrams and Telephones," there is an increase of £14,000, but I understood there had been a reduction in telephone calls and telegrams. Another point is in reference to the courts of referees, where there is an increased cost. I asked a question the other day, and the reply was that about 66 per cent. of the cases that had gone before the courts of referees had been turned down. Is this increased expenditure due to the fact that the courts of referees are not dealing with the cases as they ought to do and are turning too many down?
    I also want to ask a question in reference to the saving under the heading "Courses of Instruction and Occupation for Unemployed Juveniles." The Deputy-Chairman ruled that we can ask questions as to how that saving has taken place, and I contend that this saving ought not to have taken place in the way it has. I could have told the right hon. Gentleman how to spend the money if he had asked me. He could have spent it in giving meals to these juveniles when they are doing their work at the centres. I have recounted to him several occasions upon which I have visited these centres, and it has been evident that there has been malnutrition among these young people, and instead of coming before us with a saving, the right hon. Gentleman
    780
    should have spent money in that direction. If the right hon. Gentleman answers to my satisfaction, he will get my consent.
    10.13 p.m.
    Mr. E. SMITH: I want to ask some questions under the sub-heading J It is not well known that these facilities are granted, and if it had been better known, more than £25,000 extra would have been required. There are a few people who are aware that it is possible to obtain vouchers to enable insured contributors to travel to where there are prospects of a job, and I want to know if this £23,000 includes that facility which is granted by the Minister of Labour, and whether he will take steps to see that the next time he comes before this Committee for money it will be for far more than £25,000, in order that workpeople can be encouraged to take advantage of these facilities.
    10.14 p.m.
    Mr. BEVAN: The right hon. Gentleman is asking for an additional £25,000 for the transfer of workers from one area to another. There was a fund which was created after the general strike in 1926, called the Mining Distress Fund. It was collected by the various Lord Mayors of Great Britain in order to relieve distress in the mining districts. For some reason which I have never been able to understand the Ministry of Labour seized a portion of this money, which was left for the distressed miners in the mining areas and appropriated it as a contribution towards the expenses of transferring workers. A very large sum was contributed in that way. How much has been expended of this money which properly belongs to the Miners' Distress Fund? Does any of that money still remain and is any of it contained in the current expenditure? It seems extraordinary that when the public of Great Britain generously contributed large sums for the relief of distress in the mining districts, the Exchequer should use the money to relieve the taxpayer of the expense of transferring workers from the distressed areas. Some of these juveniles have been transferred under conditions which—I do not want to use hyperbole—can only be described as disgraceful.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member now seems to be going beyond

    781
    the Ruling which I gave earlier. That is a matter which ought to be raised on Tuesday.
    Mr. BEVAN: I submit, with every respect, that I am not now discussing the wisdom or otherwise of transference but the conditions under which transference is being made. This is the first time I have ever heard that on an Estimate, Supplementary or otherwise, it is not possible to raise the administrative conduct of the Ministry involved. I submit that I am entitled to raise the question of the conditions of transference.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He is entitled to raise the question of the spending of this £25,000 and the purpose for which it is being done, but the general question of administration must arise on the main Estimate.
    Mr. BEVAN: I was not at the moment questioning anything other than the purposes upon which the additional £25,000 is to be spent and whether that sum is being spent in a manner which ought to meet with the approval of the Committee. I am raising, not the general question of whether or not the Minister ought to make the transference, but the question of whether he is misconducting himself in the way in which he is making the transference.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There again, the hon. Gentleman seems to be getting far away from my Ruling. The general question of administration obviously cannot arise on this occasion.
    Mr. BEVAN: Perhaps I ought not to have used the word "misconduct." That is obviously out of order. But I would like an answer to the questions which I put regarding the Miners' Distress Fund. Is this £25,000 necessary because the Ministry has exhausted that fund.
    10.18 p.m.
    Mr. WHITELEY: The Minister of Labour has asked us to put certain questions to him in order that he may give us information regarding the items in this Estimate and I propose to raise one or two points which may, however, be ruled out of order. I do not object to your Ruling, Captain Bourne, though it seemed to me that you laid down a very narrow line for us. The Estimate contains very
    782
    important matters and this is one of the opportunities we have of getting some real information from the Minister as to what is happening and what he intends to do if given this increased sum. On page 5 we find reference to the grant-in-aid for the National Council of Social Service. For 1935 it was £75,000 and in 1936 it is expected to be £150,000.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to have got hold of the-Estimate of the Ministry of Labour which was issued this morning. That, I understand, is to be discussed on Tuesday.
    Mr. WHITELEY: I will, then, take the point with regard to the money that has been spent on the transference of juveniles and families from one part of the country to the other. If money is to, be spent in this direction and is to be of real benefit to the special areas which the Minister is anxious to assist as much as possible, the time has come when it ought to be spent within the special areas rather than on transferring people to some other part of the country when they could render more useful service if the same kind of establishment could be placed in their own particular areas. That point is causing a good deal of. Anxiety—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member's argument is more suitable for next week's Debate.
    Mr. WHITELEY: I will leave that question to the Minister of Labour and perhaps he can give us some reply. Perhaps I shall get an opportunity later to deal with the bigger question.
    10.22 p.m.
    Miss WILKINSON: I have been asked by several mothers in my constituency to raise the point with regard to transference whether the Minister's officials have power to pay return fares in certain circumstances. This occurs largely in cases sent for domestic service. The fares are paid of young people from their homes to distant places: I have cases of transference from Jarrow to as far as Cornwall and London. Where a transfer is successful it works all right, but in some cases the girls either do not like their jobs, or they become unemployed or ill. In other cases they have been sent for seasonal work in which a definite job is done, there has been satis-

    783
    faction on both sides, and the work becomes exhausted. They are then left drifting about far away from home, and it has been reported to me that when they have applied at the Employment Exchanges to be sent back, they have been told that there are no funds available for that purpose. If that be the case, I want to ask the Minister whether any part of that sum of £25,000 can be used to return these young people to their homes. I can understand the Minister saying that if the Ministry pays the fares of young persons to go several hundred miles and they are merely homesick after the first two or three weeks, the Ministry cannot 'be expected to pay their fares back. The cases to which I am referring, however, are reasonable cases of illness or loss of work and inability to find other work. To leave young people stranded far from home raises certain difficult questions.
    10.24 p.m.
    Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: In the district with which I am familiar a large number of juveniles are from time to time taken to the south of England for training purposes. After they have been there a few months according to the regulations, they return home, but before returning it seeme to be the practice to give them a little work on some works contract. I want to raise the point that the method the Minister is adopting is altogether depressing.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I shall be grateful if the hon. Member will indicate to which sub-heading he thinks his point is applicable.
    Mr. TAYLOR: I am speaking about sub-head M.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member has realised that the Item M is a saving, and therefore all that he is entitled to do is to ask why the Minister has not spent the money.
    Mr. TAYLOR: I was going on to showing why the Minister has not spent the money. A number of the young men get about a week's work with the constructor, and at the end of that time they are dispensed with and have to pay their own fares home, or, as happens in most cases, their parents have to pay their
    784
    fares for them. There is the case of a girl 15 years of age—
    The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That arises under sub-head N
    Mr. TAYLOR: I want to show that if the Minister had not adopted this method there would not have been this saving. That is my point. I can show the Minister how he could save more moneymdash;by making them walk to the south of England and then back. What is discouraging our young men is that there seems no permanent employment for them after they have had their training. Could not some arrangement be come to with employers in the south of England to engage a number of these young men for a certain time. But my main point is that I would like the Minister to spend some of this money. As I understand it, at the end of their training young men get work for a week or two and then are dispensed with and have to pay their fares home. They have 4s. pocket money when they leave. They have to be careful about the 4s. if their fathers are subject to the means test. I submit that if these young men are not to be permanently employed it is reasonable to ask the Minister to see that they might at least be employed for a sufficient length of time to enable them to save their train fare home; or, failing that, would it not be humane of the Minister to pay the difference between what they have been able to save in the weeks they have been employed and the cost of their train fare.
    10.29 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Nobody knows better than the Minister the large number of appeals which come to Members, and which we turn on to him, regarding young men who have been trained in camps and desire to get home occasionally. Could he not make provision for them to go home, say, twice a year? It would not be bad to be going on with. I remember the occasion when a young man was sent out of this country in order that he might investigate and propagate the idea "Buy British." He went to South Africa and to Argentina. He was not a poor man, because at that time he was the Prince of Wales.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not discuss the Royal Family in this House.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am only using that as an illustration, and I think I am quite in order in doing so. At that time I opposed that proposal, but the House was generous enough to give that wealthy young man power to go and visit those countries. Our kith and kin are destitute, so destitute that they are away in training camps in this free, brave land of ours. There is no room and no work for our kith and kin. Neither the employers of labour nor the Government of the day can find any work for them to do, with the result that the Government have herded them away in training camps.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman now seems to be making a point which would be more suitable on the main Estimates.
    Mr. LAWSON: On a point of Order. We have very great respect for your decisions as a rule, but I must call into question your interpretation as to what ground speakers may cover. We know that the Debate upon a Supplementary Estimate is narrower than upon the ordinary Estimates, but I have never known a time—I have been here for 16 years—when we could not discuss administration pure and simple, in dealing with Supplementary Estimates. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the Committee is quite within the regular practice in dealing with the Supplementary Estimate upon the line which he was following.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is mistaken. It has been laid down time after time that the only question which can arise upon Supplementary Estimates is the actual additional sum asked for in those Estimates, unless they contain a new Service in which a question of policy arises, or if, in the opinion of the Chair, the additional amount, compared with the original Estimate, is so great that the Supplementary Estimate is, in point of fact, a new Estimate. In the case of the Estimate now in front of the Committee, neither of those two conditions arises. If the hon. Gentleman wishes further to challenge my Ruling he must take the proper step of putting a Motion upon the Order Paper.
    Mr. SHINWELL:understand that you said that the Minister can be called
    786
    upon to explain why he proposes in this Supplementary Estimate certain savings. Would you not agree that if the Minister is entitled so to express himself, we are entitled, on the other hand, to express our opinion as to why he ought not to have anticipatory savings? I submit that to you for your Ruling. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that if the Minister is to be permitted, on the one hand, to say why he proposes to do a particular thing, we, on the other hand, are entitled to express our opinions as to why he should not do that particular thing.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right provided that the argument of hon. Members is within the terms of the main Estimate, and it would be perfectly open to anyone to raise any questions which are covered by this Supplementary Estimate and are covered by the items of the main Estimate. The hon. Gentleman will notice that certain grants under that Sub-head are made for certain purposes. Parliament has approved of that policy, and it is perfectly open to any hon. Member to ask the Minister why the money has not been spent which he thinks should have been spent on the various items in the Estimate. The reason why I stopped the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was that that was not the point he was raising.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: You can rest assured, Captain Bourne, that we on this side respect the Rulings you have given, although it is true, because you have shown it yourself in what you have said, that you have been ruling in a number of different ways. Moreover, you have said from the Chair what I think you should not have said—that, if we disagree with your Ruling, we know what to do. That rather looks like an ordinary working man; it does not look like someone that comes from a University.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already said that, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise my Ruling, he has his remedy; but, so long as he does not take that remedy, he is not entitled to criticise me in this House.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That does not keep me from having my say, nevertheless. The point with which I was dealing, and on which quite a number of points of

    787
    Order have been raised, is a very simple one, and I would again make an appeal to the Minister, because he knows perfectly well that the point I am raising with him is a very vexed point with us. The men in these training camps are taken away from home, they have no means, and the amount they are allowed is very small. How would you like, Captain Bourne, or how would any Member of the House like, to have only four shillings a week? That is the position in which these trainees are. It is not a laughing matter for them; it is a very serious business. That is all that they have; if they had any more, or if anyone belonging to them had any more, they would not be there. The means test operates to such an extent that they are stripped bare.
    I want the Minister to think about the point on which I am now appealing to him. The men who are in this position may only be there for three months, but surely in that period they might have a right to get home to see their friends, to see their mothers, to see those that are near and dear to them. They are taken away and put in these training camps with no hope of getting back at all. It is no wonder that they run away at times. I want the Minister to use this money which he has at his disposal, and I am perfectly satisfied that, if he liked to appeal to the House to act on a generous scale towards these trainees to enable them to get away from the training camps, the House would agree. My hon. Friends suggest Christmas or the New Year. They might not be there long enough. They might be there only two or three months. I want them to have an opportunity while they are there to get home to see their friends. That is my appeal to the Minister.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: I want to raise a point under Subhead L 2, and to suggest that the Minister and his Department should take no credit to themselves for the saving of this £450,000. The matter deals with the attendance of boys and girls at junior instruction centres, which are almost entirely in the depressed areas. I have here a statement from the school medical officer, who is also the medical officer for these centres. He conducted an examination recently and this is what he said:
    788
    "The pupils coming to the centres probably represent more unemployment at home than an equal number in the elementary schools, where those from more fortunate homes are associated with them. In respect of the boys, it must be remembered that many of them at a period of rapid growth are often thin, ill-developed, becoming apparently much more robust when the growth period is ceasing."
    In the same report he indicated that he examined no fewer than 532 of these children and 303 of them were suffering from mal-nutrition. The centres were Bargoed, Aberdare, Caerphilly and Pontypridd. Pressure has been brought to bear upon the Minister and the Department to deal with this very important question. Some of them are getting a pint of milk a day whilst they are in attendance. Here is the Minister taking credit to himself and his Department for the saving of £450,000 while 57 per cent. of these boys and girls are suffering from malnutrition and, while the matter has been put before him during the last seven or eight months, he is still considering whether a meal should be given to those in attendance. I hope he will see to the matter at once and I hope that, in addition to the pint of milk given to some of the children, a meal will be given at the same time. At some centres a good wholesome meal can be supplied for 3½d. or 4d. Some of these young people have to travel five or six miles and are away from home from nine in the morning until half-past one or two in the afternoon, and the Department is too mean even to provide them with a meal while taking this course at the centre which the Minister has arranged for them to attend. Let him now take credit for saving £450,000.
    10.45 p.m.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown)rose—
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no.
    Mr. BROWN: I do not know why hon. Members should object to my reply at this point.
    Viscountess ASTOR: rose—
    Mr. BROWN: I do not want to discourage the Noble Lady and I am in the hands of the Committee, but I consider it my duty and pleasure to reply on the Debate. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) asked why, since he understood that there was a decrease in the

    789
    cost of telephones, we have spent more. That is another side of the better employment. The hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) smiles, but the fact is that there has been a record placing this year through the exchanges, and the answer to the question of the hon. Member is that the additional expenditure due to increased activities is £14,000. That is the sole reason for the increase. The hon. Lady asked about the young people who were away from home, and if any arrangement was made for them to be sent back home if work was not available for them. The answer is a double one. She mentioned those who were sick. Fares are paid by the Ministry of Labour through the exchanges in order to send sick children home. In the case of those who do not find work available, the Ministry of Labour, through the exchanges, makes an arrangement so that the children may return home. If there is any case where this is not done, I hope the hon. Lady will call my attention to it, and I assure her that I shall have the matter looked into at once.
    I was asked about the courts of referees by the bon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who wanted to know why we had spent more upon the courts of referees. The answer is simple. Hon. Members who recollect the passing of the 1934 Act will remember that, owing to the transference to the Board of a very large number of unemployed persons who had previously been under the administration of the Ministry of Labour, it was estimated that the legal work of the Courts of Referees would diminish and that there would be a relief to the Estimates, but the relief has been less than was expected to the extent of some £20,000, which explains the item under "A" in the Estimate. I was asked two questions by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). He inquired about the Lord Mayor's Fund, but that does not arise here because the money has long since been spent and the whole of the fund was disposed of in the last financial year, but if the hon. Member desires information which he has not had and will communicate with me, I will do my best to get him the fullest information possible. I was also asked about the question of the workers in the camps. The hon. Member for Dumbarton
    790
    Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) knows that, in regard to the longest course of 26 weeks and the other course of 12 weeks, arrangements are made for leave on certain holidays. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) referred to a question which he has raised several times before, and I have told him that whereas the local authorities have power to provide meals in schools I have no such power. I have been in consultation with other Departments about the matter, but I can say no more about it on this Estimate.
    Mr. G. HALL: This matter was brought to the notice of the Minister in July last year, and he promised to make inquiries. It was brought to his notice again in December, and again he promised to make inquiries. In reply to a question put to him to-day he promised again to make inquiries. That is a period of eight months. Surely on a matter of this kind he and his Department, whatever other Departments have to be brought into consultation, ought to have dealt with the matter.
    Mr. BROWN: It does not arise on this occasion. I shall be prepared to give a full answer on another occasion, and when I have finished my inquiries and negotiations I shall lose no time in announcing it to the House. The hon. Member asked me why more money had not been spent on juvenile centres. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) knows that it is not relevant to quote the total figure of juvenile unemployment at any given date, for the reason that at any time there may be juveniles who cannot be required to attend at the centres. I have taken no such credit as the hon. Member for Aberdare referred to for not spending this money.
    The answer to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street is that one of the considerations that influenced the preparation of the original Estimate was that it was anticipated that during 1935 there would be a large increase in the number of boys and girls leaving school. It was expected that this would result in a corresponding increase in the accommodation required for juvenile unemployment centres. In fact the rate of absorption was so well maintained that this apprehension proved false. The result has been that in a number of places the

    791
    number of pupils available for attendance at the centres has not materialised. The hon. Member knows that there is nothing more chancy than this service. There are times when you have a great influx of young people that you cannot predict. You can strike averages, but an average, although statistically correct, may be misleading in reference to any particular time.
    When the hon. Member for Aberdare talks about the lack of centres in some areas I beg him to use his great influence with his friends on the local authorities of Glamorganshire, which I am sorry to say is one of the most backward areas in the whole of the Kingdom. I hope that we may be able to concert measures to increase the number of centres in that area.
    Mr. G. HALL: You should feed those who attend.
    Mr. BROWN: That is another issue and one for which I have no authority.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I should like to know whether the considerations in reference to the courses of instruction apply to the training of unemployed men?
    Mr. BROWN: I am trying to deal with the many points which have been raised and I will try and answer that point in a moment or two. In other places the number of juveniles has not been sufficient to justify the establishment of a junior instruction centre, and in others, owing to the lack of juveniles coming forward, we have had to close down. These are the main explanations, in brief, why we have not spent the sum of money anticipated in these services, but the Committee may be assured that we regard this as one of the most valuable activities of the Ministry of Labour and we shall do our best, in conjunction with local authorities, most of whom have been co-operating splendidly in the matter, to deal with this question of juvenile instruction centres. On the other point the difficulty is not quite the same. The programme of 15 new centres which was originally regarded as the maximum expansion has not been possible. In carrying out our programme we have had great difficulty in finding suitable sites with an adequate water supply and suitable playing fields,
    792
    while in some cases there has been local opposition or long negotiations with existing tenants. I assure the Committee that during the period ahead it is hoped to equip 10 centres which have not been equipped this year, and have them in full and active working order.
    Mr. ELLIS SMITH: Will the right hon. Member deal with the point I raised?
    Mr. PALING: The provision of meals in training centres has been handed about between the Board of Education and the Ministry of Labour for months and there has been a disposition for one Department to blame the other. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that they have now come together in order to find a solution of this problem; that there a probability of finding a solution?
    Mr. BROWN: I did not go as far as that. In regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) the £25,000 is not a sum in itself, but the difference between the original Estimate of £135,000 and the revised Estimate of £160,000. The facts are that we grant free fares to juveniles transferred, and there is an increase in this item of £16,000; there is a grant towards removal expenses of working-class families from depressed areas, which amounts to £37,000. That represents about 5,000 additional cases; and there is a small miscellaneous item of £5,000. Then there are certain savings in maintenance grants owing to the smaller transference of juveniles-112,000 and in the case of hostels and equipment, £13,500; and not quite as many advances of fares owing to the increased number of free fares for adults, amounting to £7,500. That means the re is a net increase of 125,000.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman refer in this connection only to the depressed areas? I think the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) referred to the general position so far as vouchers are concerned.
    Mr. BROWN: My remarks referred to the depressed areas.
    11.1 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I am sure hon. Members representing Glamorganshire

    793
    constituencies very much resent what the Minister has said. I think the right hon. Gentleman was trying to chide my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) for raising this matter. Hon. Members representing Glamorganshire constituencies are not prepared to advocate these training centres as long as we know there are large numbers of children in them suffering from malnutrition. There are two other matters I want to raise. The first concerns the amount of savings contained in the Supplementary Estimate. Some hon. Members representing Glamorganshire constituencies, including myself, had occasion a short time ago to visit some of the training camps in West Wales. I hope that the Minister will have a conversation with some other Ministers in the Cabinet upon this matter, for if such a conversation takes place I think they may realise that there ought to be some synchronisation of their policies. We found that the people in these training camps were complaining about the food they were given.
    I would remind hon. Members that these are not juvenile training centres, but camps for adults. I know I should be out of order if I were to discuss the method adopted by the Government in setting up these camps; but it seems to hon. Members on this side of the House that it is preposterous and almost a waste of money to make persons fit for employ-merit, and then, after they have been in the training camps for 26 weeks, to find no employment for them. But we found in these camps that, instead of the unemployed persons being hardened and made fit to take employment whenever it might turn up, they were being given margarine and not butter; and it was about this, and other inferior foods which they were given, that they were complaining.
    During the last few years the National Government have been saying, "Buy British," "Support the farmers" and so on, but, just as in the Navy, it would seem that the unemployed persons in these training camps must live on margarine and on anything the Government may cause to be handed to them from time to time. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to meet the Minister of Agriculture, as well as the President of, the Board of Education, and to discuss with him whether it might not be possible
    794
    in these training camps to assist in solving the agricultural problem.
    The other matter I would like to raise concerns the Regulations that we were discussing last night. I then had occasion to put a question to the Minister, and because we were not in Committee it was impossible for me to have a proper reply. Hon. Members will remember that I asked the Minister whether, in taking care that the new Regulations which were being issued would not fall too heavily upon certain casual workers, he proposed to short-circuit the proceedings that now take place, as between the applicant for benefit and the Minister. In the Supplementary Estimate there is an extra demand for £28,000 for the court of referees. Is there something to meet the additional expenditure that must be incurred in operating the preposterous Regulation which came before us in the Order last week? It seems to me pretty obvious that miners, for instance, if they work less than four hours on the Monday morning, through a breakage in machinery or any other cause, and they fail to work for the rest of the week, will be deprived of the stamp for the whole week. In that type of case what will occur will be a conflict of evidence between the employer and the workman, whether he be a dock labourer, a casual labourer or a miner. The employer may say that the man was down the pit two and a-half hours and the man may say that he was down five hours, and that he is entitled to a stamp for the five hours for that week. The dispute may be submitted to the court of referees.
    We have in this Estimate an additional £28,000 to be incurred to meet that type of case. We are already spending an enormous amount of money for the advice given by people who are paid high salaries practically to deprive these poor people of benefits to which they are entitled. I hope the Minister will try to save some of the £28,000 in seeing that it is not wasted on courts of referees, in seeing that the Order is not applied, and in seeing that these casual labourers, miners, dock labourers, and others who are working three or four hours a week will have their stamps and that in respect of any unemployment which may occur they will receive unemployment benefit. Otherwise, it means in the distressed areas the placing of an

    795
    additional burden on the shoulders of the local authorities. Substantially the policy of the Government has been to save the Treasury at the expense of the local authorities, and particularly the local authorities in the distressed areas. I hope the Minister will appreciate that there was substance in our discussion last night and that he will give to the trainees in the training camps—it is not the policy of the Government to find work for them when they are trained—proper nourishment, and that instead of giving them margarine they will be given butter.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going rather wide.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I submit that I am entitled to place before the Committee reasons why the Minister is spending this enormous sum of money. An enormous sum of money has been saved by the Department in not providing proper nourishment for persons who are sent to juvenile training centres and other places, and it is time that the Minister should be told that this cannot go on. We are not prepared to see the Department saving money while persons attending juvenile centres and training camps are being ill nourished. We are not prepared either to see that money is spent upon courts of referees dealing with casual labourers and others. We shall expect him to approach not only the Minister of Education on the treatment meted out to juvenile trainees, but also the Minister of Agriculture in order that the Minister of Labour may help to solve his problem too, particularly the milk problem.
    11.12 p.m.
    Mr. BATEY: I listened very carefully to the speech of the Minister, and I thought he would have answered the questions put to him and that it would not be necessary for anyone else to speak, but he spoke such a short time that he did not even attempt to answer the questions put to him. He said they had made advances for girls to return home when they had been sent to work and had found it unsuitable. I want to call attention to this question of the Minister in making advances to these girls, and —
    Mr. LAWSON: On a point of Order. May we draw attention to the fact that we cannot hear what the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) is saying to the Minister?
    The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Batey.
    Mr. BATEY: I want to raise this question about the Minister making advances to girls. In this Estimate there is an increase of £25,000 for provision for juveniles transferred. The original Estimate of £135,000 ought to have made it unnecessary for the Ministry to force young people who were transferred and who had to return home, to repay their train fares. I have in mind the case of a young man who went from Durham to Northumberland but had to return home. He was given an advance and it was deducted from his unemployment allowance at one shilling a week. Such a large Estimate as this ought to provide enough to pay these train fares. I protest against the policy of the Minister in making the young people pay them.
    In the Estimate there is also a sum in respect of an increase in the number of juveniles and adults transferred. How many have been transferred from the distressed areas? The Commissioner for the 'Special Areas has been transferring people from those areas and has been paying for it out of the fund which was allotted to him for the distressed areas. Before we vote this additional £25,000 we are entitled to know how many people have been transferred to employment from the distressed areas.
    I disagree with the Minister's answer in regard to courts of referees. He said that things had not turned out as expected. Whose blame is that? The Unemployment Insurance Act was passed in the middle of 1934. The original Estimate was not submitted until the beginning of last year. Surely, between the passing of the Act and the submission of the original Estimate the officials of the Ministry ought to have been able to submit figures that would not have been so far out, as these have proved to be. The Estimate was out by £28,000 for the courts of referees. What is the total amount that is being spent on the courts of referees? When we passed the Act in 1934, half the unem-

    797
    ployed were taken away from the courts and transferred to the Unemployment Assistance Board, making the need for the courts much less than it had been prior to the passing of the Act. Now an increased sum of £28,000 is wanted. In my opinion, this is no credit to the Ministry of Labour. They ought to be in a position to estimate much more accurately.
    On page 13 under the head of "Appropriations-in-Aid" I find "Reductions in contributions by trainers towards cost of board and lodging." What has been the reduction per person which has reached the huge sum of £65,000? I would also call attention to the item of £18,000 for the extension of training and transference schemes. The Minister should not join training and transference together.
    Training is one thing and transference is another. Some of us do not raise such strong objections to training as to transference, and I would have liked the Minister to tell us how much of this £18,000 was for training and how much for transference. The Minister did not explain many of the questions put to him. I am still in doubt about a point put to him by a colleague about vouchers. My hon. Friend was under the impression that a, man going to seek employment was entitled to a voucher if he claimed it, and to a voucher for his return home if the employment is not satisfactory. Is that conclusion correct?
    11.22 p.m.
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: I want to elicit from the Minister some information as to the £25,000 for transference. A question was asked this afternoon with regard to medical examinations. Have any of the adults who come under this vote been medically examined after they had been instructed by the employment exchange that there was a job 200 or 300 miles away? I contend that any man who is drawing unemployment benefit from the exchange is able-bodied and does not need a medical examination to see whether he can do his job.
    Mr. E. BROWN: There is a misunderstanding there. It is not the Ministry that desires to have the medical examination, but the hon. Member's colleague, who, in the interests of his constituents desires to have it.
    Mr. T. SMITH: The reply given this afternoon was that it was not the exchanges or the authorities that desired it. The point was whether a man should be sent a distance of 150 miles with the possibility of an examination and of then being sent home again.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I thought the Minister was inclined that way—
    Mr. BROWN: Oh, no!
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: —and that if this thing is adopted employers of labour, when they employ an able-bodied man from the exchange will want to put him through a medical test. The Minister should not allow that to happen. When an able-bodied man went to a job from the exchange he should have a chance of doing it without further obstacles.
    11.25 p.m.
    Mr. SEXTON: We have heard a lot about young people at the juvenile instruction centres, and I now wish to put in a word on, behalf of older people. There has been a saving of £170,000 on out stations, and at the same time, in many dales and valleys, men have to walk five miles to a signing-on station. Even in my own constituency men are walking 10 miles to sign on. I agree that it is only once a week, but in this season of snowstorms—and to-night, probably, there is snow three or four feet deep in places—some consideration ought to be extended to people in those circumstances, particularly when it is remembered that they have bad boots, threadbare clothes, hungry bellies and, worse than all, broken hearts. The Minister is shaking his head, but I can supply him with plenty of evidence that in Teesdale and Weardale men are walking five miles each way twice a week. If they fall out of work unexpectedly, and it is not a signing-on day at the sub-station, the men have to walk 10 miles to another station or lose the day. Therefore, some of this £170,000 which has been saved ought to have been spent on more out-stations.
    11.27 p.m.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I can tell the hon. Member at once that the saving on outstations does not arise through a reduction in the number of those stations. An increase in employment and a smaller number on the live register of the unemployed naturally means that there is

    799
    less work for the staffs of the Employment Exchanges to do, and the saving arises in that way. It is the other side of the picture of the growing volume of employment in the country. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), the only advances which I am entitled to make are legal advances.
    Mr. BATEY: That is not my point. If the Minister cannot pay the return fares, what is the use of having that large sum of money there?
    Mr. BROWN: I have explained two or three times already why the money is there, but, no matter how much money there was, I cannot act without the necessary legal power. If I expended the money illegally the hon. Member would soon be on my track with a Vote of Censure, and there might not be the friendly discussion we have had on this Supplementary Estimate. With regard to the question of medical examinations, I cannot discuss it on this Supplementary Estimate, and I would suggest to the hon. Members who are interested that an appropriate opportunity will arrive in a few days. After these attempts on my part to answer the many questions put to me in the last three hours, I hope the Committee will see fit to give me this extra £300,000.
    11.29 p.m.
    Mr. E. SMITH: There must be some misunderstanding about the vouchers, because I know that vouchers are granted by employment exchanges. Letters have been sent to well-known organisations whose members are constantly signing on at employment exchanges informing them that they are entitled to vouchers, and they are being granted. The question I wish the Minister to reply to is this: When men are sent to jobs and are given vouchers which are not suitable because they do not enable the men to return home—
    Mr. BROWN: On a point of Order. I have already answered that point.
    11.31 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: We have had a long Debate on this matter and there is a long programme yet before us. We are not satisfied on this question of the reduction in the saving, and we' are not satisfied
    800
    with the Minister's answers, but in view of the long Debate we have had, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    POST OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,150,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."
    11.32 p.m.
    Mr. BEVAN: Would the Patronage Secretary be good enough to say how far he proposes to go? It is now half-past Eleven and we still lave a very long agenda. We ought to have some indication from him as to how long he expects to have to keep us. We sit until very late night after night. The Government are overloading the programme and we are bound to have difficulty, and it will be repeated day after day. This Government ought to have more consideration for the House and should get these very important questions taken at a reasonable hour.
    11.33 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I should think that the best course to pursue would be for the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Opposition to put that question to me after this Vote has been disposed of, by which time I shall have found out whether we can report Progress. On behalf of the Government I will have consultations with those who are in charge of the Opposition and I shall be in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. BEVAN: On a point of Order. Any hon. Member is perfectly entitled, and has exactly the same status, as any other Member.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to be giving a Ruling. He said he was rising to a point of Order.
    Mr. BEVAN: Yes, I am putting a point of Order. As a Member of this House, I asked the Patronage Secretary a question, to which, at the moment, no reply

    801
    has been given. I asked him how far he expected the Committee to proceed and I am suggesting that I am entitled to a courteous reply. Every Member of this House—
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order in this.
    Mr. BEVAN: I am entitled to an answer to my question.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must understand that a Minister cannot be compelled to give a particular answer to a particular question, any more than a Minister can interfere with the form of any question that any hon. Member chooses to ask. The hon. Member's point is not a point of Order.
    11.34 p.m.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): We have had, hitherto, Supplementary Estimates which involved some burden on the taxpayers. I want to make it clear that this Supplementary Estimate, which amounts to £2,150,000—[Interruption]—Perhaps the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) will allow me to proceed. We are not asking for more money from the taxpayers.— I [Interruption.]
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) to keep reasonable order.
    Major TRYON: This sum, which we are asking the Committee to give us authority to spend, is almost balanced by increase in the revenue of the Post Office; in other words, the necessity for the Supplementary Estimate is due to the fact that a larger business has been done by the Post Office. I think the Committee will regard that as satisfactory. The increase is due to various and satisfactory causes. It is partly due to a greater activity generally in all branches of trade, and partly to the increased work which the Post Office has been able to get through the reductions which have been made in the rates for carrying parcels, in the charge for telegrams, and in the telephone charges.
    The additional expenditure which I am asking the Committee to authorize is mainly under four big heads. The restoration of the cuts since the 1st July accounts for £449,000 and the growth of the business done by the Post Office
    802
    for £901,000. This growth has included increases of 10 per cent. in parcels, 30 per cent. in inland telegrams, and 16 per cent. in telephone calls, while the number of telephones has increased by 8 per cent. Engineering expenditure is up by £330,000, and we are replenishing stores to the amount of £450,000. I should like to make it quite clear that this additional expenditure is due to the Post Office policy of active development. We are actively developing the work of the Department, and we are doing a bigger trade both on the expenditure side and on the revenue side. I hope the Committee will see fit to grant the sum for which we ask.
    11.38 p.m.
    Mr. VIANT: We are pleased to hear the statement of the Postmaster-General with reference to the increased business that is being done by the Post Office. There are a few points on which I think the Committee will be interested to have a little more information. I notice that Sub-head B—Travelling and Subsistence Allowances—shows a considerable increase. Is this in any way due to the new organisation that is taking place in the Post Office as a result of the recommendations of the Bridgeman Committee? I observe, also, that in Sub-head E.5 there is an increase of £155,000 for mails carried by air. Is this due to an extraordinary development of the air mail services? The Department undoubtedly anticipated a certain amount of business in that direction, and I gather from the Supplementary Estimate that their anticipations have been exceeded. On the Sub-head for Motor Vehicles there is an increase of £28,000. Is this due to improved motor services in rural areas. If so it will he welcomed by the community as a whole. On Sub-head 1.2, Engineering Establishments, again travelling subsistence is up by £40,000. Is that due to the re-organisation that has taken place? On Sub-head L (3), Engineering Construction Works and Maintenance, there is an increase of £100,000. What exactly is the meaning of that? I hazard a guess that probably the expenditure was in respect to mail vans, but I am not quite sure. Under Sub-head B, Wireless Broadcasting, there is an increase of £65,000. How did this arise? Under Sub-head A.1 there is a considerable increase. Is that due to an increase

    803
    of staff or to overtime? On Sub-head A.5, is this an increase of staff or has there been, or is there to be, a considerable amount of overtime work? I raise the question of overtime because it is very desirable that the Post Office should set a good example to private employers. When unemployment is prevalent overtime is not a sound policy. I am pleased to see that there has been such a considerable increase in the business being done by the Post Office. When I was on the other side we were compelled, especially in the engineering department, to reduce the staff. If the alternative is the case now no one will welcome that more than I and my colleagues.
    11.44 p.m.
    Mr. E. SMITH: Earlier in the evening I congratulated the First Commissioner of Works on the improved architecture and general layout and conveniences of modern post offices. I also raised a question about which we did not obtain satisfaction, and therefore I want to raise it on this saving that has been made. When old age pensions are being paid or on a Friday night, the post offices are packed with people. I am not too concerned about Friday nights, but I am concerned about old age pensioners having to stand about waiting to draw their pension. I should like the Minister to consider the provision of seating accommodation in post offices, so that the old age pensioners and others may sit down instead of having to stand about.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. Member can raise that matter. I am unable to see any item in this Supplementary Estimate to which it would be relevant.
    Mr. SMITH: I am trying to bring it in on the saving by the Revenue Department in connection with the Supplementary Estimate on pages 20 and 21. I suggest that if this accommodation had been provided a saving to the extent stated would not have been made.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot do that on a supplementary estimate unless there is a particular item in that estimate to which it relates, but he can raise the question on the main Estimate.
    Mr. SMITH: There has been a saving on contract work under one or two headings. Here is an example—the new Post Office in Euston Road, which is a credit to the Post Office.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member does not follow my point. The fact that there has been a saving upon certain items on the part of the post office does not justify him, on a supplementary estimate, in raising the matter as to how the savings should be spent or what extra expenditure should have been made. There is nothing in this Supplementary Estimate connected with the building of post offices.
    Major TRYON: They are provided by the Office of Works.
    Mr. SMITH: What, is your ruling, Sir Dennis?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is clear that there is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate upon which the hon. Member can raise the matter.
    Mr. SMITH: There is another point, and I shall thank you, Sir Dennis, for your ruling in connection with it. There is an understanding among a few people —it is by no means general—that the Post Office provides facilities for the unemployed who write for jobs. Would the Minister consider giving greater publicity to these facilities in order that more persons can take advantage of them? In addition to this, advice is given in post offices on National Health Insurance. A leaflet issued by the Minister of Health is placed on the counters for the advice of the unemployed. Will the Minister consider giving additional publicity to this advice?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member is again going beyond the limits of the Supplementary Estimate. Discussion must be confined absolutely and strictly to the particular items of the Supplementary Estimate. Here again I do net think the point arises, but it will be a help to me, if the hon. Member wishes to proceed, if he makes it clear to me first what item in the Supplementary Estimate it is to which his point relates.
    Mr. SMITH: I thank you for that advice, Sir Dennis, and I will endeavour to raise these matters when the main estimate comes before the Committee.
    11.49 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I wish to put two questions to the Minister. I should like to know whether the cuts imposed upon post office workers in 1931 have all been restored and also whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will consider the advisability of seeing that Members of Parliament have their letters stamped free at the Post Office, rather than that they should have to incur expenditure in purchasing stamps? I think that most Members of Parliament will agree with this, and I hope that the Minister will think of them. I am sure that he will earn the gratitude of all Members of the House if he is prepared to set aside from any surplus an equivalent sum to meet the expenditure of Members of Parliament upon stamps.
    Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: I should like to call attention to the item relating to provincial establishments. I understand that there have been rather striking alterations made in the Post Office with regard to what is termed regional planning.
    The CHAIRMAN: To what item is the hon. Member referring?
    Mr. TAYLOR: On page 4, Provincial Establishments, for which £760,000 is asked.
    Major TYRON: There is no additional expenditure in connection with these regions; only two have been planned and they are not yet in operation.
    Mr. TAYLOR: I want to raise the question of the lowering of the status of t he Newcastle Postmaster. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that Newcastle and the north is a depressed area? While it may be possible to have some measure of efficiency by these alterations, I should like to know whether the alteration from Newcastle to Leeds means a decrease in the number of employes at the Newcastle post office. If so, I submit that even if a slight degree of increased efficiency is obtained, having regard to the distressing circumstances in Newcastle—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I must ask the hon. Member under what head he raises the question of the Status of Postmaster of Newcastle.
    Mr. TAYLOR: We are complaining that the status of the Newcastle exchange has been reduced.
    The CHAIRMAN: That matter cannot be discussed on a supplementary estimate. It is one of the difficulties of the Chair as well as of hon. Members, to keep the Debate to points which are strictly confined to the supplementary estimate. The discussion must be confined to the Estimate; to the actual matters relating to this additional sum.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Could the matter be raised on the salary of the Minister
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so.
    11.57 p.m.
    Sir RONALD ROSS: Is there any item in the Supplementary Estimate in respect of submarine and cable charges, because I am unable to find it.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: There is a £125,000 increase in the contract for air mails. Is that wrapped up in the new subsidy under the Bill which is to be introduced or is it entirely at the disposal of the Post Office, to use as it likes?
    11.58 p.m.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I think it is most disgraceful that an additional estimate for £2,000,000 should be debated at this hour of the night and without any proper explanation from the Minister as to the reasons for this vast expenditure. I do not desire to raise any criticisms of the efficient administration of the Post Office but if the Minister at a board of directors meeting had dismissed the business in a few sentences the company would be looking for another chairman. It is not treating the House with proper courtesy and respect for the Minister to dismiss the subject by saying "Here is the Estimate, pass it" I do not object to the expenditure, it may be justified, but the right hon. Gentleman has not made out a case for it. There is an expenditure of £736,000 for provincial establishments, conveying mails by road £10,000 and by air £155,000, and we have had no explanation of it. I had to send a telegram from Euston to my home in Glasgow. It was despatched

    807
    at 9.20 in the morning and reached Glasgow at 12 noon. I give this case to suggest that it might be quicker to send telegrams by air, rather than in the usual way.
    The CHAIRMAN: I congratulate the hon. Member on his adroitness, but I cannot allow him to pursue that subject.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I think that the whole question should be adjourned so that the right hon. Gentleman might give us some better explanation when hon. Members are not so tired as they are now.
    12 m.
    Major TRYON: I do not complain in the least of the point of view of the hon. Member, but I think it is generally realised that the best plan is for the Minister briefly to explain the general cause for the increase, and then to reply to the points raised by hon. Members. It has been suggested that if the chairman at a company meeting made such a statement as I have made, he would be displaced. I would suggest that if anybody at a company meeting said they were doing much better business than in the previous year, that would be considered satisfactory. This estimate does not mean additional expenditure so much as larger business; it is larger business both on the expenditure and on the revenue side, and therefore the two cancel out. I am sorry I cannot deal with some of the points raised by lion. Members. It would be out of order for me to explain the position at Newcastle. It must be obvious that if, as an hon. Member said, there has been a reduction of status at the Newcastle post office, he cannot be in order in raising that on a demand for money. As a matter of fact, the position at Newcastle remains unchanged.
    Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: On a point of Order. The Postmaster-General said that because there has been a reduction in the status of the Newcastle postmaster—
    Major TRYON: I said there has been no reduction whatever in the position of the postmaster.
    Miss WILKINSON: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves that point, I would like to say that some hon.
    808
    Members are rather concerned about this matter. They have received communications from the Newcastle and District Chamber of Commerce concerning it. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when it will be in order to raise this matter of the reduction of the status of the Newcastle postmaster?
    Major TRYON: The matter is obviously not in order now, and it is not the case that the status of the Newcastle postmaster has been reduced. With regard to the point raised concerning the provision of stamps for Members of Parliament, I cannot deal with an additional charge on the State on this Vote. I certainly would not be prepared to recommend that Members should be given stamps, and I do not think that hon. Members would wish for it.
    The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), who has had the pleasure of having been associated with the Post Office, raised a number of points with which I will endeavour to deal in the same clear way in which he raised them. On head B (1) and (2), the increase is clue to more business being done all round, and that involves more work by the staff. With regard to head E (5), the excess payment required is due to a substantial increase in the air-mail carried. I am glad to be able to assure hon. Members opposite that it is largely due to the growth in the Empire air mail service, which alone necessitated almost the whole of this large addition. There was a substantial increase in the weight of mail sent the total weight being 187 tons compared with 152 tons in the previous year. The Empire air-mail has increased by nearly three-quarters. The question of a subsidy does not in any way arise. With regard to head G (1), the increase is not in any way due to motors. It is due to a great increase in business and is required for the purchase of mail bags. The additional sum required for the engineering establishment is partly due to the restoration from 1st July of the remaining half of the economy cuts. It is partly owing to the enormous amount of engineering work due to the reduction in telephone and telegraph charges. There has been great pressure and the higher staff and skilled people have done extra work, and we owe them a great debt for that. But, apart from that, we try to take on extra men

    809
    rather than have overtime. The extra money authorized in connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation is in respect of the restoration of cuts. In their case they made a voluntary contribution. On balance we are giving them this extra sum, which they gave up voluntarily. In conclusion, I should like to make it quite clear that this is not a demand for a lot of extra money. We are merely asking the Committee to allow us to make additional expenditure which will be met out of extra revenue.
    Mr. VIANT: Could the Minister give me any idea of the extent to which he has been able to reinstate the men in the engineering department who were turned off as a result of the slump?
    Major TRYON: The Committee will, I am sure, be interested to know that after the reduction in charges on telegrams and telephones and the cheaper parcels rate we are now employing, at the end of a year of these great changes, 9,000 more men than at the beginning, and of that number a large proportion—I think 5,000—are in the engineering department.
    12.9 a.m.
    Mr. E. SMITH: Questions which I was allowed to put have not been replied to, and in view of the importance of them to the mass of the people in the industrial centres I should like the Minister to be good enough to reply. A question which the Chairman allowed me to put dealt with old-age pensions. It is common to see old people standing about while waiting to draw their old-age pensions. Therefore it is reasonable to ask that seats should be provided. It would be in keeping with the modern policy which the Minister is adopting. The modern policy is to be as bright and as up-to-date as is possible, and this is an economic proposition, as is proved by the Minister. This is one department of State which is keeping up-to-date in modern development, and as a result we see the success of the Post Office, which is reflecting itself in goodwill right throughout the country. I would like a reasonable suggestion of this kind to receive consideration by the Minister. In addition, I have been in post offices and have got advice on national health insurance. In a number one can see the the advice on small slips.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I rather think that that is a question for the main Estimates.
    Mr. E. SMITH: I respectfully bow to your ruling but the Chairman allowed me to proceed with that question, though he did rule me out of order on several others.
    12.10 a.m.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: We were delighted to hear the Postmaster-General say that the cuts had been restored. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a Conservative by politics but we admit that he is a good Postmaster-General and I trust that he is now convinced that the Post Office as a public enterprise is a model for private enterprise. We agree with his effort to cut down overtime as much as possible and encourage as many workmen as possible. In this respect also the Post Office has shown a good example to a great number of private employers who use overtime in order to save money on unemployment and health stamps.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I find it difficult to connect that argument with any item in the Estimate. The hon. Member for Willesden (Mr. Viant) asked whether people had been taken on in the engineering department so as to avoid overtime. That was in order but the hon. Member is now going much further.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself intimated that it was the policy of the Department to keep down overtime as much as possible, and it was on that point I desired to speak. If that is the policy of the Post Office we are delighted, and I hope that other employers who keep their workers beyond the normal working day in order to capitalise the value of unemployment stamps—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Whatever may be the practice in the Post Office, we cannot discuss the case of private employers on this Estimate.
    12.14 a.m.
    Mr. T. SMITH: There are still one or two queries which we would like the Postmaster-General to deal with and which are, I think, strictly relevant. With regard to the item "Post Office Savings Banks," I am pleased to note an increase

    811
    of £34,000 in salaries. I wish to know whether that represents an increase in the salaries of the existing staff or a provision for additional staff. I am also pleased to find that there has been an increase in deposits. Only a few years ago doubt was cast by some people on the position of those deposits, but anyone who knows the Post Office, knows that not a single penny of the depositors' money was ever in danger.
    Major TRYON: As regards the additional sum of £34,000 for salaries, it is due both to increased salaries of existing staff and provision for new staff. There is much more business and the cuts have been restored.
    12.20 a.m.
    Miss WILKINSON: We welcome the statement that the Post Office is doing more business. We are glad to note the success of a nationalised industry, but I wish to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has a substantial basis for assuming that this is a healthy increase of business. How much of it is due, for instance, to inflation of business caused by football pools? Literature has been circulated to Members about these pools, in which it is pointed out that over 1,000,000 letters a week are posted in one area alone in connection with these pools. If we multiply that figure by the number of great industrial centres in the country, it will be seen that it means an enormous inflation of Post Office business. There is, I understand, a movement to ask the Government to supervise or even suppress these pools—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIR MAN: We cannot go into that matter on the present occasion.
    Miss WILKINSON: We are being asked in this Estimate to make additional provision to deal with increased business in the Post Office. We are being asked to vote money, in respect of increased traffic and if that increased traffic arises from something which may be suppressed or severely curtailed in the near future, either by the action of the House of Commons or by the Football League, we are entitled to know. The wisdom may be questioned of handing this money to the Minister to engage in large scale increases of staff and equipment if his estimates of increased busi-
    812
    ness are based on traffic of the kind I have indicated. There is an item for instance in connection with increased parcels traffic. I understand some of this football pool traffic comes within the parcels department, as vouchers are sent out in parcels. Speaking as one of the shareholders of this vast business I am anxious that it should succeed arid that its business should grow, but we ought to know from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the present increase is due to this unhealthy inflation. If so, it seems to me we ought to report Progress and wait until the Postmaster-General has gone into the matter, instead of voting an increase which may prove to be unnecessary.
    If, of course, by the reduction in costs or by any increase in the purchasing power of the people or in any other healthy way, the Post Office traffic is increasing, we on this side of the House will be even more anxious that the Government's own supporters should be in favour of every possible assistance being given to a nationalized industry to increase its size and make its equipment the most up-to-date in the world. As to the moral issue involved in this traffic, it is highly desirable that we should know whether that great moral influence, the Football League, is going to take this matter in hand and suppress this unhealthy traffic, and we should know what is in the Government's mind. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself, who will have given a great deal of thought to this matter, must now be in a position to tell the Committee what his views are on this vexed question.
    Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: I want to ask the Postmaster General about the increase of 9,000 employed by the Post Office, 5,000 of which, said the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were in the engineering department. Is that increase largely due to the very rapid progress which is being made in putting the telephones underground? I notice that there is a profit on the telephones, and I want to compliment him on doing this, because I believe it will prevent to a large extent the periodical dislocation which must be a very great inconvenience to business men. We ought to congratulate the Post Office on keeping this national socialized institution up-to-date. When the Post Office has completed this work, and we

    813
    all have our telephone cables underground, will they then be safe from lightning and thunder and from the winds that blow? We have been discussing gas bombs and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is thoroughly satisfied on this matter. I can imagine an enormous waste of public money here if the greatest care is not being taken. Have the most scientific mathematical calculations been made in taking the known weight and charge of the bombs that are being made to-day, quite apart from their being larger and more powerful? Is the Postmaster General satisfied on this point?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I rather think the hon. Member is now getting on to the question of general policy. He must debate that on the main Vote.
    Mr. TAYLOR: I thought it was a pertinent question which would come under the heading of "Engineering," because if we do not put these cables deep enough, and there is an air raid and they are broken, they might just as well have been left above ground.
    12.26 p.m.
    Mr. LOGAN: I wish to raise the question of the increased expenditure on the conveyance of mails by road. The original estimate was £385,000, and now it is £395,000. One should compliment the Post Office on an increase of business, but I am a little perturbed about certain things which are happening outside and of which hon. Members must be fully aware, and I wonder whether the Postmaster-General is considering the possibility that this extra expenditure may not be necessary. If certain things happen there may be a reduction in the number of communications which the Post Office is called upon to transmit. Is this Estimate based on present business, or has the Minister contemplated the possibility of a reduction in the business? In my own constituency there is a firm with a turnover of at least £2,400,000 a year, and most of that is done through the services provided by the Post Office. If certain developments should take place and that business should no longer be carried on, there will be no necessity for the services of some 15 or 20 mail vans, as far as I can understand.
    814
    Under "Motor vehicles" I see an increase of £28,000, and I know what the Post Office has done in connection with football pools, and so on, but I would remind the Postmaster-General that this is rather a fickle business, that public opinion may alter, and then there may have to be a reduction of the staff and the vehicles of the Post Office. My third point is that depreciation is a heavy item with motor vehicles. If you bought one only a couple of weeks ago—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member could have been in the House when the Minister stated that the particular increase was due to mail bags.
    Mr. LOGAN: E.5 refers to "Postal and general stores and motor vehicles." I am not able to make motor vehicles out of mail bags.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: But the Minister has explained that the increase was due to extra mail bags.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: But it is not clear that mail bags are carried by these vehicles?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It does not necessarily mean that there must be an increase in the number of vehicles.
    Mr. LOGAN: I am not putting this with any levity. We have had an increase of vehicles in Liverpool. I am not able to understand why I cannot raise this question when motor vehicles are mentioned as a separate item.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no question of motor vehicles under this Estimate.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is it possible to bring it in under the heading "&c."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid not.
    Mr. LOGAN: Turning then, to E2, "Conveyance of Mails by Road (Contract Work)." I would like to know from the Minister whether additional carriers, in the form of vans, have been added to the service, and if so, whether any arrangement has been made for depreciation. A sum of £395,000 is going into the hands of the contractors.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a question for the main Estimate, not for this occasion.
    Mr. LOGAN: I find that the £395,000 is—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That item has already been approved and settled. All that the hon. Member can deal with here is the £10,000 increase.
    Mr. LOGAN: The question I am dealing with is the conveyance of mails by road, and we have to consider the purchase of the vans, and I am wondering why, when we pay a huge sum like this, which includes the £10,000 increase, it is not possible for the Post Office to take over the whole business on their own.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already told the hon. Member that that is a point that he cannot raise on this occasion.
    Mr. LOGAN: It is very hard. When one looks at the question from the business point of view, one would suppose that the Postmaster-General would think that there was something in it and would see whether economies could not be effected. Is it not possible for some saving to be made on the contracts we are giving out? One would think that in payment by contract one would not have to pay so large a sum, considering that the work is continuous and the money secure. It is not possible in every business to get the security of Government money. I wonder whether this additional £10,000 is justified, or whether this work could not be done at a cheaper rate. A new broom sweeps clean, and I should have thought that the new Minister might have been able to see that something was done to effect a £10,000 economy.
    12.38 a.m.
    Mr. PALING: I want to refer to a question which was previously raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander). It is a matter that was brought up at question time on several days, and discussed on the adjournment, but no satisfaction was obtained. In this case a contractor was paying rates of wages which were about 50 per cent. less than in any other single
    816
    case that could be quoted. The promise was made that an inquiry would be held and I want, to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can tell us whether that inquiry has been made, what was the result, and, if these wages were as low as was stated, whether the remedy has been applied and the proper wages have now been paid.
    12.39 a.m.
    Mr. SEXTON: I want to ask a question about A.4. I am ashamed to be a shareholder in this company when I consider the remuneration paid to sub-postmasters and auxiliary postmen.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a matter that the hon. Member must raise on the main Estimates. It does not arise on this occasion.
    Mr. SEXTON: The question arises on the pay of these people under "Provincial Establishments."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. The hon. Member is mistaken. The question of the standard rates of pay has already been decided for this year by the House. The hon. Member must raise it for next year on the new Estimates.
    Mr. SEXTON: I want to know how much the withdrawal of abatements of pay is concerned with the sub-postmasters, and how much with the auxiliary postmen. If the Postmaster General would send somebody up to Teesdale he would get to know that the auxiliary postmen cannot do the work in the time they are given.
    Major TRYON: As far as I know, the question raised regarding sub-postmasters is nowhere concerned with this Supplementary Estimate. We have lately granted them substantial increases which have been accepted as satisfactory.
    Captain MARGESSON rose in his place and claimed to move That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 66.

    Division No. 69.]

    AYES.

    [12.40 a.m.

    Alhery, l. J.

    Grldley, Sir A. B.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

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

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

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

    Grimston, R. V.

    Ramsbotham, H.

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Rankin, R.

    Askc, Sir R. W.

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Alholl, Duchcss of

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

    Rayner, Major R. H.

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

    Hannah, I. C.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Rlckards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Bernays, R. H.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

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

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Rowlands, G.

    Bracken, B.

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

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Hulbert, N. J.

    Salt, E. W.

    Bull, B. B.

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

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Burghiey, Lord

    Keeling, E. H.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Kerr, I. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

    Channon, H.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Somerset, T.

    Chapman, A, (Ruthorglen)

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

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Colvillo, Lt.-Col. O. J.

    Lcckie, J. A.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

    Spens, W. P.

    Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Loftus, P. C.

    Storey, S.

    Crltchioy, A.

    Mabane, W. (Hudderafield)

    Stourton, Hon. J. J.

    Crooke, J. S.

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

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Cross, R. H.

    M'Connell, Sir J

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    McKle, J. H.

    Sutclifle, H.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Daviet, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

    Magnay, T.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (padd., S.)

    De Chair, S. S.

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

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Donner, P. W.

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

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

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Tryon, Ma|or Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Dugdalo, Major T. L.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Turton, R. H.

    Duggan, H. J.

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

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Duncan, J, A. L.

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

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

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

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

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

    Errington, E.

    Orr-Ewlng, I. L.

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

    Erskine Hill, A. G.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

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

    Peake, O.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Coionel G.

    Everard, W. L,

    Penny, Sir G.

    Wise, A. R.

    Fleming, E. L,

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Fremantie, Sir F. E.

    PetterIck, M.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Plugge, L. F.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Porrltt, R. W.

    Sir James Blindell and Mr. James

    Stuart.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Glbbins, J.

    Ritson, J.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

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

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Rowson, G.

    Anderson, F. (Whltehaven)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswlnford)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bevan, A.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Shinwell, E.

    Broad, F. A.

    Holland, A.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Hollins, A.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Burghley, Lord

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Compton, J.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Dagger, G.

    Kirby, B. V.

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

    Dalton, H.

    Lawson, J. J.

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

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lee, F.

    Tayior, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davles, D. L. (Pontyprldd)

    Logan, D. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davles, 8. O. (Merthyr)

    Lunn, W.

    Watklns, F. C.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Malnwaring, W. H,

    Westwood, J.

    Ede, J. C.

    Marklew, E.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Mathers, G.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

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

    Mliner. Major J.

    Williams, T. (Don Vailey)

    Foot, D. M.

    Paling, W.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Frankel, D.

    Potts, J.

    G arm- Jones, G. M.

    Pritt, D. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr Whiteley and Mr. John.

    Question put accordingly,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,150,000, be granted for the said Service."

    Division No. 70.]

    AYES.

    [12.50 a.m.

    Albery, I. J.

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

    Ramsay, Capain A. H. M.

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

    Grimston, R. V.

    Ramsbotham, H.

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Rankin, R.

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

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Hannah, I. C.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

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

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Rickards, G. W (Skipton)

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Bernays, R. H.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

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

    Boulton, W. W.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Rowlands, G

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

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

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Bracken, B.

    Hulbert, N. J.

    Salt, E. W.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

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

    Samuel, M.R. A. (Putney)

    Bull, B. B.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Burghley, Lord

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Kern, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Somerset, T.

    Channon, H.

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

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Leckie, J. A.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J,

    Lieweilln, Lieut. -Col. J. J.

    Spens, W. P.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Storey, S.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Mabane, W. (Hudderstield)

    Stourton, Hon. J. J.

    Critchley. A.

    Mac Andrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Crooke, J. S,

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Cross, R. H.

    McKie, J. H.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J,

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Magnay, T.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

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

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    De Chair, S. S.

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Donner, P. W.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Tree, A. R L. F.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

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

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Turton, R. H.

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Duggan, H. J.

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

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Duncan, J. A. L,

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

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

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Morrison. W. S. (Cirencest.'r)

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Eastwood, S. F.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Eckcrsley, P. T.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

    Elliot. Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

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

    Errington, E.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

    Erskine Hill, A. G.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Windsor-Clive. Lieut. -Colonel G.

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

    Peake, O.

    Wise, A. R.

    Everard. W. L.

    Penny, Sir G.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Fremantle. Sir F. E.

    Petherick, M.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Plugge, L. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Sir James Blindell and Mr. James

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Porritt, R. W.

    Stuart.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon, A.

    Rowson, G.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

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

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Anderson, F. (Whitchaven)

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Shinwell, E.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Bevan, A.

    Holland, A.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Broad, F. A.

    Holllns, A.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Compton, J.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith. T. (Normanton)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Daggar, G.

    Kirby, B. V.

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

    Dalton, H.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lee, F.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan, D. G.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lunn, W.

    Westwood. J.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Mainwarlng, W. H.

    Whiteley, W.

    Ede, J. C.

    Marklew, E.

    Wilkinson Ellen

    Edwards, Sin C. (Bedwellty)

    Milner, Major J.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

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

    Paling, W.

    Williams. T. (Don Valley)

    Foot, D. M.

    Potts, J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Frankel, D.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Ritson, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gibbins, J.

    Robinson. W. A. (St. Heiens)

    Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noe, 66.

    CIVIL SERVICE REMUNERATION, &c.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, to meet such of the charges for the withdrawal of the remaining half of the abatements of Ministerial Salaries and Civil Service Remuneration as have not been otherwise provided."
    12.55 a.m.
    Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOODI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    In view of the late hour may I ask the Patronage Secretary how far he proposes to go? We have sat late on a good many occasions in this new Parliament, and although it may be a novel experience for new Members of this House, it is not a novel experience to those who have been here for some years. We are rapidly ageing, and we feel that the beauty sleep before midnight is a very necessary, and certainly a most desirable, thing. In my experience, although I have not been here as long as many Members of this House, I have never known a Government which has brought forward so many Supplementary Estimates in the early days of the first Session of a New Parliament. It is really becoming a very serious problem. We are wasting the time of the legislators, keeping them out of bed at a time when they should be in bed. We are about halfway through the Supplementary Estimates, and there are certain other items in the Orders of the Day which the Government propose to take. I am hound to say that I think this is treating the House with very grave discourtesy. After all, this House has a large number of new Members who ought to be treated tenderly. To the seasoned veterans this is of relatively small importance, but to the newer Members, who have to take time to become acclimatized to the atmosphere and methods of discussion, it is a, little hard to be kept so late to-night. I would like to ask the Patronage Secretary whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us how far he really, in all seriousness, thinks we ought to go. I shall not ask him how far he deserves to go. I ask him how far the House is to go to-night, in view of the lateness of the hour.
    1.2 a.m.
    Caption MARGESSON: May I just say, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman who is Leader of the Opposition this evening, that it was not the Government who kept the House sitting late last night? This is one of the few occasions on which the usual channels failed to work with any success. There have been coming and going between this said of the House and the other, but I regret abortive. We have been unable to come to any agreement as to the convenient hour at which the Government might get part of the business which was set down for consideration this day. In view of that, I am afraid there is nothing for it but to get ahead with a good will, apply our minds diligently to the matters in front of us, co-operating together for the good of the country as a whole. If we do that, and do not allow ourselves to be led away by too many irrelevant questions, the discussion which the Government set out at a quarter to four to accomplish, will be accomplished without very great expenditure of time.
    1.4 a.m.
    Mr. BEVAN: I have not been in the House as long as my right hon. Friend, but I have been long enough to have taken part in a number of late sittings, and I have never felt that they have reflected credit upon the House of Commons. It has always seemed to me to be a grave reflection upon this Chamber that we are unable to discuss important public business at a reasonable hour of the day. The Government have a great majority. It is in full possession of the Committee. It is not necessary for the Government to put so many questions upon the Order Paper on a particular day, and it is, indeed, an abuse of the majority power to ask the Opposition to discuss these matters properly at a time like this.
    The constitution of this House imposes an obligation upon the Opposition. The supporters of the Government are merely there to see that the business of the Government gets through, but it is the duty of the Opposition to see that the expenditure of public money is subject to the examination and scrutiny of the House. If the Opposition fell down on its task, Members of the Government and their supporters would be the first to complain, and the public interest would suffer. Is

    823
    it very proper to bring this important Supplementary Estimate and other questions before the Committee to be discussed in the early hours of the morning? What usually happens is this: The Opposition are jaded and tired, but that is not at all to say that the Opposition are defeated. We can fight with a good spirit and sustain the Debate for a long time, but everyone will admit there is not a Member of this House who can bring to bear his proper qualities of mind on a subject at a time like this. I would, therefore, suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, that it ought to be possible to get the business of this Committee discussed at a much more appropriate hour.
    I am amazed that he has not been able to achieve an arrangement with the chief Opposition Whip. He is one of the kindest and most amiable men, and if the Parliamentary Secretary has been unable to arrange an accommodation it shows how utterly unreasonable he is. There is no other man in this House who would not be able to reach an arrangement with my hon. Friend, and if he fails it is because he is a belligerent and an entirely impossible person to deal with. We have, on many occasions in the last Parliament and in this been exposed to the belligerency of the Parliamentary Secretary. He moved the Closure just now quite unnecessarily.
    The CHAIRMAN: Order. The hon. Member has been in this House long enough to know that that is definitely against the rules.
    Mr. BEVAN: What is against the rules?
    The CHAIRMAN: Any reflection on the Closure when it has been carried.
    Mr. BEVAN: I am objecting to the conduct of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know that when the Closure has been moved and it has been carried by the House it is out of order to make any reflection upon the hon. Member who rose to move the Closure.
    Mr. BEVAN: I have been in the House long enough to know that observations of the kind I have just made have been made on a great many occasions.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not showing proper respect for the Chair. I have given a perfectly definite ruling to him on a matter which is as well known and as definite as any rule of procedure in this House I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue the matter any further.
    Mr. BEVAN: I am the very last person to be discourteous to the Chair, and I would indeed not desire to be so, but you will, I am sure, recognise, at a time like this—and this is the price we have to pay for this sort of sitting—Members are indeed in grave danger of going beyond the bounds of decorum. I would indeed ask in all seriousness—I know what is going to happen in a few hours' time if we are going to discuss these Supplementary Estimates—there may be irritations or scenes that all of us would regret—whether the Parliamentary Secretary could not arrange an accommodation. If we have an all-night sitting to-night that will not be the end of all-night sittings. We should have a kind of disarmament; we should see whether it is possible for us to arrive at a concordat. I hope Members will realise that it is a reflection on public business to ask us to sit to this late hour. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not allow personal pride to interfere in this matter.
    1.12 a.m.
    Mr. EDE: I want to support the Motion of my right hon. Friend. It is not the position that the Government is short of time. Everybody will agree that the last General Election was not held to meet our convenience. The Election should have been held at the end of the financial year and then the Government would not have complained of want of time. It cannot be said that we are not a generous Opposition. When the House met on the last day before Christmas my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) rose in his place and moved in as few words as possible that the House should meet a fortnight earlier. One of my hon. Friends who was equally economical of words seconded, and the Treasurer of the Household—we always get on better when the Treasurer of the Household is in charge—appealed to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) to keep the Debate going. There was a big job announced

    825
    to-day and I think the natural person for that job is the hon. Member. I hope that when the list of eligible candidates is gone through his valuable services to the Government on the Adjournment at Christmas will be remembered. What happened after speech after speech had been made? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir John Simon) explained that no-one really wanted to come back as early as that and that the Government did not want the time.
    The other evening we had a Northern Ireland measure before us, which it is now proposed to take between now and the time when the milkman comes home, and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) rose and appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. We all know the close alliance between those four members and the Treasury Bench and the Parliamentary Secretary said that this Bill had to be passed into law by 31st March and that would not give them much time. He said further that there is a great deal of financial business to be disposed of and the programme is overcrowded, but he realised that the Committee would wish that the Second Reading should be taken at the most convenient hour when the Government could take it. He was not giving a definite assurance—and nobody ever expects a Parliamentary Secretary, especially this one, to give a definite assurance—but he would bear the hon. Member's remarks in mind. [Interruption.]The right hon. Gentleman will remember that self-praise is no recommendation. I did not notice that there were any cheers from the other parts of the Committee. I notice that this is one of the measures which he intends to take. I really cannot see with the best will in the world that he can congratulate himself that he can read into his recent announcement a confirmation of the statement he then made to the House.
    I notice we have with us the learned Attorney-General. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman came into the House did he consult with the civil servants in their box, and did he hear of the legal points which proved too much for his junior. If he had done so we might have been further advanced in business than we are now. I can only imagine that, having lost too much time through not being fully equipped for legal matters, there must be some points on
    826
    which the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman will be valuable. There is another right hon. Gentleman who is not here. I notice in the Vote we are about to take the department over which the Lord President of the Council presides. After all, he has not now the difficulty of having occasionally to visit a great democratic constituency. When I get into my sleeper on the midnight train from Newcastle—
    Commander BOWER: You have missed it.
    Mr. EDE: I am very sorry that the perpetual presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) whenever railways are mentioned has driven everything else but the Great Western out of my mind, but on the North-Eastern I used to see a berth reserved for the right hon. Gentleman who formerly represented Seaham. I wish he were here to tell us a few things about research and the British Museum. I imagine his relations with the British Museum are very much like those of Lord Melbourne with the Church of England. He said he was a supporter of it, but he imagined he must be a buttress rather than a pillar, because he preferred to be outside.
    How long the Lord President of the Council will be able to keep outside the British Museum I do not know. There never was an Opposition that has been more kind to the Government than we have been; and there never has been an Opposition that was worse treated by the Government than we have been since we came back after Christmas. I gather from the announcement made today that we are expected to put up with the same treatment next week.
    As Lord Balfour remarked on a celebrated occasion, there are limits to what human nature can stand. We have reached them to-night, and I hope that the Patronage Secretary will realise that in the end the business of this House can only be conducted by good will on both sides, that the demands made on us to-night are unreasonable, and that the way in which the business has been conducted to-day is no great advertisement of the prestige of the Colonial Secretary or of the Law Officers of the Crown.
    1.22 a.m.
    Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I can only say, speaking personally, how much I regret that the negotiations through the usual channels should have broken down. On occasions like this the House indulges in a kind of self-torture. Everybody wants to go home, nobody has the slightest confidence that they will be able to serve the country by remaining here, but by some process of antagonism it becomes a point of pride to remain as long as possible. I wish that something could be done to achieve a more satisfactory conclusion. I cannot help feeling that we are here at this hour because an ex-Minister of the Labour party has quarrelled with his old colleagues. That is what has appeared from the Debate. I am only giving an impression which I gathered. It is not a very edifying spectacle that this House should have been engaged for so many hours in saying so much to so little purpose, and I hope that we may come to some arrangement to terminate this Debate at a reasonable hour, and perhaps get a new spirit and make better progress on another occasion.
    1.25 a.m.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: I would like to support the Motion that has been moved. If it should be thought that by this kind of procedure there is any prospect of the Government getting any more Votes passed than they would have got by more reasonable arrangements, I am afraid that the hope will be an illusory one. No party has so many young Members as this, and if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury really insists that the House shall devote its time at this hour to the consideration of important matters, we are prepared to consider them to the best of our ability, to see that they consider them too, and to sec that no public money is spent without proper scrutiny. We are a young party. We have the future before us. We have plenty of time. If the Government is to be so unyielding, one would remind them of the aphorism that it is a splendid thing to have the strength of a giant, but it might not be so useful to attempt to use it like a giant. This is not the way in which public business ought to be transacted. It is not the way to fortify the declining confidence of the younger generation in Parliamentary Government.
    828
    No one watching these proceedings could possibly go away with any feelings other than of utter contempt.
    The Government are attempting to force through matters which have always been regarded as the most important that the House does in the raising and spending of public money. To allow them to go forward in the early hours when it is obvious that nobody here is in a proper condition—[Interruption]—I do not understand why any hon. Member should regard this as a humorous thing. There is no harm in devoting the whole 24 hours to discussion of matters at times of emergency, but there is nothing here of that sort. The arrangements which have broken down have been conducted on this side with reasonableness and a willingness to accommodate the Government in every reasonable way. We may be a minority, but we are not willing to allow the majority to ride rough-shod over us, and the country will be overwhelmingly behind us in our attempt to compel the Government to see that the traditions of the House are properly observed, and that proper time is devoted and proper scrutiny given to the spending of public money.
    1.30 a.m.
    Captain MARGESSON: In response to appeals made to me I desire to say a word. I agree that it is absurd that this great House of Commons should be doing work in this primitive manner. The proposition which I made, and on which we did not get agreement, was that we should within a reasonable space of time end the Committee stage of these Supplementary Estimates—not touching item two, the Estimates taken on Tuesday; not touching the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Bill; not touching the Unemployment (Northern Ireland) Agreement Bill. I suggested that we should take the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill Second Reading, which is a purely formal stage. What I proposed is really that we should conclude the Supplementary Estimates. We were not able to get agreement on the proposal and the Government had only one course open, and that was to continue. If we can get an agreement as to the Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates, say within an hour or so, there is only left the Consolidated Fund Bill, a formal Second Reading.
    1.32 a.m.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: If the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw all his Estimates we would be prepared to give the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. We would not find anything to quarrel about. We have been several hours on a series of Supplementary Estimates and we have more to do than we have already completed. It may be that hon. Members waking from their sleep on the other side of the House may find a point to raise on the Supplementary Estimates. To suggest that we should get through all these Supplementary Estimates in about an hour seems to me to be asking this House to do the impossible. It means ten minutes per Estimate. Suppose that my hon. Friends were to have a division, that would swallow about a quarter of an hour. What the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is asking us to do is to give him these six Estimates pro forma.
    I hate to see the Committee in this position. I do not mind sitting up all night and I am sure my hon. Friends do not. But it is very difficult to think of an hour for these six Estimates. I think the best thing for the Patronage Secretary is for him to carry on with his Supplementary Estimates and the responsibility is not ours—the responsibility is his. If he has got indigestion we cannot help it. He has overloaded his own programme. Here we are at half past one in the morning. We have been driven to face a situation we do not like. If the Patronage Secretary cares to go forward with this discussion he can do so. I do not think I can commit my hon. Friends behind me to give him six more Estimates.
    1.35 a.m.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on declining the offer made. It appears to have been a very remarkable proposition. The Patronage Secretary endeavoured to reach an agreement through the usual channels after a long debate in which we showed we intended to discuss these Estimates. The Patronage Secretary moved behind the Chair and called out the Chief Whip of this Party to make precisely the same proposal—the same offer made and rejected earlier on. It seems to me that he then got up to claim that we should concede to him
    830
    more business than he had been able to secure in the ordinary method of debate. If I may say so without disrespect, that is a typical Mussolini method. We all know that after that campaign had proceeded for a short time it was part of the policy of this Government to give the Italian dictator more than he had been able to accomplish by conquest. This is an attempt to apply the same principle to the debates of this house.
    I do respectfully suggest that those methods will no longer work. I have noticed this evening in the Library, where I have to spend some time on a matter on which I have to look through the proceedings for some thirty or forty years, that a study of the Debates shows that Members on the Opposition side who are most critical, active and combative, when they reach the other side of the House are transformed into the most polite Ministers on the Treasury Bench. That is the transformation the Patronage Secretary has not been able to accomplish. He is alone on that Bench in failing to realise that the best way for the Government to get the business through is to be conciliatory. I do not mean by giving a smile and an empty concession. We want definite concessions towards the policy we are working for. You cannot get your business all the time; you may get some of your business, but if you continue to maintain your present attitude we will do our best to see you will not get any of your business.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: My use of the second person was purely of an impersonal nature. A short time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said that he wished to raise a point which you in your discretion ruled out of order. I am not going to refer to this closely. The Committee will give me credit for respecting the ruling of the Chair. I will show that the right hon. Gentleman frequently moves the Closure and does so when there is no justification. I am reminded of an occasion in this Session on the Railways Agreement Bill on a Friday afternoon, when private Members' time had been taken by the Government. When four o'clock approached the Government was extremely anxious to get through the Bill.

    831
    I was extremely anxious to make some observations upon it, and I rose to do so at about ten minutes to four. I saw the right hon. Gentleman's expression change. Instead of his usual suave and conciliatory expression—
    The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member be good enough to say whether the case he refers to occurred in this Session or in the previous Session?
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: I did not propose to refer to the debate but to the occasion when the right hon. Gentleman moved the Closure.
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but the hon. Member is referring to an incident. I am asking him whether that incident occurred in this Session or in a previous Session
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: It occurred before Christmas—in December.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not yet answered my question, but if it was in December then it was in this Session. The hon. Member may be right in claiming that he could discuss certain matters of debate of this kind, but if this is an incident of a certain kind which occurred in the present Session I think it would certainly be contrary to the spirit of the rule to which I have already referred.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: With great respect, the rule in regard to the prohibition of references to proceedings in past sessions refers only to questions or debates, and contains no reference to the proper conduct of Ministers in those debates.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not referring to that or to discussions in previous Sessions. I am referring to the rule which the hon. Member knows quite well, and which has already been referred to, namely, the rule referring to animadversions upon moving the Closure when the Closure has subsequently been carried. The hon. Member is now apparently intending to refer to an incident of that kind which he apparently thinks he is justified in doing. I think it would be contrary to the rule to discuss the incident which he is dealing with now.
    Miss WILKINSON: May I ask whether comments on the face of the Patronage Secretary are, in fact, out of Order?
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: With very great respect to the ruling of the Chair, Sir Dennis, if you had allowed me to proceed you would have found that I was in Order, because on the occasion to which I refer the Speaker, in his discretion, refused to accept the Closure. By so doing be gave an implied rebuke to the right hon. Gentleman far stronger than anything which could have come from these benches. This is what happened—
    Captain MARGESSON rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    That is not all. I was really far more reasonable than a member of the Opposition has any right to be, because I had undertaken in the course of my remarks to sit down before Four o'clock. As the hour hand moved towards the fateful Four o'clock I assured the right hon. Gentleman that I would sit down by Four o'clock, but he conceived that either his eyesight or his hearing was far better than mine and he rose about half a minute to Four o'clock to move the Closure. I protested as loudly as I could, and the Speaker, in his discretion, saw that an erroneous procedure was being taken and declined to move the Closure. [HON. MEMBERS.— "Accept."] All interruptions will be thankfully received. I meant "accept." After that the right hon. Gentleman, in a belated effort to show more conciliation, sat down by me and said "I accepted your intention, but I did not think you could see that it was approaching Four o'clock." Well, I take this opportunity of saying that my eye-sight is as good as his and my hearing I think is even better.
    I really want to bring this point, to put it vulgarly, down to brass tacks. The Patronage Secretary and his followers are going to be here for a long time unless they realize this—that we intend to secure something by Parliamentary opposition. It is the tradition of this House, not that we can carry great principles through by that method, but that we shall be able, by a process of attrition and a little gain here and a little response there, to make some impression on the Government's policy. That is in accordance with the best and highest Parliamentary traditions. I go further and say that that legislation—and I refer now not to this or any particular legis-

    833
    lation—which has been built up and composed on an amalgamation and on the policies of opposing parties has usually been better legislation than that put through by a party partisanship. [HON. MEMBERS: "National Government!"] That interruption enables me to draw a distinction between the principle that I have just suggested and National Government. National Government consists of an amalgamation in which both parties dissolve their real principles for some principle which will keep them in power as long as possible, but where one Party competes with another, then the effort to improve and modify a policy and to improve it by criticism and getting further information on the policy put forward by a Government which may be partisan results in better legislation.
    Only the other evening I made some observations to the Under-Secretary of State for Air, and it made him very angry. I said that unless he proposed to bring further information on these Estimates to the House in the debates that were to come, we intended to oppose them bitterly and I gave him half a dozen points upon which I wanted information, namely, on the question of profiteering on armaments. I want to give my hon. Friends a chance, and therefore I will only say that it will not do to get angry

    Division No. 71.]

    AYES.

    [1.50 a.m.

    Albery, I. J.

    Dunne, P, R, R,

    McKic, J. H.

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

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

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

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Magnay, T.

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

    Errington, E.

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

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Erskine Hill, A. G.

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

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

    Everard, W. L.

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

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Bernays, R. H,

    Fremantle, Sir F, E.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswlck)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

    Boulton, W. W.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

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

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Bracken, B.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Muirhoad, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Briscoe, Capt. R G.

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Bull, B. B.

    Hannah, I. C.

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

    Burghley, Lord

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

    Peake, O.

    Channon, H.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Penny, Sir G.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Petherick, M.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

    Plugge, L. F.

    Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

    Hulbert, N. J.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Cranborne, Viscount

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

    Porritt, R. W.

    Critchley, A.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Cross, R. H.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Ramshotham, H.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Rankin, R.

    De Chair, S. S.

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

    Hathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Donner, P. W.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Llewallin, Lieut-Col. J. J.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Loftus, P. C.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Duggan, H. J

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

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    M'Connell, sir J.

    Rowlands, G.

    with us or to refuse to make concessions to us. You will find, if you will accept that principle of allowing us to make our fair contribution as an Opposition, that progress will be made, but not by attempting to get business through entirely by using your vast majority and stampeding us. You will find that policy will be unsuccessful in this Parliament ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that his whip does not crack over these benches. Sometimes he appears to think it does. I have frequently seen a cloud pass across his face when further hon. Members here rise at a moment when he thinks they should not, and I have seen him make gestures of impatience. That would be very bad in any Minister on the front bench, but it is particularly bad in the case of a Patronage Secretary. I am sure that others of my hon. Friends have observations to make and as I hope on a later occasion to express some further views to the House I will now sit down.
    Captain MARGESSON rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 67.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

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

    Salt, E. W.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Waterhouse. Contain C.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Sutcilffe, H.

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

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Tate, Mavis C.

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

    Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

    Somerset. T.

    Thomas, J. p. L. (Hereford)

    Windsor-Clive. Lleut.-Colonel G.

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Titchfieid. Marauess of

    Wise, A. R.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Spens, W. P.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Turton, R. H.

    Storey, S.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Stourton, Hon. J. J.

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Major George Davies and Sir James

    Blindell.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Ritson, J.

    Adamson, W. M.

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

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

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

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Rowson, G.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bevan, A.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Shinwell, E.

    Broad, F. A.

    Holland, A.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Hollins, A.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Compton, J.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Dagger, G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Dalton, H.

    Kirby, B. v.

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

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lawson, J. J.

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

    Davies, D. L. (Pontyprldd)

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davles, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Logan, D. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lunn, W.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Ede, J. C.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Marklew, E.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

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

    Mathers, G.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Foot, D. M.

    Mliner, Major J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Frankel, D.

    Paling, W.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Potts, J.

    Gibbins, J.

    Pritt, D. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. John.

    Question put according "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

    Division No. 72.]

    AYES.

    [1.59 a.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Greenwood, Rt, Hon. A.

    Ritson, J.

    Adamson, W. M.

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

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

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

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Rowson, G.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, A. (Kinqswinford)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bevan, A.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Shinwell, E.

    Broad, F. A.

    Holland, A.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Hollins, A.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Compton, J.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Daggar, G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Dalton, H.

    Kirlby, B. V.

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

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lawson, J. J.

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

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R, J. (Morpeth)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Logan, 0. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)

    Lunn, W.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Ede, J. C.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Marklew, E.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

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

    Mathers, G.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Foot, D. M.

    Mllner, Major J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Frankel, D.

    Paling, W.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Potts, J.

    Gibbins, J.

    Pritt, D. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. John.

    NOES.

    Albery, I. J.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Bull, B. B.

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

    Bernays, R. H.

    Burghley, Lord

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

    Bossom, A. C.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

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

    Boulton, W. W.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Channon, H.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bracken, B.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

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

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Colville, Lt.-Col, D. J.

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 141.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Rowlands, G.

    Cranborne, Viscount

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

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Critchley, A.

    Leckle, J. A.

    Salt, E. W.

    cross, R. H.

    Llewellin, Lieut. -Col. J. J.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Davies. Major G. F. (Yeovll)

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

    Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

    De Chair, S. S.

    M'Connell, Sir J

    Somerset, T.

    Donner, P. W.

    McKle, J. H.

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

    Southby. Comdr. A. R. J.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Magnay, T.

    Spens, W. P.

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Duggan, H. J.

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Storey, S.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Stourton, Hon. J. J

    Dunne, P. R. R.

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

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Errington, E.

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

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Erskine Hill, A. G.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

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

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Everard, W. L.

    Nlcolson, Hon. H. G.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Fleming, E. L.

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

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Turton, R. H.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Peake, O.

    Wakcfield, W. W.

    Grimston. R. V.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

    Petherick, M.

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

    Hannah, I. C.

    Plugge, L. F.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Porrltt, R. W.

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

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

    Ralkes, H. V. A. M.

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

    Holmei, J. S.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hltchin)

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel G.

    Horsbrugn, Florence

    Rankin, R.

    Wise, A. R.

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

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmln)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Hulbert, N. J.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

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

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Keeling, E. H.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Sir George Penny and Sir James

    Blindell.

    Original Question again proposed.
    2.7 a.m.
    Mr. KELLY: I do hope that we are going to have some explanation of this estimate.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): After the argument we have just had let me invite hon. Members to direct their attention to this small estimate. The purpose is to provide for the restoration, as from 12th July, 1935, of the remaining cuts in the salaries of Ministers and civil servants made in the autumn of 1931. It is well known that the purpose of the estimate is to restore the remainder. The method followed in presenting this Estimate is as follows. The departments covered by the Estimate have no supplementary estimates for any other purpose, and so this is the most convenient method of presenting this estimate of the money necessary to restore the cuts. I am sure there is no Member of the Committee who would like to oppose the granting of supply for this purpose, and I beg to move.
    2.9 a.m.
    Mr. KELLY: I would like to know from the hon. and Learned Gentleman who has just spoken why it is that we have so many of these votes coming to us apart from their particular departments. The Mercantile Marine service is a department connected with the Board of Trade, and, if that is so, why are we being asked to vote this in this particular form rather than under the heading of the Board of Trade. Then there are the customs and excise which usually come under the Treasury Vote and there is also the Board of Inland Revenue. Why is it we are asked now to deal with these departments in this way. I think we might have had from the hon. and learned Gentleman some indication as to the number of people who are concerned. For an expenditure dating from 1st July, under Acts which have been in operation since the autumn of 1931, there ought to be some indication of the number of people concerned. On page 75 there is a reference to further payments in respect of this service being made from savings anticipated on the original department Votes amounting to £178,000. What is that

    839
    being saved on? Is any service being handicapped by the fact that this money, after being voted, is not being spent on it?
    2.12 a.m.
    Mr. SHINWELL: If the Financial Secretary will refer to the explanation of the charges contained in this supplementary Estimate, he will find the following words used:
    "… the remaining half of the abatements of the emoluments of Ministers and Civil Servants consequent upon the crisis in the autumn of 1931."
    I do not find that these words are used in any other estimate. In another of these supplementary estimates the words used are
    "… the emoluments of Ministers and Civil Servants made in the autumn of 1931."
    May I ask why in this supplementary estimate these words require to be used? There is no justification for them having been embodied. The onus of proof that there was such a crisis in 1931 rests on the shoulders of the hon. Gentleman. Unless there was a general agreement that there was such a crisis—and there is not—these words should not have been included. I wonder whether these words were used because reference is made to the particular Department with which the ex-Prime Minister is associated, and whether they were inserted to satisfy the almost incurable vanity of the Lord President of the Council. Some explanation is called for why these improper and unnecessary words are used here and are not to be found elsewhere. I am ready to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman if he will furnish us with a satisfactory explanation.
    2.15 a.m.
    Mr. BEVAN: I am glad my hon. Friend has raised this point. Hon. Members opposite may have the impression that we have raised a point that we have suddenly discovered.
    Mr. MAGNAY: What did the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) mean when he talked about the words being "embodied." Was it what he thought?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am certain that there is no thought embodied in the words that are used. It was because of an absence of thought that I asked for an explanation.
    Mr. BEVAN: I was proposing to give the Committee reasons why we should attach importance to the point raised. A Government document is not a political document or a party document, and there should not be under any Government a document that is controversial or tarnished with any form of political bias. There is no need to refer to the crisis. It is only necessary to refer to the date. This is the sort of thing into which the National Government has drifted. It is beginning to identify itself with the country as a whole, as though the country believed this was a National Government. The chastity of a Government document is being outraged by political bias. A short time ago a White Paper was issued in which the term "National Government" was used. The then Leader of the Opposition raised the question of public money being used for national propaganda. What is going to occur if it becomes customary for every Government document to carry the language of a political manifesto? The constitution of this country would receive a vital blow. We are proud of the fact that our governmental pronouncements are of an official, objective and dispassionate character. But if you are to have printed on them the subjective point of view of a political party great damage will be done. This sort of carelessness cannot occur in party politics. It is an obfuscation of issues and principles of which the Lord President of the Council is a past master. He is unable to believe that he is not running the country. It is an illusion from which he has suffered many years.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we had better keep to the particular Estimate.
    Mr. BEVAN: In this matter I would ask for your assistance. We are discussing an entirely non-party matter, whether a Government document should contain language which describes a political event in terms of a highly controversial nature. How this language can creep into the printing department I cannot understand—language that converts

    841
    a chaste official into a propagandist of the Government. Who is responsible? I do not know who the responsible Minister is. I ask the Attorney-General if he will look at this language. Even the Attorney-General is not exempt from his duties as a member of the Committee and ought to furnish himself with the matter before the Committee. Is it in accordance with the law of this country that such terms should be used in a House of Commons document upon which public money has been spent? Is it proper that language should be used in that document of a political and partisan character. This is not the first occasion upon which this has happened, and it is not really a very good thing for the Government that the impression should go forth that the taxpayers' money is being used to produce political manifestoes in the guise of Government publications. I would remind him that there are many taxpayers in this country who vote for the party to which I have the honour to belong. If their money is to be used to produce political manifestoes for their opponents then there is only one resource left and that is to refuse to pay taxes. We are inevitably driven to that. I do not want to use the language of exaggeration or to suggest that this transgression is grave, but unless we warn the Government this tender shoot will grow into a green bay tree. It is our duty to point out the disastrous consequences for the good practice of the British constitution if obscure officials lurking in Government Departments use the machinery of Government to conduct political propaganda.
    2.23 a.m.
    Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask whether it is in order to move at this stage that the words to which I have referred may be deleted? They appear to be comment on a particular event. Can they be deleted if I submit a manuscript amendment to that effect?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I could not possibly accept an Amendment on a question not before the Committee. The question before the Committee is the one which I have put. It has been a long-standing practice that Amendments which can be accepted in Committee of Supply should mention a specific sum.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Cannot an improper comment be deleted? Must we accept this?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is really a footnote to the Estimates and is of no value whatever.
    Mr. SHINWELL: May I put a further point as to who is responsible for this supplementary Estimate and of the preparation of the language in which it is couched? Has the hon. and learned Member satisfied himself that the comment embodied here was strictly accurate? May I put a question to the hon. Member?
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: Certainly.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Then the hon. and learned Member accepts full responsibility for this comment.
    Mr. MORRISON: When I said "certainly" I was replying to the question whether the hon. Member might put a question to me.
    Mr. SHINWELL: This certainly puts an entirely different complexion on the matter. The hon. and learned Member in reply to a question addressed to him, in quite proper language and with every civility, seemed, I hope temporarily, to lose his temper.
    Mr. MORRISON: I should be sorry if that was so. I have enjoyed this as much as anyone. I think it would be a good thing if I were allowed to reply to questions at the end, so as not unduly to protract our sittings, for I am sure hon. Members do not desire to do that.
    Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. and learned Member is introducing a note of levity not in my mind when I ventured to introduce the subject to the Committee. The hon. and learned Member is himself suffering from an illusion. The only question which has been so far addressed on this supplementary Estimate is one I ventured to put to the Committee at the outset.
    Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Member forgets the speech of the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly).
    Mr. SHINWELL: It is perfectly true that the hon. Member for Rochdale did raise a point somewhat different, but the point I raised is nevertheless one of

    843
    real substance. I desire to ascertain from the hon. and learned Member himself, since he is responsible for this Estimate whether the language now before us in this supplementary Estimate is language which received his acceptance before it was so submitted to the House of Commons. Surely that is an issue on which I am entitled to a quite definite answer from the hon. and learned Member.
    2.30 a.m.
    Mr. EDE: This document purports to have been signed by the Financial Secretary. On page 2 his name is printed. Of course, the printer may not have followed copy on this occasion and it may have been someone else's signature, but while that signature remains—and the hon. Gentleman does not repudiate it—one must assume that he is responsible for the wording of the document to which his name is attached. I think the point raised by the hon. Member for 1Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is one that is worthy of some consideration. After all, after the next General Election there is no doubt that it will not be the hon. Gentleman who will be appending his name to documents of this kind, unless he has an equal facility with the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. R. MacDonald) and the junior right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) of making quite sure that no matter who is out of office they will be in. If we were to comment on some of the things which have happened under the National Government, so-called, such as the departure from the gold standard and other matters, in the same way as this matter has been introduced to-day, I have no doubt that they would feel very sore about it. I observe that the Attorney-General has just left the House, so that we are now deprived once again of all official legal knowledge to help us in our deliberations. I rely upon the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Henderson) to be able to produce for us an opinion rather quicker than the Law Officers of the Crown.
    I want to suggest to the Financial Secretary that language of this kind, especially in a matter of this sort, ought not to be introduced into what is supposed to be the cold calm atmosphere
    844
    of a Treasury document. If we cannot have these things submitted to us dispassionately from that Department we may very well feel that political prejudices have been allowed to gain far too great a sway. I recall that a few years ago it was a great complaint that the Treasury was becoming too much a political department. Hon. Members who recollect the debates in pre-war days, when the right lion. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was promoting his various insurance schemes, will recall the complaint continually made against the Treasury. I sincerely hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to follow any example which his friends in those days so warmly reprobated. I hope we shall have his assurance that these words will not occur in future in the Department for which he is responsible. We realise that he is a new Minister in this Department and we would not desire to be too hard on him in his early days. Everyone has to sow his wild oats. We are told by Dr. Johnson that oats are the principal meal of horses in England and of men in Scotland. We do ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, now that he is a member for an English constituency and represents here a Department, the greater part of whose funds come from England, not to eat oats but to live on the pure milk of the Treasury wording.
    2.34 a.m.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: I suppose it is the shortness of my experience in this House that leads me to be at issue to some slight extent with my hon. friends in this matter. They may understand with the utmost clarity to what these words, of which complaint is made, refer. In that they have the advantage of me because I cannot find anything in the document to indicate what was the crisis in December of 1931. I am bound to say that if we leave out of account the criticism that has been made upon the inclusion of the words in a document of this kind, as being inappropriate in such a document, then surely the Financial Secretary will agree that in no case ought such a document to contain words which are entirely meaningless? If there was, indeed, a crisis in the December of 1931 which occasioned the matter attributed to it here, then either the

    845
    matter should not be mentioned at all or, if it is, it should be stated with the utmost clarity what was the crisis to which the document refers. I recall that there was a governmental incident in the December of 1931—some kind of crisis in the convictions of a lifetime which used to be held by certain hon. Members who still sit upon those benches. Is that the crisis to which reference is made in the document? If it is—namely, the change of opinions, of convictions and of side, would the Financial Secretary explain in what way that causes losses in the Civil Service which this Committee is now called upon to make good? There is the remission of half the payments for Ministerial salaries and also the civil service remuneration. As to the civil service remuneration, there can be no great objection to that, but if there was an abatement of ministerial salaries, due to some crisis in ministerial opinions, how is that the concern of this Committee and why should we be called upon to reimburse a right hon. Gentleman for some crisis in his mind which does not appear to have greatly affected his pocket?
    Perhaps I have got the wrong crisis. Possibly there was some other crisis. If there was, I am sure that not only I, as a new and entirely inexperienced Member, but a great many people outside would be glad even at this late hour if the Financial Secretary would explain in some detail what the crisis was and how it arose. A great deal has been made already of the impropriety of introducing political partisan comments into an official Treasury document which ought to deal dispassionately purely with figures. The answer to that criticism may be that this is not a comment upon political events at all. I am quite prepared to admit it and that there is nothing whatever in this document to justify the criticisms which have been passed upon it. These criticisms have all assumed that the crisis referred to was some kind of political crisis. They are no doubt reading into this document matters which they think are referred to and which they think are meant to be read between the lines. The answer to that may be that no such criticism is justified because that is not the crisis to which reference is made. I do think in that case that the Financial Secretary, whose name is appended to
    846
    the document, and who appears as the financial adviser of this Committee—should never have put his name to so vague a document as this. Let us look at it again:
    "half of the appointments of the emoluments of Ministers and Civil Servants consequent upon the crisis in the autumn of 1931."
    Thinking again I remember there was a drought in that year. I know His Majesty's Government were greatly concerned about that. Many questions were asked, if one believes what was said in the newspapers in those days—I was not a Member of this House then—about the damage that was being done to the prosperity of the country by the failure of the Government to take proper conservation measures. Since then times have changed and there have been floods. Is that the crisis which is referred to? If that was not the crisis, if I have not yet got the right one, will not the Financial Secretary tell us what he had in his mind when he signed the document. What crisis did he mean? He could not possibly have foreseen the crisis which is taking place at this moment. I say in all seriousness that if financial documents, on which this Committee is called upon to raise and spend public money, can be so loose, careless and ambiguous in the explanation of its figures, what reliance can we place upon them? Here we have a vague phrase "crisis in the autumn", and that is said to explain a lot of figures. If we have no information to lead us to understand what the crisis was how do we know that the losses caused by the ambiguous crisis referred to are matters with which this Committee is concerned at all? These are extremely important matters. What we tried to point out to him a little while ago was that this is no time of day to be discussing important matters of this kind. I am quite sure that at other times the Financial Secretary would be the first to admit either that the words ought not to have been included at all, or that if they were included they ought to have been included in fuller detail so as not to mislead or confuse anybody. May I now appeal to the Financial Secretary, in view of the criticisms which have been made—well-founded I am sure he will admit—to withdraw this estimate now and re-present it in more proper form and with more details at a more proper time?
    2.45 a.m.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I am sure that all the Committee are grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having given them an opportunity of debating what is really a very important matter, and also it is an opportunity to correct the views of the last hon. Member. He has not perhaps the advantage or disadvantage of some of us who were more intimately connected with the events of the period to which reference is made in this document. I think it should be made quite clear to the Committee that there were a series of events in the summer and autumn of 1931 to all of which the term crisis might be loosely applied by those who are ignorant of the true series of events. I will if I can, without unduly delaying the Committee at this hour, go through these events in a little detail, in order that we may get from the Financial Secretary an explanation to which of them he refers. The Committee will remember that the Labour Government was in office in the summer of 1931 under the aegis of that skilful politician who Snow graces the Treasury Bench opposite, and that during that summer, certainly at a period which could not be referred to with any accuracy as the autumn because it was in June, I think, of 1931, there was what was termed a financial crisis in middle Europe. The hon. Gentleman will remember the events connected with the Credit Anstalt and the Damstadt Bank. He will also remember the visit made at that time to this country by the German Foreign Minister who went to Chequers and there spent a week-end discussing matters, I think with the present Lord President of the Council and the Colonial Secretary.
    At that time it was generally thought that the structure of financial capitalism in Europe was about to come to a somewhat speedy and, some thought, untimely end. That was indeed referred by many people as a crisis, and it is quite impossible that anyone either with the Scottish parentage or the legal training of the hon. Gentleman could possibly have referred to that as a crisis in the autumn. The Committee will remember that after these events, on the last day of the Session, I think it was 30th July—[HON. MEMBERS: "31st"]—I am much obliged for the correction. On 31st July, when this House was meeting, the then Chan-
    848
    cellor of the Exchequer made a statement from that Box to the effect that there was no critical condition at all so far as regarded the finances of this country, or indeed, I think, so far as the financial position of Europe was concerned. We have so far safely travelled to the end of July. Then in that customary way which behoves Members who have had a hard and long Session, many of us went away to take a short and well-earned—at least I hope wellearned—rest, and suddenly during the first days of August and, be it noted, still in the summer, there was certainly a political upheaval of considerable magnitude. I remember the political upheaval because I, unfortunately, was ill in Germany, and as a result of the political upheaval I returned post-haste to this country. When I returned I found there was a great deal of uncertainty as to what was to happen, and there were people who at that time were talking about going off the gold standard. There was a conversation, I believe, between Downing Street and the Federal Reserve Bank via the Bank of England, and there was certainly a great deal of uncertainty, to put it at its lowest, in the financial and political situation in the country.
    But be it noted that we are still in the summer, and therefore, because of that precision which marks the hon. and learned Gentleman, he cannot be referring to these events. Then there was a hasty formation of this agglomerate which has afflicted the country, since called the National Government, in which, as an hon. Gentleman has already observed, a number of parties agreed to merge their individuality and policy on the principle that, if they do not hang together, undoubtedly they will bang separately. After that period of the formation of the first National Government, we begin to approach the autumn. There was a hasty and short Session of this House which preceded the General Election. I can only think of two things which could be regarded as a crisis in the autumn of 1931, because, be it marked, one must read his sentence as a whole. Therefore, we are dealing with a crisis which resulted in the abatement of the emoluments of the Ministers and civil servants. Now we have to ask ourselves what was it that resulted from the abatements of

    849
    the Ministers and civil servants. I do not suppose there is a person who would say it was not directly caused by the unfortunate election of the National Government. Therefore, I think we can rightly say that the crisis in the finances of this country to which the hon. Gentleman was referring was the National Government. If that, indeed, be the true meaning, I feel that the criticism which has been passed upon it by hon. Members is a little harsh. I agree that it is the most serious and continuing crisis from which this country has suffered in the last century.
    Now that I have elucidated the matter for the benefit of the hon. Member who last spoke, I will pass to the point on which I really rose to address the Committee. I find in these Estimates an item of £1,200 for the Colonial Office, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether it, includes the return of the emoluments of the Colonial Secretary. It it does we can, of course, subject to your Ruling, raise the suitability of the present holder of that office—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman must raise any question of that kind on the main Estimates, and certainly not on this occasion.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I propose to raise the question of the desirability of the present Colonial Secretary getting a return of his full emoluments.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a question for this occasion. It is a general question of policy whether salaries should be raised or not. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot argue the question of whether he should not receive it.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: On that point of Order. The question raises two heads. I do not desire to raise any question in regard to civil servants' salaries, but as regards the Minister's salary a completely different question arises.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. and learned Member, in regard to his contention, of the Estimates last year, in which the question of policy was discussed. It comes, therefore, under the Rule with regard to Supplementary Estimates that questions of policy cannot be raised upon them.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: May I not point out to the Committee that it is undesirable that this sum of £1,200 should be provided for the Minister?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No; certainly not on this occasion.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: If this Committee desires that a particular part of the £1,200 should not be voted, what action is it able to take as regards criticism of the Vote?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is open to any hon. Gentleman to move to reduce the Vote.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I wish to ask for your guidance as to the points which can be put forward in order to justify such a reduction. I do not desire to move a general reduction, but on one of the specific items—say £50 of the £1,200. I desire to object and to put forward certain matters as regards that specific item which we are here asked to vote. Let me assume that the part which will come to the Minister in the Colonial Office is £50. It is as regards that £50 that I desire to put certain observations before the Committee. I ask your ruling whether I am precluded from doing so, and from putting to the Committee my reasons against the £50.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: Is not my hon. and learned Friend in Order when he proposes to deal with the matter in this way?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I had better deal with the point of Order raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think he is trying to argue that Ministerial salaries should not come under the general rule.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: What I desire to argue is, in regard to that portion of the £1,200 which is detailed in the Vote, that it should not come to the Minister.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In other words, I think I am quite correct. The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to argue that Ministerial salaries should not come under the general policy which has been approved by the House. If I have misunderstood him, perhaps he will make it clear.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: We are being asked to-night to vote a- substantial sum,

    851
    £1,200. I have certain objections to voting part of that specific sum, and I desire to put those objections before the Committee.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to raise the matter of the granting of Ministerial salaries. He is entitled to inquire why the Colonial Office wants £1,200, but he is not entitled to debate policy.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: What I desire to show is that, so far as the Colonial Office is concerned, in the sum of £1,200 there ought not to be included a return of the remaining half of the abatement of an emolument in a particular case. I desire to submit to the Committee that it is not an emolument which should be returned. It might be an exception to the general rule or not; but this is the first occasion upon which the House has had an opportunity of passing its opinion as to whether that particular sum should be paid or not.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is under a misapprehension. This matter was debated last year and the policy was approved by Parliament. He has not an opportunity of arguing a matter which has already been settled, and it should not be re-argued, as that is contrary to the rules of the House.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not desire to reargue the principle, but I do desire to argue that in this case the principle should not apply, because of certain events that have taken place since Parliament decided on the principle.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member should defer his argument until the main Estimate comes before us.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: If I am not allowed to criticise the purposes for which this money is being used, am I to understand that it is impossible to raise under any of these subheads any objection to any item in them, because at some earlier date Parliament has passed a principle which would cover them, but which has not yet been implemented by Parliament because the sums have not yet been voted? If that is the case, it would seem to me to be a waste of time to ask
    852
    Parliament to consider these Estimates, because apparently they are not allowed to exercise their judgment whether the payments are proper.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. and learned Member is correct in that statement. It is open to the Committee to ascertain from the Minister how these sums are made tip, and whether they are made up in accordance with a policy which Parliament has decided. What the Committee cannot do on this occasion is debate the policy under which they are granted.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not desire to argue the policy, but the individual who is affected by the policy.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is the point I have ruled that the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot raise. He can raise the point whether the people in fact get the sums to which they are entitled under the policy, but he cannot argue the case of any individual.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: If that is your Ruling, I am obliged for it. I should be obliged if the Minister would give us details of all these subheads; otherwise it is impossible for us to say whether it is strictly in accordance with the decision of Parliament already given. There have been changes of office, and so on, and we should like to know how these sums have been apportioned between the different Ministers and various matters of that kind. I should also be glad if the Minister would tell us in detail how far these sums relate to Ministerial as against Civil Service salaries. Will he divide at least the £50,000, so that we can know how much was Civil Service and how much was Ministerial remuneration? We can then judge whether our consciences are satisfied in voting these sums.
    3.5 a.m.
    Mr. LOGAN: I have here a notice which says that this is in accordance with a Treasury Minute dated 27th November, and continuing until autumn 1931. If it is not possible for the amendment to be moved, I contend that we ought to have documentary evidence that this is on record. Some time ago we had a similar matter which had to be taken back and a new resolution brought to the House the following day, because an error had been made. I contend that a Minute

    853
    is a record, not a comment, and that the words "consequent upon the crisis" constitute a comment and not a Minute. I require proof that this is a record of that Treasury Minute, and I ask that the Minute shall be produced as proof that this is a record of it. In no Government Department or public authority would criticism be allowed to be inserted as a Minute.
    3.9 a.m.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: First with regard to the Minute. I think the hon. Gentleman will find a reference to it in the Estimate or in the note attached to it. It is Command Paper 526, dated 27th November, 1935, and can be obtained in the Vote Office. Therefore there is no necessity for me to produce it here, as the hon. Member has had it circulated to him, and I think he will excuse me at this hour—
    Mr. LOGAN: I want to be confirmed in accordance with my beliefs. I am not asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to read a document similar to what I have in my hand. I want the original. I want the document from which this has been printed. I do not believe that this is a Minute.
    Mr. MORRISON: I was saying that I hoped the Committee would not send me out on this cold morning for the document.
    Mr. LOGAN: I think that is a very flippant way to speak.
    Mr. MORRISON: I have not the least doubt that the hon. Member knows what he is talking about. I would rather leave the matter this morning and get through this complicated Estimate. So far as I have been able to discover, the discussion has ranged, not so much around the Estimate itself, as on the words "the crisis" which are to be found in this document. I think that, if hon. Members consider this as a financial document, then what is meant is a financial crisis. It is a financial document and it will be obvious to everyone, except some hon. Members opposite, that the crisis of 1931 is a perfectly well understood expression standing for certain definite events which took place at that time. These have not been without repercussions upon the hon. Members themselves, on the elections which followed,
    854
    and on the great democracy of which they are always hailing the wisdom and discernment. That democracy had no doubt as to the crisis. If hon. Members object to the term, I can earnestly assure them that no one will be puzzled as to what is meant.
    A more serious note was the protest made by one hon. Member who accused me of introducing Government propaganda into the colourless body of a Supplementary Estimate. Hon. Members on this side need no converting by this document, and hon. Members opposite are incapable of being converted. The term appears in some way to irritate the majority of hon. Members opposite. Conscience does make cowards of us all. Hon. Members may see, not only a financial crisis, but a financial crisis with which they were to some extent connected. That is a feeling which does not effect any great section of the people, and hon. Members opposite need not bother about it for that reason. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was good enough to remind me that oats are good for horses in England and for men in Scotland. He may remember it was also said "where can you find such horses and men?" In every Estimate put forward on this occasion opportunity is taken for the restoration of cuts. I was asked about the savings. It would be impossible for me to enumerate all the savings in all the departments mentioned here. Savings themselves do not necessarily mean what is usually called economic savings. The duties performed in one year by a Department may no longer be necessary, and, therefore, money is saved. The savings mentioned here have been attended by no loss to the public in regard to the efficiency of the services. I think hon. Members feel no objection to the principle of restoring these cuts now. Hon. Members have had their fling at me for the use of this word "crisis," for which I take full responsibility.
    3.18 a.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I had not in my hand the Treasury Minute when I last spoke. Since then I have received a copy, and, as I read the Minute, there has been no authorisation by Parliament, in any sense, to account for the restoration of these cuts. Might I draw the attention

    855
    of the Committee to the terms of the Minute dated 27th November, 1935:

    "(1) My Lords read again their Minute of the 20th November, 1934 (Cmd. 4748), dealing with the method of provision by Parliament in the financial year 1934 to meet the charges arising out of the withdrawal as from 1st July, 1934, of half the abatements of the emoluments of Ministers and Civil Servants consequent upon the crisis in the autumn of 1931.

    (2) They then proposed the presentation of a single Supplementary Estimate from which advances could be made to any Vote on which there was a prospective excess due solely to these charges, a course which was approved by the House of Commons.

    (3) Similar circumstances having arisen in connection with the Estimates for the current financial year, in which the provision for the remuneration of Ministers and Civil Servants was necessarily based on the emoluments in force at the end of the last financial year. These emoluments have since been increased under the terms of Treasury Circulars 14/35 and 15/35 of the 24th May, 1935, in consequence of the withdrawal as from the 1st July, 1935, of the remaining half of the abatements mentioned in paragraph one above.

    Their Lordships consider that it will be convenient on the present occasion to follow the procedure laid down by Their Minute of 20th November, 1934. They propose, therefore, that there should be presented to Parliament a single Supplementary Estimate from which advances can he made to any Vote where there is prospective excess expenditure due solely to the withdrawal of the remaining half of these abatements of emoluments. A schedule of such Votes and of the anticipated amounts required in each case will be appended to the Estimate for the information of Parliament.
    The Appropriation Account of the general Vote will be prepared by the Treasury and will show the net amount issued to each Department; the Department will account for the amount issued to it together with its own Vote, and will be required to satisfy the Treasury and the Comptroller and Auditor General that the relevant expenditure was at least as great as the net amount issued to it from the general Vote."
    That is not a procedure that Parliament has ever approved. There was this procedure adopted in 19.34, but the procedure adopted in regard to this Estimate is a procedure adopted by their Lordships because they considered that it would be convenient on the present occasion to follow the procedure of 1934. The procedure on the present occasion has never received the endorsement or approval of this House.
    856
    Therefore, unless I have overlooked some step in the procedure, is not this the first Vote as regards these particular salaries which has come forward in order to implement, not a decision of Parliament, but a decision of the Lords of the Treasury which they took on the 27th November, 1935? You will notice Captain Bourne, that this says:
    "In accordance with the terms of the Treasury Minute"—
    not in accordance with any decision of Parliament. Quite clearly this Treasury Minute is not something, on the face of it, which has been authorised by Parliament. Is it not, therefore, in Order to raise the question as to those specific sums which are mentioned here in the Vote?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I adhere to my original ruling. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot raise the details of these salaries, but he can, if he likes, raise the question whether the procedure laid down by the Lords of the Treasury is the most convenient one. The question of policy was decided last year, both in the Budget and in the Finance Bill. The Finance Bill is now an Act, and is not an arguable matter.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Further to that point of Order. Will you enlighten me as to the Resolution which, I presume, is the only way in which Parliament, if it authorises it in any Budget, can give authority for these specific sums? As I understand it, although a statement may have been made by the Chancellor in the course of the Budget debates that there was going to he a list returned, I do not remember any Resolution being passed by this House to cover that. Am I not right that all that has happened since then is this passage in the Treasury Minute—which covers the further period from 1st July, 1935, to the end of the Financial year, I presume—and that, in fact, Parliament has never passed any Resolution or any Clause in the Finance Act which authorises this increase in salaries? The only thing was a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the Budget, and this Treasury Minute is to implement that statement. This procedure has never been approved by Parliament, and therefore these returns of salaries have never had any approval of any sort or kind by any vote of this House.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is wrong there. Provision was made in the Finance Act last year to raise the necessary money. The Finance Act was passed by the House, and, therefore, by implication, the policy was approved.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Further to that point of Order. Am I to understand that the passage in the Finance Act providing the necessary money closes to this Committee completely the discussion of how that money is to be expended? As I understand the Ruling now, if this money was approved in the Finance Act —and I would say respectfully that I regard this as an extremely important matter, involving the control of finance by the House—if once the money is voted by the Finance Act, no question can be raised as to whether this expenditure is right or not. If that is so, the whole system of Supply in this House might almost as well cease, because Supplementary Estimates are surely for the purpose of ascertaining whether moneys are properly spent? This money was not approved by the Finance Act, because the fact that it is in the Supplementary Estimates shows that it cannot have been in the Finance Act. I do submit, in all humility, that here is a case where money not provided by the Finance Act is being expended for a service which was not specifically mentioned in the Finance Act, and which has never been specifically passed by any Resolution or action of the House. This is the first occasion on which it has come before the House, and, if we are not now to have the opportunity of debating it, the result will be that this expenditure can be made by the Government and nobody can have the opportunity to criticise it.
    The DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is wrong. What I have ruled is that the policy on this occasion was settled in the Finance Bill. The question whether the Estimate carries out the policy is, of course, open to discussion.
    Mr. EDE: I would ask you, Captain Bourne, with very great deference, does the Finance Act do more than authorise the raising of the money? I was not in the House when the last Finance Act was passed, but my recollection of previous
    858
    Finance Acts, when I was in the House, is that they deal with the raising of the money, and that the spending of the money is carried out by a quite different procedure altogether and by other Acts of Parliament or by specific Resolutions. I may remind you that, when these cuts were originally imposed, they were imposed at about the same time as a second Finance Act was passed, called the Economy Provisions Act or some such name.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It has always been the practice of the House to decide the general financial policy, and in this case provision was made in the Budget speech of last year and approved by the House, and that approval was signified in the Finance Bill. I must adhere to my Ruling that that matter cannot be raised. I have now given my ruling, and lion. Members must abide by it.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: May I ask for an explanation on this very important matter? Are we to understand that every matter which is mentioned in the Budget speech is automatically confirmed by the passage of the Finance Act, which does not mention that matter at all?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I prefer to leave the Ruling as one of a general kind until the occasion arises.
    3.29 a.m.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I do not feel competent to express any opinion on the legal aspects, but, with great respect, there does seem to be some doubt in the minds of hon. Members. We might have had the assistance of the learned Law Officers, but it is not in relation to that aspect of the question that I rise. I am frankly astonished at the attitude adopted by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He made some effort to contribute to our entertainment, and seemed to enjoy himself at that Box, preening his feathers, and creating only one impression in my mind, which was that he sought to treat the Committee with scant courtesy. When I raised this question earlier in the debate I did so without any levity in my mind. My submission to the Committee is that language of this sort is unprecedented in a Government document of this kind. I think that hon. Members have a great

    859
    regard for the ability of the hon Member opposite, but he ought not to take advantage of the opinion held of him in this House to ride off in the flagrant way he did on a substantial issue of this kind. The very lowest we were entitled to expect from the hon. Member was a submission that this language had been used in other Government documents; in short, to advance a precedent. He did no such thing. On the contrary he added fuel to the fire, insult to injury, by dilating on the association of Members on this side with an alleged crisis. He spoke of a financial crisis, but there was no specification whatever, nor did he venture to inform the Committee as to whether that financial crisis was attributable to the conduct of the National Government or some other Government.
    On that head we are entitled to information if in the opinion of the hon. Member, language of this kind is competent in a document of this sort. I take exception to the language used, and also particularly to the attitude of the hon. Member. It is not the way to submit a Government document, and it is not the way to expect acceptance by the House. For my part, not because of the Vote concerned, because there is no exception taken on this side to the restoration of emoluments, but because we object to the language used which ought in my view to be removed, and as the hon. Member has not seen fit to remove it, I am prepared to advise my friends on this side to vote against this Supplementary Estimate on the ground that the language is unprecedented and uncalled-for.
    Mr. BEVAN: I had expected quite frankly the hon. Member to rise in his place and admit that a mistake had been made by the inclusion of this language. If he had got up and said that this language had crept into this document inadvertently and expressed no definite intention by the Government, I am quite sure we on our side would have been merciful and chivalrous to a fallen foe, but instead of that the hon. Member has actually done himself less than justice because he has said that indeed there was a crisis and he inferred that we were responsible for the crisis.
    HON. MEMBERS: You were.
    Mr. BEVAN: I am going to accept that challenge. I will assume for the sake of argument that it as a crisis of the gravest possible kind, and I will assume that this party was responsible for that crisis. I will make the further assumption that the crisis inflicted injury upon the country. But that does not justify the Government in reducing a Treasury document to the level of a political charge at a political party. That is the issue. Why use the language? All the Treasury document need do is merely to make a reference to a decision arrived at in 1931. That is all. But it proceeds to comment upon the events of 1931.
    Mr. DONNER: It is a statement of fact.
    Mr. BEVAN: It is a statement of fact that the Conservative party is reactionary, but we would not put it in a Treasury document.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: Where will the hon. Member find it n this document?
    Mr. BEVAN: I did not say it was in this document. I said it was the hon. Member who in justifying the use of the language gave it all authority and defended it because there was indeed a crisis and that this party was responsible for the crisis. I must say that hon. Members amaze me by the complacency with which they view the violation of chaste Government documents in this way. As I said earlier, this is not the first time they have offended. Although we have not succeeded in elucidating from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury any honourable laments, we have not heard him say, as he could have said without loss of dignity, that the use of this language is undesirable. I do hope that this Debate will have been noted in other quarters and that a repetition of this excessively undesirable practice will not occur.
    Original question put, and agreed to.

    MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £88,180, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Grants in Aid, and Supplement to certain Statutory Salaries."
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: This particular Estimate for Miscellaneous Expenses covers slightly complicated matters to which a brief explanation may be appended. I do pot think I would be doing my duty if I did not attempt to explain very briefly the matters involved. The Oceanic Company is the company which, prior to the merger of the Cunard-White Star company, owned and operated the White Star fleet, and to that company under the Trade Facilities Acts of 1921 to 1926 the Treasury of the United Kingdom, and the Ministry of Northern Ireland under their similar Act, called the Loans Guarantee Act—it is the same principle as the Trade Facilities Acts—guaranteed certain large loans to the Oceanic Company for the purpose of enabling that company to construct new tonnage. I want to make it clear to the House that up to 1930 the Company were doing well and made fair profits. After 1930 the depression set in (and in view of the previous scolding I received I will endeavour to use terms which are entirely colourless) with particular severity in the North Atlantic shipping trade. The fact really is that since 1931 this company has been unable to meet interest or redemption of its loans.
    I ought to remind the Committee that the North Atlantic Shipping Act of 1934 set up a Cunard-White Star merger. The shares in that company were distributed as to 38 per cent. to the Oceanic Company and as to the remaining 62 per cent. to the Cunard Company. After the merger had taken place the security which the Treasury had for their guarantee in the case of the Oceanic Company was two blocks of White Star-Cunard shares. The first block was of 2,280,000 shares and the second block with which we are really concerned was of 1,520,000 shares. The debenture holders of the company had a prior charge and the only charge which the Treasury had was confined to a -charge for one loan of £245,000.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Were they both shares of a similar type?
    Mr. MORRISON: Yes. They were ordinary shares of the Cunard-White Star Company held in the proportions I have mentioned. In December last the trustees for the debenture holders of the
    862
    Oceanic Company informed the Treasury that they were in a position, by selling assets on which they had charges, to realise enough money to pay the whole of their debts in full, both capital and interest. In the light of that announcement the Treasury reviewed its security position, because it was quite clear that that sort of action by the debenture holders would entail the disappearance of this block of shares, and the consequences of that, if those shares were to disappear, would be serious from the point of view of the Treasuries of this country and Northern Ireland. The first would be that they would lose their charge upon the block of shares upon which the loan of £245,000 was secured, and the second that the removal of this large block of shares might mean that the Treasury would fail to realise the full amount of money.
    Consideration was given to the matter by the two Treasuries, and the conclusion was reached that it was in the interest of the taxpayers that steps should be taken to prevent this valuable block of shares disappearing simply in satisfaction of the debenture holders claims. In order to remedy that, the transaction took place which is now before the Committee, in this Supplementary Estimate. To cut it short the Treasuries came to an agreement with the debenture holders that they would give them enough money so that after the debenture holders had released their assets a sum of money would be available to enable their claims to be paid out in full. The sum of money involved was £163,000, and the Northern Ireland Treasury agreed to go halves in this venture, and our share is, therefore, £81,804 13s. 8d., and it forms the major part of the sum now being asked for in this estimate.
    The position is this: There is one other sum in this for £6,375. It arises in this way, as part of the arrangement with the trustees for the debenture holders, for, owing to the charge on the Oceanic company the company was not in a position to use its own cash balances, and in order to give some time while the future of the company could be discussed and appropriate steps taken to secure the interests of the taxpayers, it was decided to advance to the company the minimum working money required to carry on. This money is secured as a first charge

    863
    on the company on this block of shares which the action of the Treasury has rescued from the debenture holders. I am sorry that I have such a story to put before the House on this matter, and I think I have told the House every relevant detail. The sum of money is vast, but it is necessary in order to prevent this security disappearing for the satisfaction of debenture holders and also for the minimum working expenses up to the end of the financial year.
    In the agreement the company has agreed to place itself under strict Treasury control. It has agreed to pay out no sums without the consent of the Treasury and the Finance Ministry of Northern Ireland, to furnish estimates and also audited accounts monthly, and it is reserved to the Comptroller and Auditor-General to have access to the books. The transaction has been agreed in order to prevent the sale of a valuable asset, this block of shares. No one knows what the value is for several reasons, one of them being that there is no market in the shares, the whole of them being held by these two companies. We have acquired these shares at an average of about 3s. each.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say who the debenture holders were?
    Mr. MORRISON: I cannot. The hon. Member can take it from me that the debenture holders had a charge on this block of shares.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: What was the amount?
    Mr. MORRISON: That was not the only charge. We have preserved this valuable asset. The Treasury took the most competent advice it could find. It was agreed that in the taxpayers' interest it would be a prudent step to prevent the disappearance of this valuable block of shares. The North Atlantic shipping trade has been in the last few years in the worst state it has ever been. The result of last year's trading shows a marked improvement, and given the reasonable swing of the pendulum that can be expected we have not the slightest doubt that in obtaining these shares we have done something which has improved the security of the Treasury and the taxpayer for the enormous loans which the Government has in the past
    864
    guaranteed, The sums involved are very large, in the neighbourhood of £3,000,000, and it is felt that it is a wise precaution to prevent this valuable block of shares disappearing.
    3.55 a.m.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The speech which the hon, and learned Gentleman has just made is important and weighty, and it should receive the careful consideration of the Committee. It is three hours since I asked leave to move to report Progress, and in view of this very late hour, again I beg leave to move to report Progress. Three hours ago the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) tried to defend my Motion on the ground that we were tired and weary on this side. When I look at the hon. Members opposite in the recumbent positions which some of them have taken, when I think of the state of coma which has come over them, and when I think of the enormous amount of financial knowledge on that side, I feel that we are not going to be enlightened on this matter. For the majority of the House to lie in this semi-comatose state, with two of its Members horizontal—
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order, may I draw attention to the fact that some hon. Members on the Conservative Benches are lying prone on their benches, and is that not contrary to Standing Orders?
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Major Milner): That is not a point of Order.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Does the hon. Member not think it better to lie recumbent than to lie standing?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member is in a better position to answer that than I am. It is a matter of order that hon. Members should restrain themselves in seemly fashion. Two hon. Members are in a state of unconsciousness. This is no hour to discuss so important a problem as this. The figures with which the Financial Secretary juggled and the arguments which he used were so complex that hon. Member's should have a full opportunity of reading his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT before we have a Debate. That seems to

    865
    me sufficient reason why reason should prevail, why we should say to the Chief Whip "And so to bed," and it is in that spirit of friendliness that I beg to move my Motion.
    The CHAIRMAN proceeded to put the Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Mr. GARRO-JONES rose.—
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member question the discretion of the Chair?
    Mr. GREENWOOD rose—
    HON. MEMBERS: Name!
    The CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman desires to raise a point of Order I will hear him. I must remind him that when the occupant of the Chair is on his feet he must sit down.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: It was not a point of Order. It was a question. While admitting your discretion may I ask why the Government has not the decency to reply to the statement that has been made?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not propose to give them the opportunity.
    Mr. SHINWELL: On a point of Order. May I ask whether immediately before you came to your seat in the Chair there was any conversation between you and the Patronage Secretary as to the conduct you should employ?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's statement is very wrong.
    Mr. BEVAN: On a point of Order, may I respectfully submit that the speech which was delivered by the Secretary to the Treasury you were unfortunately unaware of, and therefore you were not in possession of the gravity of the issue the Committee will be asked to discuss. The reason why it is asked to move to report Progress is because of the gravity of the problem the Committee is asked to debate. If you had been in possession of that information you would have admitted discussion of the Motion to report Progress so that hon. Members not in the Committee at the time would be put in possession of the information. Perhaps you will reconsider your decision.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: You have been good enough to state that there was no conversation between the Patronage Secretary and yourself before you came to that Chair. The Patronage Secretary rose from his place and held a long conversation with your predecessor. Is it in order for the Patronage Secretary to seek to influence the Chair in that way?
    The CHAIRMAN: Of course a good deal of this is really very much out of order because it is in the nature—whether hon. Members mean it or not—it is undoubtedly in the nature of a reflection on the Chair. For the information of hon. Members I may say 'that I had been for some time keeping myself closely in touch with what had been happening in the Chamber and lately I had been behind the Chair or near by before I came to the Chair. I was fully acquainted with the position of affairs in the House. In these circumstances I came to the conclusion that when the right hon. Gentleman at the end of his remarks moved to report Progress this was a proper occasion in my discretion to put the Question forthwith.
    Mr. ALEXANDER rose—
    The CHAIRMAN: If it is the same point of order I will not admit it.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I want to put this point: I have sat in the Committee during the whole period of these discussions, last evening and this morning, for the purpose of addressing what I hoped would be considered severe criticism of this proposal. I cannot imagine that if you had listened to the statement of the Financial Secretary you could possibly have refused a proper discussion.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is apparently arguing still further that point of order on which I have given my decision and on which I said I cannot listen to more.
    Major MILNER: On a point of explanation, if I may be permitted.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that in the circumstances it would be a proper thing for me to allow the hon. and gallant Member to proceed if he rises on a point of personal explanation.
    Major MILNER: I must say that I personally asked the Patronage Secretary the time of the last division on this subject, so that I might form an opinion. He came back and told me that the division was at 1.50 a.m. so that I could form an opinion. That was the only conversation.

    Division No. 73.]

    AYES.

    [4.7 a.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Adamson, W. M.

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

    Sexton, T. M.

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

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Shinwell, E.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Henderson, A. (Kliigswinford)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Bevan, A.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Broad, F. A.

    Holland, A.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Hollins, A.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Compton, J.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Daggar, G.

    Kirby, B. V.

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

    Dalton, H.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lee, F.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan, D. G.

    Watkins, F C.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lunn, W.

    Westwood, J,

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Mainwarlng, W. H.

    Whiteley, W.

    Ede, J. C.

    Marklew, E.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Mliner. Major J.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

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

    Paling, W.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Foot, D. M.

    Potts, J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Frankel, D.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Ritson, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Glbbins, J.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.

    NOES.

    Albery, I. J.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Rankin, R

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

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

    Hannah, I. C.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

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

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

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

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Rowlands, G.

    Blindell, Sir J.

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

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hulbert, N. J.

    Salt, E. W.

    Boulton, W. W.

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

    Samuel, M R. A. (Putney)

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Bracken, B.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Briscoe. Capt. R. G.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs)

    Smith, L. w. (Hallam)

    Bull, B. B.

    Latham. Sir P.

    Somerset, T.

    Burghley, Lord

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

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Burgin, Dr. E. L

    Leckie, J. A.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Spens, W. P.

    Channon, H.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

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

    Storey, S.

    Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Stourion, Hon. J. J.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    McKie, J. H.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Magnay, T.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Critchley, A.

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

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Cross, R. H.

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Crowder, J. F. E,

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Culverwell, C. T.

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

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    De Chair, S. S.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chitwick)

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Donner, P. W.

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

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

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

    Turton, R. H.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Duggan, H J.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Peake, O.

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

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Penny, Sir G.

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

    Errington, E.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

    Erskine Hill, A. G.

    Petherick, M.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel G.

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

    Plugge, L. F.

    Wise, A. R.

    Everard, W. L.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Porrltt, R. W.

    Young. A S. L. (Partick)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Captain Hope and Lieut.-Colonel

    Llewellin.

    Original Question again proposed.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 138.
    4.17 a.m.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I want first of all to say that I consider it nothing short of a disaster that the House should be asked to give consideration at this hour to such a very important Supplementary Estimate as that now before us. There is no question at all that these Supplementary Estimates are such as would, twenty-five years ago, have led to a fearful scene in the House. Here is unravelled, if one likes to look at the details of the Estimate, the story of one of the grave scandals of modern times. Here is another example of the misuse of the public credit. Here is another case where, if I understood aright the implication of the companies who are in relation to this particular transaction, the public is going to be called upon to pay, whilst others who have profited out of the transaction will not be called upon to pay. The Financial Secretary shakes his head. I listened in vain to that long and somewhat vague statement he made just now before the Motion to report Progress was moved, but I did not hear a single thing in that long statement which gave any more light to the Committee than was to be found in the White Paper. If he had other information to give to us then I think he might have given it. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the shipping industry as a whole is receiving substantial sums already from public funds, and in so far as the Financial Secretary showed just now that trade was improving he means by that that it is being assisted to some extent by Government subsidy.
    In dealing with these two transactions, however, when one looks at the details of this company that he laid before us, I find that not only were they the controllers of the White Star, not only were they the subject of arrangements between the White Star and Oceanic, but they had close association with another shipping line, called Shaw Savill and Co. When I look at the latest report available with regard to Shaw Savill and Co. I cannot see that they are in quite such a bad way in that respect as has been indicated in the report with regard to the other aspects of the operation. I look up the returns in the Stock Exchange Year Book of the Shaw Savill and Albion Co., Ltd. I look up the sec-
    870
    tion which refers to accounts and dividends and I find this; accounts and dividends are submitted in May. Particulars as to the provision for ordinary dividends are withheld from publication. How much are they? Will not the hon. Member tell us?
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The hon. Member has asked me about that. I cannot tell him about Shaw Savill and Albion. The prosperity of the Shaw Savill company is beside the point.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Has the lion. Member not made any inquiries at all as to the connection between the Oceanic and Shaw Savill? I think if he will look up the returns with regard to the Oceanic Steam Navigation company it might be helpful to him. The company is interested jointly with Shaw, Savill and Albion Company Ltd., with ships operating between Great Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. That company is undoubtedly profitable. It is operating jointly. Is there any suggestion at all, now the country is being asked to supply this extra money, as to any contribution being made by that profitable company? I think we are entitled to know. I want to look at another aspect. I suppose there is no dubiety in the mind of the hon. Member as to the connection of this company with the Royal Mail? I heard some questions put to my hon. Friend during the course of his explanation to the Committee asking for information as to who were the debenture holders, who in other years had been lending money to these companies. It is true I cannot find in my researches in the Stock Exchange Year Book exactly who were the holders of this particular set of debentures, but when I look up the records of the Royal Mail set out in the same place, I find that some at least of the loan held by the Royal Mail Steam Packet was advanced by an insurance company not unknown in this class of business, the Royal Exchange Insurance Company.
    I had occasion yesterday morning in the Standing Committee upstairs, in dealing with another section of default of trades facilities, namely a group of sugar-beet companies, to refer to the fact that it was a loan advanced to these companies by the Royal Exchange Insurance Company. I find over and over again, when we come to this kind of

    871
    advance made under guarantee of the Treasury, the Royal Exchange Insurance Company. I looked up the record of the Royal Exchange Insurance Company. I found there was never any difficulty about the dividends of the Royal Exchange Insurance Company—25 per cent. two years ago and 27 per cent. last year, and I think it is worth while, in considering this aspect to-night of another stage towards capitalism completely on the dole, to know how closely these finance companies, very often with Members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons on their boards of directors, are in touch with every kind of opportunity there is available for using, for investment purposes, their financial funds, in order to keep this or that other section of capital organisation on the dole. They will be certain always to keep their financial returns quite safe and be able to make the regular high dividends paid to their stock holders and clients.
    I think it is apposite at this time to call attention to the way in which finance in this case has been manipulated. I also want to point out something else. It appears from the White Paper and is verified by the repetitions of the Financial Secretary, that so concerned are the Treasury now about the position of the money which was guaranteed, that contrary to all the usual tenets of the hon. Member opposite, the Treasury have gone completely into the business. He told the Committee that one of the great advantages per contra of the first grant of £81,000—the half-share—they are making to the Northern Ireland Treasury, was that there would be strict Treasury control, that they would have complete access to the books, that the company would be required to furnish estimates and monthly accounts. Indeed the more one listened to that side of the Financial Secretary's explanation the more one could see at once that the Treasury was putting itself in practically entirely as liquidator in regard to a going concern, They are running the business.
    It would have been very much better in the view of many hon. Members on this side if, instead of losing the money in the way it has been lost since the War, the country had had the sense to take control of these shipping lines themselves years ago.
    Mr. MAGNAY: What about America?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member forgets I was reproving his political friend there for laughing. Let me point out to the hon. Member who interrupted just now that he would not laugh if he read about some of the conditions of the families who have lost their money because of the rotten type of financial capitalist who has had control of this industrial business and manipulated these very companies to whom the public have advanced their money in such a way as would be a disgrace yr Great Britain.
    Mr. MAGNAY: Am I not justified in laughing at the idea that any Socialist could run industry in this country?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the hon. Gentleman has got a very special view. If you examine the records of this House you will find that from the moment when this country was faced with a real crisis, and when the nation had to be saved, private enterprise broke down. Ever since the War you have had a whole procession of captains of industry and financiers coming cap in hand to the representatives of the people asking for public money, taking it, squandering it and using it fraudulently in many cases; and finally we have to make good a default such as we are now dealing with in this Committee. We are asked to discuss a matter like this at this late hour. It seems to be nothing short of a scandal and a disgrace that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury should allot to one day such a vast quantity of Parliamentary business, and leave us at this hour of the morning to discuss such questions as this. I imagine it was put down because there was so much on the Order Paper that it was hoped the light of day could be prevented from coming in on a rotten sticky scandal.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that he is parting from the Estimates.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not think I have said anything which has been away from the Estimates. The Estimate is for a figure of £88,000, and it is presented with little more than a hope of enabling redemption to be made of grants already made by the Treasury because of the default in redemption of their loan by the people who had the Treasury guarantee. There has been a vast de-

    873
    terioration in Parliamentary standards since the War. If there had been a transaction such as this twenty years ago it would have led to the resignation of the Government of the day.
    4.36 a.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I can only imagine that we are forced to discuss this matter as a result of the Financial Secretary having explained it to the Chief Whip in the same way as he did to the Committee, and the Chief Whip thinking it was unintelligible and that we should not waste time over it. We are asked to deal with this matter as simple borrowing; but there are a great many questions which arise upon it and the points to be put are very material.
    Mr. MORRISON: I think I can give the relations between the companies in due course. [Interruption.] I was referring to the connection between the Shaw Savill Company and the Oceanic Company. The Oceanic Company possessed certain shares in the Shaw Savill Company, but they were sold.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: They were part of the value of the assets which were sold for the benefit of the debentures. I would like to put one or two questions in regard to this matter. Would the hon. Gentleman tell us how much money has been paid under the guarantee? That is a vital factor when one is considering whether or not this is a wise expenditure in order to save what has already been put in. Are sums still being paid under these guarantees? Is there still an accruing liability from year to year for the interest? Is there still the full liability, so far as this country is concerned, for the £1,540,000? It proceeds:
    "because the company has not been in a position to fulfil its obligations on these loans or on the first mortgage debentures of the company."
    Does that mean that sums have to be paid because the company cannot pay the interest on its first mortgage debentures? Was there any guarantee by the Treasury of the interest on those debentures, or was that paid apart from any guarantee to salve the company, in order that the debenture holders should not enter in and take possession thereby of the value of such assets as the Treasury had against this guarantee'? These matters are of
    874
    vital importance if one is to judge this extraordinarily complex financial transaction.
    It proceeds further:
    "The trustees of the debenture holders recently decided to realise the security."
    Who were the trustees, and why did they so decide? Why did they decide to realise the debentures in this company, with its admirable prospects and with business better? I assume they were carrying a fairly high interest, and that unless the trustees thought it was a risky investment they would have been glad to continue it. It then proceeds to say that the debenture charge covered certain assets, which I understand refers to one block of 1,120,000 shares.
    Mr. MORRISON: The block of shares on which the debenture holders had the first charge and the Treasury the second charge was the block of 1,520,000.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am obliged. Would the hon. Gentleman now tell us what a partial interest is? Was it what it is set out to be, a share of the holding of the shares themselves? Were they co-owners in this block of shares? When this deal was put through how came it that the debenture holders got a first charge and all the Treasury got was a partial interest? Why did the Treasury not then get as good a charge as anyone upon these shares which were transferred? It appears from what follows in this document that, having discovered this state of affairs, trustees were about to realise assets in which they had a partial interest, and that the Treasury advanced money to the trustees. We have not heard a word about that, and I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman on what authority the Treasury advanced the money, and how much money was advanced. As far as I can see there has been no Parliamentary authority for the advance. It has probably been repaid since, but it is a serious matter if the Treasury is to take power, without coming to Parliament, to advance money to trustees of debenture holders in some private company, and the transaction is never to come to Parliament unless it turns out to be a total loss, when, no doubt, Parliament would be asked to Vote the authority for the advance of the money. After having advanced the money the Treasury found that £81,804 of it was irrecoverable. I understand that every-

    875
    thing except the shares on which there was a charge for the debentures was sold or realised, including shares in the Shaw Savill Line, the money in the till and the balance at the bank, and that still there was £81,000 short. I understand that for that sum there is still a charge on these shares. Have they been purchased for that sum?
    Mr. MORRISON: The charge is for all sums that have been advanced.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: So that now the security of the Treasury is reduced to a charge on 1,520,000 ordinary shares in the Cunard - White Star Line which are held by the Ocean Steam Navigation Company, the holding company. In order to make that charge effective it has been necessary to advance, without authority from Parliament—£5,000—presumably to the Ocean Steam Navigation Company. That is a company which has no assets except a block of shares. It cannot want any money to carry on with. Why does it want £5,000 to carry on its sole business of holding one block of shares? Is it to pay the directors? This means that the Committee are asked to consent to the advance of this sum to a company whose sole business is to hold one block of shares, in order that they may carry on the business of holding that block of shares until 31st March. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should have told them to put it in the Chancery Lane Safe Deposit. I cannot understand a figure of that sort being put before the Committee seriously. Then there arises another line of criticism on the whole of this transaction, perhaps more important for the consideration of the Committee than the particular deal we have been concerned with at present. The hon. Gentleman said with great pride that the Committee would observe that he was preserving control in the hands of the Treasury. Does he think it a good thing for the Treasury to have the control of private companies? He does. Then he had better come over to this side.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The hon. Gentleman should not misinterpret. I meant that I had noted his point for reply.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: If he does not think it a good thing, he will find, when he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow
    876
    morning, that in his speech there is one point of recommendation he put forward, and that was that the Treasury was preserving control of this business. Are they going to run this business of controlling a block of shares? I am sure he has realised that whether it he a business, a finance corporation or a big shipping company in the North Atlantic, there could be no better control than by the Government. Instead of opposing what we art trying to do he should expand this control until it covers the whole body of the industries of this country. He will then be able to say that the little police he started by getting control of one company had expanded to cover the whole country.
    But this method of obtaining control is very expensive, because you obtain control on the theory that you always carry the loss and the other man gets the profit. You do not go in unless the concern is in such a state, and unless the risks are such, that no ordinary prudent investor can carry them. When business in the North Atlantic is improving the Government does not get the profit on the shares. It only gets a fixed rate of interest. There is the Queen Mary. If the shares do well then it is not the Government which gets the benefit. The Government only gets a fixed percentage. When the danger is great the Government takes the risk; where the chances of making profits are concerned the Government gets no advantage at all.
    Why did not the Government purchase the shares from the debenture holders? It would have been just, as effective as a charge and if there were a profitable future for the shares they would get the whole benefit and would not have had to advance this £5,000 or £6,000. They would have got the security and the prospects of profits, and would not have had to finance the company which holds this block of shares. This is almost Gilbertian as a method of finance, and could only be adopted by a party which thinks its function is to try to preserve the interests of the capitalist class of this country. The Government could not have had true regard for the interests of the Government itself. It is always the same story. The Government goes in as a hospital nurse to try to keep this terribly anaemic patient alive. Soon it will find the patient will be dead in its arms.
    4.57 a.m.
    Sir ALAN ANDERSON: Before I went to sleep last night it appeared to me that this problem was the voting of £80,000. Now, in the cold grey light of the morning, it appears to be a much wider question. We have heard about trade facility loans, the shares of Shaw Savill and a large number of surrounding problems. The question we were discussing was whether it was right and proper for the Government to spend £80,000. They had to step into the position of holders of a first security—they had guaranteed a loan for trade facilities. In order to get first securities and therefore power to deal with the property, they bought up the first debentures, and I presume they ran no risk in that. As I see it that is the whole question on this Estimate. Regarding the trade facilities loans, I have heard one or two speeches which imply that they are a bonus to, and are intended to help, the shipowners. You will be interested to hear that the shipowners went more than once to the Government asking them not to grant these trade facilities loans to shipbuilders. The loans were granted to encourage ship-building. It is quite true that some shipowners took advantage of them, but the whole body of shipowners protested against the practice of granting them. So do not imagine that this is something the shipowners asked for or by which they profited. These loans were agreed about ten years ago, and are not in question in the Estimates at all. What is in question is whether it was wise of the Government, that company having got into a very bad position, to step into the position of being holders of first securities by buying these debentures and paying £88,000 for them.
    5.2 a.m.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: If I had any real hopes that the searching analysis of this transaction which we have heard would meet with any satisfactory response, I might be content to leave it there, but because I have no hope that any such enlightenment will be given to us I continue this discussion. I acquit hon. Gentlemen who have spoken of any desire not to enlighten us, but the really shocking thing about this transaction, as it has been presented to us, is the lack of information which the Financial Secre-
    878
    tary confesses to. There are two questions which should be very simple to answer and to which it is very necessary to have the answers. We want to know, first, who were the debenture holders, or, if there are too many of them, who were the trustees for the debenture holders?
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I have said that I could not say actually who were the debenture holders.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: I gather that the hon. Gentleman can now tell us who were the trustees, but when the question was referred back he was unable to supply this information. Another question is, What was the amount of the debenture holders' claim? These particulars do not tell us. They tell us that the trustees for the debenture holders decided to realise the securities for the debentures, which included 'certain assets in which the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance of Northern Ireland had a partial interest, subject to the prior claims of the debenture holders. In order to safeguard the recovery of the debt due and to become due to them, it was necessary for the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance to take steps whereby the sale of those assets would be avoided, and accordingly they arranged with the trustees to find, in equal proportions, the sum required to pay off the debentures without the realisation of all the other assets charged as security for the debentures.
    It is quite clear what has taken place. What was determined upon was that these other assets charged as security, in which we had no interest, should be sold in order to satisfy the claims of the debenture holders, that when they had been sold something was still due to the debenture holders, that that balance was found jointly with the Minister of Finance of Northern Ireland, and that this Estimate represents our share of that deficit.
    The Committee are now asked to say that that was a wise thing, that it was, in the words of the hon. Gentleman who presented the Estimate, a businesslike proceeding. I say the information he has given is insufficient to enable us to decide whether it was or was not a sound business transaction. In order to know

    879
    whether it was worth our while to step in in that way, after assets in which we were not interested had been sold in order to preserve the other assets in which we were interested, we must know two or three things which have not been told us. One is, What was the value of the assets? Another is, What was the value of the assets in which we had no interest? Thirdly, what was the claim of the debenture holders, and the difference between the sum realised by the sale of the assets in which we had no interest and the amount we had to make up? It is all very well to say what was the final deficit which we had to share with the Ministry of Finance, for we know now how the figure was reached, but we are not given the calculation. We have nothing to enable us to decide whether it was better business to do what was done or whether it would have been better to let the whole thing go.
    If it be true that the Financial Secretary has not got this information, then for him to ask the Committee in such circumstances to approve of the expenditure of public money is a misuse of the procedure of this House. It goes a long way to explain why we are being asked to discuss it between 4 and 5 o'clock, because those are the hours of darkness, and it may well be that this is a transaction which is better discussed in the hours of darkness than dragged out in the light of day. We on these benches will insist on continuing the discussion because, if we discuss it long enough, the light of day will be brought into it, physically and literally. The Financial Secretary is asking us to sanction this expenditure on information which is insufficient. If it had been an instruction given to him by a firm of solicitors who wanted counsel's opinion, he would have sent back and have said "I am insufficiently instructed and I cannot give you an opinion because the information which you have sent me is insufficient." If in his own professional capacity he would have refused to advise a client because- the information was vague and incomplete, then for him to come here at ten minutes past five and ask us, on like information, to deal with monies of which we are in the strictest sense the public trustees, is an abuse of the procedure of this House.
    880
    If the hon. Gentleman were considering this matter at an ordinary time and, may I say with all respect, with all his faculties fully awake, he would not be doing what he is doing now. I suggest to him that it would be a wise thing to ask leave to withdraw the Estimate, and to come back to us at some other time, with full and detailed information, showing exactly how and why and when the expenditure was incurred, and why we should regard this as a good business proposition. Let him tell us why it is better to be content with a charge in this way rather than to purchase. Why be content with the less if we could have the more? We are not unreasonable, we shall not persist in our criticism if there is some explanation. But the explanation is not given, and even if it were given at this stage in the Debate the criticism would still remain that the Financial Secretary ought not to invite us to consent to a payment of this nature without volunteering the information which, at the end of a two hours' Debate in the early morning, we may extract from him piece-meal and spasmodically. Let him take it all back and when he can supply us with the knowledge of which he has confessed his ignorance in this Debate then the Committee can exercise its functions with all the care which trustees have to exercise in dealing with public funds.
    5.14 a.m.
    Mr. PRITT: I respectfully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) about the necessity of being extremely careful when it is a question of whether you should throw good money after bad or cut your losses. I want to ask tie hon. Member who is dealing with this matter for the Government to enlighten the Committee as best he car: on one very important item. We have to consider among other problems the value of what we are likely to be left with at the end. We know that we are left with about one and a half million shares—with a charge on the shares, but not the shares. We are not told their nominal value, although I believe it to be a pound. The hon. Gentleman said very frankly earlier that he did not know. I do not know whether the eminent business expert who was advising the Government knew or not. Among a certain number of indignant shareholders in these associated concerns—who selected, of all the funny people

    881
    on earth to whom to take their grievances a Member of Parliament who sits in the Socialist interest for North Hammersmith—is one gentleman who holds the view that they are worth threepence, which would make the Government security worth £20,000.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I do not like to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but when he is talking about these shares he is not referring to the shares in question here, the Cunard-White Star shares?
    Mr. PRITT: Yes, the one and a half million Canard-White Star shares. We are now getting a little more information about their value. The first information was that the hon. Member did not know. The second bit of information was that he had heard something about 3s. The third bit of information is that the hon. Gentleman is obviously dismayed at the possibility of there being any truth in what somebody has told me about their being worth three pence. Of course, if he cannot tell us the value of the shares in pounds, shillings, pence and farthings, perhaps he can tell us what assets stand behind the shares? I suspect from what I have been told by people who have written letters to me that they consist of ships, which are, of course, tangible assets, or as is the more normal case in modern shipping conditions, tangible liabilities. I speak of what I know. The ships of this country have caused me to be enriched in winding-up courts, in civil courts and in criminal courts. Will the Financial Secretary tell me whether the assets are ships, how many there are, how decrepit they are, are they sailing the seas, what is the average loss per voyage account and how many people they are already mortgaged to? This Committee has got to sanction, or not to sanction, the pouring away of what nowadays is a very small sum of public money, but a principle is involved. We know that the hon. and learned Member would tell us if be knew. I want him to know, so that he may tell us and we may know before we make up our minds. These are my normal working hours and I don't mind waiting while he sends for information, but I do want to know. I have confidence that the hon. and learned Member will tell us everything he knows before this one more regretful incident of dying
    882
    capitalism being financed out of the public pocket when the pessimistic capitalist will not finance it out of his own pocket.
    5.20 a.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir CHARLES MacANDREW: I have sat through the Debate on this Supplementary Estimate, and I can see the difficulty in which the Financial Secretary must have been in his anxiety whether the money should be washed out as a bad debt or whether something should be done to try and save something from the wreckage. I know that if I come to the cost of this Supplementary Estimate I shall be out of Order. There are a lot of things we would be interested to know. Although this is a great deal of money, nevertheless, from the point of view of the country as a whole, it is not a very large percentage. I will tell the Committee how this matter strikes me. I am worried about this particular item; but I gather that the policy of some hon. Members is that ultimately all the businesses of this country should be run by the Government. I cannot imagine that it would be possible to find a more competent person than the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Here we are in an all night sitting spending nearly three hours on £81,000. Can you imagine what will happen to the industries of this country if they are to be run by Parliament? [Interruption]If hon. Gentlemen opposite seriously think that businesses can be run—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that question arises.
    Mr. DAVID ADAMS: We have had a most entertaining discussion, but in all the speeches there appears to be omitted what appears to me to be fundamental information, to which the House is entitled. I had something to do with trade facilities at one time—[Interruption.]—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we shall get on better if hon. Members will allow the hon. Member to make his speech. I, for one, would like to hear it.
    Mr. ADAMS: I do not intend to occupy much time. I am interested in trying to get an answer which I think the House ought to have. I had some association with shipping concerns in connection with the Trade Facilities Acts, and at

    883
    that time, so far as the lesser shipping companies which received guarantees were required to give cover for the amount of money which was guaranteed to them. If that had been done in the case of this concern, there could not have been debenture holders with any prior claims over the Treasury claims. I should like to know whether the customary transaction at that time by the Trade Facilities department was departed from and, if so, why that was done.
    Mr. E. SMITH: Am I correct in understanding that the Cunard White Star line is connected with those that we are now discussing? If that be so, it raises a serious point for some of us who have been concerned in the matter since the General Election. Within two weeks of the last General Election it was stated in the "News Chronicle", the "Manchester Guardian" and one or two other reliable papers that the Colonial and Dominion Line had stated that if a National Government were not returned they would give no order to a shipbuilding company. Now we are beginning to see who is responsible for these statements, because the Colonial and Dominion Line is a subsidiary of the Cunard Line, and the directors of the Dominion Line are practically the same as the Cunard Line. Now we are beginning to see the influence that returned the National Government.
    5.30 a.m.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: It is obvious that if you are conducting State guaranteed loans you do not attract the best class, because the best class is that which has the highest credit, and it can generally get the credit it wants without such a guarantee. But if you are prepared to operate Trade Facilities Acts you must be prepared to take some risks that are not as good as others. These loans were in operation from 1921–1927. Looking over the whole story it is surprising to see—such has been the care with which the applications have been graded—how little money has been lost. Out of the total of nearly £60,000,000 involved, the amount of losses known to be irrecoverable —
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Is it in order, to discuss the whole policy of the Trades Facilities Acts?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think we ought to go into the whole policy. I think the Minister is entitled to give an explanation of what happened in the original case as this is a new service.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: Does the Financial Secretary include any loss on this transaction in his figure, or does he regard this as still good?
    Mr. MORRISON: The present case I think, thanks to this operation, I would not be justified in holding out as an irrecoverable loss. The prospects of recouping the Treasury are now excellent. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) scaled us for the whole policy of the Trade Facilities Acts and said that industrialists came cap in hand to Parliament. That is not the problem with which the Committee is now dealing. Here is a loan that was guaranteed 10 years ago. Last Dsecember something happened with which we had to deal. The debenture holders were in a position to destroy a large block of the security.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: Why should the trustees for the debenture holders choose just that moment to step in, when on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing trade was recovering so rapidly as to render the loan a good one, and the security valuable?
    Mr. MORRISON: I have a note on that point. The debenture holders were anxious to get out with their money and accrued interest. The right hon. Gentleman asks me who were the debenture holders. I do not know. I never did know. The persons who approached the Treasury were the trustees for the debenture holders. The two gentlemen chiefly concerned were Sir Herbert Lawrence and Mr. V. H. Smith.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: Does that mean that the trustees for the debenture holders began to be interested in realising this security at the moment the armaments boom started?
    Mr. MORRISON: How can I know that; I would like the Committee to say what they would have done in the position we were in. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman making wild charges. Would he have done different from what we did? Our principal security was this

    885
    big block of 2,280,000 shares, on which we had a first charge. There was also the second block of 1,520,000 shares in respect of which we had a second charge. The threatened destruction of the shares meant that not only should be lose our charge in respect of this debt of £245,000; it meant that if there was a deficiency in our common security there was nothing for us as unsecured creditors to prove against. What has happened is that by paying what I will call this insurance premium we have advanced our security from the second to the first place for this great block of shares, and we have prevented the disappearance of the shares. The result is that the ultimate security of the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance has been immeasurably benefited. That is the main point. Here was a sum of £81,000. When we could have preserved this security, ought we to have been content to allow the whole thing to go down to the debenture holders? The only alternative policy was that of letting the estate completely disappear. I ask hon. Members before they blame the Treasury too much to ask themselves what a reckoning they would have, had from the House of Commons if they had suffered a block of shares of this magnitude to disappear entirely. I put this forward as a business case.
    I have been asked to describe what is a partial interest. We had, in fact, a second charge, not over the whole block, but over a certain number of shares, and that charge was in respect only of this particular loan of £245,000. I am often very perplexed why hon. Members find some points so difficult when they are very clever at understanding matters which are irrelevant but more difficult. We have in this case separate loans made from time to time. It is in respect of one such of these that partial interest arises. I have been asked by what authority this money was issued. That is a point of view with which I have the greatest sympathy. We should do our best to secure Parliamentary control over these issues, but we must not be prepared to be more strict than our forefathers who established the Civil Contingencies Fund out of which it is allowable to make advances when it is necessary to expend a certain sum, of money for certain purposes. The money
    886
    had to be expended at once or the debenture holders would have foreclosed upon the shares.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: What I asked about was the advance to the trustees of, apparently, the total sum of the debentures.
    Mr. MORRISON: That is not what was done. What was advanced to the trustees from the Treasuries of this country and Northern Ireland was not the total value of the debentures, but that margin which was necessary after the debenture holders had realised their other assets. That was not the total value of the debentures, but a very much smaller sum.
    The sum we advanced was in the neighbourhood of £81,000 from the Civil Contingencies Fund. The Civil Contingencies Fund exists for such a sudden emergency when it is impossible to get Parliamentary authority to prevent some damage, accruing to the State. It is equally important, if that is done, that the Government should come at the earliest possible opportunity to Parliament with a Supplementary Estimate. That is what we have done here. The money was expended on 14th January and this is the first opportunity we have had of coming before the House and laying details of this transaction before it. We hope that the Committee will think we did our best for our people and the taxpayers. The hon. and learned Member accuses me of a good deal of ignorance. That is a crime to which I am always ready to plead guilty. I was asked about shares of the White Star Cunard Company being in private hands.
    Mr. PRITT: I said people were complaining to me about the value of these shares because there are other shares of a similar type held by companies in which they are interested.
    Mr. MORRISON: There is no doubt there exists a connection between steamship companies. None of those shares are involved in this transaction. The only shares involved are the' new shares of the Cunard White Star Company which was formed by the authority of this House. These shares are held in the following way—62 per cent. of them are held by the Cunard Company and 38 per cent. by the Oceanic Company. That 38 per cent. is divided up into two blocks

    887
    of shares which I have mentioned—2,280,000 and 1,520,000. There are no shares outside at all, and when hon. Members speak of people complaining of these shares, I know they are not complaining of these shares but of the shares of associated companies. I know they are not complaining of these shares because there are none of them in any hands but those of the two companies concerned. That is an important thing because, looking to the end of this transaction, one has to assess what is the value of this block of shares. We do not know, and one hon. Member was a little unjust when he said I did not know the nominal value. I know that, but who knows what the value will be? If hon. Members opposite base their actions on such a certainty of the future of such a remarkable character, I wonder that they have not had better political weather in the past. Although we do not know exactly the value, we can have what may be called a pretty shrewd idea. If you believe they will be worth more than the amount for which we got control of them, we have solid reasons behind us. I was asked what was the amount of debentures outstanding. It was £1,198,000. It is a fallacy to think that that figure is very important now. What mattered to us was this. There were sufficient debentures out to swallow up these shares.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: If the shares which we now hold are so very valuable and such absolute security for our money, why did they fear that the sale of the same assets by the debenture holders would have resulted in total loss to us?
    Mr. MORRISON: I have tried to explain that. If they had sold the shares in order to recoup themselves, the debenture holders would have to be paid and that block of shares was our security on a second charge.
    Mr. DAVID EVANS: The hon. Gentleman refers to a second charge. My question, which has not been answered, was this. Under the Trade Facilities Act it was the duty of the Treasury to obtain a first charge on the assets of any concern to whom they guaranteed money. Did the Treasury do that in this case? If so, there should be no question of a second charge in the hands of the Treasury, but a first charge.
    Mr. MORRISON: I cannot with certainty speak of the details of a transaction which took place ten years ago when this guarantee was originally issued. It is not a transaction of ten years ago which is important to the decision of this Committee, but the transaction as it existed after the merger, whatever was the security accepted by the Treasury 10 years ago. We were confronted with the necessity of making a decision. We are not concerned with any assets issued ten years ago, but with the shares of the Cunard-White Star merger, which was created by statute in 1934.
    Mr. DAVID EVANS: In short, the Treasury took a second debenture charge instead of a first charge on the assets of the concern?
    Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Member must fight that out with the Treasury of that day, but, the probable explanation is that there were no doubt certain other existing charges over which they could not get priority, and it may have been that the only charge that could be imposed at that time for this particular security was a second charge. I am asked by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), why we did not, instead of taking this particular procedure, buy the shares outright I There were two reasons. It would have cost a great deal more money and it would have been more of a gamble, because, by the process we have adopted, which is that of paying a sum of money for the sake of freeing from debentures this block of shares, we have paid a great deal less than if we had bought the, shares outright. Moreover, we have limited our losses very much more because, though we have paid this money, the shares will be worth more than we have paid. We cannot shut our eye:; the possibility that it might have gone the other way. The problem was, what was the best thing we could do to secure the Treasury? If we had bought the shares and sunk the taxpayers' money in a large purchase and anything went wrong with the shares, the whole of the money would have been lost. As it is, what do we stand to lose if the shares do go down? We stand to lose only the money that we secured on them. By

    889
    this means we have adopted a much cheaper procedure than by buying the shares outright and one that limits the possibility of losses to a much lower figure. This may be an insufficient explanation, but it is the best that can be given.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why it is necessary to keep in existence this holding company and spend £6,375 to do so for three months?
    Mr. MORRISON: That is a pertinent question and it is one which the hon. and learned Member is not the first to ask. It is a matter which has been under consideration by the Treasury, and it was for the purpose of getting time to review the situation that this advance secured upon the share block was made. The future of this company and its particular functions is the subject of deliberations at the moment. I am unable to say more, hut the reason we made that advance was to get time to decide what was the most profitable thing to do.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is not the £6,375 described as running expenses, of which £5.000 is to be advanced on the account of the Civil Contingencies Fund, and is there any possibility of its recoupment?
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: On the same point, what proportion of that is to be paid direct to directors as fees?
    Mr. MORRISON: I cannot answer what the proportion of directors' fees is, but what happened was that this company had a floating charge upon it for the debenture holders. The situation was that while the charge was a floating one upon all their assets, they were able to deal with their assets as they pleased, but when it became specific every asset became locked and frozen up.
    6.4 a.m.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: We are discussing the case of a guarantee which has not been entirely fortunate, and hon. Members !opposite are enjoying themselves immensely because they are endeavouring to rag my hon. Friend who is dealing with a transaction which took place ten years ago or more.
    Mr. PRITT: On a point of Order, I think either you, Captain Bourne, or Sir Dennis, have already ruled out discussions of policy on things that happened ten years ago.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I ruled that there could not be a general discussion on the policy of the Trades Facilities Acts, but it is obvious that, this being a new service, some reference may be made to what happened in this particular transaction.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I was not discussing the general policy at that time. The Debate took place on the 2nd March, 1926, and I was one of those who criticised the legislation on principle. If the hon. Member wants my reasons, he will find them—they are very interesting —in the OFFICIAL REPORT for that date. But that is not the point to which I wished to draw the attention of the Committee. On that occasion there was a most interesting speech made by one whom we all respected very much, the late Rt. Hon. William Graham, who was leading for the party opposite, He made, as he always did, a well-balanced speech, the bulk of which I cannot quote because it raises a principle.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: On a point of Order. I only want to know for the guidance of the Committee after the hon. Member has spoken whether we are to be at liberty to discuss the principle of the Act to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, and not the specific matter which is dealt with in the White Paper.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I have no intention of discussing the principle of the Act. I am only going to discuss certain points as to the way the Act had to be administered according to this speech.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I had better wait to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Mr. Graham said:
    "The whole of the time we were in office there was very strong criticism of the guarantees which were given to large shipbuilding and other undertakings in this country."
    In other words, the Labour party were being criticised for giving guarantees; that is the interesting thing. At the time his speech was made, part of this trans-

    891
    action had been entered into. Mr. Graham referred to the list which was furnished to the Committee at that time, so he was aware of this transaction. What is his comment by implication on that transaction?
    "I offer the suggestion to the House this afternoon that we should best discharge our duty in the matter of providing employment or maximum employment, if we try to give the benefit of this legislation to those undertakings which are perfectly sound, but are not of the gilt-edged or perfectly secure class of great combined or other undertakings such as have been largely guaranteed so far."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1926; cols. 1278, 1280, Vol. 192.]
    In other words, Mr. William Graham at that moment, like all the rest of us, regarded the matter as falling into the category of the gilt-edged or perfectly secure class of great combines, and he took the view that a greater degree of risk ought to be taken because he wanted the guarantees given to undertakings less secure than the gilt-edged undertakings.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: On a point of Order I take it that, in view of this discussion, we shall be free to have a discussion on the whole principle of trades facilities and to what classes of corporation these facilities should be made available.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Member was quoting this particular transaction.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Not at all. If he is to be allowed to continue and to remain in Order, surely we must claim the same right.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is not referring to this transaction, he is not in Order.
    Mr. BEVAN: He said himself that by implication this was involved, and his quotation I submit had no direct bearing upon the transaction or the company we are now discussing.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The White Paper available to members of Parliament on that occasion contained particulars of the transaction we are discussing tonight. It is pot customary to print White Papers in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They are a separate Parliamentary Paper.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: Surely the time has come when the hon. Gentleman should be asked to say to what he is referring.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I was just about to say that a White Paper to which Mr. William Graham was referring contained particulars of the transactions we are now discussing.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: If the hon. Member is referring to a White Paper, surely we are entitled to know hat it is and where it is.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: It is a White Paper presented to this House and is available to Members in the Library.
    Mr. MAINWARING: Since the hon. Member has offered to supply information, when will he supply it?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will allow me to conduct the proceedings.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The agreement expresses the view that guarantees given after March, 1926, should be in favour of firms not so sound as those to which guarantees had already been given.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: Are we to understand the hon. Gentleman to be saying that he recommended lending money on second preferences?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The loans were not those which had already been made.
    6.13 a.m.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The hon Gentleman has taken trouble and research looking into back records with a view to proving that the late Mr. William Graham had expressed views in support of the policy of the present Government with regard to this matter. I think it would have been preferable from the point of view of the Committee if the hon. Gentleman had read a little more from the speech which he quoted. As he has not done that I propose to do it. May I just read a little further down in the speech:
    "Our case is that the time has come when we must ask the country, and endeavour to get a decision from this House, as to whether we can go on giving guarantees or subsidies to privately-run industries without claiming for the public a right in the ownership of the assets they have helped to create."
    That quotation puts just a slightly different aspect on to the speech of the hon.

    893
    Gentleman, and if I desired to take up the time I could read more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]
    "That is the principle we venture to lay down this afternoon. Hon. Members opposite may say that this legislation was designed to provide employment, and that the State gets the benefit of such employment as it encouraged; but that is not a complete reply to the suggestion I have made. Other industries are carrying on without a guarantee, very often in more difficult circumstances, and they are not getting the benefit of this legislation. Moreover, if it is the case that many of these undertakings can raise money on the open market on rather easier terms with this guarantee than they could without it, then clearly the difference is the measure of the subsidy we give to these firms. I agree that they do not get a subsidy in actual cash; but they get the benefit of the cheaper or easier capital accommodation, and there are other advantages attached. This House is the trustee, theoretically, of all the resources of the British people, and I invite hon. Members to put themselves in the position of a trustee for a privately-owned concern, or, indeed any other property, and ask themselves whether they would be entitled to pledge the credit of the people for whom they were acting unless they had been able to secure some service or right in respect of the risk they undertook."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1926; cols. 1282–3, Vol. 192.]
    I really rose to complete a story that was told to the House by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams). Perhaps I should add "half a story." I hope what I have been able to quote from the speech of Mr. Graham will not leave a wrong impression on the minds of Members.
    6.18 a.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am much obliged to the Financial Secretary for the answers he has given me; but let us see if he will make the matter easier to understand. He has told us that the interest was a second charge on 250,000 shares. I do not understand how a second charge came to be created on only a small proportion of the second block of shares. There was a second block of 1,520,000 shares; why was the second charge on only 250,000 of them?
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I desire to give the Committee all the information I have. This loan arises in connection with a particular vessel which it was desired to construct—the "Laurentic"—and in order to finance the construction of the
    894
    "Laurentic" the Government of the day guaranteed a loan of £245,000, getting as security a second charge on 245,784 shares out of the block of 1,520,000 shares. It was a substantial loan made in June, 1927, for the purpose of constructing the "Laurentic." That number of shares is now comprised in the block which we have rescued from the debentures.
    6.20 a.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: In 1927 the shares of which the block consists did not exist at all. But at the time of the conversion why was not the charge expanded over the whole block? This was a conversion that was agreed to by the Government in 1934. It was put through the House with an inhibition against any alteration, and the Government must accept responsibility for it. The Financial Secretary gives us a price of 3s. a share. We think that grossly inflated, but, if we take it for the moment, the value of these shares is roughly £40,000. We had a second charge only on shares of that value. In order to save that we paid £88,000. That sounds a very funny deal. The Financial Secretary says you must also regard the fact that there were certain shares that were only charged with the mortgage. By getting the release of these shares from the mortgage we get as subject to a first charge the remaining block of shares. We have substituted, so he tells us, all these fresh shares for the £88,000 that we have paid. As regards the rest, we are substantially in the same position as before. He says it would be far too speculative to buy the shares; they are not worth the money. Yet they are valuable security on which to get a charge. He told us that if we had not paid up, the £88,000 would have disappeared. He knows much better than I do how a share can disappear other than in liquidation. A share is there until liquidation is completed and the company becomes nonexistent. Therefore he must mean that if we had not paid up the £88,000 to the debenture holders this company would have gone into liquidation. Yet the shares of this company, which were worth nothing in December, have suddenly, by virtue of our getting a charge on them, increased to 3s. in value. It is a most miraculous type of dealing in shares. The truth is that the Financial Secretary

    895
    has not the vaguest idea of the value of the shares to-day. His only justification for the Bill is because the shares are valueless. The hon. and learned Gentle-

    Division No. 74.]

    AYES.

    [6.27 a.m.

    Albery, I. J.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

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

    Grimston, R. V.

    Ramsbotham, H.

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

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

    Rankin, R.

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

    Hannah, I. C.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Rayner, Major R. H.

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

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A,

    Reed, A. c. (Exeter)

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Bernays, R. H.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Bllndell. Sir J.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Rowlands, G,

    Bculton, W. W.

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

    Salt, E. D.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Hulbert, N.J.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Briscoe, Capt. R G.

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

    Sandys, E D.

    Bull, B. B.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)

    Burghley, Lord

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Cartland, J. R. H.

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

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    Channon, H.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Spens, W. P.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Llewellin, Lieut. -Col. J. J.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Storey, S.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Stourton, Hon. J. J.

    Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

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

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    M'Connell, Sir.J.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Critchicy, A.

    McKie, J. H.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Naim)

    Cross, R. H.

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

    Sutclifte, H.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Magnay, T.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Culverwell, C. T.

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

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    De Chair, S. S.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Dormer, P. W.

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

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R, H.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Turton, R. H.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

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

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Duggan, H. J.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

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

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

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

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

    Errington, E.

    Peake, O

    Windsor-Cilve, Lieut. -Colonel G.

    Erskine Hill, A. G.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Wise, A. R.

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

    Petherick, M.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Everard, W. L.

    Plugge, L. F.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partlck)

    Fleming, E. L.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Porritt, R. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Sir George Penny and Captain

    Waterhouse.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Adamson, W. M.

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

    Seely, Sir H. M.

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

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Shinwell, E.

    Bevan, A.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Silverman S. S.

    Broad, F. A.

    Holland, A.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Hollins. A.

    Smith, Bin (Rotherhithe)

    Compton, J.

    John, W.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Daggar, G.

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Dalton, H.

    Kirby, B. V.

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

    Davidson, J. J. (MaryhiII)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davics, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Lee, F.

    Tinker, J J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr).

    Logan, D. G.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lunn, W.

    Westwood, J.

    Ede, J. C.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Edwards, Sin C. (Bedwellty)

    Marklew, E.

    Williams. E. J. (Ogmore)

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

    Milner, Major J.

    Williams. T. (Don Valley)

    Foot, D. M.

    Paling, W.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Frankel, D.

    Potts, J.

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Pritt, D. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gibbins, J.

    Ritson, J.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

    man should not deal with these problems at 6.30 in the morning.
    Original Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 132;. Noes, 63.

    FUNERAL OF HIS LATE MAJESTY.
    Motion made, and Question proposed:
    "That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, far the Expenses of the Funeral of His late Majesty King George V."
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLEARING OFFICES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed:
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Anglo-Spanish and Anglo-Rumanian Clearing Offices under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934."
    6.36 a.m.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: This clearing office was set up under the Act of 1934. The position is that this is a token Estimate because it is anticipated that under the machinery of the principal Act fees and commissions will be charged which will recoup the cost of the clearing office. The present supplementary estimate envisages only two clearing offices—one in existence and one potential. The one in existence, the Anglo-Spanish clearing office, was set up under the Order confirmed by the House last week. With regard to the Anglo-Rumanian position, it is that negotiations are at this moment going on between the Rumanian authorities and the Treasury, and it may be, although it is not certain, that as a result of these negotiations there will be set up a clearing office similar to the Anglo-Spanish clearing office. The Estimate envisages no further clearing office. I can tell the Committee that no further clearing offices are in contemplation. Part one provides only for the expenses of these two clearing offices. The only other part I would refer to is that in which an expenditure of £200 is specifically provided to cover an Anglo-Rumanian clearing office, should that be the result of the negotiations at present taking place. If that does prove to be the result of the negotiations the controller of the new clearing office the Secretary and certain of the staff, will he the same personnel as are now opera-
    898
    tive as regards the Anglo-Spanish clearing office. This is a token vote because under Section 5 of the Act there is power for the clearing office to charge commission not exceeding two per cent. on all sums disbursed by it. The exporter pays for the cost of the upkeep. It comes to this, that this is a debt collecting service to assist our commerce. That is an outline of the position. It is not believed there will be any charge on public funds at all.
    6.41 a.m.
    Mr. DALTON: May I ask for a little more information regarding the Anglo-Rumanian negotiations and the facts upon which the negotiations are based. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that these clearing offices should not be set up without very good reason and that they do not promote good will between nations, although they may be necessary in some circumstances. I think we should have a little more guidance before we agree to this token Vote, since upon it may depend a certain modifying factor in future Anglo-Rumanian relations. Could we have information as to the present state of the balance of indebtedness between Roumania and this country? I presume it would not be proposed to set up machinery unless the Rumanian debts to British business were already large and were accumulating? I imagine that has been gone into very carefully and I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us more particulars to justify us in taking this rather harsh measure magainst a friendly state. With regard to the Anglo-Spanish office, could we have particulars about the total debt and whether it is increasing rapidly? I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman gave statistics which would form a basis on which we could judge.
    6.43 a.m.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman include in his reply the question of what happens to sums remitted from this country to Spain and Rumania. Do I understand that this is a clearing house which takes money in and puts money out, takes money remitted from Britain to Spain in respect of Spanish imports into this country? If I wished to purchase a large quantity of lemons from Spain to distribute amongst

    899
    hon. Members and wanted to pay for them, I should not be allowed to send that money direct to Spain but should have to pay it into this clearing house. If that is so, to what extent is this going to cripple by delays such import trade as there is from Spain and Rumania to this country? Are elaborate forms to be filled in and how long will it take? There is a considerable amount of trade between Spain and Rumania on the one hand and this country on the other in small items. Is there any limit? Suppose I wanted to buy only a dozen lemons and confined my generosity to the Front Bench, where the need is greatest, would I still have to pass this transaction through the clearing office? How much delay would occur? To what transactions does the principle apply, and when is the scheme to begin?
    6.45 a.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: May I put one or two questions. My hon. Friend who has just spoken must be mistaken about the wants of the Front Bench. Anyone who has noticed the acidity of the Chief Whip will not think he wants any more. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Financial Secretary spoke with a degree of certainty about there 'being no more clearing houses set up.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: What I said was that the present Estimate contemplated one in respect of Spain and possibly one in respect of Rumania, and that no more were at present in contemplation.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Will he tell us whether this is because of a change of policy on the part of the Government, that no more are contemplated, or whether it is because there are no other countries whose circumstances, vis-à-vis this country are similar to those of Roumania and Spain.
    6.47 a.m.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: There are two items in the Vote, one relating to an Anglo-Spanish clearing office, which is already authorised, so that therefore the question of principle cannot be discussed because the House, by a Motion carried three or four days ago, signified formal approval of the establishment of this Office. On the other hand, the Anglo-Rumanian clearing office has not
    900
    yet been established and may not be. It is in one sense now under our control whether it should be established, and I take it we can raise the question of principle on the Anglo-Rumanian office. I am one of those wino has no particular love for these institutions. I do not blame the Government for having asked Parliament to pass the Act two years ago because it represents a form of self-defence against the systems of exchange control which foreign Governments have adopted. Last autumn there was an International Parliamentary Conference held in London at which the representatives of 29 nations were present. I read a paper on the subject of international bartering, which ha!, a bearing on this issue, because if in any one state proposals are made for the bartering of goods it is really another form of what we are doing here through clearing houses. The conclusions at which I arrived on that occasion, and which were formulated in a resolution, were a general condemnation of the system of exchange control as being the very worst conceivable form of trade hindrance. The remarkable thing was that that was put to the vote and with the solitary exception of the Italian delegates, who explained that because of existing circumstances they could not vote though they approved in principle, the twenty-nine nations were unanimously in condemnation of a system of exchange control.
    I regret this has not been followed up. They were not Government representatives, but still they were the representatives of 29 States and it is rare for such unanimity on an economic matter of such immediate vital importance to be achieved at an international conference. The decision of that conference was to condemn systems of exchange control and the reply to it was to set up clearing houses. They are not desirable and the sooner we can get rid of them the better. I am delighted to hear the statement of the Financial Secretary that only these two are in contemplation. It is by no means certain that the Rumanian one will be established, and I hope at the earliest possible moment it will be made perfectly clear to other nations that exchange control is a very dangerous instrument and detrimental to the countries who establish it, because it is analogous to opening a

    901
    bank in which you invite deposits and decline to cash cheques. That is the financial analogy. I shall not hesitate to vote for this small vote.
    6.50 a.m.
    Mr. PRITT: I only want to ask one very short question, and that is with regard to the Anglo-Rumanian Clearing House. I recognise that this sort of thing has to be established. No one any longer expects commerce to work unless it is either hampered or assisted by public action but with regard to one particular thing, the natural result, which should be considered, of putting on such control, is that so far as any English money is outstanding from Spain it would be collected and diverted for the very proper function of paying off English exports to Spain. Will it not permit nearly every Spanish exporter of goods to England, where the export has not yet been made, saying that he is not going to send the goods if his money is to go to an Englishman in whom he has no interest?
    6.51 a.m.
    Mr. BEVAN: I merely rise to challenge the version of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). We have known him in connection with trade restrictions and tariffs.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I hope he will not confuse the two things.
    Mr. BEVAN: After having listened to the extra clear statement of the hon. Member for South Croydon it is impossible to be confused. He has spoken with his customary lucidity and has convinced the Committee that there is one department of international commerce in which there should be absolute free trade; and that is in cash. I never can understand the reasons of hon. Members who persist in assuming that it is posible to construct all sorts of restrictions on the distribution of commodities and the free flow of goods and yet assume that they will not have to take the next logical step of controlling and restricting the flow of international currency. The one is the direct consequence of the other, and it is absurd for the hon. Member to admit the restriction of goods and disclaim the necessary currency consequences of that restriction.
    6.53 a.m.
    Sir C. MacANDREW: I would just like to ask the Financial Secretary two questions. Am I right in thinking that the charge of two per cent. is going to be made on the money that is going to be dealt with?
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: Two per cent. is the maximum that can be charged.
    Sir C. MacANDREW: Apparently the appropriations in aid are going to come to roughly £250,000. On page 13 there is a list of the various people who are going to deal with this money. It seems to me that unless this money is going to be exchanged back again in extremely small sums the staff dealing with this quarter of a million is very large indeed—a staff of 40. That staff does seem rather excessive. On the other hand, the two per cent. is a maximum; and I imagine that no doubt the actual percentage that will be charged on the money will be very much less than two per cent., and in that case, if the percentage is small enough, it is perfectly easy to see that this staff would be too small. I hope the Financial Secretary is taking into account that he is perhaps under-staffing his office. I do not think- it is a very important point but it is something we do not wish to lose sight of.
    6.55 a.m.
    Mr. G. STRAUSS: I take it that it will be compulsory, when these clearing offices are set up, for exporters from this country to put their transactions through these clearing offices, and I would like to point out that in spite of other clearing arrangements it is not always to the advantage of the exporters from this country that they should put their transactions through these offices. For example, in respect of the clearing arrangement which exists to-day between this country and Turkey, the British exporter, sending his goods to Turkey, will have to' wait six or sometimes nine months before he will get his payment from Turkey through the clearing arrangements. On the other hand, the exporter from France, where no clearing arrangement exists between France and Turkey, is able to stipulate for immediate cash payment and is, therefore, put in a much better position than the

    903
    English exporter. I want to know whether that point of view has been borne in mind.
    6.57 a.m.
    Captain RAMSAY: In Scotland we are familiar with other difficulties of the same nature which are even more pronounced. There are certain European countries who, even though they are under some form of agreement to contribute to a clearing fund, find themselves denied commitments to carry out such a scheme by their own nationals, and cases have been brought to my notice where importers into a foreign country will give up to 25 per cent. discount in order to get payment in sterling. The effect of this is that although our payments are sent direct to the foreign country concerned, that is, sterling goes straight from the British buyer to the foreign country, when the position is reversed, the foreign national is only allowed to pay into his own pool, with the dual result that not only is British sterling sent direct from this country but British exporters wishing to get paid for goods they have sold in that same country are met with the reply that there is not sufficient sterling wherewith to pay them.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will give this matter his very closest attention. I myself, and I believe others of my hon. Friends, especially those who are in any way connected with the tweed industry or the woollen industry in Scotland or England, will have had cases of this kind brought to their notice in the last three or four years. Will the Minister represent to his colleagues to institute some form of control that would be effective. So far we have not been able to secure a water-tight scheme. The measures of control have so far been exercised for a period merely to the detriment of our own nationals owing to the whole scheme being defeated from its start by the foreigner who offered 20 per cent. commission for direct payment in sterling. I hope when he replies he will be good enough to tell me whether, in the first place, the Government have in contemplation schemes relating to Greece and Austria and any other countries in Middle Europe, and, if so, whether he cam hold out any hope of putting some scheme into operation for
    904
    preventing foreign nationals defeating any ordinary clearing scheme.
    7.2 a.m.
    Mr. PETHERICK: At this hour of the morning it is difficult to state one's case adequately. It seems very curious to me that sometimes the Treasury answers on matters of this kind and sometimes the Board of Trade. I was surprised a few months ago when I was making inquiries regarding another trade agreement to find that the Board of Trade were dealing with the matter. In this case I understand that it is purel3 a Treasury matter. I do not know if I should be in order in asking the hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply whether he is quite satisfied that the Treasury is really the best Department for dealing with matters of this nature, because the Board of Trade obviously has a much wider experience.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether you are having regard to the relevance of the remarks now heir g made? [Interruption.]
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to draw my attention. I am paying particular attention to what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: Surely the point before us is whether or not Clearing Offices should be established. If we are to discuss the Department that should administer it we can begin with the Attorney-General and then go along the bench. That being so, I respectively suggest that the hon. Gentleman is out of order.
    The CHAIRMAN: If he had gone into greater length I should have paid more attention to him. I am afraid if I were to be as strict as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it would be inconsistent with the tone of the earlier Debate.
    Mr. PETHERICK: I should not go so far as the hon. Member suggests. I suggest that the Foreign Office should have a hand in this matter; but I observe there is no one representing the Foreign Office here at the moment. I want to go back to my original point, that the Board of Trade it the most suitable Department for dealing with these matters with their knowledge of foreign countries and statesmen, with whom it is necessary to

    905
    negotiate agreements. In the case of the Anglo-Italian Clearing Office, that comes under the Board of Trade, while other duties come under the Treasury. There is another question that I wish to ask. Arc not special officers of these Departments members of the Treasury staff, and are they not paid in the ordinary course of events? Why are these extraordinary measures necessary for these people? There is one other matter and that is in regard to appropriations-in-aid. I understand that these Clearing Offices are intended to be self-supporting. It is interesting to know exactly where these amounts are to come through. It is rather difficult to state the cost adequately, but I believe these Clearing Offices arc necessary in the present state of world affairs.
    7.10 a.m.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: This particular Estimate is not so important as the one which we were discussing earlier; but it is indeed one of considerable importance. I am in favour of avoiding overtime in any undertaking, and I wonder why, in connection with this work, there should be an item of £1,000 for temporary assistance and overtime. There may be good reasons for this owing to the fact that this clearing office may shortly be done away with, and perhaps the Minister thought it better to arrange for temporary assistance and for overtime for existing officials rather than to engage others. But I should like him to explain this item, which amounts to nearly one-third of the total cost. I take it that the payment of agents, again a large part of the total, indicates that the appointment of agents has been adopted rather than the appointment of other officers who would be giving their full time, and that it may be considered as an economy on the part of the Treasury. I deprecate such an important matter being taken at a time when many hon. Members are unable to be present, and which apparently has been forced on the Committee by hon. Members opposite owing to some incident which happened yesterday and which they have now forgotten in their wish to go to sleep.
    Mr. TINKER: I do not want it to be understood that this side is tired. We are just as fresh as anybody on the other
    906
    side. I want to ask what is the amount of the debt owing to our traders, and how many are concerned in it. I also want to know who are the agents to whom these payments are to be made.
    7.15 a.m.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said that he took the assurance I gave that we had no more than these two Clearing Offices in contemplation as indicating to some extent a change of policy. It cannot be too emphatically stated that as a matter of general policy His Majesty's Government views these Clearing offices with aversion. The fewer that can be set up the better we shall be pleased. They tend to canalize trade and to freeze trade in certain directions; and they have other obnoxious consequences. But they are a method of self-defence when other nations are putting on exchange restrictions, tariffs and quotas. With regard to the Rumanian agreement, negotiations are going on. What has existed between Rumania and this country is not a clearing agreement but a payment agreement. In August, 1935, a payment agreement was signed with Rumania that provided for £100,000 to be paid into a special account at the Bank of England and for certain provisions of sterling to be made by Rumania. That Agreement came to an end on January 31st, and at present a new arrangement is being made. One of the results of these negotiations may be that from a payment agreement we shall change our procedure to a clearing agreement.
    The hon. Member also asked for some details about the Spanish agreement. The trade position between this country and Spain is roughly as follows. Whereas we purchased from Spain about £11,000,000's worth of goods every year, we sold to her about £5,000,000's worth. In recent years, with the exchange restrictions in Spain becoming more complex and more strict, we received complaints from the commercial community that they could not get payment for their goods. To give a round figure to the Committee, the fact is that if one takes financial and trade debts, it amounts to more than £5,000,000 in arrear. That is a very considerable sum in comparison with the trade; it is about

    907
    half a year's trade in arrear. We tried our best to get the Spanish Government to expedite the release of exchange to meet our creditors. These efforts seemed unavailing until, just before Christmas, the Spanish Government came along and suggested a clearing office as the best way of overcoming the difficulty. The purpose of the Anglo-Spanish clearing office is not to provide a permanent method of exchange and trade between the two countries. Its object is a temporary one. It is to try and eat away this hump of debt that has accumulated. As soon as this arrear of debt has been liquidated through this arrangement and payment has become normal, it is the intention of both parties that the clearing office shall be abandoned: that trade shall flow in the usual channels. The load of debt is embarrassing the whole of our commercial relations at the moment. Our object will be the more quickly achieved if the balance of trade remains as at present—if there is a big balance of Spanish imports over our exports to Spain.
    Mr. BEVAN: I am amazed at that.
    Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Gentleman will be amazed many times. The object will be the more quickly achieved the more we retain the balance of trade in something like its present proportion. It means that if the imports continue to exceed the exports the more there will be in the clearing house to pay the debts. If there were to be a sudden rise in our exports our exporters would never get paid. I hope the commercial community will take that to heart and not indulge in rash advances of export; that they will do their best to maintain a steady flow of Spanish imports into this country until trade resumes its normal course. I ask to be excused if I am more reticent about Rumania, seeing that negotiations are in progress. In reply to the hon. Member who asked me a question, if he does import his hundred lemons from Spain the Spaniard who sent them will look to be recouped by the Spanish end of the clearing house arrangement. There are clearing houses both in Spain and in this country. There is enough favourable balance to pay the debt of the Spanish exporters and make a considerable inroad into the load of debt.
    7.25 a.m.
    Miss WILKINSON: This is a serious matter. The hon. and learned Member emphasises that the object of this clearing house is to secure a flow of imports into this country. Those of us who are concerned about the distressed areas are also concerned about the haematite mines in West Cumberland. When we raised the question with United Steel they said that they were getting their haematite ores from Spain, but while they do the mines in West Cumberland have to be closed down. Is this vote going to facilitate the arrangement whereby these men are kept out of work while United Steel and the Government combine in some sort of financial arrangement which makes these men lose their jobs? What about the talk of the Government finding work for men?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I see the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade sitting on the Treasury Bench. He is a great authority on these agreements. Would it not be an advantage to the Committee to have his views on this matter?
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: It would, no doubt, be to the advantage of the Committee. The hon. Lady has just made one of the best tariff speeches I have heard on her side of the House.
    Mr. F. ANDERSON: I represent one of the divisions in West Cumberland. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Government in answer to me said that they did not propose to put a tariff on incoming iron ore?
    Mr. MORRISON: This clearing office has no effect upon the policy of Protection or Free Trade as applied to this country. It is not a tariff question at all. Assuming that there was a duty of 20 per cent. on haematite the payment would still have to go through the clearing office.
    Miss WILKINSON: In its determination to preserve this balance of trade does not the Government in effect facilitate the operations of United Steel?
    7.30 a.m.
    Mr. MORRISON: No. The answer is quite definite. The Clearing Office has nothing to do with the amount that is imported. The object of the Clearing Office is to secure the payment of debts,

    909
    and it is thus a debt-collecting agency. The operations of the Clearing Office would be expedited, assuming there were a maintenance of the present balance of trade between this country and Spain.
    Mr. PETHERICK: Is it not the case that the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) was alarmed lest the English iron ore miners should be adversely affected? Surely it would be the other way about, because the payments to Spain for iron ore would go into the clearing account, which would mean that there would be some considerable delay before the Spanish exporters got their money. Consequently, as the delay would be a disadvantage to them, there would be less likelihood of their being anxious to sell their iron ore to this country, so that the hon. Lady's fears are entirely unjustified.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: In so far as that element entered into the matter, it might have the effect which my hon. Friend suggests, but I wish to emphasize that this clearing agreement has nothing to do with any policy directed to tariffs or Free Trade or anything of that sort. It deals with money and not goods, and it is purely a financial instrument. One hon. Member inquired about the payments agreement with Turkey. It is a payments agreement, and not a clearing system.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that the iron ore mines of Glamorgan are not affected?
    Mr. MORRISON: Certainly; the hon. Member can rest quite assured on that matter. The Turkish agreement is a payments agreement. I was also asked why this matter was dealt with by the Treasury, and whether the Board of Trade was not the appropriate Department. The fact is that the Treasury does negotiate these agreements, as they deal with money and not with goods. The Treasury acts in the closest co-operation with the Board of Trade, and makes the agreements, but there is no lack of liaison between the two Departments.
    Captain RAMSAY: Can my hon. and learned Friend answer the question about exporters who are ready to give a discount on cheques sent from this country?
    Mr. MORRISON: That is provided for, once this Clearing Office is established
    910
    on both sides. Any difficulties in connection with the payments agreement receive the most careful consideration.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Has there been any consultation at all with the new Government in Spain? The hon. and learned Gentleman will realize that there is now a Labour Government in Spain.
    Mr. MORRISON: It is the fact that this agreement has been in operation since 13th January last, and it has been working smoothly since then. The new Government of the Spanish Republic is working in just as well with it as the previous Government. It is in the interests of both nations that it should continue. I was also asked about the item of £1,000. It is really for specially qualified assistance necessary for starting the Clearing Office. When you start a Clearing Office without very much experience of it, you have to get highly qualified officials, particularly from the Bank of England and other commercial establishments, to assist you to get it running, because it would be a great folly if by the setting up of such an agreement, you should inadvertently do damage to commerce by unwittingly hindering the ordinary course of trade. Therefore, it is being started with gentlemen of great experience in commerce and finance, but that is a temporary measure.
    Mr. TINKER: What is the amount of debt owing?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am told, with regard to the Spanish agreement, that the total amount of debt which was subsisting at the time when this agreement was made was somewhere between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000.
    Lord BURGHLEY: Is ordinary indebtedness going to be turned into the account as well as the ordinary day-to-day commercial indebtedness 7 There is £15,000,000 of loans to Rumania at present, and on most of that they are to a considerable extent in default. I should like to know whether such ordinary debts are to be taken into account. The Committee will be aware that Rumania is not a poor country as compared with other countries. They have a considerable amount of rich agricultural land. I shall be grateful to the Minister if he will tell us about this matter.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I have one question to ask, which is, perhaps, more a question of natural history. The hon. Gentleman told us of some animal in regard to which he said, by way of analogy, that we could eat our hump. Would he tell us what the animal was?
    7.40 a.m.
    Mr. SANDYS: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee. I know that all through this discussion the Committee has been inspired with a very genuine desire to carry through the business with the utmost expedition compatible with the public interest. Nevertheless I would like to ask one or two things with which my hon. and learned Friend has not dealt in his remarks. It is to us, being supporters of the Government, very regrettable that the items A, B and C for salaries and other payments, amounting to a total of £5,570, should exceed the appropriations-in-aid by the sum of £10. That is not a very large sum, but it is nevertheless regrettable that the Treasury, with all their financial ability and acumen, have not been able to balance these two sums. I will not go into it in very great detail. I see that hon. Members opposite are getting tired. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), particularly, looks very tired. He took a very prominent part at the beginning of the debate. He was consistently on his feet giving us the benefit of his advice and his experience, but for the last four or five hours the right hon. Gentleman has completely passed out of the picture. He has not given us any advice or any remarks for a long time.
    Mr. LOGAN: I might perhaps inform the lion. Gentleman that we have been advised by the right hon. Gentleman to whom he is addressing his remarks to keep quiet and let the Government have a chance.
    Mr. SANDYS: I am sure my hon. Friends on this side are very grateful. We were not given very much chance earlier.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: On a point of Order. I understand the hon. Member has just made a charge against the conduct of the Chair. He says that that side of the Chamber has not had a chance all night.
    Mr. SANDYS: I did not at all mean what the hon. Member meant. All I meant was that there was so much discussion from that side of the House on these various proposals that we on this side of the House were a little reluctant to prolong the proceedings.
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: Is it not a fact that the Patronage Secretary has been spending an hour or two going from one Member to another advising them that, if they continue this Debate long enough, they will prevent our party from getting the Workmens' Compensation Bill today?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think we had better get on with the business.
    Mr. LOGAN: Will the hon. Member make inquiries in regard to that?
    Mr. SANDYS: Certainly. So far from coming to me and suggesting that I should make a speech, the Patronage Secretary came to me and my hon. Friend here and said he hoped we would not speak if we could avoid it, and that, if we did speak, we would be as short as possible.
    Mr. LOGAN: Will the hon. Member tell the Committee why he only was selected?
    Mr. SANDYS: I have seen the Patron-age Secretary going all round the Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN: I really think we had better get back to the business.
    Mr. SANDYS: I apologise, but I was only answering remarks made from the other side. Members who rise for the first time to make a maiden speech ask for the indulgence of the House. I am not making a maiden speech, but I think that all of us, at this advanced hour, should ask, not for the indulgence of the House, but for the indulgence of those who are going to read the OFFICIAL REPORT the following morning. Let me return to the point. I noticed, I thought, some misunderstanding on the part of the previous speakers who, I think, suggested that, as certain officers provided under this Estimate who were lent from other Government Departments were pail by those Departments, that money should not come in under this Estimate. I would draw hon. Members' attention to

    913
    the fact that at the foot of the page there is an explanation which says that some of the officers are on loan from other Government Departments, by whom their salaries were paid in the first instance, but that this is to be recovered from the present Vote.
    I return to the original point. With all deference to my hon. and learned Friend, I do submit that, in spite of all the lengthy remarks and the very lucid explanation which he has given us about the Vote and the whole object of it, he has not explained the one point which seems to me to concern us most, and that is why the estimated expenditure exceeds the appropriations-in-aid by £10. That is the whole point of the estimate. I therefore wish quickly to go through this Estimate. We have a Controller, a Secretary, Staff Officers and Higher Grade clerks. These are the most important officers who control this important and responsible office. It will be seen that it is hardly possible to make any reduction or economy on these items. £250 for a Controller seems to me very reasonable and £160 for a Secretary. It is impossible to effect a very serious economy in these items. I see that in the case of the permanent clerical staff there is a, subdivision as to classes into men and women. I notice, however, that under the items five typists and six temporary shorthand typists, there is no indication as to whether they are men or women. There is a point there. In connection with the wages of men and women, undesirable as it may seem to some people who are constantly raising in this House and elsewhere the question of equal pay for equal work, the fact remains that men and women are not paid the same, and I would be glad if my hon. and learned Friend would tell us what proportion are men and what are women.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is not my hon. Friend under a misapprehension? The figures he is reading do not represent the salaries of those persons for a full year, but merely for the brief weeks between now and 31st March.
    Mr. SANDYS: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. The only real suggestion I would make is that there are two large items for temporary shorthand typists and temporary assistants, and the latter amount to no less than £1,000. Every-
    914
    body knows that temporary people are invariably paid at a higher rate, and I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary that if he placed on a permanent basis one of these persons who are on a temporary footing, he might save £10. If however my hon. and learned Friend can assure us that he has thoroughly looked into the possibilities of effecting this economy I will not press my objection and I trust that likewise hon. Members opposite will see their way not to oppose this vote.
    7.52 a.m.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move,
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    It is perfectly clear, from the exhausted condition of the Financial Secretary and from the mental condition of the hon. Member who has just spoken—that, after all, is typical of the state of mind of hon. Members on the other side—that the sooner we adjourn this Debate the better for all concerned. We have manfully through the night given what little knowledge we possess on these benches to the other side, while people with profound knowledge of very difficult questions have lain slumbering. Four hours ago it was my very painful duty to call attention to two hon. Members sound asleep on the back bench. [Interruption.] If I do close my eyes I remain perpendicular. The public has a right to know that the night has been spent in this way with a dishevelled Financial Secretary struggling now with his own supporters, who have recently come to life for reasons best known to the Patronage Secretary. I think our hearts go out to the Financial Secretary on that ground alone, for I think the House will now agree to the Motion to report Progress. I am not moving it with any ulterior motive. I want hon. Members to believe that I am acting in the best interests of the House and in the best interests of the Government and in the best interests of one of the junior Ministers. In view of the fact that the hour is now eight o'clock, the normal breakfast hour for moderately early risers, I hope the Patronage Secretary will be a good boy and agree to adjourn the Debate.
    7.58 a.m.
    Captain MARGESS0N: Again an appeal is made to me to agree to report Progress. Hours ago, on what I think

    915
    were most reasonable terms, the Government would have been prepared to accept a Motion of this kind. I think the Committee will agree with me that seldom have we had a higher standard of Debate than that to which we have listened tonight. The Debate on Miscellaneous Expenses, a most abstruse and difficult subject, was argued from all side with clarity and ingenuity. I do think that with a little more latitude, having gone so far, we can accomplish the task we set ourselves to do. I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who spoke in such solicitous terms of the Financial Secretary. Let me assure him that the next Supplementary Estimate will be taken by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the next falls to the lot of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, who has not been heavily engaged during the evening. While the two Ministers are busily engaged the Financial Secretary can have a rest, and I do not think that, if we carry on a little longer, we shall be putting an undue strain on the Minister.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Do I understand from the Patronage Secretary that, if we succeed in disposing of the three Orders, he does not intend to proceed further [Interruption.]I do not know how many Patronage Secretaries there are. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to proceed with the Amendments in Committee on the shipping subsidy Bill?
    Mr. ALBERY: Will the hon. Member remember that last night several hon. Members stayed here late to deal with the Amendments to that Bill, and that it might be convenient to those Members who have stayed through the sitting to take it now?
    Captain MARGESSON: It is not the intention of the Government to report Progress at the end of the Votes. That offer which was made to the Committee some hours ago did not then find favour. Consequently it is the intention of the Government to go ahead with their programme, and we hope that the shipping Bill will be completed. The Government do not intend, however, to take Order No. 4—the Unemployment (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill.
    Mr. SHINWELL: The Patronage Secretary now appears in an entirely new rôle. Several hours ago he sought to cajole the Committee into accepting the proposals to which be has just referred. The Committee refused to succumb to his blandishments. Now, in a fit of pique, he is seeking to keep the Committee several hours longer. He is seeking to deprive private Members of using a privilege which both he and the Prime Minister have boasted has been furnished to private Members in the last few weeks, and a Privilege of which, they said, they did not intend to deprive private Members so long as the Government found it possible so to do. Only the other day the Prime Minister insisted—in reply to the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee)—that, private Members' time having been allotted, it must he considered in relation to the Government's programme. It was because of private Members' time having been so allotted that we were asked yesterday to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule and continue the debate which is still in progress. There is no justification for the action which the Patronage Secretary now proposes. There is no emergency for the Committee stage of the Shipping Subsidy Bill. A few days will make no difference to tramp shipowners operating on the existing subsidy. The interruptions were not all on this side. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) was unable to restrain himself.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I spoke for seven minutes and was interrupted five times.
    Mr. SHINWELL: No doubt the nature of the hon. Member's observations inevitably inspires interruptions. He was making constant interruptions when Members on this side were addressing the Committee.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member has made a statement with regard to my behaviour in the House. In fact I was absent from the House continuously until three minutes before I spoke.
    Mr. SHINWELL: If I have said anything that is contrary to the facts I will certainly withdraw. I am not conscious of having said anything that is. I have not regarded the matters coming within the previous discussions as falling into

    917
    the categories of humour or frivolity. If Members on both sides of this Committee have availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge in flippancy, I have had no desire to copy them. I have regarded these debates as of the most serious character. We are now coming to the debate in relation to the Board of Trade vote. These are serious matters and the Patronage Secretary has just declared that the debate on the miscellaneous services was of a very high standard and applauded the oratorical virtues of my hon. Friend behind me. It does appear that in the circumstances Members on both sides have done enough and had enough.
    Lieut.-Colonel C. KERR: Is that offering?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. and gallant Member must not lead me into the path of temptation. At the same time hon. Members have had quite sufficient of this Debate. Something has been said in the course of previous Debates as to the capacity of Members to take part in these discussions. I confess that I do not feel in the least fatigued. In fact I am just warming up. I have every desire to see the Debates properly conducted. It is not a question of fatigue. It is a question whether we can best conform to public opinion and assist the Government in its business by proceeding now or delaying, until a more convenient opportunity, the business before us. This is private Members' day and hon. Members will soon be returning to the House. We shall expect the Home Secretary, even the Prime Minister, and the Lord President of the Council, refreshed from his visit to the Scottish Universities, where he has received, according to the Press, the plaudits of the undergraduates. For these reasons it is not proper for the Patronage Secretary to make too heavy demands on hon. Members. He should address himself to the matter not out of pique having regard to the effect on the progress of national business.
    8.14 a.m.
    Mr. PETHERICK: I hope the Patronage Secretary will adhere to his determination not to accept this Motion. The hon. Member who has just sat down has been warming himself by his perfervid oratory and he has tried to inspire some warmth into his supporters. Up to
    918
    Three o'clock he was like the world famous Duke of York, who led his men up the hill, sat on the top for three or four hours and then led them down again. That is unusual for leaders opposite. They usually lead them, not up the hill but up the garden. The hon. Members on this side of the House are prepared to facilitate Government business, but there are a number of questions we are anxious to have answered. Perhaps some of the hon. Members on the Liberal Benches are also desirous to elucidate certain points. They do not look very well. In fact they remind me of the words of the poet Hood, who wrote:
    "A corpse so placid ne'er adorned a bed: It seemed not quite, but only rather dead."
    It is refreshing to find the hon. Members so anxious to preserve the interests of private Members. Private Members have been literally conducting this Debate on both sides of the House. We on this side are anxious to facilitate Government business but we require certain elucidation. On these grounds, though it is certainly late in the morning and we have a very hard week in front of us, I do beg that we should proceed with the rest of the business and help the Government to get through it at the earliest possible moment, but, of course, always subject to satisfaction being given to us who are eager and anxious inquirers.
    8.21 a.m.
    Mr. EDE: I should have thought that at this late hour of the morning there was a good logical reason for accepting the Motion. We have made some progress. This side has made very considerable progress, because on the confession of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) we have destroyed the discipline of the Government ranks. He assured us that the Patronage Secretary went to him and implored him first, not to speak, and if he did speak to be brief. The hon. Member spoke in spite of what the Patronage Secretary said to him, and though it may have been the hon. Member's idea of brevity it certainly was not ours. I can only imagine that after so flagrant a defiance of the Chief Whip, the hon. Member will not get the Government whip much longer. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) is now in a fit condition to take part in our De-

    919
    bates. A few hours ago I had to draw attention to the fact that he was behaving like an inverted pendulum. He was then sitting on the bench behind where he is now sitting, and it will be within the recollection of hon. Members that the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) turned round and awakened the hon. Member from his slumbers. I am assured that if a lady is able to do that in a certain way, the Gentleman owes her a pair of gloves.
    Mr. WISE: I am sure the hon. Member will not go very much further into this very delicate subject but will explain the rules of this game to me privately.
    Mr. EDE: I regret to observe that at least the hon. Member is anxious to save Government time, but he appears to know the rules of the game sufficiently well to have moved down from that bench and very ostentatiously taken his place by the side of the hon. Member to whom I alluded and she, not desiring to act as his nurse very much longer, has, after a few words whispered in the ear of the Liberal National Whip who sits at the corner of the Government bench, left the House. The hon. Member may have been appealed to by the Chief Whip, but I notice he did not get up to confirm what the hon. Member for Norwood had said. I doubt whether he was really in a position at that time to realise what was being said to him by the Chief Whip.
    Mr. SANDYS: What is my hon. Friend suggesting? Will he repeat what he said?
    Mr. EDE: I was not suggesting anything in regard to the hon. Member for Norwood, but I did suggest just before he came into the House that this side had succeeded in the first task of an Opposition, to secure the disintegration of the discipline of the Government forces and that the hon. Member himself had furnished up with evidence to the effect.
    Mr. SANDYS: This Debate has shown that never have the Government supporters been so solid behind the Patronage Secretary.
    Mr. EDE: The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) was capable of remaining solid, hat and all. I would remind the hon. Member for Norwood that he said the Patronage Secretary went to him and implored him not to speak and it he did to be brief.
    Mr. SANDYS: I was very brief.
    Mr. EDE: We all knew what the young lady said to the curate— "People complain of the length of my sermons," he said, and the young lady replied: "They are not as long as they seem." The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) complained about the Financial Secretary, who, however, has been out and had a brush up. The hon. Gentleman opposite said to the Patronage Secretary, "I propose next to put up the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade." Well, physical circumstances prevent him from getting dishevelled. We all know people cannot grow hair and brains too. As soon as I have been assured that this Debate will run for an hour I shall get rid of some of my hair. It is unfair that we should have no real barometer from which we can deduce how far the disintegration of ministerial discipline is going on.
    Really I do feel that: at this stage we might be allowed to tell the House exactly what we have done. Never has there been a finer tribute paid to an opposition than that paid by the Patronage Secretary. Many of us have sat through all-night sittings before, and none of us, I venture to say, has had on those occasions the intellectual pleasure of the duel between the hon. and learned Member for Bristol East (Sir S. Cripps), the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Pritt) and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on a very complicated and intricate matter which might with great advantage to the public have started at 3.45 and gone on till 11. This has not been a night, on the Patronage Secretary's own showing, that has been spent in dreary repetition or in frivolous dissertations, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman may now very well accept the Motion which has been moved. There has been very little show of tempers. I am aware the right hon. Gentleman has lost control. He is being led from the rear.
    8.32 a.m.
    Mr. RAIKES: I protest at the remarks the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has made. Reference has been made to the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) being in a state of slumber. I would tell the hon. Member that the

    921
    hon. Member for Smethwick is giving pleasure to the Lady Members of the House, by whom he is known as the Sleeping Beauty. I regret the efforts that are being made to stoop to mockery. I also object to what hon. Members opposite have said in regard to the hon. Member for South Croydon. (Mr. H. G. Williams). It has been suggested that the hon. Member for South Croydon has been interrupting in the course of this Debate. There is no one who knows him who would believe that he would interrupt anybody. On the other hand, there is no Member of this House who gets more persistently interrupted than the hon. Member for South Croydon does himself. The only reason is that he talks a good deal of sense which hon. Members opposite do not like.
    Now, in regard to the attitude of the Patronage Secretary. The Patronage Secretary realises, and all his supporters realise, that admirable and important tough private business may be, Government business comes before all. We know the sacrifices that have to be made in the interests of Government business. We all love private Members to have a fair share, but duty is to come before pleasure, and Government business must be given an opportunity for proper discussion. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) gave us one little quotation. It occurs to me there is one old verse which might appeal to hon. Members opposite. It is:
    "No man lives for ever.
    Dead men rise up never.
    But even the weariest river.
    Winds somewhere safe to sea."
    And so it will be when the Government business is accomplished.
    Mr. BEVAN: In the early part of the evening we did not have the benefit of hon. Members on the opposite benches. We now know why they were silent. The main reason was that they had nothing but abuse.
    Lieut.-Colonel KERR: I have sat through the whole night, and I am not aware yet that I have been to sleep. Also, I am unlike a great many Members opposite apparently, in the ranks of the idle rich who have time to sit here and have nothing else to do. I have been listening with the greatest possible care to the Debate the whole evening, and I am bound to say there were a great
    922
    many questions discussed which seemed to me perfectly plain and easy to understand by the paper I had in my hand, and that is why I did not take any part in the Debate. It so happens that now I have a very pertinent question, but the hon. Member rose in his place and thwarted me.
    Mr. SANDYS: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member would not wish to misrepresent members on this side of the House when he suggested we had not made any contribution in the early part of the debate because we had nothing worth while to say. The reason was that our feelings and intentions were so admirably expressed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
    Mr. BEVAN: In the earlier part of the sitting the Government Front Bench were able to give adequate expression to the views of their back benchers. Now the front bench are apparently exhausted and the back benchers are to emerge. What is now being done is a deliberate organised attempt to prevent this House discussing workmen's compensation.
    Mr. SANDYS: The hon. Member is misrepresenting hon. Members on this side. Who was it moved the motion to report Progress? Was it not the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)?
    Mr. BEVAN: If the Patronage Secretary will accept the Motion to report Progress we will sit down at once. The reason why the discussion is continuing is that we are attempting to place before the Committee reasons why the Motion to report Progress should be accepted. Hon. Members know very well that what is before the Committee is a, sinister attempt on the part of the reactionary forces of the Conservative party to prevent us having an opportunity to expose the deficiencies of workmen's compensation, and I hope that the constituents of hon. Members with note it.
    Lieut.-Colonel KERR: I am going to make an appeal to the Opposition. There is plenty of time to get through the business now before Eleven if they will withdraw the Motion.
    Mr. BEVAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just interrupted me said he had a most important question to put. Do I understand that the question is not so important as he thought

    923
    it was. He is prepared, as I understand it, to forgo his public duty.
    Lieut.-Colonel KERR: I want to get back to the Government business.
    Mr. BEVAN: I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that before Eleven o'clock we could get three and a half most important Supplementary Estimates. I hope that the constituents of the hon. Members opposite are aware of the fact that when there was most important business they were silent. But there is a plot now to prevent the details of the Workmen's Compensation Bill becoming known.
    Mr. ALBERY: There are many who have been sitting here and who were here last night who have not spoken at all.
    Mr. BEVAN: I want to suggest in all seriousness that the Government is making a very great mistake. We are very anxious to facilitate public business in the manner in which public business should be discussed. We resist the Patronage Secretary in his effort to involve this House in a discussion of public business at a time when we ought to be in bed. If the Patronage Secretary thinks he is going to get his future business through in this way he is making the mistake of his life and he had better acquire a sense of responsibility. The conduct of business in this House is as much in the hands of the Opposition as in the hands of the Government, and if the Government wishes to get business through it will have to reach a reasonable accommodation with the Opposition. The Opposition is not going to be bullied. What the Patronage Secretary has now said is this "You have seen fit to make use of Parliament by discussing these Amendments all night. We are going to punish you and you will not get a discussion on Workmen's Compensation."
    Captain RAMSAY: With the Opposition carrying on organised obstruction?
    Mr. BEVAN: On a point of Order. I submit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has no right to reflect on the Chair.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The term "organised obstruction" is not Parliamentary.
    Captain RAMSAY: I withdraw the words.
    Mr. BEVAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman do us the justice of recalling what happened last night. With the best will in the world it would have been impossible to get these Estimates through before Two o'Clock.
    Captain RAMSAY: Will the hon. Member give his frank opinion that there was no attempt by Members on this side to delay business?
    Mr. BEVAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman need not take my word. The Patronage Secretary has stated that there was a very high level of debate. The Opposition is beginning to feel that the Patronage Secretary is starting to bully it. We are willing to make an accommodation, but not an accommodation based on the offer he made. We are prepared to listen to an accommodation which enables some of the business to be got through, and in order that the Committee may rise in time to give us the private Members day It which we are entitled. If we are not given it we shall be compelled to submit these Estimates to a microscopic examination and meticulous analysis. We will expose them all to public criticism, and the Patronage Secretary will find when Four o'clock comes that he has made far less progress than he would have made if an accommodation had been made now. If he wants to get his business through quickly he had better make an arrangement quickly. The fact is that the Patronage Secretary has been badly spoilt by the Labour party.
    Lieut.-Colonel KERR: I have a business to attend to and a train to catch. Can the hon. Member give me any indication how long he is going to speak?
    Mr. BEVAN: I can assure the hon. Member that he has my permission to go now. I suggest to the Patronage Secretary that now is the time when an accommodation might be made. It can only be made if he will yield some of his obstinacy. If he does not do so we shall put on it the obvious interpretation that the Government is attempting to hammer the Opposition into submission. I can promise them a very bad time if they try to do that. Hon. and right hon. Members are coming to the house fresh and without recollections of the struggle in which we have been engaged. I appeal to them to bring to this matter a dispassionate view. I ask them to try to

    925
    seduce the Patronage Secretary from his obdurate attitude. It has been suggested on more than one occasion that the House of Commons does itself no good by all-night sittings. The House will do itself less than justice if it allows its business to be scamped. If the Government desire that there shall be—as there must be, if Parliamentary business is to continue—proper relations between the Front Benches, there should be a concession made now. If they do not make a concession we shall regard the attitude of the Patronage Secretary as a declaration of war.
    Mr. PETHERICK: Would it not have been better if hon. Members opposite had made a concession six hours ago?
    Mr. BEVAN: If the Opposition had made that concession an important matter of public business would not have received the necessary public examination. Nothing has more vindicated the desire of the Opposition to subject these Estimates to examination than the exemplary Debate that we have had. It would have been dishonourable to Members of this House if the Estimates had—
    Lieut.-Colonel KERR: Is it in Order for the hon. Member to call us dishonourable?
    Mr. BEVAN: I would not make any such charge against the hon. Member. He knows me better than that. The suggestion was that the decision to enter into a pact with the Patronage Secretary to dispose of business without that examination which we were sent here to give it—
    Mr. PETHERICK: What I was trying to indicate was that hon. Members opposite are interested in the first part of the programme, and that we are interested in the latter part. I do not see that we should forgo our rights to discuss questions in which we are interested.
    Mr. BEVAN: If the Opposition had not discharged its duty and insisted on a Debate, these Estimates would have gone through in half an hour. The inspiration behind the hon. Member's present activity is not his sense of public duty.
    Mr. PETHERICK: I hope that in a broad sense the inspiration behind me is a sense of public duty.
    Mr. BEVAN: The inspiration on this occasion is so broad as to be in doubt. The hon. Member is now merely engaged in supporting the Patronage Secretary to prevent us from having an opportunity to discuss the Workmen's Compensation Bill. I hope constituents in all parts of the country see in this an opportunity of the National Government to prevent us from discussing the industrial welfare of our constituents when one of our party has been fortunate enough to be successful in the Ballot.
    Mr. BERNAYS: I myself am deeply interested in the Workmen's Compensation Act. I have been looking forward to the discussion. I have a speech ready. I am disgusted with the hon. Member's action in wasting the time of the Committee.
    Mr. BEVAN: I have looked upon the hon. Gentleman on many occasions as one of the "Yes men" of the Government.
    Mr. BERNAYS: So far from being one of the "Yes men" of the Government, I do not take the Government Whip.
    Mr. MAGNAY: Is it in Order to call an hon. Member a "Yes man"?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think I could necessarily rule it out.
    Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member does not need a Whip; he walks into the Government Lobby every time. His constituency has been disenfranchised because the hon. Member has not been present all the night.
    Mr. MAGNAY: Is it in Order to say that an hon. Member's constituents have been disenfranchised? There is no such word.
    Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member knows that had we on this side not taken some interest in these Estimates they would not have been examined at all.
    Mr. BERNAYS: It is unfair. I sat up yesterday to give the utmost detailed attention to every line.
    Mr. BEVAN: I have every admiration for the hon. Member's qualities.
    Mr. MAGNAY: May I allow the hon. Member to have a breath? May I ask him to consider that, if minorities have rights, so have majorities? If he was

    927
    a Member of the Durham County Council, he would know what the majority of the Labour Councillors would do with such talk as he is talking now.
    Mr. BEVAN: I should be delighted if the hon. Member would initiate me into the mysteries of the Durham County Council. He was recumbent on a back bench for some time.
    Mr. MAGNAY: That gives me an opportunity to say that I was not asleep. I wish to heaven I had been asleep.
    Mr. BEVAN: If anyone could listen to the brilliant speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir Stafford Cripps) and remain insensible, there is no difference between his waking and sleeping condition; he is equally insensitive in both. We only want the Patronage Secretary to be reasonable. We do not want him to show the white flag; we want him to be dignified and not like a spoiled boy. Let us have friendly co-operation and see bow much business we can get through by half-past ten, and then we can have a discussion on workmen's compensation.
    9.9 a.m.
    Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: In staying here all night and listening to others one has probably suffered as severe a strain as those who have spoken. We on these benches have been willing to enter into an arrangement to get a reasonable amount done. I hope there will not be too much talk of the assassination of the Workmen's Compensation Bill. The hon. Member who has just spoken and the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) have had by far the largest share of the speeches. There must, be a certain responsibility shared around this Committee, although I concur with the Patronage Secretary that a great deal of this Debate has been extremely amusing and sometimes brilliant. I am glad, however, that the Strangers' Gallery has not been filled with representatives of foreign countries or members of the unemployed, who might have thought that we might have occupied our time better.
    9.10 a.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I agree that Parliament has not been seen at its best during this
    928
    last night. It is one of the occasions when, after the whole thing is over, one is inclined to feel disgusted at the whole situation. We are all human, and we have arrived at a point where neither side gives way. The result is that business is suffering. I appeal to the Patronage Secretary. We have an important Measure on the Order Paper to-day—the Workmen's Compensation Bill. All engaged in industry, especially the miners, were looking forward to having a chance of stating their case on that Bill. If we have offended, the Patronage Secretary is in a, position to rise above that kind of thing. If he thinks we have carried it too far and have overstepped the mark, at least he can show how big he is by saying: "All right, seeing that the Measure is so important in the eyes of the workmen, if I can get some compromise I will agree to finish in time to give the Bill a chance." I am putting it from the workmen's point of view. I know very well that the Mover and Seconder of the Bill have been perparing all the week for the opportunity of stating their case. I want everyone to imagine how they would feel if they had got a chance in the Ballot to move a private Member's Bill, and had dreamed over it, only to be met, when they came down here in the morning, with the news that they had lost the opportunity. There is no Member of the House who would not feel disgusted if it happened to him. That is why I ask that at least some opportunity should be given for them to move their Bill. I do not want to carry on this discussion by recrimination and by pointing out the defects of the other side. I know you can point our the same kind of defects in my side. There has got to come a time when you must come back to common sense. It may be that I have no right to appeal, but If am appealing, that this Motion should be accepted. Just imagine the position when we go to our people and say the Workmen's Compensation Bill had not a chance. We may say it is all the fault of the Government, and the Government side may say it is the other side's fault, but the rank and file of the electors will say both sides are to blame, and Parliament will stand somewhat discredited by what has taken place. I make this appeal to the Patronage Secretary, and I do hope he will give us a chance for the Workmen's Compensation Bill.
    9.14 a.m.
    Mr. FRANKEL: I rise to make what I hope will be a few simple remarks, and also, as a new Member, to put the case as I see it. I may differ from some of my colleagues who spoke earlier, for I must confess to being very tired, but I have also been very interested by the course of the Debate. I have been in this Chamber since about three o'clock yesterday, and, like a good many other Members, started the day's work feeling that a very heavy responsibility would have to be carried by the Members of the House on that day. May I ask hon. Members to return to what, in my opinion, are the fundamental issues about which very much has been said during this Debate. I heard the Leader of the Opposition yesterday afternoon complain about the amount of business which Members of the House were asked to discharge during one sitting. I was not in a position at that time to be absolutely certain that what the Government were asking the House to put through in one sitting was reasonable or unreasonable. I was not in a position to be sure, because I might have believed that it was quite the normal thing.
    Since this Parliament started, except on one occasion before Christmas, we have sat until at, least eleven o'clock at night, and on many more occasions until later than that, and I began to think that it was normal. But this Debate has proved to me quite conclusively that what the Government have been asking of us has been entirely and absolutely unreasonable. This has been proved to me during the course of the various discussions which have taken place since last evening. As a new Member I found the papers which I collected yesterday to be rather intricate and rather difficult to understand, and I felt, as a new Member, that it would be impossible for me to take part intelligently in the discussion of these Estimates. Perhaps that may be due to lack of intelligence or lack of knowledge on my part. If that is so I plead guilty, and, unless my colleagues on these benches had done what they have done since yesterday evening, it might have taken me years to have appreciated the significance of these Estimates and the importance of them. I think that as the result of the Debate that has taken place since yesterday evening I have learned more of
    930
    these Estimates than I could possibly have learned in the normal way by even years of study.
    It has been admitted from the Government Front Bench that the discussions have not been without value—that, in fact that, as a result of the discussions, many things have been brought out which even the Members on the Government Front Bench had not fully appreciated. It is not unfair to say that they have agreed that that is so, because on many points they have reserved giving an ultimate judgment, and have said that elucidation on various points will have to come. I want to take this opportunity of saying, again as a new Member, that I may have been disappointed in the last few months at the procedure and conduct of the House. I entered it with fairly high ideals, and I have been disappointed, not only with the Government benches, but with the benches of my own colleagues. But nothing has made me more proud of them than this Debate which has gone on since yesterday. It has reaffirmed what I always ought to have believed of them without any dubiety. I say that quite sincerely. It was said by an hon. Member a few minutes ago that he was glad that members of foreign Governments were not present in the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery. Some hon. Members have said that they were glad that members of the public and the unemployed were not present. I feel certain that had they been present, we on these benches, by comparison would not have suffered. [HON. MEMBERS "No, but they would."] In this Debate, I contend, there has been a real attempt from this side to elucidate the Estimates. I admit that during periods of the Debate, due to the obstinacy of hon. Members opposite, there has been obstruction—obstruction which I think was justified by the attitude of the Government. I would, however, appeal to the Committee not to be obstinate too long and not to take advantage of the Opposition. We may not be strong enough to enforce all our rights, but I am certain that the Government will not succeed in their intention, as it has been enunciated. We are ready to continue the Debate, but it is more important to consider the future and the possibility of avoiding further friction.

    931
    For those reasons, I support the Motion to report Progress, and I hope it will be accepted.
    9.23 a.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: May I join in this [post mortem] which always occurs on the day after the night before? In every Parliament there is a stage at which the Chief Whip, becoming more and more optimistic, puts more and more pressure on the Opposition, and the Opposition come to the conclusion that if they are to have their rights, they must make some demonstration. That happened early in the last Parliament, I think on the Army Bill, and we had the usual [post mortem,]and thereafter, apart from a little episode connected with the then Dominion Secretary—who seems to have an irritating effect on the House—things went as smoothly as even a Chief Whip could desire. We have now had a further demonstration of the necessity of not overcrowding the Order Paper. I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has a good deal of business which he wishes to get through by 31st March, but it must be borne in mind that that business can only he got through decently and efficiently if both sides agree upon how it shall be conducted. He knows the difficulties that can be created by an incessant refusal to arrange business; it causes irritation and does not add to efficiency. Therefore, I suggest that as we have now had this protest, he ought to give a reasonable assurance as regards the business for to-day. If that reasonable assurance is given, I suggest that the results of these proceedings will not be detrimental to the reputation of Parliament or the reputation of either party. It will simply show that in a perfectly natural and human way circumstances arise in which both parties are concerned about asserting what they believe to be their rights. I hope we shall come to a fair understanding about those rights and that, henceforward, the conduct of business will be made easier.
    9.25 a.m.
    Captain MARGESSON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and those hon. Members who were in the last Parliament know that appeals were frequently made to the Government not to take some particular item of business on a particular night, and I think they will
    932
    agree that the Government never sought to force the House to take such business when it was inconvenient. The right hon. Gentleman the Member of Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) knows that the business has been arranged by agreement, and that when the Opposition has said to the Government "You are pushing us a bit too far." the Government have on every occasion been ready to meet them. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I do not wish to fall foul of any Opposition. That is not my business. My business is to get the work of Parliament done as easily and as expeditiously as possible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that in the last Parliament there was another instance in addition to that which he has mentioned in which we had a very protracted debate, and I am glad to think that those debates were conducted with the same good humour as the Debate in which we are now engaged. I think it will be agreed that we have always tried to meet hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as far as possible in the arrangement of business.
    The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel) suggested that the Government's programme to-day had been overloaded and that that was the cause of the Opposition's grievance. May I remind the Committee that the Prime Minister stated at Question time that we hoped to get the first five Orders on the Paper. There may have been some dissent, but I did not notice any violent protest from the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman was in his place and spoke about next week's business, but he did not say to us, in regard to to-day's business, "You are going far beyond the bounds of what is decent, and you arc not going to get the first five Orders". All we said was that we hoped to get those Orders, and surely even the Government and the Chief Whip are entitled to have hopes. I do not want the Committee to take what I say in any wrong sense. There has been no bargain, and there has been no breaking of understandings. But when the Opposition asked for a day for a Vote of Censure against the Government on the question of the special areas, I pointed out, through the usual channels, how pressed the Government

    933
    were for time owing to the fact that the financial year ended on 31st March. I pointed out that there would be a good opportunity of debating the subject of the special areas on the Civil Vote on Account. That Vote must be taken on two days, and the Opposition has the right to chose the subjects of debate on those days. Had they wished it, the special areas could have been debated on the first day and any subject which they liked on the second day They did not, however, care to avail themselves of the opportunity and asked for a special day in order to move the Vote of Censure. In the course of the conversations I pointed out, over and over again, that we would do our best; to meet them, if at the same time we could be helped to get through this very long list of Supplementary Estimates.
    I repeat that there has been no breach of contract or anything of that kind, but when we announced that Monday had been set aside for the Vote of Censure, we thought we would be fairly secure as to getting our Supplementary Estimates. When I was asked by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards) what was the intention of the Government in regard to to-day's business, I said we would be content not to proceed with the Report stages of Votes, the Committee stage of the British Shipping (Subsidy) Bill, or the Second Reading of the Unemployment (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill. I said that I hoped we might be allowed to take the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, because that was a formal stage, but apart from that, all I asked on behalf of the Government was that we should be allowed to get the Supplementary Estimates. I felt that I ought to give that explanation to the Committee because of what was said by the hon. Member for Mile End about overloading the programme. I think I can claim that I have never tried to force hon. Members. It would be very foolish of me to do so, and I recognise that it is upon the good will of hon. Members that one has to depend in order to get business through the House. We are, however, entitled to get the Estimates which have been put down, and I hope, after what I have said, that hon. Members will also agree to giving us the Committee stage of the British Shipping (Subsidy) Bill. That is not
    934
    asking very much, and I think we can hope to get that business done within a reasonable time. I do not propose to ask for the Report stages of Votes on the Paper, nor will I ask for the Unemployment (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill, because I understand that some question of a breach of faith might be raised if I attempted to take that Bill. Whatever hon. Members opposite may have said against me in the course of this Debate, I assure them that I do not wish to force them to take business which they ought not to be asked to do.
    9.35 a.m.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Everybody appreciates the tone of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, and I think it has tended to remove a good deal of the ill-feeling which had previously been engendered in this Debate. I understood him to say that earlier in the proceedings he was prepared to accept the disposal of the Supplementary Estimates and to be content with that. Is it not possible to come to some arrangement whereby the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, having secured all that he previously desired—[HON. MEMBERS: "No !"]—should make an accommodation with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards)? They have been practically disposed of. I think there are two or three remaining. On the assumption that we can dispose of these Estimates for 10.30 or 10.45 this morning, leaving for further disposal the Committee Stage of the Shipping Subsidy Bill, is it not possible to reach an accommodation? Both sides would then be satisfied. The right hon. Gentleman will have secured practically all that he asked for previously, and I hope that, in spite of the feeling that seemed to exist in several quarters he will agree to this suggestion.
    9.36 a.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend when he referred to the changed tone of the Patronage Secretary, and my only reason for rising is to call his attention to this fact. It is true that the Opposition sought a day for a Vote of Censure. We knew, of course, that the Patronage Secretary's programme was pretty well overloaded and that if a day was to be given for that purpose, some sacrifice would have to be made by us, but we

    935
    scarcely expected he would put on the Paper a two-days' programme for the purpose of conceding a day for next Monday's Debate. I have listened to most of the Debate between 3.45 yesterday and now, and what has emerged has been that the Patronage Secretary himself must have discovered that these Supplementary Estimates were of far greater importance than he imagined. He made reference to the Third Readings of the Shipping and Milk Bills next Monday, but really it is not quite what one expects that, at the end of a day when a Censure Motion has been moved, the Third Reading of a Bill should be put on the Paper involving an Exchequer payment of over £2,000,000.
    Probably one of the major causes of the attitude of hon. Members on these benches is a succession of similar incidents. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that one day during this week the Bacon Order was on the Paper to be taken after 11 at night. It affected the food of the people, and if hon. Members believe that day after day questions of that description are to be taken after 11 o'clock, and then, as yesterday, they discover that there is a Third Reading to be taken that might involve a subsidy of £2,000,000 and a Third Reading on Monday involving over £2,000,000, it looks to some hon. Members as if it is going to be a perpetual situation of pressure and overloading. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, therefore, that there is an Opposition point of view in this matter. If I am to sit up all night, I should prefer, if possible, that we do not wait until 9.30 a.m. the day after to talk about entering into an agreement, but that it should be entered into before 3.45 p.m. on the day previous to the morning after the night before. Looking at the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, I can appreciate that, after sitting up all these hours, he would be very pleased if he could leave this morning without discussing cattle diseases, education and the multiplicity of problems confronting his Department. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is bursting to deal with any old subject that comes before him, and I should hate to see either of them leaving without having satisfied themselves that they have done their work
    936
    faithfully and well. In any case it seems to me that at 9.30 or 9.40 a.m. it is rather too much for the Patronage Secretary to expect, only having secured two Orders during the last nine hours, that he will get four Orders in the next hour.
    9.42 a.m.
    Mr. LOGAN: I wish to support the Motion to report Progress. We have been debating for at least two hours an item dealing with a matter of £10. I find, as a matter of arithmetic, that about £300 or £400 falls due to those hon. Members who are present, and we have been discussing a matter of £10 for about two hours. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) catechised Members of the Labour party and let them have the religious opinions of Members of the Liberal party. He said that if there were people from foreign nations present in the galleries of the House, what a spectacle it would be. I say that if there were people from any of the Continental nations in the galleries, they would have observed that, at a time when all the world is engaged in other conflicts, the Members of the British House of Commons are engaged in discussing the domestic affairs of the land and giving proper time and attention to them. I have been in this House since 10 o'clock yesterday morning and sat more or less all through the discussions that have taken place, with the exception of having had one or two snacks. Whatever the arrangement may be with Members of our own Front Bench, I say that the time for arrangements has gone by, and it is no use trying to patch up an agreement now, after all these 24 hours have passed. I must remind my own colleague the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that it is all very well being told about certain arrangements, but we have been definitely and consistently, as an Opposition, going on all through the night, and I do not see why any accommodating spirit is necessary now at breakfast, time.
    We shall go on demanding the rights of an Opposition in this House. We ask for no mercy; we get no quarter. When you talk about the dignity of the House of Commons it is absurd, even from a business point of view, to talk about making a business arrangement. Neither on one side nor on the other does it appear to me that you are able to make up your minds. I claim only the right of the ordinary Member. I have sat here loyally

    937
    with my colleagues during all of yesterday and all to-day so far, and I claim that we cannot be thrown about like corks on the water. I want to raise one or two objections in regard to the conduct of business in this House. Motions to report progress have been moved at intervals, giving the Government an opportunity of considering whether it was possible or not to come to some arrangement, but I do not believe that we are able to rush through in one hour business that should honestly take three or four hours to discuss. It is most unfair, and I also feel that most of the hon. Members who are now present are not in a fit and proper condition to continue the Debate.
    I aim making my protest because I want the business to be done in a business way. The Patronage Secretary has been appealed to by the right hon. Gentleman leading the Opposition on three occasions, and nothing has been done. The

    Division No. 75.]

    AYES.

    [9.55 a.m.

    Agnew, Lieut. Comdr. P. G.

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Albery, I. J.

    Eckersley, P. T.

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

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

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

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

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

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

    Everard, W. L.

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

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Fleming, E, L.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Foot, D. M.

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Baxter, A. Bevertey

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Penny, Sir G.

    Beit, Sir A. L.

    Ganzonl, Sir J.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Bernays, R. H

    Glucksteln, L. H.

    Petherick, M.

    Bllndell, Sir J.

    Goldle, N. B.

    Plugge, L. F.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Porritt, R. W.

    Boulton, W. W

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Power, Sir J. C.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

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

    Pownall, Sir A. Assheton

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Grimston, R. V.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

    Ralkes, H. V. A. M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

    Ramsbotham, H.

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

    Hanbury, Sir C.

    Rankin, R.

    Bull, B. B.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Burghley, Lord

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Burgln, Dr. E. L.

    Harvey, G.

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Channon, H.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

    Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Chapman, Sir 8. (Edinburgh, S.)

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

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

    Hulbert. N. J.

    Sandys, E. D.

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

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Jackson, Sir H.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Kirkpatrick, W. M.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Crooke, J. S.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Spens, W. P.

    Cross, R. H,

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Crowder, J. F, E.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Storey, S.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfletd)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Davison, Sir W. H.

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

    Sutcllffe, H.

    De Chair, S. S.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Donner, P. W.

    McKie, J. H.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H,

    Magnay, T.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Makins, Brig. -Gen. E.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

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

    Turton, R. H.

    Duggan, H. J.

    Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Maxwell, S, A.

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    responsibility that has been put upon the youth of the Patronage Secretary may have been too great. The Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council have not put in an appearance. A Law Officer of the Crown was present on only one occasion. In a business house the chief of the staff can be found to assume responsibility. I have never found any place so defective in its management as the House of Commons this morning. I appeal to the Patronage Secretary to accept this Motion to report Progress, so that we may sit again. I want this business to be finished.
    9.54 a.m.
    Captain MARGESSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 70.

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

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

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Wise, A. R.

    Commander Southby and Lieut.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Colonel Llewellin.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Quibell, J. D.

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

    Groves, T. E.

    Rlley, B.

    Batey, J.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Ritson, J.

    Bevan, A.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Shinwell, E.

    Compton, J,

    Holland, A.

    Sllverman, S. S.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Hoillns, A.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhlthe)

    Daggar, G.

    John, W.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Dalton. H.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

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

    Davies, D. L. (Pontyprldd)

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Kirby, 8. V.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davics, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lawson. J. J.

    Watkins, F C.

    Ede, J. C.

    Leach, W.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Lee, F.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

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

    Logan, D. G.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Frankel, D.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Marklew, E.

    Wilson, C, H. (Attercliffe)

    Gibbins, J.

    Paling, W.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Green. W. H. (Deptford)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Potts, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

    Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

    Division No. 76.]

    AYES.

    [10.2 a.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Quibell, J. D.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Groves, T. E.

    Riley, B.

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

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Ritson, J.

    Atllee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Batey, J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bevan, A.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Shinwell, E.

    Broad, F. A.

    Holland, A.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Brawn, C. (Mansfield)

    Hollins, A.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Compton, J.

    John, W.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Dagger, G.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Dalton, H.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

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

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)

    Leach, W.

    Westwood, J.

    Ede. J. C.

    Lee, F.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Logan, D. G.

    Williams, K. J. (Ogmore)

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

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Williams, T,.(Don Valley)

    Frankel, D.

    Marklew, E.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Garro- Jones, G. M.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Windsor. W. (Hull, C.)

    Gibbins, J.

    Paling, W.

    Green, w. H. (Deptford)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Potts, J.

    Mr. Whitney and Mr. Mathers.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Pritt, D. N.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Lleut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Albery, I. J.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Colville, Lt. Col D. J.

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

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

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

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

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

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bull, B. B.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Banfield, J. W.

    Burghley, Lord

    Crooke, J. S.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Burgin, Dr. E. L

    Cross, R. H.

    Belt, Sir A. L.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sit J. C. C.

    Bllndell, Sir J.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Channon, H.

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Boulton, W. W

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    De Chair, S. S.

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 71; and ask Noes, 156.

    Donner, P. W.

    Kurd, Sir P. A.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Jackson, Sir H.

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Kirkpatrick, W. M.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Duggan, H. J.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

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

    Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Leckle. J. A.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Sandys, E. D.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

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

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Everard, W. L.

    McKle, J. H.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Fleming, E. L.

    Magnay, T.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Foot, D. M.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Spens, W. P.

    Fremantle. Sir F. E.

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

    Storey, S.

    Ganzoni, Sir J.

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

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

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Mitcheson, sir G. G.

    Thomas, J. p. L. (Hereford)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

    Tltchfield, Marquess of

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

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Tree, A. R. L, F.

    Grlmston, R. V.

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

    Turton, R. H.

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Gulnness, T. L. E. B.

    Peake, O.

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

    Penny, Sir G.

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

    Hanbury, Sir C.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Hannah, I. C.

    Petherick, M.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Plugge, L. F.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Harvey, G.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Power, Sir J. C.

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

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

    Pawnall, Sir A. Assheton

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

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmoath)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Wise, A. R.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Horsbrugh. Florence

    Ramsbotham, H.

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

    Rankin, R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hulbert, N.J.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Commnder Southby and Lieut.

    Colonel Llewellin.

    Original Question again propsed.
    sever hon. Members rose—
    Captain MARGESSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "This the Question be now put."

    Division No. 77.]

    AYES.

    [10.11 a.m.

    Agnew, Lleut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Croft, Brig. -Gen. Sir H. Page

    Hanbury, Sir C.

    Albery, I. J.

    Crooke, J. S.

    Hannah, I. C.

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

    Cross, R. H.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

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

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Harvey, G.

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

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Balnlel, Lord

    De Chair, S. S.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Donner, P. W.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Beit, Sir A. L.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Bernays, R H.

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

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

    Blindell, Sir J.

    Duggan, H. J.

    Hulbert, N. J.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Jackson, Sir H.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Kirkpatrick, W. M.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

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

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Everard, W. L.

    Leckle, J. A.

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

    Fleming, E. L.

    Llewellin, Lieut. -Col. J. J.

    Bull, B. B.

    Foot, D. M.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Burghley, Lord

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Burgln, Dr. E. L.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Ganzonl, Sir J.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Glucksteln, L. H.

    McKle, J. H.

    Cazalet. Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Magnay, T.

    Channon, H.

    Goldle, N. B.

    Makins, Brig. -Gen. E.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

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

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

    Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

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

    Maxwell, S. A.

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

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Courtauld, Major J. s.

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

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

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

    Questions put, "That the Question be now put."
    The committee divied: Ayes, 155; Noes, 70.

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

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Titchfield. Marquess of

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

    Ruggles-Brlse, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Peake, O.

    Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

    Turton, R. H.

    Penny, Sir G.

    Salmon. Sir I.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

    Wallace, Captain Euan

    Petherick, M.

    Sandys, E. D.

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

    Plugge, L. F.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Porritt, R. W.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Warrender, Sir V

    Power, Sir J. C.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Pownall, Sir A. Assheton

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

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

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

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

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Spens, W. P.

    Wise, A. R.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H, M,

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Storey, S.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Rankin, R.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Mr. James Stuart and Captain

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., s.)

    Waterhouse.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Grenfell, D. R,

    Pritt, D. N

    Adamson, W. M.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Qulbell, J. D.

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

    Hall, J. H. (Whltechapel)

    Rlley, B.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Rltson, J.

    Batey, J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Bevan, A.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Rowson, G.

    Broad, F. A.

    Holland, A.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Hollins, A,

    Shinwell. E.

    Compton, J.

    John, W.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Daggar, G.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Dalton, H.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, E, (Stoke)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Davles, D. L. (Pontyprldd)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

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

    Davles, R. J. (Westhnughton)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Taylor, R.J. (Morpeth)

    Davles, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Leach. W.

    Tinker. J. J.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lee, F.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Ede, J. C.

    Logan, D. G.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Whiteley, W.

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

    Marklew, E.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Frankel, D.

    Montague, F.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gibblns, J.

    Paling, W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F.W.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Potts, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

    Original Question put accordingly.

    Division No. 78.]

    AYES.

    [10.20 a.m.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

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

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Albery, I. J.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

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

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

    Croft, Brig. Gen. Sir H. Page

    Grlmston, R. V.

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

    Crooke, J. S.

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Cross, R. H.

    Guinness. T. L. E. B.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

    Balniel, Lord

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.

    Hanbury, Sir C.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

    Hannah, I. C.

    Belt, Sir A. L.

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Bernays, R. H.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Harvey, G.

    Blindell, Sir J.

    Donner, P. W.

    Heilgers, Captin F. F. A.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

    Boulton, W. W.

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Herbert, Mnjor J. A. (Monmouth)

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Duggan. H. J.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O, J.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Eastwood, J. F.

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

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Hulbert, N. J.

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

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Kurd, Sir p A.

    Bull, B. B.

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

    Jackson, Sit H.

    Burghley, Lord

    Everard, W. L.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Burgln, Dr. E. L.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Kirkpatrick, W. M.

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Foot, D. M.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

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

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Leckle, J. A.

    Channon, H.

    Ganzonl, Sir J.

    Levy, T.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

    Colvllle, Lt.-Col. D. J.

    Goldle, N. B.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 72.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Pownall, Sir A. Asshclon

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

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

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Ralkes, H. V. A. M.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    McKie, J. H.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Mngnay, T.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Thomas, J.P. L. (Hereford)

    Making, Brig. -Gen. E.

    Rankin, R.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

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

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K, M.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Turton, R. H.

    Maxwell, S. A

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Wakefield, W. W.

    May hew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Wallace, Captain Euan

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

    Ropner, Colonel L.

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

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Haggles- Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Mltcheson, Sir G. G.

    Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

    Warrender, Sir V.

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

    Salman, Sir I.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

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

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

    Sandys, E. D.

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

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Peake, O.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Wise, A. R.

    Penny, Sir G.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Petherick, M.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    Plugge, L. F.

    Spens, W. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Porrltt, R. W.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Mr. James Stuart and Captain

    Power, Sir J. C.

    Storey, S.

    Waterhouse.

    NOES.

    Adams, O. (Consett)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Qulbell, J. D.

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

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Rlley, B.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Ritson, J.

    Batey, J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Robinson, W. A. (St, Helens)

    Bevan, A.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Rowson, G.

    Broad, F. A.

    Holland, A.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Hollins, A.

    Shinwell, E.

    Charteton, H. C.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Compton, J.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Daggar, G.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Dalton, H.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Davidson, J. S. (Maryhill)

    Lawson, J. J.

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

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Leach, W

    Taylor, R.J. (Morpeth)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lee, F.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Logan, D. G.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lunn, W.

    Westwood, J.

    Ede, J. C.

    Malnwaring, W. H.

    Whiteley, W.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Marklew, E.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

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

    Mathers, G.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Frankel, D.

    Montague, F.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Garro-Jones, G. M.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercllffe)

    Glbblns, J

    Paling, W.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Potts, J.

    Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

    BOARD OF TRADE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and Subordinate Departments, including certain services arising out of the War."
    10.30 a.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Dr. Burgin): This Supplementary Estimate will be found on page 7 of Command Paper No. 51, with explanatory details on page 8. The original Estimate for the current financial year for the Board of Trade was £239,912, and the revised Estimate is £244,912 net, the additional amount required by way of supplementary grant
    946
    being £5,000. The details fall under five headings, namely "Salaries", "Special Services", "Travelling and Incidental Expenses", "Telegrams and Telephones" and "Law Charges". These details amount to £10,000, but there are savings amounting to £5,000, so that there is a net increase of £5,000. Under salaries we find the cost of the restoration of the remaining half of the cut, accounting for £2,650, and the cost of increased staff, £350. The increased staff has been necessitated chiefly in connection with the increased work in negotiating commercial treaties and payment agreements with foreign countries. Special services, £3,500, are chiefly due to the carrying out of a treaty obligation arising under the Anglo-Argentine Agreement of 1933, under which an inquiry into the structure of

    947
    the meat trade was called for. That inquiry has proved rather more costly than was anticipated, and the £23,500 arises principally from that cause.
    The item for travelling and incidental expenses arises out of the matters discussed on the last Supplementary Estimate, the negotiation of payment agreements with a number of foreign countries. Permanent officials have visited such places as Angora and other capitals, and their expenditure on their travels has accounted for this increase. The next item, "Telegrams and Telephones", arises in this way: It is found that although the greatest care is taken to keep within the bound of economy, the habit of telephoning from these foreign capitals where agreements are being negotiated increases, and there is increased expenditure under that heading. As to law charges, £1,500, they are chiefly due to the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission scheme and in part in connection with inquiries into shipping matters.
    10.34 a.m.
    Mr. SHINWELL: When I first examined these Supplementary Estimates, I formed the impression that the items were not of very substantial importance, but I have found ample cause to change my mind. The statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary reveals that these services were incurred in connection with treaties arranged between this country and foreign countries and with travels abroad by our officials, and more particularly expenditure incurred in connection with schemes promoted by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission. May I direct attention to the paucity of information furnished in the statement now before the Committee No one would have suspected from a reading of these items that Item B 3, relating to law charges, bore any reference whatever to the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission and the promotion of schemes by that body. My first complaint is that within these items much more ample information should have have been provided to enable hon. Members to come to a considered conclusion as to how the money was being spent.
    Dr. BURGIN: Will the hon. Member be good enough to look over the page?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I have looked over the page, and if the hon. Member refers to page 7, I have the greatest difficulty in ascertaining under which item on that page there is a reference to the matters contained under the Item B 3 on page 8. There is certainly no reference on page 7 to the subject of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission. I can only assume, therefore, that the hon. Member, having, like myself, sat continuously throughout the night listening and to some extent participating in the debates, is not in precisely the kind of fettle that is necessary to take t really intelligent interest in our proceedings. I certainly detected, as no doubt; other hon. Members did, earlier in the proceedings, when the hon. Gentleman sat on that bench that he looked very fatigued. He certainly brightened up after a brief absence from the Chamber. What the cause of that brightening up was, I am unable to say, but I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member must feel particularly fatigued as a result of the long wait that has been imposed upon him because of the attitude of his right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.
    However, it is not of much value bandying words across the Floor as to the relative mental merits of hon. Members. What we are concerned with is the information, or absence of information, as regards the Vote now before the Committee. It is the established practice, and the tradition has certainly been confirmed by all sides of the House in our previous proceedings, that we have a right to examine with meticulous care the expenditure of public money. That being admitted, there follows the further consideration that we are entitled to know to whom the money is being paid and among how many it is being distributed. Moreover, we are entitled to ascertain whether the money is being wisely used and whether there is any purpose in the spending of these sums. Referring again to Item B 3, I cannot discuss, I understand, the policy of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, but I am entitled to discuss the failures of this body.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid not on this occasion. The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that there is a separate Vote

    949
    for the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, namely, Class 6, Vote 6, Subhead I, and it is a long standing rule of Committee of Supply that where there is a separate Vote, matters concerning that Vote must be raised on it.
    Mr. SHINWELL: With great respect, in a previous Debate I ventured, upon a statement made by yourself, Captain Bourne, to ask a question of order. You said, and I think it applied to the Minister of Labour, that he was expected to state the reasons why money should be expended, and I submit for your consideration that if the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to give reasons why sums of money should be expended, we should not be deprived of the right of suggesting that the money ought not to have been spent. I understood that you replied in the affirmative.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member quite appreciates my Ruling on this occasion. The reason why we cannot raise the operations of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission is that there is a separate Vote for that Commission on another Estimate, which is not now before the Committee, and it is a long standing rule of Committee of Supply that where there is a separate Vote, matters concerning it must be discussed on that Vote.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I submit that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary himself informed us that these law charges related to expenditure incurred in connection with schemes promoted by a particular Commission under the technical control of his Department. The Mines Department, as we know, is closely associated with the Board of Trade. Surely, if the hon. Gentleman comes here and says, "I am proposing to spend money on legal expenses in connection with the promotion of schemes by a particular Commission," we are entitled to query whether it was wise to spend money on those schemes.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that on this occasion that is not the case. The hon. Member must confine his remarks under this Item solely to the law charges.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am content to confine myself to the law charges and to ask whether the charges incurred in connection with schemes promoted by the
    950
    Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission are excessive. Are the legal charges consistent with the needs of the Commission? Was it worth spending any money at all on legal charges having regard to the results? With regard to the item for "travelling expenses, I gather from the hon. Gentleman that they were mainly incurred in connection with visits of officials abroad. I am not clear whether we can discuss the purport of those visits. It ought to be permissible, because if we incur expense by sending officials abroad, we are entitled to ask what they were doing when they went abroad. Were they working in connection with the large range of treaties for which the Government are responsible? What was the nature of the treaties which these gentlemen arranged, and is it intended to revise or denounce any of the treaties? It does not appear to me that we can within the rules of Order discuss the effect of these treaties. An item which gave me considerable concern was "Anticipated savings on Clearing Office for Enemy Debts—rents, legal and incidental expenses." I should like to ask why, 17 years after the great War came to and end—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must raise that question on the main Estimate.
    Mr. SHINWELL: On that, I must raise one or two submissions for your consideration. Upon what are the savings likely to accrue? The answer is supplied in the item. Is it not, therefore, a travesty of the proceedings of the Committee that we are not entitled to ask what it is all about?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct in stating that. If he will look at the main Estimate, he will observe the savings under Sub-head G 2.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am content to confine myself to the limited field you provide for me. Why is it that so many years after the War, when presumably the arrangements for clearing enemy debts should have come to an end, we have an item relating to rents, legal and incidental expenses? What concerns me more than anything is the possibility that some of this expenditure might relate to the liquidation of reparation shipping.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into that question now. The hon. Gentleman must raise that on the main Board of Trade Estimate. All the hon. Gentleman can be concerned with now is why the Government are making this saving.
    Mr. SHINWELL: That is exactly what we want to know. I am afraid that I wrapped up my question in involved language, but now that you have assisted me, I will put the question in that categorical form. I am not sure whether I would be in order in offering a few considerations, but I prefer not to do so, having spoken at such length and having asked so many questions. I have no doubt other hon. Members will have further questions to ask. I content myself with what I have said in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will be courteous enough to respond. I hope he will not be under the impression, as other hon. Members on that bench have been, that we are merely asking questions in a flippant fashion and with no sense of gravity, but that he will take the assurance from me that we are asking these questions within our rights as Members of the Committee in the hope that further information can be furnished.
    10.54 a.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I have some diffidence in rising to take part in the Debate, because I have enjoyed a good night's sleep, and that fact may make it a little difficult for me to keep within the strict Ruling that has been given in the discussion of these Estimates. I should like to offer my respectful sympathy to yourself, Captain Bourne, and the Chairman and the officials at having been kept up in this brutal manner by the Government. I think that if they had no mercy on the Opposition, they might have had some mercy on you and the Chairman and the officials. I was amused when Ministers indirectly complained that the Opposition were asking for a good deal of information. During the short period I was at the Office of Works it was my unhappy fate to stand at the Box with Supplementary Estimates, and I was expected to defend almost every portion of my administration—whether the Serpentine was dirty, whether it was safe to bathe in it, whether anyone was getting fevers or other serious illness through bathing in it, and the conditions of baths that never came under my control.
    952
    All these questions came up for discussion, and I congratulate the Ministers of to-day that they are not subjected to the torments through which I had to go on those occasions. I had to know all about the bird sanctuary and whether the cats got in, and whether I took proper precautions to deal with the grey squirrel. There may be some other kind of squirrel, but I am not sure. I had to deal with the Estimates in an extensive manner. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary cheers that statement. I wish he had learned the lesson and had given us fuller explanations of the Votes that are before us. I notice that salaries are up by £3,000. Nobody grudges the Ministers and the official:. getting the cuts restored. They ought never to have been made, for I have always considered that that supposed necessity was all "guff," and that the crisis was nothing to do with our expenditure, but all had to do with the City of London.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that five hours ago his colleagues were explaining that there was not a crisis?
    Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Gentleman has been here all night, and his question is excusable. He did not understand what I said. All I said was that the crisis had nothing to do with us but with the City of London, as everybody now knows and admits. Nobody outside a mental asylum now says it was a, national crisis in the ordinary sense of the word. We congratulate the Government on restoring the cuts. I refer hon. Members to the item on page 8 for "Increased staff and overtime modified by savings due to changes in personnel." That sounds all right, but v hat does it mean What is the increase in the staff? It cannot be much for Have some office boys been appointed? Then, surely, in these days of unemployment a Government Department ought not to ask anybody to work overtime. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) probably k rows all about it, because he has been working overtime, but he will not get any extra pay for it. I wish the Minister to tell us what is the increased staff for, what is the number, what sort of persons have been appointed, and also how much of the £350 is due 'to overtime?

    953
    There is also an item for "special services" and excess due to unexpected increase in the amount of travelling and other expenses in connection with special inquiries and committees. I admit that the Minister gave us a little information on that subject, but not much. This is a sum of £3,500, and the Committee are entitled to know what the special services were and what has been the result of them. Have we got any value for this expenditure? Are we able to set against it some national gain, something which has accrued to the country's benefit? Then I find an item headed "Travelling and incidental expenses." When I get a lawyer's bill, which is not often, or a doctor's bill, I sometimes find an item for "incidentals" which seems relatively larger than the main expense. What are the incidentals in this case? Do they relate to hotel, motor car, or entertainment charges?
    We ought also to know more about the "trade and payment" negotiations which are referred to under this head. Is that in connection with debts to British nationals in the Argentine and Brazil, about which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are continually asking questions? That is part of the international problem. Is there any Estimate in connection with these negotiations as to how these foreign nations are to be able to pay their debts? If this money has been spent on negotiations, we ought to be told what success has attended the efforts of the negotiators. In my judgment this is one of the most important questions, if not an overwhelmingly important question, in connection with international relations. What are we going to do about the debts which nations are unable to pay and as a result of which they are unable to trade in the ordinary way? We learn that in some countries coffee has been burnt in great quantities, while, in others, wheat and meat are not permitted to come on to the market at all, although millions of people need those commodities. The cause of this can be traced back to the system of usury that has grown up in the world. It is of importance to know what success has attended those who have been sent abroad to negotiate on these matters.
    As regards the amount for telephones and telegrams, the Minister told us that
    954
    abroad, people were more accustomed to use the telephone now than formerly. But I think when we have an increased expenditure of £1,000 on this head we ought to have a little more information than that casual reference. It may have become the custom, but it does not follow that we should in all circumstances consider it a good custom or consider that it was necessary. When we remember the sort of economics which are inflicted on the very poor in the name of national wellbeing, we are entitled to ask whether this luxury of telephoning from foreign capitals is necessary or justifiable. On the question of legal charges, we have had nothing but the casual remark that they are concerned with the coal business, though I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to mean that the whole £1,500 is in connection with the Coal Commission. The Minister ought to have told us at the beginning—
    Dr. BURGIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me, or perhaps it is my own fault that I did not make it clear, but I said that in addition to the coal reorganisation scheme, the legal charges also related to work connected with the mercantile marine.
    Mr. LANSBURY: If the hon. Gentleman says he said so, I accept his statement. Perhaps I had not been thoroughly awakened when he was speaking and was not as alert as I ought to have been. But we ought to be told what the money was expended on, why it was expended, and with what results I wish also to ask about the item on page 7 concerning the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts. That has been a long-drawn-out business. How much longer is it to appear on our Estimates? [HON. MEMBERS: "Until it is finished."] Then it is somebody's business to finish it. I thought that this business of collection and distribution would have been brought to an end long ago. We should also know whether any of the incidental and legal expenses come under this heading of "Savings".
    Speaking generally on the Estimate, I would say that the Government seem to have got into the habit of flinging those Estimates at us with very little printed information, and the Minister who submits them does not give us much additional information. I suggest, respectfully, that if they want to get their

    955
    Estimates through, they ought to print more information on the Paper. Finally, may I say that I think it a scandal that while I have been sleeping, you, Sir Dennis, have been slaving here '? As you were not in the Chair when I first rose, I wish now, personally, to offer you my sincere sympathy and to express my indignation that those who manage the "usual channels" should have slipped up as they have done on this occasion. It is disgraceful that a brutal majority should treat the House and especially you and the officials in this manner.
    11.15 a.m.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I should like to express my sympathy with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary over the fact that he has had to spend 11 hours waiting for his Votes to come on, but the responsibility for that must not be placed on the shoulders of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and he will have to look to his own colleagues and place the responsibility there. Some of us on this side are anxious for a little more information than we find in the Estimates. The right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has covered most of the territory, but perhaps I can fill in one or two gaps. First, there is the question of overtime. Members on this side have strong feelings about overtime, especially as we are just finishing a period of some 10 hours' overtime, and we should like to know how much overtime has been worked by officials in the Department, and how many hours each day and each week. We are anxious to safeguard the interests of the workers in the Department, and to enable us to do that it is essential that we should be informed about the hours of overtime.
    Passing to item A2, we should like a little more information about these "special inquiries and Committees" In the Parliament of 1929 hon. Members who then sat on this side of the House constantly criticised the Labour Government for appointing too many Committees. I should like to know what these special inquiries were about, and how long they took. According to item A3 additional expenditure which was "unexpected" has been incurred. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us in what sense it was unexpected. What was the nature of the surprise. I understand he has given some information about the
    956
    missions to foreign capitals, but I do not think it was sufficient. We should like to know to which foreign capitals missions were sent, how many were sent, how long they were away, and what was the result. Then we come to "payments negotiations." They seem a different species of negotiations from trade: negotiations, and we should like some information about them.
    I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has at last arrived. I am not sure whether he looks as refreshed as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, but he is making a brave effort. According to item A4, the expenditure on telegrams and telephones has increased. There seems to have been a great many surprises in the Board of Trade, and we should like to know why this expenditure proved greater than had been anticipated. Seeing that the Board of Trade have been making fuller use of the telephone, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should convey hi; views as to the utility of the telephone to some of the other Government Departments and to the Prime Minister himself, because then we may avoid some of the difficulties experienced in the past.
    Finally, there is the item of "Law Charges."; The Parliamentary Secretary belongs to the legal profession, as I do myself; we both have strong interests in this matter. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley, I should like a little more information about the expenditure on law charges. I understand that part of it was occasioned by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, and I should like to know how much, whether counsel were employed and, if so, what they received in emoluments.
    11.23 a.m.
    Dr. BURGIN: I hope the Committee will feel that in following the usual practice of opening this Supplementary Estimate rather shortly and then submitting myself to questions. I was consulting their convenience. I not want the Committee to think there was any discourtesy on my part. I felt it was better to go over the field fairly generally and then invite questions, and my invitation has certainly been accepted whole-heartedly. I am always an admirer of the consistency of hon. Members opposite,

    957
    and I admire particularly their consistency in asking for the fullest and minutest particulars on every point and then complaining of overtime. A whole special staff has to be kept in order to deal with the possibility of questions from hon. and right hon. Members.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Could not a larger staff be kept, to save overtime?
    Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member is evidently not very familiar with either the work which the Board of Trade have to do or with the nature of the staff required. I think the Committee will feel that in an economic age, for the Board of Trade to come before them with a Supplementary Estimate for merely £5,000 ought to occasion no surprise at all. The surprise should be that the sum is so small. It must have been obvious at Question time, from the enormous increase of work that has fallen on the Department, that there would be increased expenditure, and as I go through the items raised and endeavour to answer conscientiously, fully, and completely the questions which have been put to me we shall find that the increased expenses arise out of the type of subject-matter so frequently discussed at Question time. Take, for instance, the visits to foreign capitals in connection with trade agreements and debt recovery agreements. How can anybody, in making an Estimate for 12 months ahead, know what financial crises will occur in any particular countries, know with exactitude where there is going to be trouble and where it may be necessary to send a mission It has been necessary, in the interests of British traders, to send abroad British missions to endeavour to recover trade debts to British exporters for goods which they have sent abroad and for which they have been unable to secure payment. That refers to Turkey, Spain, Rumania, and other countries with which agreements have recently been concluded in the interests of British trade.
    The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), who put his points with great detail but with great precision, asked me substantially three questions—about law charges, travelling expenses, and about savings under the Clearing Office. The law charges are an additional provision required for increased expenditure incurred by the Solicitor to the Board
    958
    of Trade. What has the Solicitor to the Board of Trade been concerned with that has been of an abnormal character? Two things—the presentation of coal reorganisation schemes, in particular the West Yorkshire scheme, and the presentation of that scheme to the Railway and Canal Commission
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the case that since the middle of July the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission has suspended its investigations—I do not say suspended all its activities, but suspended its investigations into the possibility of amalgamations—and, therefore, how was it possible to incur greater expenditure?
    Dr. BURGIN: I have not said anything about incurring more expenditure during that period alone, but that the Estimate in respect of the submission of coal mines reorganisation schemes to the Railway and Canal Commission has been exceeded, largely by reason of the West Yorkshire scheme and its submission to the Railway and Canal Commission. Many hon. Members will recall what happened to that scheme and the expensive character of the proceedings before the Commission. There were also heavy charges incurred by the Solicitor to the Board of Trade in connection with inquiries into a large number of shipping casualties of an unusual and exceptional character, with which hon. Members will be familiar. As to travelling and incidental expenses, I do not know into what details the hon. Member for Seaham desires me to go.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to go into minute details about every journey undertaken by members of his staff, but that he should let us have some conception of the general character of their activities.
    Dr. BURGIN: I am much obliged; that will facilitate my task. I am anxious to give the hon. Gentleman the information in whatever detail he likes, but I want to consult the convenience of the Committee as to its form. Wherever the position becomes intolerable for British exporting interests, and it becomes impossible to continue trade with a particular country because the British exporter cannot receive payment, it has become the practice to send a mission, in conjunction with the Treasury, to the

    959
    capital concerned, in order to endeavour to negotiate an arrangement under which some recovery of debts already accrued and due may be made possible, and provision may be made for continuing a current exchange of goods. Recently an unusually large number of such missions has been found to be necessary. I cite Turkey—the visit to Angora; Spain—the visit to Madrid; and a visit to Budapest, by way of examples. These were all visits to the capitals of countries with which trading conditions have become difficult because of exchange restrictions or other credit barriers, and the amount required under this heading is for the purpose of meeting additional expenditure on such missions in connection with these trade and payment negotiations. The agreements have resulted in advantage to our traders, and the expenditure on procuring them is entirely justified and, in the opinion of my Department, very much to the advantage of British trade.
    Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir Dennis, whether it will be in order for me to ask the Minister to explain a little more fully what is the advantage that has accrued from each of these agreements?
    The CHAIRMAN: From each particular agreement?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Yes.
    The CHAIRMAN: That will be in order.
    Dr. BURGIN: I think the right hon. Gentleman was not in the Committee when we were discussing the previous Supplementary Estimate, which related to the Treasury and on which expenditure in connection with these agreements was part of the matter under discussion. My hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary gave a number of details of agreements, particularly with Spain, Turkey and Rumania, showing the advantages that had accrued. I have, of course, no difficulty whatever in again giving to the Committee, for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman, the same information. The agreements, of course, are never twice alike; there are different problems with each country. Take, for instance, one of the very recent agreements, that with Spain, which has been
    960
    in force since January of this year. There was a very large amount due by Spanish traders to British traders; there was inability to recover the money; and there was an agreement whereby purchases of Spanish imports are paid for in sterling to a special account, so that our own exporters may receive payment in that way. That is only an example and I leave it there as an example, but, no matter which country the right hon. Gentleman takes, I shall be able to show an equivalent advantage to British trading interests.
    The hon. Member for Seaham asked one other question. B e asked about the Enemy Debts Clearing Office, and he was followed by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). Let there be no mystery about this Clearing Office. It is presided over by a very valuable servant of the Board of Trade, whom I should dearly like to have detached from these duties for the sake of the more general assistance that he could give to the Board. Hon. Members will realise that, under the Treaties of Peace, there has been an immense amount of work to be done in connection with enemy debts. Naturally it is a diminishing task. This saving of £1,800, is, as to £400, in connection with the giving up of the big offices in Cornwall House, which were the headquarters of the Enemy Debts Office. Those offices are being gradually given up because the work is gradually diminishing. By far the larger part of the saving is due to the fact that the work of the office has so far decreased that the expenditure on legal charges in connection with its administration has fallen by £1,400. The right hon. Gentleman asked when this work will come to an end. There is a certain amount of litigation still outstanding, and, until it is cleared up, there cannot be absolute finality, but the work of the office is decreasing annually, and every desire is shared by the Department to bring that section of its operations to a speedy conclusion.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I was anxious to ascertain when the Enemy Debts Clearing Office would be fully liquidated. I take it that that is the intention of the Department?
    Dr. BURGIN: Certainly.
    Mr. SHINWELL: So far, so good, but I would also like to know whether there is in this connection any appropriation-in-aid. I assume that certain tasks are undertaken on behalf of contracting parties, and I should like to know whether those parties, or any of them, make a contribution to the expense.
    Dr. BURGIN: It is impossible to name a date when the operations of the Office are likely to close completely. The problem of the Stateless persons, whose nationality itself is a matter of dispute, has given rise to a large number of cases, some of which are not yet concluded, and there are still considerable assets under the control of this Department, as custodian, which remain to be liquidated and distributed, but in respect of which there are still questions of principle to be decided. The right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley went religiously through every heading of the Estimate. He is clearly within his rights in so doing, and no one enjoys responding to these questions more than I do. With regard to increased staff and overtime, about which the right hon. Gentleman asked, these expert negotiations with foreign countries cannot be carried on without an increased staff. The sum of £350 in the Estimate is a balancing item as between an increase in expenditure and some savings. The figure of £350 is not particularly allocated to a certain number at so much each; it is a net figure arrived at after giving credit, and it represents —
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask what the exact sum is, before taking the credit into account
    Dr. BURGIN: We are dealing with a Supplementary Estimate in which there is an item of £350 for increased staff and overtime, as modified by savings due to changes in personnel. We are dealing, therefore, with a subtraction of a lesser figure from a greater, and all I am saying is that the right hon. Gentleman would be wrong if he thought that the £350 represented the payments made to a given number of additional staff. It is nothing of the kind; it is a lump figure obtained by taking the whole of the payments to the staff and deducting therefrom savings that we have made as a result of changes in personnel, the net figure being £350.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I know; but what I really want to know is, what is the original total figure, and how much has been deducted for savings, reducing it to £l350? I cannot find that out.
    Dr. BURGIN: I am not sure that I can either. The increase of staff has been necessitated, as I endeavoured to convey in my opening observations, in connection with the increased work of the Commercial Relations and Treaties Department in the negotiation of the commercial treaties and trade agreements to which I have referred. One of the difficulties in negotiating more than a certain number of trade agreements at a time is that there are comparatively few highly qualified people who can be put in charge of such negotiations. The difficulty arises from the necessity of employing a highly trained and highly knowledgeable staff, whose services are required for each of these trade agreements and whom it is very difficult to duplicate. That is the reason why there must be an element of overtime. I share with hon. Members opposite the belief that it is wrong, when the labour market is overcharged with labour, unnecessarily to resort to overtime. It is not the practice in the Board of Trade to use overtime where it can be avoided, but there are difficulties with highly trained staffs of that kind, with great pressure of work, and as the difference between the Supplementary and original Estimate is only £350—
    Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Gentleman does not quite meet my point. There is so much saving. Part of that has been spent on overtime and increased staff. I want to know what that figure is so as to add it to the £350 and know what has been spent.
    Dr. BURGIN: The right hon. Gentleman shall have the information if it is procurable. I will endeavour to obtain it for him before I sit down. You cannot send more missions to foreign capitals without greater necessity for communication with your home base. It is impossible for anyone who has had anything to do with these missions suddenly to find himself confronted with such queries as the right hon. Gentleman is putting to me without being obliged to telephone to his Department. As long as there is an increasing demand for specialised trade missions to foreign

    963
    capitals, it must be expected that the telephone and telegraph account must show signs of expansion. I mentioned that it was a habit to telephone. The speed with which you are put through to the Board of Trade when you are negotiating with a foreign Government, and by the courtesy of that government have priority over its telephone lines, is a very great attraction to harassed officials who desire information. I am not in the least surprised that the accounts should be increased by £1,000.
    Mr. EDE: If that is so, and there are these special arrangements, why was not the late Foreign Secretary informed before he went abroad to see M. Laval?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am told that the list of figures that the right hon. Gentleman asks me for is in a number of different sections of the Board of Trade, and the total is difficult to put together. I can only ask his indulgence to be allowed to supply the information to him in writing, which I shall have much pleasure in doing. There is a saving here, with the addition of personnel, and the difference between the two is a relatively small amount.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not possible to put the figures, not in a letter to me, but in the OFFICIAL REPORT? I want to know what is the extra amount that has been spent. We have £350, but there is a sum to be added to that out of savings, and that is the only figure that I want—the total figure that is made up by savings. My experience, in the relatively small office that I held, of the information that I was called upon to give about very tiny details makes me feel that this figure, which is rather important, should be available, because we may want to discuss it.
    Dr. BURGIN: I am most anxious to give the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee the information. The increases in four different sections of the staff amount to a total of £6,500. The savings in three different sections of the staff amount to £6,150. Deducting the savings from the increases, I find a net increase of £350, the figure that appears in the Estimate.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and I should like
    964
    to suggest that that kind of information should be available on the Vote. It has taken a long time and a lot of talking to get this simple information.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £101,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants in and in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and fishery research; and grants, grants in aid, loans, and expenses in respect of improvement of breeding, etc., of live stock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing, fishery development; and sundry other services."
    11.50 a.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): Although I have been straining at the leash to get to this Estimate for the last 15 hours, I will not make any lengthy references to the details. I propose to draw the attention of the Committee to one sub-head in particular, namely, "H1., Diseases of Animals: Grants," since that accounts for more than half of the whole amount. It relates to expenditure in connection with compensation for foot and mouth disease and swine fever: £45,000 in connection with foot and mouth disease and £8,000 for swine fever. I am glad to be able to say that at present the country is free of foot and mouth disease, and this has been achieved by the regulations in force. Investigation and research have been directed towards seeing whether it is possible to immunize the animals against these diseases, but, I will not detain the Committee by referring to these scientific matters. The other items in the list are clearly set out, and if any hon. Member wishes to have further explanations or information on any point, I should be gird to do my best to meet him.
    11.52 a.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I recall that in 1924 when the Labour Government came into office—and perhaps hon. Members

    965
    opposite who are here for the first time will take note of this—one of the first things they had to do was to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate for the destruction of cattle owing to foot and month disease. It was my misfortune at that time to be sitting behind the Minister in charge of the Supplementary Estimate for 10 days listening to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, who were then sitting on these benches, asking the Minister of Agriculture why that colossal waste of national money was taking place. They said that the disease was one which might have been cured many years previously; but the one thing they never said was that the whole of the debt had accrued during the term of office of the Conservative Government. For 10 days without interruption hon. and right hon. Gentlemen demanded information from the Minister of Agriculture of the Labour Government on a question which they themselves had had in hand for very many years. Now, in 1936, we are still passing money to deal with the foot and mouth disease. The diseases department of the Ministry has still not been able to find a remedy for the foot and mouth disease which was troubling the Conservative Government in 1923.
    I think that before the Estimate is passed, the hon. Gentleman might give the Committee some hints concerning the new methods that are being pursued with a view to stamping out this disease, other than the methods which were being used in 1923. We could not by any stretch of the imagination find reasons for voting against this sum of money, and it is only a question of having information as to the methods that are being adopted with a view finally to eradicating this terrible disease.
    With regard to sub-heads J(4) and (5), dealing with land drainage, expenses, and grants, instead of opposing this Vote of money, we would welcome an increase, particularly if that increase were for drainage likely to restore land to cultivation and thus provide employment for agricultural labourers now unemployed. I think the Parliamentary Secretary might have dealt for a few moments with the sub-head concerning agricultural credits. It would appear that under the Agricultural Credits Act of 1923, various sums have been advanced to farmers who have presumably not met their liabilities,
    966
    with the result that the Government are called upon to foot the bill. It is quite in order that this Government or any Government should have to foot the bill for agriculture, but we are at least entitled to know exactly how many pounds are involved and what are the total losses, not only of the Treasury, but of the farmers.
    I do not think it would be out of place if I were to ask that on some occasion, if not now, the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister should be good enough to tell hon. Members what has happened in cases where public money was advanced, either under the Agricultural Credits Act of 1923 or the Agricultural Credits Act of 1928, and the Government was subsequently called upon to foot the bill. Did the landowners on whose land the tenant farmers were operating make any sacrifice comparable to that which was made by the Treasury from time to time? Did the landowners continue to collect their rent, although the farmers were losing money, or did they make a sacrifice comparable to that of the Treasury? I think we are entitled to a little more information on that point. This item is only for the £23,000,000 — [HON. MEMBERS:"£23,000!".] I am so used to hearing the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary ask for three, five, or ten million pounds for agriculture that I may be excused if I make an error on this occasion. I think the Parliamentary Secretary might be good enough to tell the Committee the number of farmers involved and just how patriotic the landowners were when these farmers were not able to meet their liabilities.
    I notice that in the appropriations-in-aid, there is a sum of 47,360 for the Development Fund. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would tell the Committee for what special purpose the Development Fund has spent that money. There are one or two minor items which have been the cause of questions in the House from time to time, one of them being the National Stud. Are we to understand that £7,400 is a fairly reasonable profit from the National Stud? Is this the normal figure obtained from the National Stud, or is it higher or lower than it ought to be? Another item which is very curious is:

    967
    "Receipts from fees charged for applications for licences and permits for bulls, and appeal fees."
    No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us all about that. Now comes an item "Receipts from tithe". Farmers all over the country have been condemning this ancient burden, which they still have to bear, and the Royal Commission, which was set up to investigate the matter, has issued a report. Apparently the Government have made up their minds what to do about it, and we should be glad to have information.
    In no case could we find it in our heart to vote against this Estimate, particularly if the Parliamentary Secretary will give us the kind of information that we require upon the items to which I have referred. I hope that the past 20 hours have not been spent in vain, and that the Parliamentary Secretary has ready replies for every question which I have put to him.
    12.3 p.m.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    This is the fourth time that I have moved such a Motion in the last 12 hours. I shall not adduce reasons, because reasons which I gave before made no impression upon the somewhat sleepy minds of hon. Members opposite, but I will content myself with asking the Parliamentary Secretary how far he proposes to go and whether his supporters on those Benches have learned their lesson.
    12.4 p.m.
    Captain MARGESSON rose—
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
    Captain MARGESSON: I can perceive that the whole Committee are aware that I have risen this time to say a few words of a more pleasing character. The "usual channels" have flowed more peacefully. I am glad to say that an agreement has now been reached whereby the Government will move, "That this House at its rising this day, do adjourn until Monday next", after we have obtained Class VII, Vote 8, "Public Buildings Overseas." The Government, therefore, in pursuance of that agreement, do not propose to take the Commencement
    968
    stage of the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Bill, nor the Second Reading of the Unemployment (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill, but we would like to take the formal Second Reading on the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill.
    Although, as is very often the case during an all night sitting, there are moments of tension, as is usual, when the House of Commons closes an all-night sitting, we realise that things are said in the heat of the moment, and the sitting closes in an atmosphere of good will.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    12.6 p.m.
    Mr. MARKLEW: After the experience of the last 24 hours I do not propose to detain the Committee for very long, but I have a, special interest in an aspect of this Vote upon which the hon. Gentleman who has preceded me did not touch. Most of the Vote includes agricultural education and research, but there is mention in the title of fishery research and development. I have looked through the whole of the detailed statement connected with the Vote, but nowhere do I find any reference to fisheries or fishery research.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is new to our deliberations. Perhaps he does not realise that when a Supplementary Estimate is presented, the title of the main Estimate is always set out in full. That does not mean that the items covered in the title of the main Estimate necessarily arise on the Supplementary Estimate and in this, ease there is no grant in respect of fishery expenditure. The hon. Member's point does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. MARKLEW: It may, in that case, be raised in the discussion of the full Estimate?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Most certainly.
    12.9 p.m.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Almost at the end of a perfect day may I put a very simple question about the item "Diseases of Animals… foot and mouth disease,

    969
    etc"? I understand that the Department have had great difficulty in coming to an agreement with the Governments of Northern Ireland and of the Irish Free state on the question of orders to be issued in connection with the treatment of the warble fly maggot. I wondered whether the "etc." covers that particular, in view of the fact that the stand maggot is creating difficulties and some apprehension among the cattle-rearing section of the agricultural industry in Scotland. I understand that it is impossible for the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to issue an Order dealing with the disease unless that is preceded by an Order relating to England.
    12.10 p.m.
    Captain W. T. SHAW: In regard to swine fever, what notification is given when the disease occurs? Is it given in the immediate area in which the outbreak has taken place, or, say, for five miles around, so as to enable people to prevent the spread of the fever?
    12.11 p.m.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I would answer the last question at once. From what I know—but I will verify this—notices are put up in a wide area. I have seen them myself, and I am sure that hon. Members will have done so also. On the exact radius, I could not give a definite answer. As to the warble fly, the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) knows that discussions have recently taken place and that by means of an Order for compulsory dressings there will be combined action in this country among farmers for the eradication of this pest. I freely admit I am riot conversant with the actual application to Northern Ireland and Scotland, but I will look into that aspect of the matter and do what I can. In reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), he made me slightly nervous when he spoke of testing me on the manner in which I have spent my time during the last 15 hours. Such an examination is one which I would sooner have faced a few hours ago, but I will do my best to deal with the points which he raised. I would first- pay a tribute to the work which he and his colleagues did in the reduction of foot-and-mouth disease. I thank him for not visiting upon me the sins of my predecessors in 1924.
    970
    In regard to the question of loans under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, up to July, 1928, the closing date, the sum of £4,766,119 had been advanced in England and Wales. There have been 1,214 loans, made for a period of 60 years and up to 75 per cent. of the value of the property. I did not understand his reference to the landlord's position. As I understand it, the loans were made in pursuance of the Agricultural Credits Act by the Public Works Loan Board, and were advanced on recognised mortgages to persons who purchased land. The Public Works Loan Board, are the mortgagees, and I do not see how landlords come into the picture.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the defaulter in each of these cases was a farmer who had purchased his own holding and that the agricultural credits were made for that purpose?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: That is how I read the Act. The advances were made to persons who agreed to purchase the land comprised in the mortgage during the period when the Corn Production Acts were in operation. In regard to the National Stud, my information is that the position is rather more satisfactory than previously owing to better sales due to higher prices for bloodstock. I have not had time to verify my information in regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley on bull licences, but I think it means appeals against refusals to grant a licence. I am very much obliged to hon. Members for the kindly way in which they have treated me after a long and trying Debate.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CIVIL (Excess), 1934.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,249 17s. 8d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good an Excess on the Grant for Public Buildings Overseas for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1935:

    Amount to be Voted.

    Class VII.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Vote 8. Public Buildings Overseas

    1,249

    17

    8 "

    12.15 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I must apologise for having to address the Committee again. During the hours preceding this Vote I gave hon. Members opposite a certain number of good-natured buffets, but I am somewhat at a disadvantage on this occasion. I feel that I am in sackcloth and ashes, because I have to present what is known as an Excess Vote, which is a financial crime, if not of a very high degree, at least of the nature of not having a, light of one's bicycle. As the Committee are aware, an Excess Vote is required if a Department has spent money upon any service during any financial year in excess of the amount granted for that service for that year. The amount for which we are now asking in this Excess Vote really ought to have been granted for the year 1934–35. Parliament is rightly jealous of the principle that all expenditure should be estimated in the financial year, but the impossibility of doing so on this occasion arises from the fact that this sum of money is composed of small items which were spent upon buildings belonging to the Government in various distant corners of the world. Parliament has always insisted that the Public Accounts Committee should examine carefully any Excess Vote before it is presented to the Committee, and that examination has taken place. The Public Accounts Committee are satisfied with the reasons for the excess, and, beyond making a recommendation, which we are following, to try to secure more accurate budgeting even in those remote distances, there is nothing in the report to which I need draw the attention of the Committee. The trouble arises in this small sum from an impossibility which the Treasury find, powerful as it is as a Department, of making foreign architects and contractors see eye to eye with us in our strict time limits for expenditure for the financial year.
    Sir PERCY HURD: Can my hon. and learned Friend give the Committee the reference?
    Mr. MORRISON: Certainly. The number of the White Paper is 56. Perhaps the Committee would like me to give the statement on this Vote. The actual estimate was £57,290, and £60,382 was expended, leaving an excess of £3,092. We are making endeavours to try to
    972
    secure more accurate budgeting, and that this does not happen again. With that explanation of the excess, I ask the Committee to grant the Vote.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Do we understand the Financial Secretary to say that this item has already been before the Public Accounts Committee and that that Committee have made a recommendation to the Treasury, which the Treasury have approved and are to operate?
    Mr. MORRISON: That is so. The Committee say that they see no objection. They report as follows:
    "Your Committee recognise the difficulty of estimating accurately for a large number of minor operations conducted in places scattered through the whole world. As in this instance, however, a Supplementary Estimate for the year ended 31st March, 1935, had been taken in February, 1935, your Committee felt bound to satisfy themselves that the system of financial control was as efficient as possible.
    They were informed that modifications had recently been introduced with a view to enabling the Office of Works in London to obtain earlier information whenever expenditure at any point seemed likely to exceed in the aggregate a prescribed figure.
    In view of these facts your Committee see no objection to the sum set out above being provided by an Excess Vote."
    These are the material parts of the report.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Monday next"—[Captain Margesson..]
    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
    Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next.

    ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1935, and the Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Act, 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, to increase the capital

    973
    and borrowing powers of the Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Company, which was presented on the 6th day of February, 1936, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1935, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the borough of Torquay, and part of the rural district of Newton Abbot, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 11th day of February, 1936, be approved."—[Captain.A. Hudson.]

    VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (PAYINGPATIENTS) BILL. [Lords.]
    Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, until Monday next, 2nd March, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.
    Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock noon on Friday, 28th February.

PUBLIC HEALTH.
  LEGISLATION.
  LEGISLATION.
  TUBERCULOSIS, WALES.
  TUBERCULOSIS, WALES.
  NUTRITION (LEAGUE OF NATIONS INQUIRY).
  NUTRITION (LEAGUE OF NATIONS INQUIRY).
  CONTRIBUTORY AND OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY AND OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  GLAMORGAN (LAND PURCHASES).
  GLAMORGAN (LAND PURCHASES).
ROYAL NAVY.
  SABOTAGE.
  SABOTAGE.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACTS.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACTS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  TRANSFERRED WORKERS.
  TRANSFERRED WORKERS.
  NEATH RIVER (DRAINAGE WORK).
  NEATH RIVER (DRAINAGE WORK).
  JUVENILES (TRAINING).
  JUVENILES (TRAINING).
  GLAMORGAN AND MONMOUTHSHIRE,
  GLAMORGAN AND MONMOUTHSHIRE,
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE CONFERENCE.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE CONFERENCE.
  HOUSING LOANS.
  HOUSING LOANS.
  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  FRANCE (BRITISH COAL IMPORTS).
  FRANCE (BRITISH COAL IMPORTS).
  POTATOES AND GREEN VEGETABLES (IMPORT DUTIES).
  POTATOES AND GREEN VEGETABLES (IMPORT DUTIES).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND TURKEY.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND TURKEY.
  CENSUS OF DISTRIBUTION.
  CENSUS OF DISTRIBUTION.
SCOTLAND.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (CROFTERS).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (CROFTERS).
  CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM, PERTH.
  CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM, PERTH.
  BLIND PERSONS (RELIEF).
  BLIND PERSONS (RELIEF).
  SCHOOLS CURRICULUM.
  SCHOOLS CURRICULUM.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  OUTPUT, SOUTH WALES.
  OUTPUT, SOUTH WALES.
  PETROL PRODUCTION.
  PETROL PRODUCTION.
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
EDUCATION.
  UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS.
  UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS.
  PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
  PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  EGYPT GARRISON (HORSES).
  EGYPT GARRISON (HORSES).
  KING'S REGULATIONS (MOUSTACHES).
  KING'S REGULATIONS (MOUSTACHES).
  WAR OFFICE EMPLOYES (WAGES).
  WAR OFFICE EMPLOYES (WAGES).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  ACCIDENTS.
  ACCIDENTS.
  ATTACKS ON NAVAL UNITS.
  ATTACKS ON NAVAL UNITS.
  WOMEN MAGISTRATES.
  WOMEN MAGISTRATES.
  LICENSING STATISTICS.
  LICENSING STATISTICS.
  CORONERS' COURTS.
  CORONERS' COURTS.
  ALIENS (PASSPORTS).
  ALIENS (PASSPORTS).
AGRICULTURE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  SUGAR-BEET COMPANIES.
  SUGAR-BEET COMPANIES.
  BARLEY IMPORTS.
  BARLEY IMPORTS.
  ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  ORDNANCE SURVEY.
TRANSPORT.
  SPEED LIMIT.
  SPEED LIMIT.
  QUEENSFERRY.
  QUEENSFERRY.
  UNIFICATION, SCOTLAND.
  UNIFICATION, SCOTLAND.
  STREET ACCIDENTS, STOKE-ON-TRENT.
  STREET ACCIDENTS, STOKE-ON-TRENT.
  FORTH ROAD BRIDGE.
  FORTH ROAD BRIDGE.
  CONGESTED TRAFFIC, LONDON (SUBWAYS).
  CONGESTED TRAFFIC, LONDON (SUBWAYS).
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, BRADFORD.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, BRADFORD.
  TANGANYIKA (FLOGGING OF NATIVE).
  TANGANYIKA (FLOGGING OF NATIVE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LEICESTERSHIRE AND WARWICKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER ORDER, 1936.

  TORQUAY ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1936.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEFENCE SERVICES.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY rose to call attention to the organisation in the Government for the direction of the Defence Services; and to move for Papers. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I make no apologies to your Lordships for bringing this subject under your special notice, because it is indeed, as we shall all admit, of great importance—the proper machinery for the control and management of our Defence Services, not merely at the particular moment at which I am speaking, which may perhaps be called a crisis, but always, as a permanent arrangement. And there is no assembly in the world where the subject could be more properly discussed than your Lordships' House. I think I am correct in saying that, besides my noble friends on the Front Bench who are at present managing the Defence Services, there are at least five ex-Ministers who have had similar control, and there are, besides that, four noble and gallant Lords who have been members of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and who know from inside how that organisation works. Therefore there is a wealth of talent in your Lordships' House which ought to be placed, as I venture to think, at the disposal of Parliament and the
808
country when we are engaged upon settling this very important matter.
I am not going to waste your Lordships' time in discussing the merits of what is called a Minister of Defence, if for no other reason than because it appears to be universally agreed now that a Minister of Defence, in the sense of a Minister over the amalgamated Services of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, is a wholly impracticable proposition. Therefore I turn, as you would naturally expect me to do, to discuss what is the existing system, and what are the defects in the existing system, of the management and control of our Defence Services and our defence arrangements. The Committee of Imperial Defence as it exists to-day was established, as your Lordships are well aware, a very long time ago, before the War, under the inspiration mostly of the late Lord Balfour. It was, of course, suspended during the War, but was resumed afterwards and was then the subject of the most careful scrutiny by a Committee, which was a Committee of the Imperial Defence Committee itself, which sat in 1924. They were presented with this organisation as it then existed. It was in many respects admirably equipped for its purpose. It was all-embracing in the sense that it had the capacity of bringing to its assistance all the relevant Departments of the State, and indeed organisations outside the actual Government of the country, and was so organised that it was elastic.
If it was in any respect deficient in information, then under its organisation it could include all that was required, because the system was this. There was no member who was absolutely ex-officio a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence except the Prime Minister. He was the only absolutely fixed point. By his direction other heads of Departments were called into counsel, and with them certain technical experts, military, naval, air, and Treasury experts, all of whom were gathered together in this one Committee. Indeed, the elasticity went so far that on those great occasions when we were visited in this country by our Dominion Ministers, and subjects were under discussion in the Committee of Imperial Defence which were of importance to the Dominions, the Dominion Ministers were summoned to the Committee so that they might throw their

809
information and their experience into the common pool and so that the best information and expert opinion might be available. As I say, you could not have, so far, a better system. The remarkable thing is that, good though that system was, when we come to the year in which we speak it is found that it has not been altogether a success.
I dare say your Lordships will remember that we had a debate in this House in the present month, a few days ago merely, on February 11, in which the condition of our defences and of our Defence Forces was scrutinised by your Lordships' House. Notably a speech was made by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Strabolgi, in which he stated very moderately and temperately, but very conclusively, what the failure had been to have our Defence Forces in proper condition at the proper time. I am not going to repeat what the noble Lord said. I should not say it nearly so well as he did, but I may summarise it by saying that he found, from the information which he had received and laid before your Lordships, that the Army was ill-equipped, that the ships were obsolete, and that aircraft were deficient. That is a formidable result after all these years. I think the country and Parliament are well advised in looking closely into the machinery which was responsible for that result at the present moment.
Why was it that this wonderful organisation which I have ventured to sketch to your Lordships, with its all-embracing scope, with its wealth of information and expert advice, failed to produce anything better than what was described by the noble Lord opposite on February 11? We all waited with great anxiety to hear the reply of the Government in the person of my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, and he did reply very candidly. He did not admit that the Committee had been negligent. On the contrary, he gave some astounding figures of the number of times that the Committee of Imperial Defence had met, and other organisations of the Government, Cabinet Committees, the Cabinet itself when the question of defence had been the principal subject on the agenda, and so on. He ran into figures which I hardly dare repeat, they were so large. I only say that in order to show that the matter
810
had not been neglected and yet the thing had failed; yet this result had come that the noble Lord opposite was able to say, uncontradicted, that the Army was ill-equipped, the ships were obsolete, and the aircraft were deficient. That is a very formidable thing.
LORD STRABOLGI: The indictment was much heavier, because I did not quote myself at all. I quoted a member of your Lordships' House on the Army, Lord Allenby. I was only quoting from Lord Allenby's written statement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was quite aware that the noble Lord had said so. I knew he had great authorities to back him. I said "on information he had received," but I am obliged to the noble Lord. I was saying that the First Lord of the Admiralty did not deny this. I do riot want to lay too much weight upon that. He perhaps was reserving himself for another day to deal with the detail, but he did not deny it. He did use these very remarkable words:
"I think it will probably be the opinion of this House as a whole that we have delayed too long."
That is truth, my Lords. I need not say my noble friend speaks the truth; we have delayed too long. That is a formidable conclusion, because great countries with great responsibilities must not delay too long. Too long sometimes means too late. Your Lordships will feel the anxiety with which all of us must have watched the development of this question in recent months, and must perhaps have hoped that the First Lord of the Admiralty would be able to deny what the noble Lord opposite had said, but he himself said to us, "We have delayed too long."
I think I know how that "too long" arose. Your Lordships are aware that after the conclusion of the Great War those who were responsible had to consider what was the most urgent object for the country to pursue. They said: "There is no probability whatever of a great war breaking out again within a certain period, and there is great urgency in putting the finances of the country in a sound condition and in restoring the country's economic position." Therefore they concluded—and I think, if I may say so respectfully, rightly concluded—that, having this prospect, at any rate for a considerable period of years, when no

811
great crises would arise, they should devote their attention more to the economic side than to anything else. That was what they did. There was a period of years during which it was expected there would be freedom from war, and it was said that so long as we had that margin within which we might expect a peaceful condition of things—when I say "expect" I mean when we might expect with great confidence a peaceful condition of things—then we could devote ourselves and the resources of the country to this urgent matter of restoring its economic position.
Although a limit had been always contemplated within which this security might be assumed, yet, as time went on, no one seems to have observed that we had passed out of the secure period, and that there was no longer that confidence for the fixed interval on which we might confidently rely during which there would be no foreign complications of a serious kind. So, although two or three years ago at least there ought to have been a complete change of policy, there was not. Nothing was done. I may say with humbleness that I was in a measure responsible for the earlier phase. I was one of the Government upon whose authority and responsibility this was done. But I must say we are all conscious now—I am sure the First Lord of the Admiralty is conscious and that my noble friends here are conscious—that two or three years ago there ought to have been a change. What ought that change to have been? There ought to have been a great increase in our armaments. I admit that. But that is a matter which I do not imagine we are going to discuss in detail this afternoon. What I want to inquire is why this 'mistake was made, why we allowed ourselves to slip from the period of security into a period of comparative risk without, so far as the Government were concerned, noticing it.
Here was the Committee of Imperial Defence whose business it was to take care of this very thing, whose business it was to have regard to the position of the Defence Forces. The Government, of course, had their policy. The Cabinet decided what strategical necessities there might be, and we had the Committee of Imperial Defence which was well equipped to give information and advice. Yet nothing was done. There seems to
812
have been, as it were, a gap between the Government in Downing Street and the Committee of Imperial Defence in Whitehall Gardens, Although the Committee of Imperial Defence had every opportunity and, as I say, every equipment to find out the truth, to emphasise the necessities of the case and make recommendations, it never seems to have got across to the Government in Downing Street. Why was that? What was there that was defective? What was there lacking? What was lacking was this, that the recommendations of the Committee of 1924 were never carried into effect. The Committee of 1924 recommended that there should be a Chairman—an operative Chairman and a real Chairman—of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and after the first few years, as I shall show in a minute, that was never carried out.
May I say a word about this Committee of 1924? I know something about it, because in the Report which it rendered my name is printed first, but I hasten to assure your Lordships that was merely because I occupied the titular place of the Chairman of the Committee. There were many more important members of the Committee than myself. Lord Balfour was himself a member of the Committee, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Lord Curzon, the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Derby, my noble friend Lord Peel, Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Amery and Lord Weir, who, as your Lordships know, is a great authority on these subjects. These were gentlemen in whom most people had great confidence. These were the members of the Committee, and they made these recommendations for the future of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I am going to trouble your Lordships with a few—a very few, I hope—quotations from that Report. The Committee recited what the position of the Committee of Imperial Defence had been up to that time and then stated what was required to make it thoroughly efficient.
I will quote from page 16, paragraph 36, of the Report under sub-paragraph (3). This is what the Report states:
"Under the existing system the Committee of Imperial Defence, an advisory and consultative body, inquires into and makes recommendations in regard to the issues of defence policy and organisation

813
which are brought before it. The power of initiative lies with the Government Departments and with the Prime Minister."
Your Lordships will notice the word "initiative" in that paragraph. That is what the Committee really dwelt upon—that immediate initiative did not lie with the Chairman but with the Prime Minister and the Government Departments. La the next sub-paragraph the Report went on:
"This system, though invaluable up to a point, does not make any authority, except the Prime Minister"—
your Lordships will please watch these words—
"who can only devote a small part of his time and attention to defence questions, directly responsible for the initiation of a consistent line of policy …"
They stated that that was the system. Then the Committee go on to say in sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 36:
"While, therefore, the existing system of Departmental initiative will continue"—
there was no desire to interfere with the ordinary working of the Departments—
"the responsibility for the wider initiative referred to above in paragraph (4) will"—
in future; I put in those two words, as that is the meaning—
"also rest with the Chairman of the Committee of imperial Defence acting under the general direction of the Committee of Imperial Defence and with the assistance of the three Chiefs of Staff."
What is clear is that they found that the initiative has hitherto laid with the Prime Minister and the Departments; that that was wrong; that there was a much more important, wider initiative which also lay with the Committee and notably with its Chairman, and that the Chairman ought to work in close collaboration with the three technical Chiefs of Staff. That is what the Committee said. If your Lordships will allow me to quote one further passage you will see what were to be the functions of this Chairman. The function of the Chairman was, of course to preside over the Committee. He had to act as a liaison officer, if I may use the phrase, between the Committee and the Cabinet. The Report then goes on to say that the functions of the Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence would be:
"Assisted by the three Chiefs of Staff as laid down … above, to keep the defence situation as a whole constantly under review so as to ensure that defence preparations
814
and plans and the expenditure thereupon are co-ordinated and framed to meet policy, that full information as to the changing naval, military and air situation may always be available to the Committee of Imperial Defence and that resolutions as to the requisite action thereupon may be submitted for its consideration."
Those were the functions of the Chairman and your Lordships will observe that every one of those obligations which were thrown upon him meant work, heavy work.
The wider initiative was to lie with the Committee and with him as leading the Committee. He was to be the liaison officer with the Cabinet. He was to co-ordinate all plans of defence in order to carry out the policy of the Cabinet and furnish them with information, and to watch over all the problems so that we should not be caught tripping or caught asleep as I am afraid we have in fact been caught. But that depended upon there being a real Chairman, an operative Chairman. I know something of the work of the Chairman because for four months I was Chairman, and then the Government changed and the Labour Government took office. I must do them the justice to say that they followed our example. They appointed a specific Chairman. But after the Labour Government fell and the Conservative Government returned the Chairmanship was merged in the office of Prime Minister—the Prime Minister who, the Committee had already found, could only devote a small part of his time and attention to defence questions. Depend upon it, my Lords, it was there lay the defect which prevented the proper working of the system of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Instead of having a Minister who was in the office all day and every day, who looked at all the papers as they went through, who had what I may call the imponderable knowledge of the subject which came from constant familiarity with all the papers and all the persons involved and engaged in it; instead of that there was the occasional visit of the Prime Minister when the Committee sat, with perhaps a few words with the Secretary before the Committee began business. That was not the way to do it.
I am quite sore that if we are to restore the efficiency of the Committee of Imperial Defence, if we are to give an

815
opportunity for all this information and expert advice to be laid before the Cabinet, it can only be done by having once more an operative Chairman of the Committee. He will guide the Committee as to what are the wishes of the Cabinet and he will guide the Cabinet as to what is the meaning of the resolutions of the Committee. I want to be quite fair, so may I just say that I quite understand why the Prime Minister undertook the Chairmanship of the Committee, although I venture to think it was quite wrong. It was thought to be so important a post that the Prime Minister ought to undertake it. It was thought that the only way in which the Prime Minister could be, as it were, thoroughly familiar with all the details of defence, which was of vital importance, was that he should be Chairman himself. But it was founded upon a wholly false logic. The only way in which the thing can be done efficiently is to have a man who can devote his whole time to it. There is that tremendous point. And there is a further point. Your Lordships will have observed in what I read just now that the Chairman was to work always assisted by the three Chiefs of Staff. He was to be closely associated with them always.
I shrink from wearying your Lordships by repeating what everybody knows, but the three Chiefs of Staff—that is the military chief of the Army, the naval chief of the Navy and the corresponding chief of the Air Force—meeting together were, as it were, the whole Staff capacity of the country united in one small Committee so that their knowledge, experience and their skill could be pooled and placed at the service of the country. I venture to think that an admirable arrangement. Then the Committee established in 1924, which I myself described, reported that the Chairman should always work in the closest co-operation with the Chiefs of Staff. That was the system. But how could the Prime Minister work with the Chiefs of Staff? He was engaged in thousands of things, in running the whole business of the country. Every day he had to supervise the foreign policy of the country; above all it was his business to know all about and take a prominent part in directing that. He had the patronage of the Crown. He had the very important obligation of personal attendance on the Sovereign. All these
816
things the Prime Minister had to do. To keep in close relationship with the Chiefs of Staff was physically impossible. It could not be done. That was the system which the Committee suggested, and it was that system which I very much regret was not carried out at the time when that Committee reported.
May I just say one further word? The great importance of having a special Minister is this. If he is a man who can be trusted, everything which is of importance in defence is brought under the direct cognisance of the Government. His business it is to think out what ought to be done—not actually what ought to be done in the particular Services, but what ought to be done in the joint Services; what their wider policy ought to be—and to insist upon it in the Cabinet. I do not mean to say that one Minister can insist on having his way, but he can press things upon his colleagues in a way in which no outsider can. And of course, if it were absolutely necessary—though I do not imagine for a moment that it would be necessary—he could press it to the point of resignation; if, for instance, things were allowed to lapse; if things were as slack as I am afraid they would have become if it appeared that the Army was ill-equipped, the ships obsolete or the Air Force deficient. Then the Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence would be the man who would say to his colleagues: "You must do something; I cannot be responsible any longer unless it is done." That is the way in which things are driven through an overworked Cabinet who have other things to think of.
I am quite sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will feel the truth of all I am saying, but it follows—and this brings me to the last point in the observations that I am going to make to your Lordships this afternoon—that this Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence must be a Parliamentary Minister. A permanent official, however skilful and however trusted, is not the man, because he cannot insist. He is a servant, not a master. Indeed, although, as I say, resignation is an ultima ratio, he cannot resign. He can do nothing if his advice is not taken. A permanent official therefore is not the man. Moreover, a permanent official is not responsible to Parliament. If he makes a mistake he cannot be called to account,

817
either in another place or in your Lordships' House. If he is called to account in the sort of indirect, way in which we deal with permanent officials, he cannot defend himself. Suppose you had a Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence who was a permanent official, and he gave wrong advice to the Cabinet and mischief resulted. When the thing came to be discussed in Parliament, are the Government to say: "We followed the advice of this eminent gentleman, and he has let us down"? Of course they would not, say that; they would be obliged to pretend that it was all their fault, according to the convention under which we work our public life. My Lords, it is impossible that a permanent official should be the Chairman of this Committee.
For these reasons I have come to the conclusion—if I may humbly say so, a conclusion not made for the first time now, but made ten years ago when this Committee of 1924 sat—that the Chairman of the Imperial Defence must be a responsible Parliamentary Minister. I hope that that is the conclusion of the Government; I hope it is the conclusion of your Lordships. It is for that reason, and also because of the exigency of the present moment, that I have ventured to trouble your Lordships this afternoon. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, it is some years since I ventured to address your Lordships' House, but I do so to-day in view of toe importance of the subject under discussion, as one who—as the noble Marquess has just said—was one of the servants of the Crown in those days and saw the setting-up of the Committee of the Chiefs of the Staffs from the, inside and not as a Minister. I feel, therefore, that it is almost my duty, who served on the Committee for six and a half years and was Chief of a Staff for twelve years, to place before your Lordships my experience of its working. This seems to be especially appropriate coming from one who was Chief of the Air Staff, because, as I do net think your Lordships will deny, the setting-up of the Salisbury Committee which produced the White paper, which was in 1923, was due to the great development of air power.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Report was in fact rendered in 1924.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: The Committee was set up in 1923.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is right.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: The great development of air power and of a force which knows nothing of land fontiers made the question of co-ordination between the Services a matter of much greater difficulty than it had been before. I hope that at the end of this debate the noble Lord who replies for the Government will be able to say, as was, I think, said the other day in another place, that this debate has been useful. So far as I am concerned I only hope to add, if I can, a little to the solution of a very difficult problem. I am dividing my speech into my experience and what I think should be done in the future. Before I begin to touch on that, I should like also to refer to the debate that took place on February 11 on a Motion by Lord Strabolgi. The noble Viscount who replied for the Admiralty was comparing irresponsible and responsible advice. My memory is not better than that of anybody else, but what I am going to say this afternoon was what I said during the eleven years in which I was Chief of the Air Staff, and responsible. Now, I agree, I am irresponsible, but I hope I have not forgotten.
The noble Lord who replied for the Admiralty said in his speech:
"If we go hack to the Middle Ages we find that at one of the Lateran Councils the cross-bow was solemnly outlawed as a weapon hateful in the sight of God."
I do not want to go anything like as far back as that with regard to the pressure of irresponsible opinion. I do not even want to go back to the days of the controversies of the wooden ship and the iron ship. I will only go back to periods in my own lifetime, to the setting-up of the Air Ministry; for I feel, and I think your Lordships will agree, that without the pressure of outside opinion the Air Ministry would not have been set up, and I should not have been addressing your Lordships to-day. Another point which I cannot help noticing, having felt it myself, is that when any man takes up on a committee or council a position of corporate responsibility, he always seems inclined to be a little slower to move than others. It has always been so; and I think it is a good thing to

819
refer to the question of what should be done in the future. There are only four ex-Chiefs of Staff in your Lordships' House, and I regret most sincerely the absence of the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Beatty—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD:—and I hope soon he will be able to resume his place, and give us the help of his invaluable advice on these great questions. I am glad to see here two other noble Lords who at different times were colleagues with me as Chiefs of Staff. As I have said, my experiences come before my proposals. I remember very well that in 1919 Mr. Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for War and Air, was very uneasy at the differences which were growing between the three Services, and he set up, I remember, what was called a high level bridge, with Under-Secretaries of State and the Chiefs of Staff. I think the records could show that it held only two or three meetings, and then it stopped, partly, probably, because Mr. Churchill moved on to another office, and partly, perhaps, because in those days very few were interested in the Defence Services. You could get very little interest shown in the great problems that demanded to be solved. Everybody was keen on demobilising and reducing expenditure, and there was also a feeling that other matters, such as the economic crisis, industrial unrest, and so on, were more pressing. Anyhow, that ceased.
Then I had something to do, and a very small part to play, in the discussions that went on in what, in those days, was called the Salisbury Committee, from which evolved the Chiefs of Staff Committee and many other recommendations. I seem to remember very well, too, that there were great differences of opinion when the discussions were going on, and if I may quote from the Report in the same way as the noble Marquess—but an earlier part—I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the extreme differences of opinion found by the Salisbury Committee. In paragraph 17 of the Report, they say:
"Apart from this, when the Committee came to examine the question of the protection of maritime communications in the narrow seas, they did not find the same measure of agreement … On the contrary, this part of the inquiry revealed wide differences of professional opinion.
820
… The more closely the inquiry was pressed in matters of detail the wider the differences appeared."
That was the state of affairs, as stated in a sentence in that Report, and I conclude that it would not have been put in unless it had been found that the differences were very acute. In fact it was the coming of the air which brought these things to a head. At the same time there was not much interest taken in the Services.
Then I remember that when the discussions were going on with regard to setting up the Chiefs of Staff, with individual and collective responsibility, I made a suggestion that each Chief of Staff should sign Vote A of the other Services. The reason I made the suggestion was because I was then frightened that each Chief of Staff would only be allowed to discuss his own subject. My suggestion was not accepted (it may be for good reasons) but it will show your Lordships what was in my mind in those days—namely, that there was a great chance that we should only discuss our own Services. I believe that at the beginning not even the Chiefs of Staff were altogether welcome. People in corporate responsibility do not altogether like innovations. I am aware that it is very hard to know what is passing in another man's mind, but I feel that there was a feeling, as I have said—certainly in my mind—that it was not always advisable to raise subjects which were then a long way off, but becoming real—grave subjects about another Service that would provoke a grave conflict. I know that that remark which I also put in a letter the other day has been rather resented, but I feel that it was my duty to say it. Although on the Chiefs of Staff Committee I have had keen discussions with noble Lords who sit on my right, and we have discussed many subjects, I feel that there are still many subjects which we did not discuss. I wonder very much if the subject that I have quoted out of that Report has been fully gone into in these thirteen years.
Your Lordships must remember also that in those early days of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, it was a delicate plant, but it improved, I think, and got stronger and stronger, and they were able to work together. I can recall many conflicts that I had with the noble Field Marshal on my right, and yet we could go on discussing many important points

821
while there are still a good many not discussed, as I thought, in those clays. The Government had also laid it down that there was to be no war for ten years. Therefore it was very hard to get any Minister interested in a question about sea communications and air communications, seeing that there was to be no great war for ten years, and that the important question was the reduction of taxation. I am not complaining, but only saying that one reason why the Chiefs of Staff did not do more was because of that lack of interest. But time was getting short and the question of the air was corning. I take it we should not be talking here to-day except for the feeling which many of you have of the danger from the air. I think that is at the back of a large number of your Lordships' minds.
I must refer to a statement made in this House some time last May by the noble Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, when he was Leader of the House. He said there were almost unanimous reports received from the Chiefs of Staff. I do not doubt it, but surely when one sees in the Press the various divergent letters even in their own Service publications, and hears of all the discussions that take place on every Staff, in every Staff College, in every mess and everywhere where officers gather together—if this is not reflected at all in these reports it is curious. It is not proper or right that I should elaborate what are the great points which I think were not discussed in my day. Of what has been discussed since I have no knowledge except what I see in the Press and hear from my friends. But I wonder again if even that one subject has been settled, in view of what Lord Strabolgi mentioned the other day in regard to sea communications in the Mediterranean.
I want to say that I look upon the Chiefs of Staff Committee as the kernel of the problem: that is the most important thing. I say that that Committee has done an enormous work. I say that many questions that have cropped up, like Shanghai and other emergencies, could not have been settled without the Chiefs of Staff Committee. I think that Lord Rawlinson said that it was the greatest step forward this country had made in defence. Day by
822
day it has done good. I think the Committee could do more if it had that permanent Chairman added to it. I know quite well it may be said, as I saw in The Times this morning, that each Chief of Staff would come with his brief and fight to the end. I agree in a way, but there are some things that should be fought to the end and so presented that the Minister who presides can put the pros and cons to the Government, so that the Government can take the responsibility instead of their being whittled and whittled away until the point is never really met. I am not saying for a moment that big points are not settled. I know a very big one that was settled, and others may be; but in my experience that was not done. I am only too keen to see points of disagreement sometimes really settled, and not burked and hidden. Nobody knows better than I, after twelve years of being the Chief of the Air Staff, the importance of trying to get agreements. I am very keen for it; but there are times when this is a danger, and it is a danger now. It is a danger in these days if we do not realise what we are now so busy about.
I would like very shortly to support the noble Marquess. I am one of those who are against any great scheme being introduced in this country. I do not think we are ever good at that. I think that developing step by step, and a small step at a time, is the best thing to do. I am perfectly certain that any big scheme for a Ministry of Defence is not right. I would like to see the existing machinery improved. I would like to see what was laid down in the Salisbury Report carried out, and that under the Prime Minister there should be a whole-time Chairman. But I would like him to preside not only there but at the Chiefs of Staff Committee and at the Committee of the Principal Supply Officers, which I look upon as the second great Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I am not at all certain that manning ought not to come into it. I am told sometimes that we are not dealing with these questions by priority. I say that with regard to manning I do not know how else you can deal with it when there are not enough to go round. I want to emphasise again that the Chiefs of Staff Committee is the kernel of the problem. I am not out in any way to destroy it; I am out to strengthen it. I

823
think it is the best thing there has ever been, and I feel that the next step is due.
May I just touch on staff? I think the existing staff of the Committee of Imperial Defence should be the staff of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. I would prefer to call it the Secretariat. I would like to see it strengthened with four or five officers of Brigadier's rank, and appropriate ranks in other Services, but I would like to see on it two or three civil servants of the same rank who have passed through the Imperial Service College. It is one of the great advantages of the Imperial Service College that the civil servants go there. I think the staff would thereby be strengthened. They would be, so to speak, the staff of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and of the Minister. I think one of the duties of this Minister would be sometimes to hear outside opinion. I know the Committee of Imperial Defence do a great deal, but sometimes, when these controversies are on and somebody has made a particular matter his life's hobby, as I have seen Admiral Richmond and General Fuller do, I think it would do no harm for that man to be sent for and to be seen by the Chiefs of Staff and asked his opinion on various points. From my experience also that has very often stopped opposition, even if you get no good advice. But you may get good advice, and I beg the Government, in formulating their scheme, to see that that is encouraged more and more. I do not want to go into further detail, but I would like to say that time is short. I look upon the situation as important, and I hope that the noble Viscount who will reply will not regard anything I have said as harmful. I know that advice, when it is not asked for, is generally unwelcome, but I feel it my duty to put my experience and my recommendations, however badly I do so, before your Lordships.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure I am voicing the opinion of all your Lordships in thanking the noble and gallant Viscount on the Cross Benches for the contribution he has made to this important debate. I would only add that I wish that on this occasion we had been sitting in secret session, and that he had felt more at liberty to give us some details of the experiences that he related to your Lordships. I will not, of course, attempt to comment on anything the
824
noble Viscount has said, because I believe the indictment he has made, joined to that of the noble Marquess who introduced this Motion, is most formidable. But I would allow myself to say this with regard to what fell from the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard. He said we must in these matters proceed a small step at a time. That I personally think is self-evident, because the matter is so complicated and intricate. But I am sure he will agree with me that a false step would at the present time be most injurious. Small steps at a time, yes, but steps in the right direction; and from what I have been able to understand from the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place, a few moments only before the noble Marquess introduced his Motion, we are about to embark on a course that is several steps in the wrong direction.
I shall ask for information on this point from the noble Viscount who will speak in a moment or two for the Government. May I, on behalf of my noble friends begin by extending a welcome to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who has now joined your Lordships' House and who. I am sure, will be a great adornment and acquisition to our debating strength? May I at the same time take the opportunity—I think it is appropriate—to thank, on behalf of my noble friends his predecessor the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, for his unfailing courtesy to us and for his readiness to give information to the Opposition both while he was Air Minister and Leader of the House. I know my noble friends will bear me out in that.
I know I am speaking for my noble friends when I say that I thank the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for introducing this Motion, and thank him also for the tremendous indictment he made of the Government in previous years. I do not think the noble Marquess, when he was speaking, was seized of the reply which the Prime Minister made to-day in answer to a private notice question put by my right honourable friend Mr. Attlee. A statement was made by the Prime Minister which I only saw in summary in the Exchange Telegraph Company's report on the tape, but in a way it answered one or two of the points which the noble Marquess raised. I think he will agree when he sees the statement in full, failing a more adequate explanation from

825
the noble Viscount the Air Minister, that the picture the Prime Minister drew in another place is most unsatisfactory. I shall endeavour to show why that is so. Apparently a Deputy is to be appointed to the Prime Minister as Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence. He is apparently not to be the permanent Chairman, but only to be Chairman when the Prime Minister cannot conveniently preside. He is to have certain rights, such as calling together the Chiefs of Staff Committee when, he desires to do so, and he is to have the assistance of three officers, one from each Service, who will remain on the staffs of their respective Ministries. They are not going to 'De seconded, they are not going to be, independent, they are not going to be, following the proposals of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, additions to the Secretariat of the Committee of Imperial Defence. They will remain at Adastral House, the War Office, and the Admiralty, and continue on their staffs.
Furthermore, this unfortunate Minister who will have no real appointment, who will be a sort of shallow pretext, a camouflage of the system which was, as I think, so shattered by the noble Marquess in his speech in introducing the Motion, will also have the duty of presiding over the Principal Supply Officers Committee as well. That in itself, unless there is some other explanation from the noble Viscount, damns the whole thing as I shall endeavour to show. I am speaking in the presence of noble Lords of great Service experience, two Field Marshals, the Air Marshal who has just spoken, the Paymaster-General, and other noble Lords present at this debate, and they will not gainsay that the danger always in a Defence Ministry is that the details and the burden of administration tend to swamp and obliterate the creation and working-out of plans in advance. That has always been the trouble, unless you separate your planning or strategical department, thinking out great questions of policy, from the departments responsible for manning, training, discipline, and supply, and the general day-to-day preparations.
I had a little personal experience of this under the leadership of a very gallant officer who is now a member of another place when we formed the Plans Division at the Admiralty in 1917, when this country was nearly in sight of complete
826
defeat. Mr. Churchill attempted to make a General Staff at the Admiralty, following the example of Lord Haldane at the War Office, but he did not grasp this necessity of separating the two great functions of planning or thinking-out policy ahead from administration. The result was that, with the best will in the world, Mr. Churchill's General Staff at the Admiralty was not a Staff in the real sense of the word for thinking out future plans and policy; and the only officer at the Admiralty, until the Plans Division was formed, who was not immersed in day-to-day operations or day-to-day administration, was the First Sea Lord himself. Then we formed the Plans Division, and that had strict orders not to engage in day-to-day administration or operations or anything of the kind, but only to consider future problems. That Plans Division has continued and survived, and it is now referred to in the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons as one of the three Joint Planning Committees.
When Lord Haldane went to the War Office he understood this principle, and he did separate the two divisions of the Staff accordingly, and that was the practice of the great masters of war-craft in Germany when they built up the great war machine prior to the series of wars that created the German Empire. It was so thoroughly understood in Berlin that they physically and geographically separated the two departments in different areas of the city, one dealing with day-to-day administration and all the burden of technical detail, and the other dealing with future plans and policy. You have that system now in the three Services themselves, and you have the germ, the beginnings of it, in this Joint Committee of the three Planning Committees of the three Services. But you have no proper head for such a body.
You again had an attempt to do it in the Chiefs of Staff Committee but, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, the Prime Minister could not give proper attention to it. The Committee of Imperial Defence could not give proper attention to future policy. You have never really in your scheme of defence had a properly staffed department, which is tremendously important, thinking out future policy and plans, and the result is the present state of affairs. You have had one man responsible, and that has

827
been the Prime Minister of the day. As the noble Marquess has pointed out, the Prime Minister has been overburdened. We have had two Prime Ministers in the past thirteen years. They have alternated with one another, and they have always kept in close touch, whether in Opposition or in office, but they have had too much to do. The result is that this most difficult and delicate task of looking ahead and trying to shape your defensive measures and co-ordinate them with your policy has been neglected. It has been neglected, and there is no use trying to deny the fact any longer. I was hoping that a Minister would be appointed separately and independently and permanently, as long as the Government lasts.
I entirely agree he must be a political Minister. He must be able to answer in one or other House of Parliament as permanent head of the Committee of Imperial Defence and as permanent Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. But for heaven's sake do not make that same man responsible for supply. Do not make him into a peacetime Minister of Munitions, otherwise he will become immersed in those voluminous and tremendous details of trying to make preparations for transforming the peace industries of the country in case of emergency, in all the questions of materials and supply for the three Services, and so on. I regret to say that the present Prime Minister himself does not understand this necessity of separating the two functions of planning and preparations in advance from day-to-day administration. The proof of that is in the answer to a question that he gave when we had a debate initiated, I believe I am right in saying, or at any rate contributed to, by the present Paymaster-General in the House of Commons in 1928 on the question of a Ministry of Defence.
The present Prime Minister, who was then Prime Minister, in March, 1928, in, of course, opposing the creation of a Ministry of Defence, gave, amongst other reasons, this as one of his principal objections. He said:
"Even in peace time the work of supervising these three Departments would be a very heavy burden for a single Minister."
Of course it would. It would be an impossible burden, an utterly impossible burden, and that was never the intention of the Paymaster-General when he was
828
in a position of less responsibility and greater freedom, or of the noble Marquess, or of Admiral Sueter in the House of Commons, and others who have argued for the need of a Ministry of Defence. It was not an idea of an Admiralty-cum-War Office-cum-Air Ministry to try and deal with all the multitudinous details of administration. The whole idea was to have a combined General Staff with a Minister at the head of it engaged only in thinking out the problems of defence.
Now we are going to have this camouflage. I do not wonder that it is a camouflage. In June last year the Prime Minister announced in another place that he did not intend to appoint a Minister without portfolio to co-ordinate defence policy. He did not intend it then; he does not intend it now. An honourable friend of mine in another place, who has heard the Prime Minister's answer and has given some study to this matter, has written me a note to-day. I have had it handed to me during the progress of this debate. He sums up the whole position in this way: "The old gang has won all along the line." I am afraid that has happened. My hope is that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will be able to put a better complexion on it; hut from the statement I have had sent to me as to what the Prime Minister suggested in the House of Commons the position will be not better in the future but it will be worse, because the step taken will be a false step, and a false sense of security and reassurance will be given to the public.
The noble Marquess was good enough to refer to certain remarks I made earlier in this Session, and he drew attention to the statements which I quoted—not my own responsibility—for the deplorable state of our present Defence Services. I do not know why they are in that state. We have plenty of money for the purpose. The various Governments have had £2,000,000,000 since the end of the Great War. I really do not know where the money has gone to if the state of our defence is so appalling as we are led to believe it is. The last time I drew attention to this almost astronomical figure of expenditure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who wound up that debate, said that we pay our soldiers and sailors and other warriors more than other nations,

829
and that that accounted for the enormous expenditure. We do pay our men better than certain other States, and that does account for some of the expenditure, but it only accounts for a fraction of it. The Estimates out, the 1935 Estimates, of total Votes for the three Services, including the Supplementary Estimates, came to over £131,000,000, of which the total pay, including that of non-effective services, such as pensions, half-pay and everything else, only came to £24,700,000—£25,000,000 in round figures out of £131,000,000. That does not account for it all. There was plenty of money for every kind of warlike stores, equipment, aeroplanes and so on. I do not know why the defences of the country are in the weak state in which we are told on the highest authority they are. If it is so, then I say a very heavy responsibility rests on two men and those are the present Prime Minister and his predecessor. Those two have been in office, in the most powerful position of all, for thirteen years, and theirs is the responsibility.
I wish to make a certain observation very seriously indeed with regard to the staff that this Deputy Minister, whoever he is, is going to have. You appoint somebody, I hope, to think out the very intricate problems of the present time, to report to the Cabinet and bring his troubles to the Cabinet when he cannot solve them himself, and also obtain approval for great questions of policy. He must have, I submit, an independent staff. It can be the Secretariat of the Committee of Imperial Defence, for which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, spoke; but the members must be officers, I submit, who are seconded from their Services and who will be senior officers with considerable service behind them, graduates, I hope, of the College of imperial Defence. They must be officers who will look to that kind of Staff work as their future careers and who will not have to depend for their promotion and employment on their own Services. You put these officers sometimes in a delicate and difficult position. I would suggest that you want something like the Political Service in India. When an officer of the Army is seconded for the Political Service, he does not, except in emergency, go back to the Army at all. That is his future career. In this you want officers of the rank described by Lord
830
Trenchard who will be permanently on the Secretariat of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and will be the advisers and assistants of the Cabinet through this Minister, who should be the permanent head and the Chief of Staff for the Committee. That apparently you are not going to get. I would beg of the noble Viscount the Air Minister, when he replies, to elaborate if he can what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons, and if possible give some assurance on this point. Otherwise you do not give this Minister a chance; you only revert to the present state of affairs.
I must, if I may, reinforce what the noble Marquess who moved this Motion said about the present state of affairs. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the results of the present system once more in a rather different way. When the former Foreign Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare, resigned, he made a remarkable speech in the House of Commons in which, in excusing and apologising for the Laval-Hoare peace terms, he declared that no other State Member of the League, despite the threats and vapourings of certain people in Rome, had moved a ship, a soldier or an aeroplane. That, of course, was true, and that is a terrible indictment of all the Governments concerned including our own. Surely it was our declared policy that we were relying as far as we could on a system of collective security, that we were hoping to build it up. I would have thought that it was elementary, if that was the case, that certain conversations should take place with the other States Members of the League in case of the need of the military machinery, the coercive machinery of the League of Nations, being required. Apparently that was not done.
An answer was given yesterday in another place by the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was asked whether—I am summarising—preparatory conversations took place, and the answer was—No; that every nation had a national responsibility to aid in the scheme of collective security, etc. Then, when we were threatened last December, at any rate in the officially controlled newspapers in Rome, with all sorts of dire consequences if we dared to continue in our obligations under the

831
League, and only then, did conversations take place with Spain and Turkey, Yugoslavia, Greece and France. That is a terrible state of affairs. That should have been done before. If it be said that that meant disclosing confidential plans to possible aggressors who are still States Members of the League, I submit there is nothing in that at all. The sort of plans I have in mind do not go into technical details at all. Our force available is known to everyone, and a very good idea of the force of other nations is available as well. But not to have had preparatory explorations between the technical staffs of all the States Members of the League is, I submit, a terrible state of affairs and indicates gross neglect. That is the kind of thing the Minister I have in mind should undertake as one of his jobs.
There is one other example of the appalling state in which we find ourselves. I see the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, on the Cross Benches. I should very much like to hear from him, if not to-day then at some other time, whether any preparations were made in his time for the defence of Egypt from the westward. It may have been talked about, but preparations were not made because we are feverishly making them now. It is a fact that we are quite hurriedly now extending the railway along the Mediterranean coast to defend Libya and we are now hurriedly enlarging the harbour at Alexandria. I am told that the Italians had ready a completely mechanised division in Libya and furthermore that that division could at a pinch cross the sands. We had nothing with which to meet it except one mechanised brigade, which, on the authority of a member of your Lordships' House, the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, whom I quoted in the last debate, is equipped with out-of-date tanks and other weapons. We were caught by surprise with regard to any threat to the western frontier of Libya. Why should we be caught by surprise? If we had been involved in a Mediterranean war it would have meant not only defending the trade routes referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, but there would have been also the question of the defence of Egypt from the west. Either plans were never considered, which is a terrible indictment, or if they were considered they were not acted upon, which is also an
832
indictment. I have ventured to put certain questions to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and I hope he can give us a better picture of the position than the Prime Minister did in another place.
I am speaking on behalf of my Party and I want to make it perfectly clear that we deplore all this talk of war and preparations for war at the present time. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said he was told after the Great War that we could rely on ten years peace. Apparently the Government cannot now rely upon ten months peace. That is a dreadful state of things after nineteen centuries of Christianity. But while we have Defence Forces—here I am speaking with the authority of my leaders, including my noble friend in this House—we do wish them to be efficient and we want to avoid unnecessary expenditure and overlapping. We believe that they can only be brought into a proper state of efficiency by some better method of co-ordination and some better method of organisation. And, my Lords, there is a very large political question concerned. We are faced by a certain question. Is it possible that democratic Governments can make preparations in case of emergency and war as efficiently as the dictatorship Governments? That is the test before this Government, which has another two or three years of office before it. I believe they can, and that democratic Governments have an immense advantage over dictatorship Governments. If they govern properly, and if their policy is sound and acceptable to the people, they carry a united opinion behind them which dictatorships can never know.
That brings me to another aspect of the attitude of the Labour Party, and I would commend this to noble Lords who adorn the Government Bench. The great majority of the Labour Party are prepared to support this country in war for its defence if that war is in harmony with our obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations. In other words, action or preparation for action must be in support of the system of collective security. Since 1914 there has been this tremendous change in the country, that you have now a great Labour political movement. Unless you can carry the Labour political movement and the Labour industrial movement with you you will not get that united opinion which

833
one would hope you would have in case of a terrible emergency in the future. You will only get that united opinion if you really try to build up a system of collective security and if your defence preparations are based on providing means for this country to play its part as one State Member of the League. The speech of the noble Marquess—of course he was not dealing with this matter—had one defect and that was he spoke only of Imperial defence. If you attempt to embark on any war in the future you can make what preparations you like but if you have only the old Imperialistie aims you will not carry a united nation with you.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, as the Government have come to very definite conclusions and are proposing to take decisions in regard to the matters raised in this debate, I think it probably will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I intervene now and place before your Lordships as clearly as I can the reasons winch have led the Government to come to those conclusions and to explain the action we propose to take. I feel that that is the more necessary in view of the curiously erroneous accounts of our intentions which have just been delivered by the noble Lord opposite, though I take note, and thankfully take note, that he commits the Party for whom he speaks to support us in making good all our deficiencies on condition that we are true to our policy of support of the League of Nations. We shall be true to that policy, and we shall look to the noble Lord and his Party with confidence to give us that support, which I am sure they will give, in what is really a national necessity.
The noble Marquess who introduced this debate, and to whom the Committee of Imperial Defence owes a great deal, has, I think wisely, differentiated the question of the organisation of the Committee of Imperial Defence as an instrument for continuous and current work from the detailed plans which we shall have to lay before Parliament in the course of a week or two in a White Paper and which will be debated fully in both houses of Parliament. These proposals which we shall present to Parliament were regarded as far too important to be considered merely by the Service Departments in the way that Estimates are considered in normal
834
times. We felt that in framing these proposals we had to do that which, indeed, can ordinarily only be done in war: that these proposals should be the considered proposals of the strongest Committee of the Cabinet which could be chosen, sitting day after day on every aspect of these proposals—after an enormous amount of preliminary work by the Chiefs of Staff together—working with the permanent head of the Foreign Office, the permanent head of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence. These proposals, when they come, will represent the considered view of the Cabinet, prepared by the Cabinet sitting, as it were, continuously in commission.
Such a comprehensive and exhaustive review is obviously impossible as a normal procedure, but that work which we have had to do in that way—and, indeed, all our experience of the last six months—has emphasised the need for some change in our co-ordination machinery. That is no new problem to many of us; it has long exercised our minds, not merely as a matter of expediency but on the sheer merits of the case. The discussions which have taken place and the suggestions which have been made in recent months, while they have certainly not opened our eyes to a problem with which we were not well acquainted before, have none the less been very valuable to us—many of them—in helping us to arrive at a decision. I am also very glad that my noble friend said that there was no question of establishing a Ministry of Defence. He did not pause to argue it; nor do I, except for a single instant and in a couple of sentences. It would be an impossible system even in peace-time, for, whatever you do, the Service Ministers must remain responsible for their own Service Departments. That is constitutionally necessary, and it is necessary if businesslike administration is to be secured. It would, I believe, be quite impossible for a single Minister to undertake the vast work which each Minister of the Service Departments has to discharge in the coming months and years. But it would be equally impossible in time of war. The same argument would apply as now, that they would have plenty to do, but the supreme direction of the war and the whole of the policy in war must rest day after day with the Prime Minister

835
and the War Cabinet of the day. Therefore that is not in question here.
The way in which my noble friend posed the question—and, I think, rightly posed it—was whether the system which Lord Balfour originated and which has been developed so extensively since is working to the best advantage, or whether it can be improved for the continuous work which is going to become more and more important than ever in the future. But may I just say in passing that the argument that my noble friend adduced, the argument that we have fallen behind in meeting the necessities of defence, was not in itself an argument against the Committee of Imperial Defence as at present working? I am in agreement with much that my noble friend said, and, as I will show later, with his conclusions, but I do not think that is really a fair argument in this case, and I think there are much stronger arguments—if I may say so—on which to found it. After all, the reason why we are behindhand in matters of defence to-day is not because successive Governments have not known the facts about our defences. It is riot because—and I think this should be said in fairness—the successive Chiefs of Staff have left the Governments under any illusion as to the position.
Indeed, my noble friend said: "When I was a member of the Government I shared my responsibility, because there was a ten-years' rule, and we were told that there would never be a war for ten years." But that was not a decision of the Committee of Imperial Defence. That was a considered decision of the Government of the day, taken in consultation with the Foreign Office, a decision which, as he will remember, was brought up for review and was in fact reviewed year by year, and was an instruction given by the Cabinet to the Committee of Imperial Defence and the Defence Departments. In the same way, in the years that followed, rightly or wrongly, it was the considered policy of successive Governments, when they thought international disarmament might be obtained, to refrain—perhaps wrongly—from repairing deficiencies. But it was not any lack in the machinery or in the working of the machinery of the Committee of Imperial Defence which led successive Governments to take those decisions. Be they right or wrong, they were decisions taken by the Governments of the day in full
836
knowledge of what the state of our defences was.
But, my Lords, I think there are more cogent arguments on which I can completely agree with the noble Lord in his conclusion. Let me say at once that the Prime Minister has decided—because more and more in these past months he has been forced to the conclusion that he himself, with all the work which is coming upon him, cannot do that job which in these days he has to do—that it is necessary to delegate to another Minister much of his work in connection with the Committee of, Imperial Defence, and to charge that Minister with special duties. I will explain as briefly as I can—and if I occupy your Lordships for some time it is because I feel it is necessary that I should say as plainly as possible—just exactly what our plan is and how we hope it will work.
Lord Balfour, to whom this country owes many debts, and none greater than the conception of the establishment of the Committee of Imperial Defence, created the Committee of Imperial Defence, as my noble friend has said, as a body centring round the Prime Minister. It is essential that, whether the Prime Minister has a Deputy or not, it should centre round the Prime Minister, and that the Prime Minister, the head of the Government, should never lose his interest in and his contact with these tremendous defence problems. Not the least reason is that, as my noble friend said, the elastic constitution of the Committee of Imperial Defence passes outside the bounds of this country and embraces Dominion Prime Ministers when they are here, and even their representatives when they are not. Then came the War and the developments which came after the War, which showed that there were far wider problems, and more manifold problems, than the Committee had had to deal with before. Great developments took place, and if there is any man to whom the Committee of Imperial Defence, and all who have served on that Committee, are deeply indebted, besides Lord Balfour, I am sure I am expressing the feelings of every one who served on that Committee when I say it is Sir Maurice Hankey.
Your Lordships will remember that there stand on record the words of Lord Oxford and Asquith in his tribute on a great occasion to Sir Maurice Hankey:

837
"No one knows as well as I do how much we owe to you for our (ignorantly derided) pre-war preparation, nor the extent and value of your daily, and almost hourly, contribution during the first two and a half years to every measure in all spheres that was thought out and done. I know that you have continued to the end, under constant strain which cannot be measured, to render the same invaluable service. I should like you to know that in my judgment you have been in a true sense what Carnot was called, 'The organiser of victory'."
Lord Oxford wrote that at the end of the War. Sir Maurice Hankey has gone on in the service of this country, and every year has added to his knowledge and to our debt to him. He has trained many men, officers of all the Services, in his way; but there is no second Hankey and it is essential that the position, strength and effectiveness of any organisation shall not be dependant upon a particular man or men. We must be sure that this organisation is going to work, whoever be the people for the time being upon whom will fall the duty of working it.
I am not sure if it is appreciated—perhaps it is in this House, but I am not sure it is outside—how wide is the field of work which the Committee of Imperial Defence covers, and I feel that some brief review is necessary to see what is needed of the organisation, how it works, and what is required of the new Minister. First, there is that mass of work in planning and ensuring that the whole of the Government administrative machinery, which must come into force should a war come, and which is vital, should be up to date and ready, so that it can be put into force forthwith. Your Lordships will remember how one system after another had to be improvised and developed in the course of the last War. When the War was over it was realised that these matters could not again be left to chance or to be worked out on the fading memory of those who had some experience of them. Plans have been put in hand for formulating and planning cut the whole of that field of administration, and those who have been connected with the work of the Committee of Imperial Defence will testify how thoroughly that work has been done. This work covers, for example, man power in all its aspects, questions of trade in warfare, war risks insurance, food supplies, oil supplies, censorship, war emergency legislation,
838
and orders for action in every Government Department—what we call the War Book.
Those are no panic measures. They are necessary insurance, and I say further that preparation of this kind, as of the strategic kind, is the greatest deterrent and preventive of war coming, and nothing matters so much as that. Therefore I have only thought it right that I should give a complete picture of the work of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and of that very wide side of its work which is admirably done, to-day, by men drawn from every Government Department. That side of the work is thoroughly in hand and kept up to date, and is in very many respects ready to function at any time. Secondly, there is the whole industrial side: plans for the mobilisation of industry in war. I do not want to anticipate, to-day, what will be in the White Paper, or the debates on defence plans. I think it is sufficient to say this, that plans must be ready which will not merely allocate industrial firms to the particular kind of production that would be required of them in war time, but the plans must be carried sufficiently far to ensure that those firms will be able to turn over to war production rapidly and effectively. I well remember that that was a phase of this planning upon which Lord Milner very often laid considerable stress.
Much planning has been done by the supply organisation of the Committee of Imperial Defence—Service Departments, the Treasury, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour, working together with a special staff. Of course, and this is elementary—I mention it because of something which Lord Strabolgi said—in framing this organisation every care has been taken to avoid overlapping with supply departments of the Services, which must be responsible for their own contracts in peace time. But it is an essential counterpart of that to ensure that the Services have and keep to their respective fields of supply, and if necessary decide questions of priority between them, and deal with common sources of supply. I shall not elaborate that to-day, but it has become very clear to us that that organisation has to be greatly strengthened, and it is desirable that this supply organisation should be under a Minister who can take supreme charge of

839
that work. I agree entirely with Lord Trenchard, and am against Lord Strabolgi, that that man must be in charge of the Principal Supply Officers committee, and should be the Minister to whom the Prime Minister delegates responsibilities.
I have explained how the plans which will shortly be put before your Lordships—the plans and programme—have been prepared by a Cabinet Committee. We felt that that work is so important, that it is so necessary to keep these plans under constant review and to follow up the work that is done, that that Committee will be kept in being. The Prime Minister will remain Chairman of the Committee, but the new Minister will act as his Deputy on that important Committee whenever the Prime Minister is unable to attend. When one speaks of the appointment of a Deputy Chairman it does not mean that the Prime Minister will attend one day and his Deputy another. Of course the Deputy will attend every meeting. What will happen is that if the Prune Minister is there, the Prime Minister will preside and the Minister will sit by his side, but if the Prime Minister is not there, the Minister himself will preside.
Lastly, and most important of all, I come to that side of the work round which the debate has mostly centred—the strategic side, General Staff policy in its widest sense. Here the organisation as it exists to-day is the Prime Minister, the Committee of Imperial Defence working to the Cabinet and the Chiefs of Staff Committee which, I entirely agree with Lord Trenchard, is the key to the whole position and the whole organisation—that Committee for which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, himself was so largely responsible. Under and working to the Chiefs of Staff Committee you have the Joint Planning Committee, consisting of the directors of plans in the three Services. But those directors are working together just as the Chiefs of Staff work together on the Chiefs of Staff Committee.
To arrive at a right judgment it surely is necessary for us to understand what that organisation is, why it exists in that form, and how it works. Only so can we see haw it should be strengthened. For I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is just as important to maintain in the organisation of the Committee of Imperial
840
Defence that which is working well as it is to improve, or change, or add. Lord Salisbury emphasised the great amount of time which the Prime Minister must give to the work if the organisation is to function to the best advantage. In any case, as I have said, the Prime Minister must always be in touch with that work. I hope that he will always preside at the Committee of Imperial Defence, when it is considering an important question of policy. He will retain his position as Chairman, but he feels, as indeed we all do, that it is essential that there should be another Minister free from all departmental work who can, in relation to the Committee of Imperial Defence and all its activities, act as the Deputy for the Prime Minister and devote the whole of his time to this work.
I have indicated the work that the Minister will undertake in connection with supply and as Deputy Chairman of the Cabinet Committee, for following up the policy and programmes which we shall announce. I wish to state with equal precision what that Minister's function will be in relation to the Chiefs of Staff. But before I do that let me say one word about the Chiefs of Staff. I think it is very necessary to do it, because I entirely dissent from the suggestion thrown out by the noble Lord opposite, and I entirely agree with the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard. The Chiefs of Staff have a dual function. They are the departmental heads of their respective Services, and in that capacity the advisers to their own political chiefs. They have also the vital work of acting together on the Chiefs of Staff Committee as a combined General Staff. No one but Chiefs of Staff can fill those two functions, whether they work to their own Ministers or the combined work on the Chiefs of Staff Committee. Individually and collectively they, as the heads of their Services, must be the men to advise, and theirs must be the responsibility for execution.
I believe it would be quite fatal to adopt the suggestion that the noble Lord opposite threw out that you should have the Chiefs of Staff working on the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and that parallel to it you should have some other Committee of officers, who indeed are to be so divorced from all sense of responsibility that they are never in any circumstances to return to their own Services. It would

841
be wholly unworkable. And what a hopeless way, if I may say so, to approach the problem! if the Committee of Imperial Defence is going to work, it is going to work because everyone in the Services has a will to make it work. It is perfectly hopeless to start out with the conception that if an officer has served as part of the combined Staff of the Committee of Imperial Defence, he is going to be prejudiced hereafter in his Service. That is an absolutely fatal outlook. But of course that does not preclude the Minister and the Chiefs of Staff hearing the views of responsible men who, as Lord Trenchard said, may have devoted an immense amount of time and study to some aspect of the problem. I should not only say that that was a reasonable thing to do; I should say that it was quite the obvious and right thing to do.
But just because you cannot put anybody in the place of the Chiefs of Staff, with their supreme responsibility individually and collectively on the Chiefs of Staff Committee, it is the more essential that we should ensure that problems which concern more than one Service shall be fully and frankly faced and considered with what I may call a "combined mind." On many subjects and occasions this work is thoroughly well done to-day. I think, not to-day but elsewhere, less than justice has been done by some speakers and writers to those who have held in the past and hold to-day the posts of Chiefs of Staff in the three Services. And I am sure that anyone who has watched from the inside the workings of this organisation in the last ten years or more will be struck by the increase in co-operation and the spirit of cooperation that has come about throughout the whole of the Services.
A Committee sits to-day consisting of scientists, of civil servants, of Ministers and of Service members, to deal with problems of air defence and research for air defence. It would obviously be improper that I should say—nor should I be asked to say—anything of the details of their work. But this I can say, that I have never seen better team work in my life than the work that has been done there. There is the utmost willingness in each Service to join in carrying out whatever experiments are necessary. The best that everybody can give is put into the pool, and each and every Service is
842
only too ready to carry out whatever experiments individually or collectively are necessary. As Lord Trenchard himself said, example after example could be taken of how, when some crisis had come upon us, the Chiefs of Staff, often at short notice, have been called upon to prepare plans and have produced plans which could not have been produced if there had not been, not only the will to co-operate but the practice of co-operation working there thoroughly in the past.
But there must be no risk of failure or of our not getting the best. I want to speak as frankly as others have spoken. Are there not two risks that we have to guard against? The first is the risk that in this combined Staff work men may sometimes come to it with sectional and preconceived views. The second is the risk lest there should be any failure or disinclination to face up to a situation in which there might be a difference of opinion. I think few would deny that sometimes in the past there has been a tendency perhaps in the earlier days for convictions to crystallise before the combined thinking had completely taken place. There may have been sometimes a little tendency to adopt the spirit which was, I believe, expressed by one distinguished divine who, when he was arguing with another of a different communion the respective merits of their faiths, said: "We, each of us, serve the same Master, you in your way, I in His." The difficult case is not the case where there is a great deal to be said on the one side and very little on the other. The difficult case, as we all know who have been engaged in this work, is where there is an enormous amount to be said on both sides. The worst way you can approach that kind of question is to approach it in the spirit of thinking that you have on your side all the knowledge, and that there really is nothing to be said on the other side at all.
Our aim—and we have got to succeed—is to ensure against both these risks, to ensure that the experience of all three Services is brought to bear on combined Staff work to give the best results. As I say, the will is there and the capacity, growing all the time, and it owes a great deal, that will and that capacity in the Services, to the work of the Imperial Defence College. I do not know who was responsible for starting that College.

843
It may have been the noble Marquess, I do not know, but, whoever it was, he did a very great work. Now, for ten years, year after year, the best men, the men who are likely to come to great Staff positions or great commands in the different Services, officers from the Dominions as well, the best of our younger civil servants, have come together and worked together on these combined problems. It is absolutely invaluable, and that knowledge and experience and that spirit is permeating the whole of the Services to-day.
It will be the duty of the new Minister to ensure that the combined Staff works to the best advantage. I conceive that it is no part of that man's duty to dictate policy but to ensure that every problem and every aspect is fully considered, and that difficulties and differences are frankly faced. He should evoke the best that each Chief of Staff can give, secure agreement if it be genuine agreement, and where there is a genuine difference of opinion which cannot be reconciled, then he should present the whole case fairly to the Committee of Imperial Defence and to the Cabinet. I believe it may be much easier for Chiefs of Staff to agree and indeed for Chiefs of Staff to differ—and there are occasions when they ought to differ, when you do not want the kind of compromise which is the least common denominator of agreement—under the guidance of a wise and unprejudiced Chairman. I believe their constant relationship to such a man will make their position easier as between themselves, and vis-à-vis their own Services. The man who assumes these duties will be no formal Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence, for he will have the duty of personal consultation with the Chiefs of Staff together, including the right and the duty to convene them under his own Chairmanship whenever he or they think it desirable.
But there is yet one more risk to be guarded against. It is the risk of which Lord Salisbury spoke in regard to the Prime Minister not having enough time; the risk of overwork, and consequent lack of time to consider adequately long-range problems. I think it is very necessary to fortify the combined work of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. The Joint Planning Committee, the heads of plans in each of the Services, must be an integral part of the combined Staff. The
844
fact that they are executive officers in charge of plans in their different Services makes them the essential men for this work. For example, very often in the last six months, they have had to act together very quickly. Only the knowledge that their departmental and executive work gives them has enabled them to do that work, and do it with the necessary speed, and no three men ever worked better together than members of the Joint Planning Committee are working together at the present time. But the fact that they have executive duties of their own, which give them the necessary experience to form the Joint Planning Committee, means that they have less time for long-range policy. Yet it is on that long-range policy when time to think out every aspect is so important.
We have therefore felt it necessary to reinforce this part of the organisation, and it is proposed that the Joint Planning Committee should be reinforced by an officer selected train each Service, who must be a graduate of the Imperial Defence College. The bulk of the work of these men will be joint work together for the Joint Planning Committee and the Chiefs of Staff Committee. In addition, the Joint Planning Committee is to have a whole-time secretary.
LORD STRABOLGI: There is one thing that the noble Viscount has not made quite clear. He spoke several times of a combined Staff, which is a new term in this controversy. Does he mean that these three officers he has just mentioned will work together permanently, or will they simply come together ad hoc as required?
LORD LLOYD: I may not have followed my noble friend quite clearly. We quite understand there is to be somebody of Ministerial rank who is to deputise for the Prime Minister as head of the Imperial Defence Committee. That is quite clear. What I am not quite clear about is, is such a person to be head of the Chiefs of Staff Committee? If not, who is to be the head of it?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I certainly have not made myself clear. Of course, that man is going to be head of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. I thought I had made it plain that the Chiefs of Staff in Committee would work to that Minister, that he would be in touch with them all the

845
time, that he would have the duty of seeing that these Chiefs of Staff in Committee considered every problem as it ought to be considered, that he would be their Chairman, not necessarily sitting every time they sat—there are many occasions when they should sit by themselves; that would be a matter for his discretion—but he should be their Chairman, working to them the whole time, they in contact with him, he with them, he their interpreter in the Committee of Imperial Defence. That is the essence of this proposal. I have spoken, it is true, of a combined Staff. Perhaps I have used a technical term. I should not have used. But I have used it because there is in the mind and intention of all of us that all those who work on this joint planning, the Chiefs of Staffs sitting in Committee, the Joint Planning Committee working to them, these new officers from the Imperial. Defence College who will be working together, reinforced, if need be, as experience shows to be necessary in the future, will give us what we do need, which is a great General Staff in the truest and fullest sense of the word.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I ask one question? Will the three General Staff officers who are going to work together after going through the Imperial Defence College take their instructions as to what they are to study from the Minister and report to the Minister or will they have their instructions and report severally to the Chiefs of Staff?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: They report to the Chiefs of Staff, to the Joint Planning Committee, and to the Chiefs of Staff Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Not direct to the Minister?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No; I am glad that point is raised because I think it is important that that should be so. Of course things do not work quite in watertight compartments as my noble friend knows. Ministers have the confidence of their staffs, and they see all 'papers, but we must approach this in the spirit that you are going to get the corporate best out of this system. Just as the Chiefs of Staff themselves must be the responsible people for giving the advice to the Minister and for sitting with him, so the subordinate staff which works in this
846
scheme must work to the Chiefs of Staff. But observe, one of the advantages of having these problems, if I may put it vulgarly, so to speak "devilled" out by these Imperial Defence College officers, will be that when there is a problem which has to be considered that problem will be worked out in its details by these General Staff officers bringing, with their combined training in the past, the combined mind to work upon it in the very first instance.
In order that I may make it very clear—I do apologise for the length with which I am addressing your Lordships, but it is a pretty big subject—I will summarise the duties of this Minister. He will be Deputy Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence and responsible to the Prime Minister for all its activities and operations. He will be the Minister to whom the Chiefs of Staff Committee will continuously work He will be charged specially with the duty of ensuring that all the questions of combined Staff policy are fully considered in all their aspects and that decisions are taken by the Committee of Imperial Defence—I ought, more technically, to say, that recommendations are made by the Committee of Imperial Defence and decisions taken by the Cabinet on all questions of policy. Thirdly, he will be in supreme charge of the emergency supply organisation and the industrial planning. Fourthly, he will be the Deputy Chairman of the Cabinet Committee which has framed the defence plans and programmes, and which will be kept in being to follow up those programmes and to keep them under constant review.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is the present programme?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is the programme and the plans which will be presented to Parliament for the future policy. Finally, it will be his duty, in the light of that experience, to make to the Prime Minister any recommendations which seem to him wise for improving the organisation and efficiency of the Committee of Imperial Defence. As a Service Minister I welcome wholeheartedly the whole of these measures. I believe they will help the Service Ministers and the Chiefs of Staff both individually and collectively. I submit that they are on the right lines, the lines of developing and fortifying what has

847
proved itself in action, and the Minister himself will then be able to see what further improvements or modifications can most usefully be made in the future. I am afraid I have spoken at very considerable length on this matter, but I hope with reasonable clarity. I did feel that I ought to make abundantly plain to your Lordships exactly what it is we propose to do and why we are taking the course which we propose to adopt.
LORD MILNE: My Lords, this is the first time I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships' House, and I would ask for that indulgence which you accord to a beginner. My sole reason for venturing to intervene in the debate is that I was Chief of the Imperial General Staff for seven years, and for two and a half years I was Chairman of the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff. I had come to urge on His Majesty's Government the views which were expressed by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, but I think I may now cordially congratulate His Majesty's Government on the action they are going to take and which has been so clearly and satisfactorily explained by the Secretary of State for Air. I think I may say that this action will put right every one of the difficulties that we suffered` from on the Chiefs of Staff Committee, where we did feel that we sadly lacked the advice and the guidance of somebody who was in touch with the Cabinet, somebody to whom we could go and express our views and who, in turn, would express our views to the Cabinet. We were always supposed, of course, to rely on our own Ministers; but your Lordships will remember that those Ministers are not members of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, so that very often, I am afraid, our views were put on paper, solemnly sent in, and, possibly, very often disregarded because there was nobody really to express them clearly to His Majesty's Government.
I hope that this Minister will always take the chair if possible at the Chiefs of Staff meetings, because it is a most invidious position for a Chief of the Staff to be in. He is selected to be the Chairman of a Committee of three Chiefs of Staffs, he is asked to be an impartial Chairman, and, naturally, he has his own strong views to press on everybody. The
848
situation is quite impossible, and I venture to urge on His Majesty's Govern-merit that it is most important that the chair should be taken by a Minister of the Crown. We have been accused of shelving difficulties. I do not think that is quite a fair statement. Difficulties have never been shelved. We have had to compose them, because we often felt that if we were unable to give a unanimous opinion that would be rather a reason for shelving the difficulties elsewhere.
I think the most important decision that we have heard to-night is the decision that a Minister is to be appointed to take charge of perhaps the most important duty that this country has to carry out if it is to be ready for war; that is the duty of industrial mobilisation. Every other great nation is making an intensive study of industrial mobilisation, and they go so far even as to render to their Parliaments an annual report of what is done. War is changing rapidly, and the methods of war are changing. I am certain that in the future the mechanic in the workshop and the machine will replace man power in the field, in the air and on the sea. As a nation we have got to study and work up the organisation of the manhood of the nation in order to fit it into its place in war, and also to prepare industry for the place which it has got to take. There are two great Committees. One of them I have not heard mentioned. The Committee on Man Power is just as essential as the Committee on Industrial War Supplies. The War Supplies Committee at the present moment is presided over by the President of the Board of Trade, but it is an extraordinary thing that the President of the Board of Trade is not a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I feel that the decision that has now been taken, upon which I most cordially congratulate the Government, that there should be one Minister charged not only, I hope, with the making of plans, but with the carrying of those plans into action and of preparing this country for industrial mobilisation in war, is one of the greatest steps forward in defence that has been taken in this country for many years past. I will not detain your Lordships longer because I feel that we have heard this evening of a really great step forward in national defence.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I never thought it would fall to my lot to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord on making his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. I had the great privilege of serving under him for a short time in the War, and I had the opportunity then of appreciating the qualities which placed him in the great position in which lie was able to give such distinguished service to the country. I know I shall be expressing the mind of your Lordships when I say in formal phraseology that we sincerely hope that the noble and gallant Lord will in the future take a full part in the debates in your Lordships' House.
I am sure we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the noble Marquess for bringing forward this Motion this afternoon. It touches a subject of the highest importance, and it is one that can perhaps be better debated in your Lordships' House than in another place. I feel sure that this debate will go far through the country to give more confidence to that portion of public opinion which is anxious, and probably not unduly anxious, as to the future which is in store for us. May I say with what interest T listened to the speech of the noble Viscount who spoke for the Government. I think we are indebted to him for the wide and comprehensive survey which he has given us of this very important matter. I am glad that the noble Marquess and also the noble Viscount have put on one side the question of a Ministry of Defence. As we know quite well that has been in people's minds, but on investigation it has been shown that a Ministry of Defence would not serve the purpose for which it would be intended. This system of co-ordination is a system which I have always advocated, and I welcomed the earlier stage of that coordination between the three Services which is in existence at the present moment.
The noble Viscount, will have a further opportunity of giving us details of this great scheme—and I call it a great scheme—which the Government are undertaking at the present moment. I think the noble Viscount has made it clear that the new Minister who will be charged with such responsible duties will not—I do not like to use the word interfere, but will not impinge upon, if I may use that expression, the authority
850
of the Service Ministers themselves. We all recognise very clearly that the responsibility of the Service Ministers is of the highest importance, and it would be highly dangerous to do anything which could possibly impinge on their authority. The development of this scheme is of the highest importance because of the plans which I understand are in the minds of the Government for the extension of our Defence Forces and the allocation of very large sums of money. The setting up of an authority of this description will go far—in fact it will go the whole way, I believe—to make public opinion feel that defence interests which are of such great importance are in the hands of the most competent authority in the country, that their plans will be well laid and that the money will be well spent.
The scheme which the Government have undertaken is in no sense a panic measure. They have not been brought to consider this proposition because of disturbing events with which we are surrounded at the present moment. It has been in being for some considerable time and has now developed in its full form, and it will, as I say, go far towards satisfying public opinion in this country. It is quite true that the political situation at this moment is dark and gloomy, but I venture to think that the recognition by Great Britain of the necessity of setting her defence organisation in order will go far to steady public opinion throughout the world. My noble friend who sits below me suggested that the country was led to consider that there would be no danger of war for some considerable time, and that therefore it was necessary to turn attention to other matters. It is very seldom that I venture to differ entirely from the noble Marquess and I go far with him in what he says, but when he came to later years and was inclined to suggest that this was a somewhat belated move on the part of this Government, then I find it necessary to join issue with the noble Marquess if I may use that polemical expression.
I think he should remember that in 1931 when the National Government was returned we found ourselves in a position of acute financial crisis. It was impossible then for the most ardent Service Minister—and I can assure noble Lords from my own experience, as I was one of them, that we were not lacking in bringing before our colleagues the necessities

851
and what one might call the deficiencies which existed at that time—to do other than recognise that financial considerations were such that we had to put on one side other considerations which we considered of great importance. In 1932, as the noble Marquess will remember, there was the Disarmament Conference. That was a sequel to tireless effort for many years to bring about disarmament. That year, therefore, was not the occasion for Defence Ministers to come forward to urge the requirements of those Forces which they represented and to ask for the expenditure of more money. I think that the noble Marquess will recognise also that at the same time there was a strong wave of public opinion in this country which moved in the other direction, and I feel sure that any Government who had then started a plan of rearmament would have found it very difficult to weather the storm. That may be a part of the difficulties of what we call democratic government, though I sincerely hope that we shall always have democratic government.
The noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition has referred to that point and I should like to take the opportunity, if I may, of expressing to him my gratitude for the kind words he used in regard to myself. But I agree with him that this may be a testing-time, and I sincerely hope that democratic institutions will show that they can carry out, with the same precision, the same goodness and the same skill, the duties which are carried out by the Governments which come under the auspices of dictators. The noble Lord said another thing with which I feel strongly in agreement, and that is that we are developing our defensive forces for defensive purposes. Their aim is not against any single country in any part of the world, but we are determined, by this organisation and this recognition of our duties, to play our part as a Member of the League of Nations. I feel that, through the change which has come over public opinion, we shall find that a great change may come over the situation as it is at the present moment.
But let us remember what it was that changed public opinion. It was the Germans leaving the Disarmament Conference and commencing to rearm. It was then that public opinion demanded to know the state of our defences and called upon the Government to do what they
852
could to restore our forces to the position in which they ought to find themselves. What occurred then? We found that the German nation were capable of expanding with a far greater celerity than had been supposed possible. We can remember what my right honourable friend Sir Austen Chamberlain said, in very clear phraseology: that public opinion received certain violent shocks, and that one was when the Prime Minister told the country that he had been misled in regard to German rearmament. My Lords, the Prime Minister was not misled. Every piece of information that it was possible to give him was imparted to him, and in the recent visit that I took to Germany I found that all the information that I was capable of giving the Prime Minister was correct and that the alarm which was spread about the country at that time did not at all represent a proper appreciation of the real state of affairs.
But in what we are doing now in restoring our defences and in building up an organisation for the purpose of that great co-ordination which we all have in view, we are not before our time, and I most sincerely hope that in this work of co-ordination we shall be able to do that to which the noble and gallant Viscount has referred: to bring together all the forces of commercial production in this country and place them on a basis on which they will be able to carry out all these duties. As I have said, there was no surprise as to what the Germans had done. As to training, I need not venture to trouble your Lordships now, because that is not the question that we are discussing. The question of commercial production, however, is one of the highest importance, and under the system which the German Government operate now commercial production can be accelerated to an extent which it is impossible to gauge. I can only say that, unless we can co-ordinate our production in the same way here, we shall find that it lags behind.
Moreover, I have only taken one instance of commercial production. Germany is not the only country where commercial production can attain that celerity which modern science and modern invention can achieve. It is the primary duty of the co-ordinating organisation which we are setting up to rise to the occasion under our democratic institutions, without any pressure from the Government, and

853
attain that proper celerity for carrying out our obligations and for supplying our Forces with the material which they require. That is the reason u by I subscribe most heartily to this doctrine of co-ordination, and sincerely hope that this organisation which is now being set up under the Government will achieve the full success which it properly merits.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, venture to congratulate the noble Lord who made the speech from the Government Benches to-day on a singularly able and lucid statement, which is evidence that the Government have given very earnest and prolonged thought to a matter which is very much in the public mind: whether, if the situation becomes more acute, we shall be adequately organised and equipped to deal with it. But I am going, in the light of some special experience which I had during the War, to press him even a little farther as to the exact nature of what I think he called combined Staff emanating from the Imperial Defence College which is going to be associated with the Committee of Chiefs of the Staff, the Committee of Imperial Defence, and the Minister. I am not sure that that is not going to be the crux of the whole problem. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, indicated with his usual frankness certain difficulties which inevitably arise when the heath; of the three great Service Departments have to discuss problems of general strategy together, problems possibly involving differences of view between the three Departments, the allocation of public funds, and the utilisation of resources of all kinds. These differences are inherent in the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Milne, said that those difficulties were sometimes evaded—the word he used was "composed." What was meant by the word "composed" I think he left to our imagination!
During the War we were confronted—and I had some experience at the very centre of affairs—with a problem not wholly unlike that which is going to confront the Government in getting unity in general strategic policy, unity in policy between land, air and sea; because, unless that policy is properly co-ordinated, unless in fact it represents a single policy, we are not; only going to spend a great deal of money uselessly, but we may not be able to use what we have effectively if and
854
when the crisis comes. During the War, the problem was not quite the same but it was not very different: that of getting unity in policy between the Allied Armies. The difficulty arose from the fact that you had three or four great armies on the allied front, each of which was heavily preoccupied with the problems of its own front and with public opinion in its own country, and the leaders, either the Commanders-in-Chief or the Chiefs of Staff, found it very difficult to view the War as a whole. It was inevitable that they tended to adopt the standpoint of the front on which they were engaged.
The greatest single advantage possessed by Germany during the War was unity in the command, because the command which Germany established very rapidly over the Austro-Hungarian Army enabled it to build up immense reserves of troops and material which it could use in any part of its whole far-flung line exactly as it chose. It had not to consider the different points of view of the sectional armies. Now, until we established unity of command, it was never possible for the Allies to do the same. That was the principal reason why the Allied operations were so ineffective in attack as opposed to defence. The problem of bringing about that unity in command was solved gradually by a process which began with the well-known, but not always popular, Joint Allied Conference at Versailles, of which General Foch was the head on the side of France, Sir Henry Wilson was the head as representing Great Britain, General Bliss for America—and I forget the name, for the moment, of the Italian General. While that body was criticised, there is no sort -of doubt that it was through that Joint Staff that the preparation vas made, not only for eventual unity of command, but also for the triumphant victory of the autumn of 1918.
The central difficulty was the problem of the placing and utilisation of the reserves. Inevitably while the three separate armies were under separate commanders, and those commanders were each responsible to his own Government at home, their strategic ideas were immensely influenced by the desire to have all their reserves at their own disposal. That was inherent in the system and it was only when that Joint General Staff began to work together

855
that the supreme importance of having a large mobile reserve that could be moved to any part of the line began to assume the supreme importance which in fact it had and made victory possible in 1918. The crisis of March, 1918, forced first co-ordination of the armies under General Foch and afterwards his appointment as Commander-in-Chief, and General Foch was then able to win the war in the autumn of 1918 because he was able to use the whole allied reserves as the instrument for counter attack on lines worked out by the Joint Staff at Versailles. That Staff had no executive duties. Its function was by combining the points of view and experience of Italy, the United States, France and Great Britain, to think out the problem of war as a whole and produce proposals which in turn were sent to the Chiefs of Staff, to the Commanders-in-Chief, and to the Heads of the Governments; and it was on the basis of these collective documents that we began to get both unity of command and unity in policy.
I venture to think that in that nucleus of what I think the noble Lord called a combined Staff you may find the means of reconciling the differences between the three Service points of view and getting a single strategic conception of defence policy. To do this, however, it is essential that the Minister who is head of the Committee should have quite clearly the power to refer to this combined Staff any question upon which he thinks joint thinking is necessary. The way to resolve difficulties between the great heads of Staff is to refer the question for independent consideration and report by the combined Staff, and then let that report go in the first place to the Chiefs of Staffs and, if they cannot agree about it, through the Minister to the Committee of Imperial Defence or the Cabinet. Unless you get a joint thinking body to which you can refer those questions on which a combined view is essential, it will be very difficult to get unity of opinion between the three Services.
I venture to hope therefore that what Lord Trenchard suggested, that what he called the secretariat should be strengthened, and that what the noble Viscount who spoke for the Government said was going to be a nucleus should be enlarged, and that it should be quite understood that that Joint General
856
Staff can consider and report on any matter on which in the opinion of the Minister it is important to get a combined view of the problem. If you do that I think you may obtain one of the most useful instruments for obtaining strategic unity in policy between the combined Services.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, as the hour is getting late I do not propose to make the observations I had intended to make in support of the Motion moved by my noble friend, or to voice again the anxieties which many of us have felt during recent years with regard to the ever-growing commitments accepted by the Government and the ever-reduced capacity for fulfilling commitments. Nor will I attempt to follow my noble friend in his interesting remarks as regards the thinking body to which he referred. If I were to do so, I think I should have said briefly that I did not think it was so much thought that was lacking as that the action taken upon that thought has been wanting. Suffice it to say that I for one only want to add my word to the warm congratulations offered to the Government for the statement made by my noble friend who has announced the Government's policy. I sincerely trust that it will be followed by prompt action, and I shall await with great interest the further pronouncements to be made in another place in a few days.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I wish to detain the House for a few minutes only, but I think it is important to stress the industrial side of this question. I was very glad to hear from the noble Viscount the remarks he made about the industrial duties of the Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence. They seem to be of the very greatest importance, because the next war, rather like the last war, will not be really won by military forces. The problem will be very like the problem which we had before—namely, to what extent and how effectively we can mobilise the industrial side of the nation to produce the necessary material to carry on the strife. That was the problem with which we were faced almost immediately at the beginning of the last War. The present position of potential industrial mobilisation is far from satisfactory, and while I listened with a great deal of interest to the noble Viscount's explanation of the Government's essays in what I may call the

857
rationalism of the industrial services there is still an enormous job to be done.
The noble Viscount is of course far better informed than any of us can be as to the work which is going on at the present time, but I would like to stress the point that was made by the Chairman of the Imperial Chemical Industries in his evidence before the Arms Commission as to the importance of having more than a shadow Ministry. It is not merely a question of dealing with the fringe of this matter. There is an enormous amount of work to be done, and I would appeal to the Government not to keep the industrialists of this country at arms' length on these questions. It is not enough to Have a few permanent officers who will get in touch with the big industrial concerns to find out what they are doing, or possibly to suggest that they do something more. This is a thing that requires very active work from the Minister himself who is going to act as Deputy Chairman of this Committee. It is just as important a side of his work as the three Defence Services, but while practically the whole of the debate this afternoon has been in connection with the rationalisation of these Services, very little has been said about the equally important side of industrial rationalisation for the emergency. I hope that the Government will take really effective steps to see that those industries and those industrialists who really can help them are brought together.
In conclusion I would like to make this point. I am sure the Government do not, and I hope the public will not, imagine that industrialists in this matter have a selfish point of view—merely the idea of trying to make a little more money. Everybody knows nowadays that industrialists do not make money out of war. The dislocation that follows war is disastrous to industry. The thing that matters to industry is to have peace. And we do riot mind as industrialists what has to be done: we would much rather he removed from any possibility of being accused of making undue profits from the nation from any supplies we have to give to-day. The real point, however, is not the supplies that have to be delivered at this time, but the question of organisation for war supplies, and that is an entirely different problem. But I hope that the Government will not on
858
that account or any other be afraid to get into really close touch with the industrialists, and will credit them with as much patriotism as any other section of the nation in this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not going to inflict upon your Lordships another speech, but I do desire to join my noble friend in thanking the Secretary of State for Air for his statement. I must say there was no part of it which seemed to me open to any criticism. I agree with almost every word of it, and I may say that I take it as a special compliment, if I may, to myself that an old colleague should have treated me so kindly in his reply. I should like, however, just to say one word about one other individual. IL was so glad to hear my noble friend speak as he did of the services of Sir Maurice Hankey. Sir Maurice Hankey is a very old friend of mine. That is not important; what is important is that he is one of the greatest public servants this country has ever had, and I was very glad indeed that my noble friend took an opportunity of saying so.
As regards the debate, everything has followed the lines which I should have wished. May I correct one possible misapprehension as regards my own remarks? I had no desire in what I said to divorce the Prime Minister from the Committee of Imperial Defence. By all means let him occupy the position which my noble friend suggested he should; that is to say, attend upon great occasions. So long as the operative Minister, the actual working Minister, is another Cabinet Minister, that is all that is required. As to his title, he may be called Deputy Chairman or anything else, according to the fancy of the moment. I remember that in early days, when I took an interest in education years ago, the Minister of Education, one of the most important Departments of the Government, was called the Vice-President of the Committee of Council of Education. That was his name, but he was not vice to anything. He was the Minister. I do not mean to say that the Deputy Chairman would thrust out the Prime Minister altogether—not at all. But he would be the operative Minister, I take it from my noble friend's statement. I thank your Lordships most sincerely for the kind way in which you have received this debate, and I will ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, there is a Royal Commission at a quarter to eight, and therefore your Lordships no doubt will adjourn during pleasure until that time.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) (Extension),
Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Petition for additional provision; of the Lord Mayor, aldermen and citizens of the City of Birmingham under their Corporate Seal; together with proposed Clauses and Amendments annexed thereto: Read, and referred to the Examiners.
GREAT ORME TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  CORNWALL ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]

    BOGNOR REGIS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
    BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:

    V. Plumer,

    L. Braye,

    L. O'Hagan,

    L. Wrenbury,

    L. Askwith (Chairman):

    Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the lath of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

DARLINGTON GAS ORDER, 1936.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the County Borough of Darlington:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.