Sitting of 25 June 1936

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Liverpool Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  Mr. ELLIS SMITHasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give a report to the House of his visit to Geneva and deal with the policy he supported?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): On the conclusion of the current session of the International Labour Conference, my right hon. Friend proposes to present a White Paper on this subject.
  Mr. SMITH: In the meantime, will the Minister reconsider his policy in the light of the great lead given by France, Belgium and New Zealand?

  SKILLED LABOUR.
  Mr. E. SMITHasked the Minister of Labour in what sections of industry there is a lack of supply of skilled labour; and whether he will give a list of the trades in which skilled workers cannot be found to meet the needs of industry?
  Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Department's information on this subject is mainly derived from the working of the employment exchanges and the difficulties which the exchanges may experience in filling particular vacancies. As the hon. Member will appreciate, the circumstances vary from case to case, but the principal
  1926
  difficulties at present experienced (apart from those due to seasonal causes) are with regard to vacancies in certain of the most highly skilled branches of the building and engineering industries. The difficulties in the building industry are mainly in respect of bricklayers and plasterers, and, to a smaller extent, of carpenters, joiners and masons; and in the engineering industry in respect of precision workers, including fitters, turners, tool makers, tool setters and machinists.
  Mr. THORNE: Will the Minister be good enough to advise employers, when they have any difficulty in finding skilled artisans, either bricklayers or engineers, to communicate with the chiefs of the different organisations, when they will get all the men they want?
  Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the unions of these two trades very gravely question whether there is any shortage of labour; and, as this is a disputed point, and one does not want to have too much controversy about it, is it not due to the House that the Ministry should take some steps with the employers and the trade unions to come to some common agreement as to whether there is really a shortage of labour in skilled trades or not?
  Sir PATRICK HANNON: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in Birmingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton at the present moment we are trying to secure 1,500 skilled workers, particularly in the machine tool trade and the motor trade? There is a big shortage.
  Mr. E. SMITH: Will the Minister bear in mind that one of the greatest difficulties in this matter is the serious position with regard to housing?
  Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am quite sure that any employer who is in need, certainly in urgent need, of skilled workmen will avail himself of every possible opportunity of getting those skilled workmen. The answer that I have given from the point of view of my Department is based on information that we have gained from our exchanges, which, I think, hon. Members will agree, have pretty wide sources of information.
  Mr. THORNE: Is the Minister aware that a large number of employers absolutely refuse to communicate with the secretaries of trade unions?
  Sir P. HANNON: No.
  Mr. THORNE: Yes, they do.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    READING AND WESTON-SUPER-MARE (WOMEN).
    Mr. D. L. DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour the number of females unemployed and signing at the Reading and Weston-super-Mare Exchanges between the ages of 16 and 30 years for the period January to June, 1936?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The precise statistics asked for are not available. A special analysis relating to 18th May, 1936, however, showed that the numbers of unemployed women aged 18 and under 35 years, registered at the Reading and Weston-super-Mare Employment Exchanges, were 223 and 87, respectively. Particulars were not obtained of the numbers of unemployed girls, aged 16 and 17 years, registered at that date, but at 25th May the numbers were 20 at Reading and five at Weston-super-Mare.

    EXCHANGES (ACCOMMODATION).
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour, according to the last survey taken, how many Employment Exchanges require considerable rebuilding and/or reconditioning on account of being unsatisfactory; and when it is proposed to commence work on the Walworth Road (Borough) Exchange?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Of the 449 Employment Exchanges, there are 147 which are at present scheduled for rehousing in due course. As regards the second part of the question, I am unable to add to the information given on 29th May.
    Mr. DAY: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with the progress that is being made; and when will he be able to give us some information with regard to the Walworth Road (Borough) Exchange?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: These matters are being dealt with according
    1928
    to a programme, and we are satisfied with the progress that is being made.
    Mr. DAY: Is there no difference between the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department and the Office of Works over the Walworth Road Exchange?

    PROPOSED TRADING ESTATE, DURHAM.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour when the trading estate, which was promised to be started in the county of Durham, will be in operation?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the answer, of which I am sending him a copy, given to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) the day before yesterday.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the Minister aware that there is nothing in that answer which says when this trading scheme will be in operation? May I put that question to him again: When will this trading scheme, which was agreed to eight months ago, be in operation?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The company is being formed, and the board are at present looking for a suitable site.
    Mr. BATEY: After eight months.

    INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (COLLECTORS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether a person employed as collector of contributions by an association of unemployed persons is treated by his Department as compulsorily insured under the unemployment insurance scheme?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: It is not possible to answer this question without precise particulars of the individual case. If such particulars are furnished, the Minister, in accordance with Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, would be prepared to give a decision on the question whether unemployment insurance contributions are payable.
    Mr. DAVIES: If a person is employed for the purposes of collecting contributions for an association of this kind under a contract of service, under similar conditions to an insurance agent collecting the same amount, is he not then entitled to be included under the unemployment insurance scheme?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I could not be expected to answer a question of that kind off-hand, and it would not be right for me to do so. The Minister has a particular statutory obligation in this matter.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I sent him this case three weeks ago, and have not had a reply?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD indicated dissent.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour the average amount per applicant for benefit paid by the Unemployment Assistance Board for each area covered by that Board?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I regret that these statistics are not available.
    Mr. DAVIES: In view of the fact that the allegation is made that the average receipt of money from this Board in Lancashire is lower than elsewhere, will the hon. Gentleman get the figures out?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: It is not very easy to get the figures out, because the money is paid through the exchanges, and the exchange districts overlap the areas covered by the Board.

    EDGWARE ROAD EXCHANGE.
    Mr. CREECH JONESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the premises of the Edgware Road Employment Exchange are, owing to their lack of ventilation and unhygienic conditions, unsuited for the work of his Department; that they are having a detrimental effect upon the health of his staff, as witnessed by the high percentage of sick leave; and whether he is taking any step to remedy this state of affairs pending the erection of the new premises?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: This ex change will be re-housed as soon as possible. The existing premises were erected in 1924 and are admittedly not satisfactory under present conditions, but I do not think the somewhat higher percentage of sick leave can properly be attributed to the state of the premises.
    Mr. CREECH JONES: When may we expect that the works will be put in hand?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I could not give a date.
    Mr. JAGGER: Will it be before or after Walworth Road?

    PUBLIC HOUSE ASSISTANTS (TRAINING).
    Mr. HOLLANDasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the higher mortality rates prevailing among workers in the licensed trade than among those engaged in other occupations, and of the many protests against the long hours and difficult conditions which were received from these workers when a Bill to lengthen the hours of sale was recently before Parliament; and whether he will now consider the withdrawal of his approval and contributions to the scheme of a private company for training unemployed from the depressed areas at potmen and bar-tenders, in view of the fact that the company has publicly stated that the improvement of public house conditions is no longer a matter for its concern?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, Sir. According to my information the improvement of conditions of service of public house staff remains one of the main objects of this association.
    Viscountess ASTOR: As the mortality is so much higher in this trade than in most others, why train people for a trade so dangerous to health and morals?
    Mr. HOLLAND: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think the present position gives rise to certain misgivings and does not he think this arrangement takes the form of an indirect subsidy to a trade which can well afford to recognise reasonable hours of labour?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, I do not agree with that. I do not think it gives rise to misgiving. It is simply part of the general training scheme which the Ministry of Labour operates.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it the policy of the Ministry of Labour to train people to be employed in sweated occupations?
    Mr. BANFIELD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that long hours and low wages are extremely common in this trade?

    MINING AREAS.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes for the

    1931
    employment of the unemployed in mining areas, particularly the long-term cases?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As to the Government's general policy on this matter, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave a week ago to the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). I would also remind the hon. Member of the general activities arising out of the policy of the Commissioners for the Special Areas, including the opportunities offered for land settlement, and of the facilities for training and transference offered by my Department. In any cases where men are employed on schemes assisted by the Special Area Commissioners, preference is given to men in those areas who have been unemployed for long periods.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, apparently, transference is the only practical solution, and do not the Commissioner and the Board find that transference has now arrived at a stage where it is devastating the areas?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I will quote as an instance the trading estate in the North-East area. I think it is generally agreed that there is at the moment an increased amount of industrial activity in the North East area.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that, as far as the mining areas of the Special Areas are concerned, nothing is being done and employment is getting less and in Wales and Durham the position is really getting tragic? Have the Government no concrete proposals for work for people in these areas?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I think it is agreed that the general industrial improvement throughout the country tends to have a favourable reaction on the mining industry.

    ASSISTANCE BOARD (EX-SERVICE MEN).
    Mrs. TATEasked the Minister of Labour what proportion of the permanent posts in the Unemployment Assistance Board were given to ex-service men; and whether, other things being equal, ex-service men were given priority?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Excluding 274 in grades reserved for women, the number of permanent posts at present
    1932
    filled under the Unemployment Assistance Board is 1,534, of which 933 or 61 per cent. are occupied by ex-Service men. Apart from a limited number filled as the result of open competition, these posts were filled by the transfer of suitably qualified officers already in the permanent service of the State or of local authorities, and in such circumstances the question of ex-Service priority did not arise.
    Mr. LEACH: In fulfilling this condition about ex-service men is it not true that efficiency has to give way to it?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I cannot agree to that.

    UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT, 1934.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention to introduce legislation to amend the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, during the present session?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, Sir.
    Mr. WHITE: Are we to assume that it will be possible to introduce new regulations without any modification of the Act of 1934?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As I have stated in the answer, it is not intended to introduce legislation in the present session.

    NATIONAL LABOUR RESERVE.
    Mr. De CHAIRasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the plan submitted to him earlier in the session for the creation of a national labour reserve in which the unemployed could enjoy a more satisfactory status than they enjoy at present; and whether he will take advantage of the opportunity offered by the revision of the unemployment assistance regulations to substitute for the dole a form of reserve pay, such as the plan proposes, without additional cost to the State?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The plan has been carefully considered by my right hon. Friend, but he regrets he cannot see his way to adopt it.
    Mr. De CHAIR: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that considerable sympathy exists for this idea in responsible quarters?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I think a great deal of sympathy exists for a lot of ideas.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that, if an unemployed man does a little work and receives 5s. or 10s., he is discouraged by having the whole of it taken off his unemployment pay? Is not that altogether wrong?

    YOUNG MEN, SHEFFIELD DISTRICT (TRAINING).
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the statement in the report of the Unemployment Assistance Board to the effect that firms in the Sheffield district have been recruiting and training young men but leaving on the market the older men; and what steps he proposes to take to secure fair treatment in regard to employment to men on the list of the Unemployment Assistance Board who have a good record?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am aware of the passage to which the right hon. Member refers. Applicants for unemployment allowances are required to register at the Employment Exchanges for employment, and are considered, equally with other persons registered, for submission for vacancies notified to the Exchanges for which they appear to be suitable. The Department have, however, no means of controlling the final selection of workpeople for engagement, which rests with the employer.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman call for a special report from the Sheffield Exchanges as to the statement in the report, and will he undertake that there shall be no dilution of labour in skilled trades in connection with the Government's other proposals until these men are properly absorbed?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I will consider both suggestions, but I can give no undertaking on either point.
    Mr. BOULTON: Does not this show that the question of skilled labour has become a great problem owing to the success of the National Government policy? But can my hon. and gallant Friend assure the House that the question of skilled labour is being carefully reviewed owing to the urgency of strengthening our national defences?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I can assure my hon. Friend that the question is being most forcibly kept in mind.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Are there not hundreds of skilled men on the register in Sheffield who are definitely being refused employment?
    Mr. BOULTON: Will my hon. and gallant Friend also bear in mind that the report states that there has been practically no skilled labour unemployed in Rotherham during 1935?

    AGRICULTURAL WORK.
    Captain PLUGGEasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the reluctance of non-agricultural workers in receipt of a high scale of public assistance to take up agricultural work in which there is a lower scale of unemployment benefit; and whether his Department has any specific recommendations as to how these difficulties are to be avoided?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The attention of my right hon. Friend has not been drawn to the circumstances which my hon. and gallant Friend mentions, but if he cares to send me particulars, I will consider the position.
    Captain PLUGGE: In view of the seasonal demand for labour on the land, will my hon. and gallant Friend make special investigation?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the Minister know of any agricultural districts where there is a high scale of unemployment assistance? Can we have an idea what a "high scale" means?
    Mr. PALING: Would not the difficulty disappear if they paid decent wages for agricultural work?
    Mr. GALLACHER: Would it not disappear if they removed tithe from the land?

    RECRUITING.
    Mr. RANKINasked the Minister of Labour whether any action has been taken during the past eight years to limit the freedom of managers of Employment Exchanges in encouraging unemployed persona to join the fighting Services; and whether he will now consider amending the instructions given to managers enabling them to give information to unemployed persons with regard to the fighting Services in suitable cases whether or not they request such information?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: There has been no change in practice since 1919. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on 18th June, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

    INSURANCE (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS).
    Captain PLUGGEasked the Minister of Labour whether the introduction of unemployment insurance for agricultural workers is working smoothly; whether contributions are being paid without question; and whether any unanticipated difficulties have been encountered?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The unemployment insurance scheme for agriculture has started well and I have no reason to believe that in general the contributions are not being paid. Some temporary difficulty is being experienced in certain areas in giving full effect to the provisions relating to the refunds of contributions in cases of long hirings, but I hope that this will soon be resolved.
    Mr. HOLLAND: Can the Minister say whether the difficulties come from the men or from the employers?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: It is what you might call a common difficulty.

    TRANSFERENCE.
    Captain PLUGGEasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases of transferred labour which have proved successful and the number which have not done so, with the reasons so far as they are known which explain these failures?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: During the three years 1933, 1934 and 1935, 25,540 men, 14,808 women, 7,643 boys, and 11,100 girls have been transferred from areas of heavy unemployment to employment available for them in more prosperous districts. During the period mentioned, 5,674 men with dependants were assisted to remove their households to their new areas. Precise information as to the numbers who have remained permanently in the new areas is not available, but there is no doubt that a large proportion have settled successfully.
    Captain PLUGGE: Is there any foundation in the Welsh complaint that
    1936
    transferees from the Principality are compelled to come to London instead of to places nearer home?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: That is a separate question.

    JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee to re-examine the ground explored by, and the various recommendations of, the Whitley Committee and to report what modifications are necessary as a result of the experience which has since been obtained?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, Sir. The ground covered by the Whitley Committee is under continuous review in the course of the ordinary duties performed by my Department, and my right hon. Friend does not think that a committee such as that suggested by the hon. Member is required.
    Mr. MANDER: If the Minister is satisfied that there is a considerable demand throughout the country for a fresh inquiry, will he be good enough to reconsider his decision?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I think that, if the Minister were satisfied of that, he would be quite prepared to reconsider it.

    SPECIAL AREAS (MILK SCHEME).
    Miss WARDasked the Minister of Labour whether any scheme for the supplying of milk to expectant mothers has ever been submitted by Mr. Malcolm Stewart?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I know that the Commissioner is anxious to assist a scheme of this kind, but no formal proposal has so far been submitted to my right hon. Friend. The matter is still under consideration, but it has not as yet proved possible to complete satisfactory arrangements with the organisations concerned in the supply and distribution of milk.
    Miss WARD: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say for what reason the scheme failed to come to maturity so far as informal conversations were concerned?
    Viscountess ASTOR: If it has taken so long to get this done, would it not be a practical step to appoint a few women to go up there and see that these things do get done?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: It has not proved possible to make satisfactory arrangements with the organisations concerned for the supply and distribution of milk. I think hon. Members will realise that very often preliminary conversations are perhaps more important than actual formal negotiations.
    Miss WARD: Could my hon. and gallant Friend say what organisations stood in the way?

    GOVERNMENT AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYES (HOLIDAYS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour to what extent employés of the central Government and local authorities, respectively, receive holidays with pay?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: In the case of the administrative, technical, clerical and manipulative grades of the Civil Service and of workers in Government industrial establishments, holidays with pay are granted, varying according to grade and, in some instances, length of service. My information is that paid holidays are also usually granted to the administrative, technical and clerical grades in the local government services. As regards manual workers employed in such services, recommendations have been made by the various national and district joint industrial councils that annual holidays with pay should be granted, and I understand that these recommendations are widely observed.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the Government take steps to see that, as far as the ground is not covered in this matter, it will be in the near future, and that all Government employés shall receive holidays with pay?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that, when the British Government promise a thing, they do it; and is it not also true that in other countries the people have been promised this but have not got it?

    HOURS OF WORK.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Minister of Labour why his representative at Geneva voted against the draft 40-hour week conventions for public works and buildings and civil engineering adopted by the conference on 17th June?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The vote in question was given in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government as explained in my right hon. Friend's speech delivered at Geneva on 9th June. Copies of the speech will be found in the Library.
    Mr. LEACH: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the line taken by the Government in this matter makes it quite impossible for anybody to believe in the genuineness of their desire to reduce unemployment?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, Sir.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that many of the difficulties and obstacles mentioned by the Government in regard to bringing this proposal into operation have been proved to be unreal and imaginary by the action of the French Government; and will the Government face this issue with courage and put it into operation?
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Have not the National Government reduced unemployment, whereas the Socialists only increased it?

    EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES.
    Sir EDMUND FINDLAYasked the Minister of Labour the number of men fully employed in agriculture, in mining, in engineering, and in shipbuilding in the United Kingdom in the years 1913, 1925, and 1935, and the average wages in each of these years; and whether he can give the figures relating to Scotland separately?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am having the available information collected, and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

    TRADE DISPUTE (MICHELIN TYRE COMPANY).
    Mr. E. SMITHasked the Minister of Labour whether he can make a statement as to the circumstances of the trade

    1939
    dispute at the Michelin Tyre Company, Stoke-on-Trent?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I understand that the immediate cause of this dispute was the dismissal of two workmen for disciplinary reasons and the refusal of the firm to enter into discussions with the trade union of which these men are members. My Department have been in communication with the firm and with the union, and should any opportunity present itself for assisting towards the settlement of the dispute they will not fail to take advantage of it.

    LIGHT-HORSE AND PONY BREEDING (GRANTS).
    Sir GIFFORD FOXasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial contribution will be made by the Racecourse Betting Control Board during the current year to promote the welfare of light-horse breeding in this country; and whether he will ensure that this contribution is allocated in such a way as to include pony breeding as well as horse breeding?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): A grant of £5,000 is being made to the Hunters Improvement and National Light Horse Breeding Society for the award of premiums for thoroughbred stallions, and a further grant of £300 is being made to the National Pony Society for premiums for stallions of the breeds of ponies indigenous to this country.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can my hon. Friend say whether these grants will have any effect either in increasing or diminishing the debt due from the board to the bank?

    MOTOR DRIVERS (CONVICTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS).
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Home Secretary how many men were convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle during 1935?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Return of Offences relating to motor vehicles for 1935, which was presented
    1940
    to Parliament on the 25th May. The return shows that the number of charges of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle when under the influence of drink or a drug which resulted in a conviction was 1,966.
    Mr. LEACH: Is the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that the magistrates in general are observing the law in regard to this highly serious offence?

    SENTENCE, BILSTON.
    Mr. HANNAHasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Joseph Hill, aged 20, of Bilston, who was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour for stealing a 3d. bottle of milk to give a drink to his wife who is expecting a baby; and whether he will consider the remission of this sentence?
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend's question does not state the full circumstances which the Justices in this case had to consider, and unless those circumstances are understood they are exposed to unwarranted criticism. Hill had previously committed a much more serious theft, but instead of sending him to prison he had been bound over and placed under the supervision of a probation officer earlier this year. The present offence was a breach of the conditions of his probation, and to deal with him again under the Probation of Offenders Act would hardly have been appropriate. In these circumstances the Justices, after making arrangements for his wife to be assisted, decided that they must impose a term of imprisonment on him. After inquiry and full consideration, I have decided, without reflecting on the course which the Justices thought it their duty to adopt, that the prisoner should now be discharged.

    BRITISH ALUMINIUM COMPANY'S WORKS, INVERLOCHY.
    Mr. MALCOLM MacMILLANasked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that the law governing conditions of labour is being observed in the British Aluminium Company's works at Inverlochy, Inverness-shire, where the workers are on strike in protest against conditions of labour; and if he is not satisfied, what action he proposes to take?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am informed that this firm maintains a high standard of compliance with the requirements of the Factory Acts. It was last inspected early this month, and I am not aware of anything requiring any action on my part.

    FINES (ONGAR POLICE COURT).
    Mr. GALLACHERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been brought to a recent case at the Ongar Police Court, when a Mr. Arthur William Wingar, of Fairfield Road, Ongar, a baker's roundsman earning 28s. a week, out of which he had to pay 15s. 6d. for rent and keep a wife and child on the rest, was charged with embezzlement and was fined £12 and one guinea costs; and whether, in view of the fact that the man's wages were so low, he will take steps to remit the fines imposed on him?
    Sir J. SIMON: My attention had not previously been called to this case. I find on inquiry that the defendant pleaded guilty to six charges including embezzlement and falsification of accounts. I understand that the Justices took a serious view of the matter, but it was represented that the defendant would have an immediate opportunity of obtaining further employment, and having regard to this the Justices decided to deal with the case by fines, and imposed fines of £2 on each charge and allowed three months for payment. If the sum due is not paid within the time allowed, steps will be taken to bring the defendant before the Court with a view to inquiry as to his means in accordance with the Money Payments (Justices Procedure) Act, 1935. There is no occasion for me to intervene in the matter.
    Mr. GALLACHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increased poverty that such fines impose upon a family, of the fearful mental worry it causes to the whole of the home, and that this means that the punishment is far in excess of any offence that has been committed?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think that the hon. Gentleman is not doing justice to the position. He will remember, I am sure, because he took part in it, that last Session the House passed the Act about fines, the very object of which is to secure that people are not punished
    1942
    because of poverty when fines cannot fairly be paid. It is surely right to visit these offences with punishment, and if the fines are not paid inquiry will be made.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Has the Home Secretary inquired whether the magistrates are thoroughly conversant with that Act?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am quite sure that they are. We circularised all the magistrates, and the terms of my original answer have now called attention to it; but I will make quite certain.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Will the Minister send a pamphlet to the Ministry of Labour pointing out the urgent need of a Minimum Wage Bill?

    BRITISH EMPIRE BOYS' BAND.
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the British Empire Boys' Band has been refused permission by the Home Office to tour South Africa; and the reasons for this refusal?
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Permission has been refused not by the Home Office but by a magistrate of the Metropolitan Police Courts in Bow Street in the exercise of his statutory discretion under Section 25 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933.
    Mr. MARKHAM: Is there any method by which this statutory discretion of the magistrate can be reviewed by the Home Office?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, I do not think so. The Section in question provides that persons under the age of 18, like these children, may not be taken abroad for the purpose of singing, playing, etc., for profit without a licence from a police magistrate, who is required by the Section to be satisfied as to the arrangements made for the treatment of the young persons when abroad.

    ALIENS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary the number of recommendations he has received for the deportation of aliens during the 12 months ended to the

    1943
    last convenient date; the number that have been repatriated; and the number of aliens whom their Governments refused to accept?
    Sir J. SIMON: I will, with the permission of the hon. Member, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. DAY: With regard to the last part of the question as to the number of aliens whom their governments refused to accept, are those aliens allowed to remain in this country, or are they deported to another country?
    Sir J. SIMON: I hope that the supplementary question of the hon. Gentleman does not imply that he does not give his consent to my circulating the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If he does, I hardly think a supplementary question arises.
    Following is the answer:
    For the 12 months ended 31st May last, 211 aliens were recommended for deportation, but in 22 cases it was decided on merits to make no order for deportation, and there were two aliens who died. Of the remaining 187 aliens, 137 were deported or left the country. In 21 cases it proved impossible to establish the alien's nationality or to obtain for him recognition as a national from the Government of his country of origin, and deportation could not therefore be proceeded with. Of the remaining cases, some are now under consideration and investigation, while in others the aliens are still serving sentences.

    RACIAL DISTURBANCES, EAST LONDON.
    Mr. WATKINSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that existing police action has failed to prevent the growth of Jew-baiting in Hackney; and what further action he intends to take?
    Sir J. SIMON: As I have informed the House, special steps are already being taken by the police to deal with this matter. I am, moreover, at present in consultation with the Commissioner on the question whether any further measures are necessary, and can be devised to put a stop to incidents which we all agree cannot be tolerated.
    Mr. WATKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, in spite of the efforts that have been made up to the present, this practice is growing, that deplorable incidents are of daily and nightly occurrence in Hackney, and would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the central organisation which inspires all these wretched activities?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I do not take this matter lightly at all. Very great attention is being paid to it both by the Commissioner and by myself, and I think that the consideration now being given to it must be left to produce its results.
    Mr. J. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a recent meeting of the Stepney Borough Council a resolution was passed calling attention to the fact that the police in the district showed a partiality towards the Fascists and, as far as possible, allowed them to do exactly what they liked?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir, I was unaware of that, and if such a resolution as tint were sent to me, I should have an answer to make to it. We may feel very gravely disturbed about this situation, but there is no justification for saying that the police are partial in the matter.
    Mr. GALLACHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that if the police protection were withdrawn, this organisation would peter out completely?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think that if police protection were completely withdrawn—[Interruption.]—May I ask the hon. Member to attend to my answer? I think that he will appreciate that, if police protection were entirely withdrawn, there might be a riot, and I am sure that he does not desire that to happen.
    Mr. GALLACHER: No.

    CHANNEL TUNNEL.
    Mr. DAYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent development of aircraft, he will consider the appointment of a committee further to examine and investigate the technical, engineering, and economic problems involved in building a Channel tunnel at the present time; and can he make a statement as to His Majesty's Government's position regarding the same?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. There is no change in the attitude of His Majesty's Government.

  EDUCATION.

    NURSERY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is taking any steps to promote the increase of nursery schools and can be explain the slow rate at which such schools are expanding?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Board's Circular 1444 issued last January, in which local education authorities are asked to survey the needs of their areas. I think that it is too early yet to come to any conclusion regarding the rate at which nursery schools are increasing.
    Mr. LEACH: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it necessary to accelerate the efforts now being made by his Department in regard to new nursery schools, and particularly in view of the fact that the Government have refused a really genuine increase of the school-leaving age? Would it not be better for them to attend to the problem of getting the children to school a bit earlier?
    Mr. STANLEY: The progress is not unsatisfactory. Since the issue of the Circular I have had 28 proposals for new schools and six proposals for enlargement of existing ones, a much greater development than has ever been experienced before.
    Mr. LEACH: Two hundred and eighty would not be excessive.

    MILK SUPPLIES.
    Mr. HOLLANDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that certain schools in the County of Derby are prevented from availing themselves of the milk provision owing to the refusal of head teachers to arrange for supplies; and what steps the local authority should take with his approval in such cases, with a view to realising the recommendations of Circular 1443?
    Mr. STANLEY: I have no information that head teachers in Derbyshire have refused to arrange for supplies of milk on payment under the milk-in-schools scheme, and I should of course regret any such refusal. The scheme, however, is a voluntary one, and requires for its efficient working the whole-hearted co-operation of all parties concerned. As regards the second part of the question, the Derbyshire local education authority exercises its powers under Section 84 of the Education Act, 1921, to supply free milk to under-nourished children, in accordance with the recommendations of Circular 1443. This has no connection with the voluntary arrangements referred to above.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not one of the reasons for wishing to supply milk that the milk supplied is pasteurised milk, which is devitalised milk, and its condition is disguised under the name of pasteurised milk?

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the President of the Board of Education what are the standard requirements laid down in regard to the premises of elementary schools in order that they may be approved as efficient; whether the same standard is applied in the case of non-provided as in the case of provided schools; and what are the particular requirements as regards water supply, sanitation, lighting, and ventilation, respectively?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Code of Regulations for public elementary schools, and she will see that Article 5 makes certain requirements regarding the condition of the premises of a school. No specific standards applicable to all existing schools are, or could be, prescribed in respect of water supply, sanitation, lighting and ventilation. Each case is considered on its merits in relation to the circumstances and possibilities. As regards new schools, the Board will shortly be issuing detailed suggestions for the planning of elementary school buildings which will deal with the matter to which the Noble Lady refers.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman make perfectly certain that all

    1947
    schools have proper light and proper sanitary arrangements?
    Mr. STANLEY: You cannot lay down general standards for all schools, but every school is inspected by one of the Board's inspectors. Particular attention is paid to these matters, and any deficiencies are being put right.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the President of the Board of Education how far the reorganisation of elementary
    Following is the answer:

    Table showing (a) the numbers of public elementary school departments which on 31st March, 1935, were organised on the lines recommended in the Hadow report, and (b) the numbers of children in them.

    ENGLAND AND WALES.

    Public elementary schools maintained by local education authorities.

    —

    Senior Departments.

    Percentage of Col. 3 to total number of pupils aged 11 and over.

    Junior Departments.

    All-age Departments with Senior Divisions.

    Percentage of the total of Cols. 3, 7 and 9 to total number of pupils aged 11 and over.

    Number.

    Number of pupils aged 11 and over.

    Number.

    Number of pupils aged 8 and under 12.

    Number of pupils aged 11 and over.

    Number.

    Number of pupils aged 11 and over.

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    (6)

    (6)

    (7)

    (8)

    (9)

    (10)

    per cent.

    per cent.

    March, 1935.

    2,744

    792,474

    41·3

    6,215

    942,871

    129,782

    1,304

    149,593

    55·8

    SCHOOL CAMP, BARNSLEY.
    Mr. POTTSasked the President of the Board of Education on what grounds he cannot recognise expenditure on the part of the Barnsley local education authority in respect of unemployed juveniles attending the authority's school camp during two weeks in 1935?
    Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member is misinformed. The Board's recognition of the expenditure in question for the purposes of their grant was given in a letter to the Barnsley local education authority on the 15th of this month.
    Mr. POTTS: Is not education in a school camp—not a holiday camp of this nature—in the best interests of unemployed juveniles?
    Mr. STANLEY: I have no doubt that it is in the best interests of the people who are doing training, and that is the reason why a grant is given.
    schools, to which the Board called attention in Circular No. 1444, has already proceeded; the number of senior schools already provided; and the number of schemes not yet completed?
    Mr. STANLEY: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am not in a position to answer the last part of the question, but I can assure my hon. Friend that substantial progress is being made.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that the Barnsley local education authority approached the Minister, and complained, and am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the cause of the complaint no longer exists?
    Mr. STANLEY: As far as I know there has been no complaint from the Barnsley education authority to the Board of Education.

    SCHOOL MEALS.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will bring up to date the information given on 12th April, 1934, in regard to the period during which school meals are provided?
    Mr. STANLEY: As the answer involves a considerable amount of detail, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following table gives a summary, by types of local education authority, of the periods during which school meals

    Days per week on which meals are provided.

    Number of Local Education Authorities.

    Counties.

    Non-County Boroughs.

    Urban Districts.

    County Boroughs.

    7 days and holidays

    …

    …

    —

    2

    1

    5

    7 days. Not holidays

    …

    …

    —

    1

    —

    —

    6 days and holidays

    …

    …

    —

    8

    6

    20

    6 days. Not holidays

    …

    …

    —

    —

    —

    —

    5 days and holidays

    …

    …

    7

    17

    8

    26

    5 days. Not holidays

    …

    …

    24

    58

    8

    25

    5 days a week*

    …

    …

    —

    1

    —

    1

    Miscellaneous cases†

    …

    …

    —

    3

    —

    2

    * In these areas it appears that feeding is not continued during the holidays, but the Board have no definite information.

    † These include:

    Two county boroughs which provide

    Milk 5 days a week during term time only.

    Dinners 6 days a week during term time and holidays.

    Breakfasts 5 days a week during term time and holidays.

    One borough which provides ordinary meals on 5 days a week during term time and approximately half the major holidays and milk during term time and holidays on 7 days a week.

    One borough which provides ordinary meals on 6 days per week during term time and holidays and milk on 5 days a week during term time and 7 days during holidays.

    One borough which provides milk on 5 days during term time only and ordinary meals on from 5–7 days during term time and from 6–7 days during holidays according to the centre concerned.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    TUBERCULOSIS, DURHAM AND NORTHUMBERLAND.
    Mr. LESLIEasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the increased death rate from tuberculosis of women in Durham and Northumberland; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the cause or causes of this increase from 124 to 152 per 100,000?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am unable to identify the death rates quoted by the hon. Member. The death rates of females from all forms of tuberculosis per 100,000 of the female population in Durham and Northumberland was 90.5 in 1934 and 82.8 in 1935, and the decline has been continuous during the past five years.

    CONTRIBUTORY AND OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. D. L. DAVIESasked the Minister of Health whether, in the view of
    were provided in the different areas during the year ended 31st March, 1935, which is the latest period for which complete information is available:
    his advisers, an unemployed person over 60 years of age and who had been for 10 years in insurable employment, but who two years ago became a voluntary contributor under the National Health Contributory Pension Scheme, can be given an old age pension at the age of 65, if necessary, by discontinuing paying as a voluntary contributor?
    Sir K. WOOD: The National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Act, 1935, enables an unemployed person who became a voluntary contributor after 31st December, 1932, and fulfils certain conditions, to revert, as from the beginning of this year, to the employed contributor class. If he so reverts he will remain hovered for all pensions, without paying any contributions, so long as he continues to prove unemployment.
    Mr. ERRINGTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the cost per annum of raising non-contributory old age pensions from 10s. per week to 15s. per week?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): It is not possible to give the cost of an increased rate of old age pension applicable only to non-contributory pensions. Among other reasons is the fact that a large number of contributory pensioners could satisfy the conditions for a non-contributory pension if there was anything to be gained by their so doing. The cost of increasing all pensions' to persons over 70 (or 50 in the case of blind persons) from 10s. to 15s. a week would be about £22,000,000 a year at the present time.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the Minister consider increasing the pensions to old people when they reach the age of 80 or 85? There cannot be a great number of them. They suffer great hardship and can do nothing for themselves.
    Mr. ERRINGTON: Does the Financial Secretary consider that 10s. a week is sufficient for old people?
    Mr. BURKEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider introducing amending legislation with a view to raising the maximum allowance of earned and unearned income of £49 17s. 6d. in the assessment for old age pensions under the 1919 Act, as in the experience of many public assistance committees hardship is at present being caused to a large number of old persons?
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 14th May to questions by the hon. Members for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) and Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie).

    PEACE PLEDGE UNION.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to take any action concerning the Peace Pledge Union, which has 100,000 individuals pledged to resist participation in war under all circumstances and contemplates special training for the purpose?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. MANDER: Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that this movement is now becoming serious from the national point of view, that Members of both 'Houses of Parliament are associated with it and that it is receiving the utmost
    1952
    encouragement from the present foreign policy of the Government?
    Mr. EMMOTT: Is the House to understand that the special training to resist participation in war is of a military character?

    NATIONAL COKE AND OIL COMPANY (NEW CARBONISATION PROCESS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Lord President of the Council whether the Fuel Research Board have yet been asked to report upon the new carbonisation process of the National Coke and Oil Company, Limited; and whether the report, if any, is regarded as satisfactory?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No application has been received from the National Coke and Oil Company, Limited, for a test of their process. If and when any such application is made, the Director of Fuel Research will be prepared to carry out a test. In that case a full report will be issued in accordance with the published conditions.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that there is no guarantee to the ordinary investor that the process referred to is consistent with modern requirements?
    Mr. MacDONALD: I made no such observation. I said that no application had been made.

    CHILDREN'S HOMES.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Minister of Health whether there is any dietary scale fixed for the children in Poor Law homes in England and Wales; whether he can explain why the cost of feeding varies in some instances by over 300 per cent., as disclosed in the costing returns for the year ended 31st March, 1935; and whether he will place these costing returns and dietary scales, if any, in the Library?
    Sir K. WOOD: The Public Assistance Order, 1930, requires local authorities to prescribe dietaries for the children in homes maintained by them. These dietaries do not need my sanction, but specimen dietaries for children's homes are included in a report by the Advisory Committee on Nutrition which was circulated to local authorities in 1932.

    1953
    Differences in the cost of feeding can be accounted for to some extent by such factors as the size of the home, and the proportion of occupied to unoccupied beds. Special inquiries are being made into cases in which there are wide divergencies from the average cost. I am arranging for copies of the advisory committee's report and of the costing returns to be placed in the Library.
    Mr. BARNES: While thanking the Minister, may I ask whether he will publish later the result of the investigation?
    Sir K. WOOD: If necessary, but I was referring to inquiries which are made from time to time by my officers.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Minister of Health whether he has inquired into the alleged excessive hours of work in the central children's homes, New Malden, Surrey, to which his attention has been called recently; and, if so, what he proposes to do?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have had inquiries made in this matter. Additions were made last month to the domestic staff of the homes which should reduce substantially the amount of household work required of the children. I am arranging for a further inspection to be made at an early date.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Minister of Health whether he has inquired into the alleged cruelty to children in the children's home at Leominster, to which his attention has been called recently; and, if so, what he proposes to do?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have been in touch with the Herefordshire County Council through the general inspector for the district and I do not think that any action on my part is necessary in supplementation of the action already taken by the council, who have accepted the resignation of the matron of the home on grounds of ill-health and are arranging for the transfer of the children to a voluntary home, certified by me under the Poor Law Act.
    Mr. LAWSON: As this is apparently a good Conservative council, will the right hon. Gentleman make the same inquiries into its activities as he does into the activities of Labour councils?
    Sir K. WOOD: I do not think the hon. Member is aware of the circumstances or he would not put that question.

    HOUSING (CONTROLLED DWELLINGS).
    Mr. JENKINSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a recent judgment in the Court of Appeal which places on the tenants of controlled dwellings the onus of proof of such control; and whether he will take immediate steps to introduce amending legislation?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am giving consideration to this matter.

    FOREIGN ISSUES.
    Mr. DODDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that the necessary steps are being taken to ensure that the views of basic industries and agriculture are receiving due consideration by the Foreign Issues Advisory Committee?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Yes, Sir. Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the Terms of Reference and Instructions to the Committee, which were circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 7th April, 1936, show that the important point to which my hon. Friend draws attention was fully taken into consideration when the Foreign Transactions (Advisory) Committee was set up. My hon. Friend may be assured that the Committee acts in accordance with those principles.

    MEDICINE STAMP DUTY.
    Sir ARNOLD WILSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the difficulties involved in the administration of the Medicine Stamp Duty Acts, he will undertake a reconstruction of this tax and a revision of the conditions attached to it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Medicine Stamp Duty is governed by a series of statutes considerably more than a century old. These Acts are in many respects out-of-date and unsuited to present day conditions and they produce a number of anomalies which makes the administration of the duty extremely difficult. I have come to the conclusion that the tax needs reconstruction, but a number of conflicting interests are concerned, and in all the circumstances I think the most appropriate course would be for the matter to be considered by a Select Committee of

    1955
    this House. I propose therefore to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to examine the law as it at present stands and to recommend what changes appear to be desirable.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for some time past what is now called legal evasion has been effectively used against the provisions of the Patent Medicines Stamp Duties?

  AGRICULTURE.

    IMPORTED BARLEY (DUTY).
    Colonel ROPNERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the application of the National Farmers' Union for the imposition of a duty on foreign malting barley has been before the Import Duties Advisory Committee since December, 1934; and whether, in view of the serious plight of the barley growers in this country, he will consider the necessity of introducing special emergency legislation to provide immediate assistance?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave on 21st May to a question on the subject by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. De CHAIR: Can the Minister say whether there is any appeal in this matter against the decision of the Import Duties Advisory Committee?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot.

    BACON (IMPORTS).
    Colonel ROPNERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the work of the Pigs Marketing Board has been hampered by unsatisfactory control of bacon imports, he will consider imposing such a levy on imported bacon as will enable efficient pig producers to receive a standard price for their pigs from the curers sufficient to cover the cost of production and give them a reasonable profit?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I could not accept the statement that the control of imports of bacon has been unsatisfactory. Since the compulsory control of imports was introduced foreign imports each year have
    1956
    been within the quantities required under the scheme. The levy policy which the Government intend to introduce for bacon as soon as circumstances permit was outlined in replies to the hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) and Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) on 7th June and 9th December, 1935, respectively, copies of which I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can the Minister say why the Government are anxious to use the levy scheme when they have permitted the Danish scheme to continue which prohibits a levy scheme?

    EGGS AND POULTRY.
    Colonel ROPNERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to make any announcement regarding the revision of the duties on eggs and poultry?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am unable at present to add to the reply I gave on 11th June to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall), of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

    MEAT CONSUMPTION.
    Mr. W. H. GREENasked the Minister of Agriculture the consumption of beef, veal, mutton, and lamb per head of the population in the United Kingdom in the years 1929, 1933, and 1935?
    Mr. ELLIOT: As the reply includes a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Estimated consumption of Beef and Veal, and of Mutton and Lamb, per head of the population in the United Kingdom in the years 1929, 1933 and 1935.

    Description of Meat.

    1929.

    1933.

    1935.

    lbs.

    lbs.

    lbs.

    Beef and Veal

    67·9

    62·8

    66·3

    Mutton and Lamb

    27·7

    31·9

    30·4

    Total

    95·6

    94·7

    96·7

    Note.—Figures for 1929 and 1933 are estimates for calendar years. It is not possible to make a satisfactory estimate for the calendar year 1935 until the tabulation of the agricultural returns for 1936 is completed, in about six weeks' time. The figures in the last column are for the 12 months ended 31st May, 1935.

    WOMEN INSPECTORS.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now giving effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, 1931, that posts in the labour, veterinary, and livestock inspectorate of the Ministry should not be reserved for men; and, as such posts are filled by selection boards, who are in a position to satisfy themselves as to the individual suitability of candidates, whether he will state fully the reasons on which a continuance of any reservations in these three inspectorates is based?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The recommendations of the Royal Commission, together with other matters relating to the employment of women in the Ministry, was considered by the Departmental Whitley Council in accordance with the procedure agreed by a Central Committee of the National Whitley Council which reported in 1934. The duties of all departmental classes were considered in detail by a committee which submitted a report to the Departmental Whitley Council recommending, inter alia, that the veterinary and livestock inspectorates should continue to be reserved for men, and that the labour inspectorate should be open to both sexes. This report, a copy of which has already been communicated to my Noble Friend, and which sets out the reasons for the recommendation, has been accepted, and appointments to the labour inspectorate are accordingly now open to men and women.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why there are no women inspectors in the Department of Agriculture, seeing that there are at least 50,000 women working on the land?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I will send the Noble Lady a copy of the report.
    Viscountess ASTOR: The right hon. Gentleman has not given me an answer. Will he tell the House plainly why there are no women inspectors for the 50,000 women who are working on the land?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: The committee which made the report were all men.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Yes, that is so.

    CANADIAN HAY.
    Major CARVERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of
    1958
    the importation of hay from Canada, he can state how the price of this imported article compares with that obtained for the home product?
    Mr. ELLIOT: During June Canadian hay has been quoted in London at 75s. per ton ex wharf. This figure in fact coincides with the average of quotations for first quality English meadow hay ex rail at North London stations.

    COLORADO BEETLE.
    Major CARVERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can make any statement as to the discovery of the Colorado beetle in hay imported from Canada; whether many such beetles have been discovered; and whether any hay has been distributed in this country before minute examination as to whether it contained these insects?
    Mr. ELLIOT: One Colorado beetle was discovered last week on the steamship "Beaverhill" which arrived in London direct from Montreal. The beetle was found in a hold which contained motor cars, and not in a hold where hay had been stowed. The vessel was thoroughly searched and no further specimens of the beetle were found. I am satisfied that no risk of the introduction of the beetle into this country is involved by the distribution of the hay which was unloaded from the ship.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Can the Minister say whether this stowaway was made to work?
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this beetle from Colorado was a man or a woman?

    TITHE BILL.
    Mr. DENMANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give an estimate of the additional annual sum that would be required if the remission proposed in the Tithe Bill were increased from the excess of one-third to the excess of one-quarter of Schedule B assessments?
    Mr. ELLIOT: As stated by the Royal Commission on Tithe Rentcharge in their report, no statistics are available showing the annual values computed according to Schedule B of the land subject to tithe rentcharge, and it is not possible to give actual figures. The Royal Commission in

    1959
    their report estimated that with annuities at the rate of £91 11s. 2d. per £100 (par value) tithe rentcharge, the total annual amount which would be remitted on the basis of the excess over one-third of the Schedule B value of the land would be £200,000, and I see no reason to challenge that estimate. It is clear that, if the remission were increased from the excess over one-third to the excess over one-quarter of the Schedule B value, the amount of increased remission would be greater than that represented by the arithmetical proportion of one-third and one-quarter. For the reason given above, however, I regret that I am not in a position to give an estimate of the actual amount of money which would be involved by such a change.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TURKISH PAYMENTS AGREEMENT.
    Miss WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied with the manner in which Turkey is honouring the Turkish Payments Agreement?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Yes, Sir.
    Miss WARD: Can the President say whether there has been any undue delay in this matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There has been no delay.

    SHIPPING FREIGHTS, BALTIC.
    Miss WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the difficulties experienced in the maintenance of shipping freights in the Baltic, he will consider calling a conference of the interests concerned, with a view to taking steps to find a solution of the problem?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I presume my hon. Friend refers to the scheme known as the Balt-White Scheme which was organised by the Baltic and International Maritime Conference with a, view to establishing minimum rates of freight in the timber trade from the Baltic and White Seas. I hope that as a result of the discussion with the Soviet trade representative in this country, referred to in my answer to questions on 16th June, there will be a meeting between the Soviet chartering
    1960
    organisations and British shipowners which may remove some of the difficulties which now exist.

    GERMANY AND YUGOSLAVIA.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to whether the terms of the commercial agreement between Germany and Yugoslavia is in conflict with our agreement with Yugoslavia?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have had inquiries made and am informed that no new commercial agreement has been concluded between Germany and Yugoslavia.

    TRADE AGREEMENTS (AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY PRODUCTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to give immediate notice of the termination of all those trade agreements which can be terminated by the end of this year by giving six months' notice?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the agreements which affect the import facilities accorded in the United Kingdom to certain foreign agricultural and fishery products. His Majesty's Government propose to open negotiations with the countries concerned with a view to modifying these agreements. The primary object in these negotiations will be to render possible certain changes in our agricultural policy at the earliest practicable date. We intend to proceed with the negotiations as rapidly as possible as soon as the necessary preparatory work can be completed. In the meantime denunciation of the existing agreements would be premature and unnecessary.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless some definite date such as 1st January is fixed when all these agreements can come to an end by giving notice now, the Government will be unable to fix on any date on which the agricultural policy will come into force over the whole range of agriculture?
    Mr. LAWSON: Would any of these modifications in the agricultural policy be likely to have an adverse effect upon the coal trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope not. I hope that all the facilities which are enjoyed by the coal trade abroad may be increased. With regard to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend as to the date, we see no difficulty such as he suggests.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not possible to give British agriculture the same protection without any of these agreements and boards?
    Sir JOHN HASLAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in looking through these trade agreements, take care that where the textile industries have improved because of such agreements in several cases, the textile trade does not suffer under the new arrangments?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As far as possible, that will certainly be kept in view.

    DENMARK.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any accredited representatives of agriculture or of other industries were consulted before he decided to prolong the Danish Agreement?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Departments of Agriculture were informed of the intention to negotiate and were kept constantly in touch with the progress of negotiations. Industries, other than agriculture, were consulted by my Department, either directly or through representative organisations. I would point out that the Supplementary Agreement is merely an extension of the Agreement of 24th April, 1933, the duration of which was for three years. The Supplementary Agreement is subject to denunciation at four months' notice.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Why were other industries consulted, whereas in the case of agriculture only the Ministry was consulted?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We found the Ministry of Agriculture very fully informed.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: But that does not give the views of the industry.

    MOTOR VESSEL (ITALIAN CONSTRUCTION).
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information in connection with the building of an oil-tanker
    1962
    in Italy for the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company, London; the reason why this ship was built in Italy; the date of the laying of the keel; and the date of the launch?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member refers to the oil tanker regarding which a question was addressed to me on 9th March last by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short), I can only refer him as regards the first and second part of his question to the answer which was given on that date. I have no official information on the points raised in the last two parts of the question.
    Mr. THORNE: Was it not due simply to the fact that Italy was not in a position to pay the people entitled to have the money, and that they had to make a bargain to get this tanker built, otherwise they would not get anything?
    Sir A. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make similar inquiries with regard to the purchase of matches by the Co-operative Wholesale Society on a similar system?

  DEFENCE.

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.
    Mr. ERRINGTONasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence what steps are being taken to ensure alternative supplies of electricity in the event of the destruction of supply lines and power stations by hostile action?
    The MINISTER for the CO-ORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): The existing system, which is every day being perfected, provides an alternative supply in any given area which should be available in the event of the destruction of a supply line or power station by hostile action. The maintenance of a supply under air raid conditions is certainly a matter which requires and is receiving careful attention at the present time.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is an ample supply of candles?

    RE-ARMAMENT PROGRAMME.
    Mr. MACLAYasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is satisfied that he is being supplied with sufficient information of a reliable

    1963
    nature regarding foreign affairs to enable him to feel satisfied that the present programme and speed of re-armament in this country is sufficient from the point of view of national safety from attack?
    Sir T. INSKIP: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence and of the Sub-Committee of Defence Policy and Requirements, keeps me fully informed regarding foreign affairs. Moreover the Foreign Office is represented on all sub-committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence in which they are in any way concerned. My hon. Friend will understand, as the Prime Minister stated last Thursday, that steps are continuously being taken with a view to further acceleration of plans.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence not be frightened by the Secretary of State for War into doing anything rash?

    COLWYN COMMITTEE.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he has had the opportunity of reading the findings of the Colwyn Committee?
    Sir T. INSKIP: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. PERKINS: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement made in another place to the effect that this report favoured the strengthening of the Air Ministry's control over that portion of the Air Force which co-operates with the Navy and the Army?
    Sir T. INSKIP: As I have stated on previous occasions, this report is a confidential document and its contents have not been disclosed.

    PALESTINE.
    Mr. GALLACHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the character of Zionist propaganda among Jews in this country and abroad; and what are the intentions of the Government as to passing Palestine over to the Jews for the purpose of establishing a free and independent Jewish nation?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am aware of the propaganda of the Zionist
    1964
    and new Zionist organisations, which should be distinguished, but I cannot accept the interpretation put upon it by the hon. Member in the second part of his question. I should perhaps make it clear that His Majesty's Government have no intention of taking or countenancing any action inconsistent with the terms of the mandate or with their responsibility of safeguarding the rights of all the inhabitants irrespective of race and religion.
    Mr. GALLACHER: Does the mandate not make it clear that the territory belongs to the Arabs, and that ultimately a legislative assembly will be set up and within it the Jews that are there will have the right to representation?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The mandate certainly does not make that clear. His Majesty accepted a mandate for Palestine and there was no declaration that it belonged either to the Arabs or the Jews. It is now British mandated territory.
    Mr. GALLACHER: Is the mandate not an instruction to a particular nation to care for a particular people within a particular territory?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. Member will read the mandate, which is very carefully drafted, he will see that it does throw upon us the responsibility of governing that country and of meting out justice to all sections of the community irrespective of race or religion.

    GOLD COAST (MINING REGULATIONS).
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the present regulations governing the inspection of mines in the Gold Coast; whether these regulations have been made more stringent since the accident which occurred in the Prestea mine in 1934; and whether, in accordance with the recommendations of the Acting Secretary for Mines, Gold Coast, contained in the official report on the accident, mine ropes are now examined fortnightly and cages designed in such a way that objects falling on the roof should be deflected to the foot wall of the shaft?
    Mr. ORMSBY - GORE: Numerous regulations have been made from time to time under the Mining Rights

    1965
    Ordinance of the Gold Coast Colony, and I shall be glad to make arrangements for the hon. Member to examine these regulations if he wishes. Since the accident in the Prestea mine the regulations have been amended so as to provide that mine ropes shall be examined once a fortnight. A further amendment provides that the manager of the mine shall take such steps as may be necessary, including the appointment of a competent person to see that the maximum number of persons allowed to ride at any one time in a cage or other conveyance is not exceeded. The official report on the accident at Prestea shows that the recommendation of the Acting Secretary for Mines regarding the design of the cage to which the accident occured has already been carried out.
    Mr. PALING: If the regulations indicated in the question have not been in operation, has there not been some neglect somewhere?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Member no doubt knows that in the Gold Coast the mines are not very like those in this country, and that there are only two where there is deep working down a shaft. I remember going to one, and although the arrangements were not as perfect as in the coal mines in this country, they were considered adequate at the time. The recent development of mining in the Gold Coast has led to deeper working, and the regulations have been tightened up.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what is to be the business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, Conclusion of the Report stage and Third Reading of the Tithe Bill.
Tuesday, and until 7.30 p.m. on Wednesday.—We hope to get the Report stage of the Finance Bill through by 7.30 p.m., in which case we propose to take the Second Reading of the Malta (Letters Patent) [Lords] Bill at that hour.
Thursday.—Report stage and Third Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
Friday.—Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
1966
During the week, as opportunity offers, we have to make progress with certain minor Orders which are on the Paper.
Mr. ATTLEE: With regard to the Finance Bill, is not one and a-half days a very short time to give to the Report stage? We have already had very considerable difficulty over the Clause dealing with the iron and steel industry, and the Minister indicated that we should have practically a half day for that. There is also a great deal to be cleared up on the educational trusts.
The PRIME MINISTER: I did express a hope, but it is always very difficult to say what time the House will require on the Report stage of the Finance Bill. It may prove in practice that my expectation will not be realised, but I hope it will.
Mr. ATTLEE: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman does not expect the Malta (Letters Patent.) Bill to be taken at a late hour?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, certainly not.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Can the Prime Minister say when the Air Supplementary Vote will be taken, and also whether there will be an Army Supplementary Vote before the House rises?
The PRIME MINISTER: I received notice of this question only a short time ago, but I have done my best to get the information required, and I hope that it will be as much as my right hon. Friend expects. Supplementary Estimates for the Army and the Air Force will be presented to the House probably during the week after next, but I am not in a position to announce the precise date. The Estimates can, of course, be debated on allotted Supply days, and I have no doubt that when they are available the Opposition will ask that they should be put down on one of the remaining Supply days.
Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether in regard to the Tithe Bill the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the demonstration held in Hyde Park; and whether he intends going on with the Bill in view of the tremendous opposition which it has aroused in the country?
The PRIME MINISTER: My attention was drawn to it. Speaking for myself, I never find that demonstrations of that kind make me inclined to give way.
Sir A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask a question about the Finance Bill? My right hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware that there was great difficulty in understanding the old Clause 19 of the Bill. We understood that for the Report stage it was intended that a number of friendly Amendments were to be put down by the Treasury. Only some of these have been put down and as the subject matter is extremely complicated, may I ask
that they should all be put down at the earliest possible moment in order to give us an opportunity of studying them.
The PRIME MINISTER: Of course I have not had an opportunity of looking into it but my right hon. Friend tells me that he hopes to have them on the Paper to-morrow.
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, 230; Noes, 116.

Division No. 249.]

AYES.

[3.53 p.m.

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

Cruddas, Col. B.

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

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

Culverwell, C. T.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Albery, Sir I. J.

De Chair, S S.

Kimball, L.

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

De la Bère, R.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Latham, Sir P.

Assheton, R.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Leckie, J. A.

Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

Dodd, J. S.

Lees-Jones, J.

Atholl, Duchess of

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Lindsay, K. M.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Drewe, C.

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

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

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Lloyd, G. W.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Loftus, P. C.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Dunglass, Lord

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

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

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Lyons, A. M.

Belt, Sir A. L.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Bernays, R. H.

Ellis, Sir G.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Blair, Sir R.

Elliston, G. S.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Blindell, Sir J.

Emery, J. F.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Bossom, A. C.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

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

Boulton, W. W.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Entwistle, C. F.

McKie, J. H.

Brass, Sir W.

Errington, E.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G,

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

Macquisten, F. A.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Everard, W. L.

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

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

Findlay, Sir E.

Markham, S. F.

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

Fleming, E. L.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Bull, B. B.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

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

Burton, Col. H. W.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Calne, G. R. Hall.

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

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Carver, Major W. H.

Goldie, N. B.

Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.

Cary, R. A.

Gower, Sir R. V.

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

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

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

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

Grismton, R. V.

Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

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

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Munro, P.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Gulnness, T, L. E. B.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Guy, J. C. M.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

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

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hannah, I. C.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Hartington, Marquess of

Patrick, C. M.

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Peake, O.

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

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Peat, C. U.

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

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Perkins, W. R. D.

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

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

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

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Petherick, M.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

Holmes, J. S.

Pilkington, R.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Plugge, L. F.

Critchley, A.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Purbrick, R.

Crooke, J. S.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Ramsden, Sir E.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

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

Rankin, R.

Cross, R. H.

Hulbert, N. J.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Crossley, A. C.

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

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Crowder, J. F. E.

James, Wing-commander A. W.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Smithers, Sir W.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Somerset, T.

Turton, R. H.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wakefield, W. W.

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

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Ross, Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

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

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

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

Warrender, Sir V.

Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

Salt, E. W.

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

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Savery, Servington

Sutcliffe, H.

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

Shakespeare, G. H.

Tacker, Sir R. I.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Tate, Mavis C.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

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

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

Touche, G. C.

Sir George Penny and Lieut.-

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Train, Sir J.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

NOES.

Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Pritt, D. N.

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

Hardie, G. D.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Adamson, W. M.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

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

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Riley, B.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Ritson, J.

Banfield, J. W.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

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

Barnes, A. J.

Holland, A.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Barr, J.

Jagger, J.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Batey, J.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Rowson, G.

Bellenger, F.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Salter, Dr. A.

Benson, G.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Bevan, A.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sexton, T. M.

Buchanan, G.

Kelly, W. T.

Silkin, L.

Burke, W. A.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Silverman, S. S.

Cape, T.

Kirby, B. V.

Simpson, F. B.

Charleton, H. C.

Lathan, G.

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

Chater, D.

Lawson, J. J.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Cluse, W. S.

Leach, W.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Lee, F.

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

Cove, W. G.

Leonard, W.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Daggar, G.

Leslie, J. R.

Sorensen, R. W.

Dalton, H.

Lunn, W.

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

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McGhee, H. G.

Thorne, W.

Day, H.

McGovern, J.

Thurtle, E.

Dobbie, W.

MacLaren, A.

Tinker, J. J.

Ede, J. C.

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Viant, S. P.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Walker, J.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Mander, G. le M.

Watkins, F. C.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Marklew, E.

Watson, W. McL.

Frankel, D.

Marshall, F.

Westwood, J.

Gallacher, W.

Maxton, J.

White, H. Graham

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Montague, F.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Gibbins, J.

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

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Owen, Major G.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Paling, W.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Grenfell, D. R.

Parkinson, J. A.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Groves, T. E.

Potts, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Price, M. P.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

Question put, and agreed to.

FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
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 Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
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 139.]

BILLS REPORTED.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (ESSEX) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NORTH HERTS JOINT HOSPITAL DIS TRICT) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.
  Mortlake Crematorium Bill [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.
  London County Council (Money) Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.
  Tring Gas Bill [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.
  North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AIR NAVIGATION BILL.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the new Clause (Indication of presence of obstructions near aerodromes), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Philip Sassoon.—[Sir P. Sassoon.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  AIR NAVIGATION BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Indication of presence of obstructions near aerodromes.)
    (1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied, with respect to any building, structure or erection in the vicinity of an aerodrome to which this Section applies that, in order to avoid danger to aircraft flying in that vicinity in darkness or conditions of poor visibility, provision ought to be made (whether by lighting or otherwise) for giving to such aircraft warning of the presence of that building, structure or erection, he may by order authorise (subject to any conditions specified in the order) the proprietor of the aerodrome, and any person acting under the proprietor's instructions,—

    (a) to execute, instal, maintain, operate, and, as occasion requires, to repair and alter such works and apparatus as may be necessary for enabling such warning to be given in the manner specified in the order; and

    (b) so far as may be necessary for exercising any of the powers conferred by the order to enter upon and pass over (with or without vehicles) any such land as may be specified in the order:

    Provided that no such order shall be made in relation to any building, structure, or erection if it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been made, and are being carried out, satisfactory arrangements for the giving of such warning as aforesaid of the presence of the building, structure, or erection.
    (2) Every such order as aforesaid shall provide for requiring the proprietor of the aerodrome to which the order relates to pay to any person having an interest in any land affected by the order such compensation in respect of any damage which that person may suffer as a consequence of the order as may, in default of agreement, be determined by a single arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice.
    (3) The ownership of anything shall not be taken to be affected by reason only that it is placed in, or affixed to, any land in pursuance of such an order as aforesaid; and
    1986
    (subject to the provisions of the next following Sub-section) so long as any such order in respect of an aerodrome is in force, no person shall, except with the consent of the proprietor of the aerodrome, remove, alter or interfere with any works executed, or thing placed in, on or over any land in pursuance of the order.
    If any person contravenes the preceding provisions of this Sub-section, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine; and every person who obstructs a person in the exercise of any of the powers conferred by such an order as aforesaid, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
    (4) Nothing in the last preceding Subsection shall operate in relation to any building, structure or erection, so as to restrict the making of any repairs or alterations of the building, structure or erection, provided that—

    (a) notice of the making of the repairs or alterations is given as soon as may be to the proprietor of the aerodrome, and

    (b) the giving of warning of the presence of the building, structure, or erection in the manner provided by any order under this Section in force in relation thereto is not interrupted.

    (5) Any order under this section may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order made by the Secretary of State, but the revocation or variation of any such order shall not affect the previous operation thereof.
    (6) In this section—

    (a) the expression "aerodrome to which this Section applies" means any premises which, by virtue of an Order in Council made under Part I of the principal Act, are for the time being licensed as an aerodrome for public use but does not include any premises belonging to the Secretary of State; and

    (b) the expression "proprietor of the aerodrome" means, in relation to any premises used or appropriated for use as an aerodrome, the person carrying on or entitled to carry on the business of an aerodrome in those premises.—[Sir P. Sassoon.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.3 p.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I hope I may be allowed to appeal to the Committee to bear in mind the very considerable extent to which this Bill is being and has been modified to meet the wishes of hon. Members as expressed in Committee. The Clauses relating to trespass and wages, both of which were

    1987
    adopted in Committee and which appear now as Clauses 12 and 35 of the Bill, were put forward originally by private Members. Two new Clauses, one referring to the power of local authorities who maintain aerodromes, and the other to the giving of warning of obstructions near aerodromes, are put down in response to the proposals of hon. Members. Two additional Sub-sections which it is proposed to add to Clause 1 are being added in compliance with hon. Members' requests. The same remark applies to the modifications of Clause 2 which appear in my name on the Order Paper and to a new Sub-section which it is proposed to insert in Clause 4. Finally, the provisions in regard to the limitation of liability in Part III of the Bill and the Second Schedule have been modified in important respects to meet representations made in Committee.
    In asking the Committee to give the Government credit for meeting hon. Members' wishes to the material extent that, I have outlined, I would also like to express my appreciation of the very great help we have received from all sides of the House during the consideration of the Bill. The Clause, a. Second Reading of which I am now moving, is moved with the object of meeting a general desire that in the interests of safety there should be some legislation to provide for the illumination of obstructions in the vicinity of aerodromes, so long as that legislation does not put the burden of the cost of illumination upon the shoulders of the owner of the obstruction. The effect of the Clause is that if any building, structure or erection is, in the judgment of the Secretary of State, dangerous either during the hours of darkness or under conditions of low visibility, to aircraft making use of a licensed aerodrome, and if the proprietor of the aerodrome cannot come to some amicable arrangement with the owner of the obstruction for the lighting of it, the Secretary of State will have power to authorise the proprietor of the aerodrome to enter and light the obstruction at the aerodrome proprietor's cost. There is also provision that if it is not possible for an amicable arrangement with regard to compensation to be reached between the two parties, the whole matter shall be referred to arbitra-
    1988
    tion so that a settlement which is fair to both parties may be arrived at.
    The Clause provides for the possibility of some other means than lighting for the giving of satisfactory warning of obstructions, and I think the Committee will agree that that is a wise precaution in view of possible future developments. It specifies no radius within which the obstruction must be so as to come within the compulsory lighting or warning provision, nor does it lay down any minimum requirements as to the height of the building which would make it subject to the provision. This is also a precaution which the Committee will approve, because the height of a building is not always the sole criterion and very often the situation of the obstruction is equally important. The difficulty of providing for any radius is seen now, because the international regulation for the lighting of obstructions in the vicinity of aerodromes is being amended to raise the former limit of 500 metres to 1,000 metres; and other such changes may occur in the future. It is not advisable therefore to specify any radius in the Statute. Any obstruction which is in fact dangerous to aircraft using the aerodrome and which cannot therefore, in the nature of things, be very far distant from it, will come within the terms of the Clause. In all cases in which a local authority's or statutory or public utility's building or erection is concerned, the Secretary of State Will of course consult with the appropriate Government Departments before approving an order. I hope the Committee will agree with the proposed new Clause as I think it complies with the requirements expressed by hon. Members in previous discussions.
    4.11 p.m.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I think the Committee as a whole wishes to acknowledge the degree to which the Government have met criticism at various stages of the Bill, but I want to assure the Under-Secretary that so far as the Labour party are concerned we are not completely satisfied with these words, and we reserve to ourselves still the right to express a number of views that may be regarded as of a dissentient character, and perhaps to carry certain Amendments to a Division. I rise to put two points shortly. The new Clause seems to me to be extremely involved.

    1989
    We must all recognise the desirability of providing measures of safety in the case of night flying and under conditions of low visibility. The first question I ask is, in what way is it proposed to deal with the question when you have built-up areas to consider? There may not be very many such areas in the country but there are at least two near London. I refer to Croydon and Hendon, where it is not only a question of single buildings but—
    Sir P. SASSOON: This provision does not apply to Hendon or Croydon or to any aerodrome in possession of the Secretary of State. It applies only to licensed aerodromes.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: That, of course, takes away a good deal from the substance of my question. But in other parts of the country where licensed aerodromes exist on rising land the point is one that the Under-Secretary might consider, and he might communicate his views to the Committee upon it. Another point is this: This Clause provides very considerable penal arrangements in respect of people not carrying out its provisions. I suppose that it is retrospective so far as existing buildings are concerned? It seems to me to be rather a foolish system, rather the wrong way of going to work, to allow buildings to be put and then to provide power
    "to execute, instal, maintain, operate and, as occasion requires, to repair and alter such works and apparatus."
    I do not suppose it will be possible or even desirable to have building restrictions in this Bill, but I do suggest that this method of leaving so much to the judgment of the Secretary of State ought to be modified. Could there not be some machinery for consultation with the local authorities on their building by-laws with respect to future buildings? Cannot local authorities at any rate have some idea of what principles are in the mind of the Secretary of State on this important question?
    4.13 p.m.
    Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: I want to ask one question. Under this Clause is there power to compel electricity companies to put their high tension cables underground instead of on pylons near these licensed aerodromes? At Felixstowe the other day I saw an aeroplane fly into one of these high tension wires. Has the Secretary
    1990
    of State power to make electricity companies put their cables underground where there may be danger to the flying man?
    4.14 p.m.
    Mr. EDE: I am sure that the Committee would desire to reciprocate the few kind words that the Under-Secretary spoke to us at the start of his speech. I think we have convinced him that he has a Bill that is really worth while, and that he has been put in charge of one of the star turns of the Session, though he may not have realised it when he first took up the Bill. I can only say that we recognise that during the Committee stage the Under-Secretary has met us on many points. While he has not entirely satisfied us, he has shown a desire to meet this side of the House that is very welcome. With regard to the point now before us, I want to carry on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). It is evident that when an aerodrome is laid out, unless we are very careful we shall be involved in the kind of difficulty that confronted us the other night when we had this kind of point raised on the Birmingham Corporation Bill. I suggest that there should be some clear understanding, if not in the Bill, at any rate in the administration of the Secretary of State, between the owners of licensed aerodromes and town planning authorities, because it will be a very nasty thing if a licensed aerodrome is laid out in what is now practically virgin country on the edge of some big town or city, and then, within the danger zone, buildings are allowed to be erected. I think there should be very close co-operation between the Secretary of State and the Minister of Health in this matter, that there should be some understanding between the two Departments in regard to the compensation for which the local authorities will be responsible, if they sterilise the land, or restrict its use, or in any way interfere with its free use by existing owners, and that that compensation should be borne by the proprietors of the aerodrome in whose interest the restrictions are imposed.
    I can only say that I join with the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) in asking that there shall be some arrangement made between the Secretary of State and the Central Elec-

    1991
    tricity Board for dealing with such things as the 132,000-volt lines that are strung about the country at the present time. I am not sure of their great advantage to the public and that they may not constitute in the near future one of the most serious hindrances to the free development of aerodromes in appropriate places. There again I hope there will be the closest co-operation between the Secretary of State and the other Government Departments which have to deal with these matters. While I think the Committee ought to allow this Clause to be read a Second time, I hope we may have an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State that the co-operation to which I have referred has been considered and will remain a matter of primary interest to his Department.
    4.18 p.m.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Perhaps it may save time if I say a few words now, because it is not my intention to seek to move the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in my name. I am not quite satisfied that the drafting of this Clause is as good as it might be. We had a declaration from the Under-Secretary of State that there should be consultation between the Secretary of State and the appropriate Ministry so far as public utilities are concerned, but I would like to make a few observations on the Clause as a whole. When we examine it, we find that it is a rather extraordinary Clause. That we should take proper precautions that people are not involved in unnecessary danger is quite fit and proper, but, it is rather an extraordinary thing that we should confer upon the proprietor of a licensed aerodrome, which is not anything of any great importance when all is said and done, the right to go to the Secretary of State, who, in turn, may authorise them to trespass on the land of all the people round about and decorate their buildings with all kinds of coloured lights that he may think fit. It is the most glaring invasion of private rights.
    I remember, when we had an Electricity Bill before this House some two years ago, the amazing indignation that came from the benches opposite because there was in it a Clause enabling a local authority or an electricity undertaking to fix brackets to the walls of people's houses in order that they might have a con-
    1992
    venient way of hanging the wires conveying electricity. That was thought to be an intolerable invasion of private rights, and so violent was one hon. Member opposite that in the end that Clause was knocked out as a gross invasion of the rights of private property. The Labour party, in the interests of private property, had the Clause knocked out. Here we are conferring upon a gentleman who runs an aerodrome—the fact that it is licensed does not necessarily make it an important institution—the right to go wandering, as the Secretary of State may authorise, all over people's property and putting up lighting fittings of the kind he thinks fit, without any consultation or any "By your leave." Quite honestly, it may be necessary to have certain powers, but really we ought not to have a long Clause like this appearing on the Paper—it is true that the Under-Secretary of State said it was in response to pressure—which, in the text of the Bill, would occupy nearly two pages. It comes to us on what is really the Report stage, though technically it is the Committee stage, without any of that opportunity which exists in advance when a Clause of this importance appears in the Bill as originally printed.
    I cannot see anybody putting up an aerodrome near my house, and, therefore, I cannot see them coming to my small garden to hang up a lot of lights, so that I have no particular self-interest in this matter, but I can visualise circumstances in which an aerodrome is to be put up in what is already a substantially built-up area and the proprietors proceeding to decide on what buildings they are going to place a series of warning lights. The real question at issue should be whether the aerodrome should be allowed to come there at all, having regard to the fact that large numbers of other people are already in possession and that there is no particular reason why their rights should be interfered with. If this were a question of national defence, I might be more impressed, but, so far as I can understand, it has nothing to do with national defence.
    Mr. EVERARD: In case of national emergency every one of these aerodromes will be of national importance.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I should be nervous about the national defence if I thought that casual aerodromes which are

    1993
    normally used for other purposes were to be used for war purposes, because there would be no stores or equipment such as would be required. If, on the other hand, the primary purpose were that of national defence, I should vote quite cheerfully for this Clause. I understand these aerodromes will be used by fewer than 750 aeroplanes, belonging to private people consuming in the aggregate about a thousandth part of the petrol consumed in this country by the owners of motor cars, and really we ought to be quite certain about what we are doing, representing in principle, as it does, a very grave invasion of the rights of property, which do not have many defenders in these days. It is only to be justified, in my opinion, if there exist very urgent grounds of national necessity, and if this kind of Clause is necessary because aerodromes have been situated in the sort of places with which the Clause concerns itself, that is an indication that these aerodromes have been wrongly situated. I cannot imagine any aerodrome in these days being deliberately placed in the kind of situation envisaged by this Clause, and I really, therefore, think we ought to look at the Clause with very great care before we finally commit ourselves to the decision that it should be read a Second time.
    4 25 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: I think the Under-Secretary of State was fully justified in putting forward the view that the Air Ministry has done everything possible to meet suggestions that have been put forward from all parts of the House, and I fully appreciate that he has tried very hard to incorporate in the Bill many ideas put forward during the debates. We are not completely satisfied, but there may be further opportunities for discussing individual points. With regard to this Clause, I think it might go a very great deal further, but I think we ought to give it a Second Reading. I am not so concerned as is the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) about what he calls this gross invasion of the rights of private property, the right of a man to do what he will with his own.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: It is a case or the right of an aerodrome proprietor to do what he likes with somebody else's own.
    Mr. MANDER: This Clause is a very great improvement on the form of the Clause before, which laid it down that these lights had to be put up at the expense of the private owners outside. It is quite right that the aerodrome owners should be the people who should have to do that. I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State to give us a definite assurance on this point: It is clearly of the utmost importance, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, that there should be close co-operation between the town planning authorities and the people who are going to license aerodromes, and it will be more important in the future than it has been in the past, because if you license an aerodrome which may now be absolutely isolated, in a few years' time all the land around may be covered with buildings of a considerable height, and I think we want to take a far-sighted view of the development of aviation in this country and try to agree, as I imagine could be done without any further legislation, upon joint action and consultation between the Air Ministry and the town planning authorities. I hope my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say something on that point.
    4.27 p.m.
    Major HILLS: My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) is such a powerful advocate of private interests that sometimes I think he allows his enthusiasm to carry him too far. It is not here a question as between the private interests of the owner of a house and the private interests of the owner of an aerodrome. On the one hand, you have certainly the liability cast on the owner of the house, but, on the other hand, look what a great service the great airway services are rendering. It is not only for the benefit of a few private owners of aerodromes; it is for the benefit of one of the most important things in the modern world, namely, air transport, which surely is entitled to impose these very reasonable obligations, at the expense of the owner of an aerodrome, on the owners of surrounding buildings.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: What important air transport has my right hon. and gallant Friend in mind?
    Major HILLS: All air transport is important. It is important now, and it will be far more important in the future. I am afraid my hon. Friend, whom I admire, is not air-minded and does not see the way the world is moving. Not to impose a trifling burden on the owners of property to protect the air services and the lives of those who travel by air, and also to protect the money that is invested in air services and aeroplanes, does seem to be to be carrying private interest a good deal too far.
    4.29 p.m.
    Mr. HARDIE: I find in the returns on the subject that licensed civil aerodromes amount in number to 99, 44 being private and 55 public aerodromes, whereas the Royal Air Force aerodromes number 30, and aeroplane stations are 20, so it seems to me that what we are considering here is more a question of real basic accommodation for civil aviation than anything else. I know, however, that should certain events that would necessitate these aerodromes being used for national purposes take place, there would be no hesitation in taking them over for national purposes. I went last week-end to a place where it had been rumoured that there was likely to be an aerodrome. All round the area little jerry builders have been putting up houses such as should not be allowed if it were known that an aerodrome was to be constructed. There ought to be a certain amount of open space outside the border of aerodromes. There is also a rumour now that the owners of the houses will get compensation because of the noise and inconvenience which will be caused when the aerodrome is working. It is such thinks as these that have to be foreseen. The attaching of a light to a building is a small thing in comparison.
    A point has been raised in regard to pylons and the wires that they carry. In 1926, when the electricity Bill was being discussed, I stressed the importance of this question in relation to aeroplanes. Technical men will tell you that there is great difficulty in insulating 5,000 volts when it is near the earth. Some of the text books published recently say that wherever you have over 500 volts near the earth there is no material that will completely insulate it. The air gives the nearest approach to insulation. If something is to be done in regard to these
    1996
    wires, which are a serious danger to air transport, the Government will have to make provision now. If they do not we shall come up against some serious snags in relation to claims for compensation. I hope that before the Clause passes some kind of guarantee will be inserted in order to protect both sides in this matter, because the public are interested in the pylons and the wires, whereas the airmen do not want them.
    4.33 p.m.
    Mr. EVERARD: I find myself in complete disagreement with a good deal of what has been said in this Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) spoke as if he imagined that all night-flying aeroplanes are run by private owners, while my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) said that there were a number of air services running at night up and down the country. So far as I know, the only night services in England are those that operate between Croydon and the Continent. The difficulty is that we have no night ground organisation in this country, with the exception of that of Government aerodromes, and I doubt whether, according to the actual law of the land and of the law of Continental night flying, even that would pass if it were carefully examined. As a whole, we are years behind countries on the Continent in the facilities we give for night flying. This new Clause is but a small start in that direction. We have in this country great difficulties in flying through fog. We have probably a worse fog belt than airmen of other countries have to contend with, and we have other difficulties because of the small country in which we live.
    It is certain that if we are to develop night flying services, which will be of such enormous importance to this country, we are bound to have obstructions within a reasonable range of aerodromes properly lighted. With the new methods of landing in fog a large area is necessary, and the aerodrome, both inside and outside, must be free of obstruction. The least we can do is to cause something to be done to the obstructions, either by lighting or by some other means, which will warn pilots when they are near them. That is the reason this new Clause is a great advance from the point of view of night flying in this country.

    1997
    I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon when he belittles the value of aerodromes which have been put up at enormous expense by private enterprise, through which the owners are losing thousands of pounds a year, and which, as my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows full well, are of enormous potential military value to this country for its protection. My hon. Friend really over-states his case when he belittles work of that sort. I believe that this new Clause will seldom be used. My experience shows that if you go to somebody who is responsible for an obstruction, and you say to him, "This obstruction is causing danger to the life of your fellow-countrymen; will you allow us to put a red light on top of it?" the permission is given. I have never known a case where it has been refused. Although the Minister is taking powers to do it, I do not think that, save in very exceptional circumstances, the powers will ever be put into operation. I congratulate the Minister on the Clause.
    4.37 p.m.
    Mr. BELLENGER: The Committee will appreciate that it is something in the nature of a paradox when I rise to support the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) but I am in-dined to support his point of view this afternoon. When I was a boy I always understood that an Englishman's home was his castle, but evidently that is not so now. The observations of the hon. Member for South Croydon should have some weight. It was only because the Committee brought pressure to bear on the Under-Secretary that he brought in this Clause. The first idea was for the proprietors of aerodromes simply to put their red lights or warning notices wherever they liked, without saying "by your leave." The Under-Secretary has met that point in this new Clause. The arguments that have been made this afternoon by certain hon. Members might just as well have applied when railways were being built. Those who wanted to run railways through the land of this country had to pay very heavily for the right to do so. Therefore, why should not owners of aerodromes, who are concerned with what is only another form of transport, pay adequate compensation for putting their warning notices on private property? In the Orders that the Minister may be called upon to make,
    1998
    will he put in some provision to compensate an owner for any damage that is done to his property by reason of a warning signal being placed on it? Subsection (2) says that compensation shall be made to the owner of the land. Does that also apply to any hereditament which is not land?
    4.40 p.m.
    Mr. PERKINS: I would like to ask the Minister three questions. The first is connected with the old story of the gasholder at Heston. I have raised this question on innumerable occasions and I have been given the same answer, namely, that the Minister has no power to do anything. If this new Clause passes, will he have the power to insist on a light being put on that gas-holder, although it is more than 2,000 yards away from the outside edge of the aerodrome? The second question reinforces the question which has been asked with regard to the cables that carry the grid. Will the Minister have power to insist that, where these cables pass within 2,000 metres of an aerodrome, they are adequately lit? The third question is with regard to payment. I understand that under this proposed Clause the owner of an aerodrome, whether an individual, a company or a municipality, has to pay the cost of installing and maintaining the lights. I visualise a case where the owner, possibly a municipality, is not prepared to spend any more money because the aerodrome has lost a great deal of money. In a case like that is it possible, where there is some obstruction, for the Minister to step in and instal a light and maintain it?
    Captain F. E. GUEST: At the risk of being out of order, I would like, while aerodromes are being discussed, to urge the Minister to press municipalities to build more aerodromes, for we are so short of them at the present time.
    4.42 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: I would like to emphasise the point which has been made, that one of the most effective ways of meeting the question of safety is not only to light the obstructions, but to prevent unnecessary obstructions being created in the vicinity of aerodromes. Co-operation between the Air Ministry and the town planning authority is essential to meet that object. I am afraid that a town planning authority is unable to lay down any conditions for any part of its area

    1999
    unless it has a town plan for the whole of its area. That is a serious obstacle. Town planning is still in its infancy in Great Britain, and it is at places where town planning has not made very much headway that many of the new aerodromes are to be established. It would be a more effective Clause if the Minister had consulted the Minister of Health to find out whether it would have been possible to arm town planning authorities with powers to lay down conditions where aerodromes are being established. I agree that this new form of transport ought not to be cluttered up with restrictions and limitations such as were imposed on railway transport, and from which we are still suffering. I am afraid that we have gone too far in the Bill to make such an Amendment, but perhaps, if it is possible, the Minister will consult the Minister of Health to find out whether some such restrictive powers could be conferred on town planning authorities so that where they had no town plan they could impose a partial plan in the vicinity of an aerodrome.
    4.45 p.m.
    Sir P. SASSOON: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) voiced an anxiety which has been expressed by several speakers as to the position of aerodromes in future in relation to town planning. That is a very important consideration, although it goes a great deal beyond the scope of this particular Clause, but I would remind the hon. Member that when an aerodrome is decided upon by a local authority an application for a licence must be made to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. BEVAN: Or a private aerodrome? A local authority has not got the right to town plan the land in the vicinity of the aerodrome unless the whole area is town planned, or unless it is the owner of the land.
    Sir P. SASSOON: The local authority has to get a licence from the Secretary of State, and in considering the application he will, of course, bear in mind the whole question of town planning in the neighbourhood and act in close consultation with the Ministry of Health or any other Department that may be concerned. As we have found ourselves confronted with the necessity of making Regulations of this kind because of what
    2000
    has occurred in the past we shall try to avoid similar difficulties being created in the future. I therefore give the assurance that in connection with the grant of licences for aerodromes in the future the Air Ministry will consult with all the appropriate Government Departments.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Does that cover not only town planning regulations but the ordinary building regulations? That is a point which I had in mind when I spoke first.
    Sir P. SASSOON: There will be consultation not only with the appropriate Government Department but with the local authority too. That is as far as I can go in meeting the apprehensions of hon. Members on that point. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) raised the question of pylons, a most important one from the point of view of safety. We have been in consultation with the Ministry of Transport for some time now to see how and in what directions the danger arising from pylons in the neighbourhood of aerodromes can be avoided. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) joined with the hon. and gallant Member in this discussion and displayed a wide knowledge, among his many other accomplishments, of all the technicalities of voltages and electricity, and put forward some important points. This Clause will not, of course, give us the power to compel the Ministry of Transport to put underground all cables now carried on pylons, but it will give ample possibility for pylons in the vicinity of an aerodrome to be lit, as indeed they are at certain places—near Dagenham and elsewhere.
    Mr. PERKINS: Will it give the Ministry power to insist that pylons are lit not only near aerodromes but also when they are on definite air routes, such as the route from London to the Continent?
    Sir P. SASSOON: No, this Clause does not go as far as that. The hon. Members for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) raised the question of the invasion of the rights of private owners. I sympathise to a certain extent with the attitude they have taken up, but one must not look upon this problem as concerning only users of aeroplanes and the owners of aerodromes, because there is also the

    2001
    question of the safety of people living in the neighbourhood of aerodromes. If the putting of a light on a building will prevent an aeroplane, when there is low visibility, such as is only too often the case in this country, from colliding with a house, the owner of the house and those who live in it will benefit just as much as the owner of the aeroplane. The Secretary of State will naturally be very careful to see that a licence is not given for an aerodrome in a locality which is unsuitable, and a proviso has been specially inserted in the Clause to meet such a contingency.
    Mr. BELLENGER: I agree that we must take reasonable precautions not only in the interests of those who travel in aeroplanes but of those who are on the ground, but my point was that reasonable compensation ought to be paid to private persons if we are taking away their rights. Does the observation of the right hon. Gentleman apply to buildings as well as to land?
    Sir P. SASSOON: What I have said applies to any person having an interest, and that, of course, would include the leaseholder. I was very glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) the tribute which he paid to people up and down the country who have given a national lead by establishing aerodromes. Although we have had certain criticisms this afternoon I think I can fairly say that this Clause does go a long way to meet the desires of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
    Mr. PERKINS: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my question about the Heston gasholder?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The position at Heston is exactly where it was when I spoke about it last, and as that was not so very long ago I do not feel too ashamed to say that. As my hon. Friend knows, there are certain technical difficulties. We are trying to overcome them. We are very anxious that that gasholder should be illuminated, and I hope it will be illuminated as soon as possible. This obstruction is a good deal larger than most obstructions, and while I do not say that puts it in a different category from the others, it is distinctly an obstruction which ought to be lit in the interests of safety. I would also deal with the point which my hon. Friend put
    2002
    as to its distance from Heston Aerodrome—whether it was too far away to come within the terms of this Clause. As I said in my opening remarks we have been careful not to specify any distance in the Clause, because an obstruction which is some distance from an aerodrome may be as dangerous as one which is close to it.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported.
    Bill, as amended, in Committee and on re-committal, considered.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of local authorities to carry on businesses in connection with aerodromes provided by them.)
    (1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied, with respect to any aerodrome provided by a local authority under section eight of the principal Act, that it is necessary that the local authority should be empowered to carry on in connection with the aerodrome any particular business, being a business which appears to him to be ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome, but which the authority would not otherwise have power to carry on, he may make an order authorising that local authority, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the order, to carry on that business in connection with the aerodrome.
    Any such order may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order of the Secretary of State.
    (2) Sub-section (2) of section eight of the principal Act is hereby repealed; but any local authority which, immediately before the date of the passing of this Act, was carrying on any business by virtue of a certificate given under that sub-section by the Air Council, may continue to do so until the Secretary of State otherwise directs by an order made either generally or in relation to that local authority.—(Sir P. Sassoon.)
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.55 p.m.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    When the Bill was under consideration in Committee I promised to move on the Report stage an Amendment to Section 8 (2) of the Act of 1920 to secure that a local authority would be empowered to carry on at an aerodrome subsidiary businesses such as the sale of petrol, oil and spare parts where permission to do so had been granted by the Secretary of State by an order made in respect of that particular aerodrome. The result of

    2003
    the new Clause will be that in future any Order will not be of general application but will apply only to the particular aerodrome in question. The effect of repealing Section 8 (2) of the Act of 1920 and the substitution of this new provision is by no means revolutionary. All it does is to substitute ad hoc authorities for the general authorities hitherto given in respect to the carrying on of subsidiary businesses, and obviously it is a more satisfactory method. It denotes no change of attitude or spirit on the part of the Air Ministry in regard to this question of the supply of oil and fuel at their aerodromes by local authorities but merely enables our intentions to be better achieved.
    It was the intention of Section 8 (2) of the Act of 1920 that local authorities should be able to step into the gap and provide services and facilities at their aerodromes where private enterprise had failed to do so. This power was never intended to cover a general system of municipal trading. If that had been the intention the statutory provision would have been drawn in far wider and more explicit terms. The flaw in the provision which is now being repealed is that an Order issued in respect of one particular aerodrome applied automatically to all aerodromes belonging to local authorities. That was clearly an unsatisfactory system. It might be necessary at one aerodrome and wholly unnecessary at another for the local authority to carry on these subsidiary businesses. Under the new Clause it will be possible to deal with each application on its merits, and of course, the Ministry of Health will be consulted in every case.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I wish to move the Amendment standing in my name and in that of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): That Amendment is out of order, as it would impose a charge.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: To which Amendment are you referring, Sir Dennis?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: To all the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Am I entitled to ask for your reasons for not calling these Amendments?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: They are out of order because there is a possibility that they would create a charge. The hon. Member can, of course, put his point of view on the Question before us, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Mr. G. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that any charge or loss is not in question?
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: These Amendments must be taken together in order to make sense: it may be that one of them taken alone cannot create a charge: but it would make nonsense if not connected with another Amendment: as all these Amendments must be taken together, and if taken together might create a charge I must rule them all out of order.
    Mr. EDE: With great respect to your original Ruling that these Amendments might create a charge, do I take the Ruling to mean that the Amendments might have the effect of creating a charge that would not be created if the Clause were passed as moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is so. What I said was that the Amendments might create a charge and were consequently not in order.
    Mr. EDE: Might I suggest that they would create no charge other than that which is provided for by the right hon. Gentleman's own new Clause? If the fear is that this trading might result in a loss and thereby create a charge upon the rates, it obviously cannot create a charge upon the taxes, as might arise from the right hon. Gentleman's own Clause. I submit that in these Amendments there is no extension of the Clause in that way. They are merely the machinery by which the local authorities may carry on business which might or might not result in a loss. No new issue is raised.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The matter has been considered, and it has been decided that the Amendments might create a charge.
    Mr. MANDER: You ruled the Amendments out of order because they might create a charge, but surely one can equally assume that they might not create a charge, and are in order.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is sufficiently acquainted with the rules of this House to know that if these Amendments might possibly create a charge, or if the creation of a charge is a possible result of an Amendment, that possibility is enough to put any such Amendment out of order.
    5.4 p.m.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The Amendments which have been ruled out of order might not be of so much consequence to the critics of the Clause so long as we are able to discuss the general principle involved, and I propose to offer one or two observations in reference to municipal trading in relation to the Air Ministry. I fail to see why municipal trading should be a matter of reference to the Air Ministry with or without reference to the Ministry of Health. It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to refer to the Act of 1920, but we are not discussing that Act. We are discussing this Measure, which will become an Act of Parliament. The time has gone by when the little prejudices against municipal trading by hon. Members opposite, who want civil aviation, and want to do the best they can to make the country air-minded, should be enforced and substantiated in the body of this Measure. That is practically what the Clause amounts to.
    Municipal trading is already under considerable limitation. I fail to see why the existing law should not be left alone, although I would like to extend the powers of municipal authorities. In these days, municipal government has developed from the comparatively incompetent methods of the earlier municipal governments, and big cities and towns are being given tile power to establish aerodromes and are invited to assist the national objective of making the nation air-minded. Hindrances should not be embodied in a Bill of this character against providing a hotel upon an aerodrome or providing other facilities for the owners of aircraft and the users of aerodromes. To say that such facilities might mean a charge upon the rates is beside the point. In any kind of commercial enterprise there is a certain amount of risk, but there is no more risk attached to municipal aerodromes than to any of the other multifarious, municipal trading schemes, which are exceedingly successful.
    2006
    Surely it can be left to local authorities to decide in their wisdom whether it would be desirable for them to engage in this small amount of municipal trading, keeping whatever profits there may be within the municipality, and certainly keeping the control of the trading and the future development of the enterprise in the hands of the general public. It is because we feel that it is exceedingly undesirable, whatever restrictions the House might regard as necessary for municipal trading, that it should be left to the Secretary of State for Air to decide this matter in respect of aerodromes, that we intended to move the Amendments, and that I offer these criticisms.
    5.8 p.m.
    Mr. HARDIE: It is a remarkable thing that we have twice had requests from the opposite benches for an increase in the number of municipal aerodromes. There must be some form of prejudice in that type of man who desires a municipality to enter upon all kinds of responsibilities and risks, and at the same time would use the power of the municipalities as an opportunity for private enterprise to make profits. We were told that if the Amendments were embodied in the Clause there might be a charge somewhere. Not many days ago a question was answered in the House showing that no kind of air service paid. If an air service does not pay, aerodromes cannot. It is prejudice which it is very difficult to understand. If the municipality is to take full responsibility, if it is to act as a complete aerodrome authority, why not make the aerodrome complete under that authority?
    What hon. Members seek to do now is to destroy the organisation, which always depends upon one controlling centre. There are stations that I know where there are always comings and goings, and there are bound to be running repairs required for that service. Why should they not be provided by the authority which has provided the aerodrome? This arrangement would provide a great lever for keeping down prices and keeping prices level, because municipalities are not out to make profit, as is private enterprise, in the provision of those services. I hope the Under-Secretary will see that he is going the right way to put impediments in the way of municipalities by saying that municipalities shall not have

    2007
    the right to spend money in that way. If civil aviation is to have the advance that it should have in this country, no such impediment should be put in the way of anyone who is taking full responsibility for an aerodrome. I make a last appeal to the Under-Secretary to give careful consideration to the Clause before he lets it go. Otherwise he will find himself up against a growing opposition by municipal authorities, and they will be justified in their opposition.
    5.12 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I have very considerable sympathy with the speech that has just been delivered from the other side, not because the Under-Secretary is not trying to do his best to make local authorities responsible for aerodromes. He and the Air Ministry have done their best to ensure that municipalities shall see far enough ahead to provide municipal aerodromes, but I think we must give them the whole picture. If a local authority is to embark upon this enterprise, it should do the whole thing. Looking back upon the history of transport in England nothing is clearer than that when we gave the local authorities the power to trade in transport and only gave them the power to trade in tramcars, we upset the transport development of this country. The Under-Secretary has the right idea, and in another place, or at some later stage, perhaps he will be able to get these aerodromes provided with enthusiasm behind them. That is what we want in the country. It would be advisable to give local authorities the power to trade in as free a way as they can to provide facilities for making their aerodromes popular.
    5.14 p.m.
    Mr. EDE: The remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman remind me of an experience. I am a member of an urban district council which had been asked by certain surrounding local authorities to engage in considering the provision of a new aerodrome in the immediate vicinity of London. It was desirable that that aerodrome should be established, and no less than four county district councils, one borough council and three urban district councils and consultations on the matter. We were faced with the fact that land is very expensive in the vicinity of London and that, for a good many
    2008
    years after the actual provision of the site of the aerodrome, there would be a substantial loss that would have to be borne by the rates. We were stirred up in our efforts by the visits of a lady who has some notoriety as an airwoman. Among her many visits to the locality was one to a rotary club, where she made a speech calling on the district to rise to the occasion; and the eloquent peroration of her speech was to the effect that, if the municipality would only provide the aerodrome, it would be such a fine thing for Messrs. So-and-So, mentioning the name of a great firm of aeroplane manufacturers, who, apparently thought that, if the aerodrome was established and we provided the site at our expense, they would be allowed to come in and have a monopoly for doing all the profitable part of the business. That eloquent but unfortunate peroration killed the whole thing stone dead, because in this wicked world you could not expect members of a municipality, who have to face the ratepayers trienially at elections, to undertake the task of providing a site on which private enterprise might make a profit while they were making a substantial loss.
    I would point out to the Under-Secretary that there is ample protection, because, before the municipalities can invest any capital in this business, they will have to go to the Ministry of Health for a loan, and the municipal finances will be quite adequately protected against undue risk by that ordinary precaution. It seems a pity to put the people who provide municipal aerodromes in a worse position than those who provide private aerodromes, and I imagine that in the vicinity of the great towns great difficulty will be found in getting aerodromes provided of anything like adequate area unless they are provided either by one municipality or by a combination of municipalities. It would be very regrettable if it should be thought, in starting this service, where the good will of the municipalities is, as I understand it, very earnestly desired, that there was any differentiation against them in this matter.
    I had hoped that the Minister might have been able to accept our Amendments, but, as they cannot be moved, he cannot do that, I think that, if we had

    2009
    had an opportunity of dividing on the Amendments, even had we been beaten, we might not have found it necessary to divide against the Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) gave no indication of his views with regard to dividing against the Clause as it is printed, but it seems to me that it would be very difficult for us, holding the views that we do with regard to municipal trading generally, and particularly with regard to the municipal trading so jucidly explained by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut. - Colonel Moore-Brabazon), to accept the Clause in present form without a Division, and I hope the Under-Secretary will feel, if we divide against it, that that is not because we do not recognise that he has met us to a certain extent but because this is one of the cases where, if we have half a loaf, we are at last entitled to say that we would have preferred the whole loaf if it had been possible to get it within the Rules of Order of the House.
    5.21 p.m.
    Mr. LYONS: This seems to be a Clause which gives the Secretary of State power to put some kind of control—I think a proper control—upon what might otherwise be general municipal trading in which the municipal authority would be able to compete in trade with its own ratepayers. I think it is right that the Minister should have some authority to put a check upon that without interfering with the proper right of the authority efficiently to run its municipality. What is the kind of business which appears to the Minister to be ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome? I hope that the Under-Secretary and the Solicitor-General will give us some idea of what businesses will be and what will not be within the meaning of this wide and almost incomprehensible expression, "ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome." We know that at many of the larger aerodromes there are refreshment houses, newspaper stands, and so on. Are we to understand that these are businesses ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome? There are a few cases in this country where local authorities are licensees carrying on hotels, but I think it was stated recently by the Minister of Health that in every one of these
    2010
    cases special circumstances were brought to his notice but for which no such business would have been permitted.
    Who is going to decide in the present case? Is the Minister to say what in his opinion is ancillary? Is he to lay down a list of businesses which, for all time, he will consider to be ancillary, and in respect of any one of which the local authority concerned may apply for his authority to trade? Does it mean that at any moment the Minister may say—and I gather that his decision will be final—that a given business, unconnected though it may be at first sight seem to be with it, is so related to the carrying on of an aerodrome that in his opinion it is a business which is ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome? If he is going to have this unlimited power, it is going to mean a tremendous extension, which I am sure he does not intend, of municipal trading at these aerodromes. I hope we shall be told what generally is going to be the definition of "ancillary" for this purpose. It is a word which in many legal connections in this country has never been free from doubt, and, while we applaud the Minister's action in not giving to municipalities a complete inroad against private enterprise in this case, we hope there will not be any such extreme construction of this remarkable word as will give some unintended right which he never had in mind.
    5.24 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: I think the real significance of this Clause lies in the statement of policy made by the Under-Secretary when the matter was raised in Committee. He said that it would be the deliberate policy and intention of the Government for the future so to administer the matters which we are now discussing as to give the utmost possible benefit to private enterprise, and to check the development of municipal enterprise. I think it would be desirable to give local authorities the widest opportunities of trading in ancillary matters. I would much rather see the present law allowed to continue, so that, if it were considered right that a particular service should be operated by one authority, equal permission should be given to others throughout the country if they cared to take advantage of it. There is a certain controversy now between the principles of strict individualism and municipal

    2011
    trading, and I must say that I find myself on the side of municipal trading. I hope that the Government will be pressed not to exercise their authority, as they declared they would, against municipal trading.
    5.26 p.m.
    Mr. BEVAN: We have had a classic example of how the interests of private enterprise are set up against the public interest, in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons). We have heard from time to time pleas that municipal authorities should undertake the building of aerodromes, and we on this side have listened sympathetically to those pleas. Hon. Members opposite are delivering speeches all over the country saying that this country is quite unprepared in the air to meet the necessities of modern warfare, and one of the purposes of this Bill is to facilitate and regulate civil aviation as one of the foundations for air defence. But here we have a suggestion that the development of civil aviation should be restricted to prevent a municipal authority from selling chocolates as against a private person who might want to sell chocolates. I never heard a more fantastic suggestion.
    The Under-Secretary, in moving the Clause, said that there was not a very substantial difference between it and the language of the principal Act, but the language of the principal Act makes it necessary that an Order having general application should be made, whereas this Clause would make it possible for the Minister to make an Order with respect to a particular aerodrome. I do not regard that as a step forward; it makes the local authority a servant of the Minister, and if it were included in other Acts it would give rise to a storm of indignation. If local authorities need special powers which are not exercised by other local authorities, they have to promote a Private Bill and get those special powers, or to adopt powers in adoptive Acts. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) shakes his head, but that is a perfectly general description of the relationship between the local authorities and the State. Here is a suggestion that the Minister should have power to treat each local authority separately.
    2012
    The local authority must first make an application to the Ministry of Health for a loan, and protection for the ratepayers can be provided there. The local authority would have to justify all the capital expenditure required on every part of the aerodrome. The local authority would have to plan the aerodrome as a whole, and, in planning the aerodrome as a whole, would have to take into account restaurants, refreshment rooms, waiting rooms and so on, both at the aerodrome and also, as is done in connection with many other services, in the town, because many of these aerodromes are a long way from places of business. If an ordinary transport company now provides a restaurant and waiting room at the gathering point for traffic, are the local authorities to be prohibited from doing that? Is it to be said that, if they have a waiting room, and perhaps a refreshment room, on the aerodrome itself, they cannot have them in the town or in the city where the passengers embark on the omnibus or car to go to the aerodrome? Is not a waiting room or a refreshment room there just as much a part of the general organisation of the aerodrome as the aerodrome itself? Would it be regarded as not coming within the meaning of the word "ancillary" to allow the authority to have a licensed bar at the aerodrome?
    I would like to know exactly what the meaning is, and what the position of the local authority is to be. It is going to be encouraged to embark on a vast capital expenditure, approved by the Ministry of Health; then there is to be another inquiry by the Secretary of State for Air; and then an Order will be made allowing these things to be done. But after that, any such Order may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order of the Secretary of State. So the local authority may be encouraged to embark on capital expenditure in the first instance and is then completely at the mercy of the Secretary for Air. Any private interest can bring pressure to bear on the Minister and say, "Here is a local authority carrying on a business of an extremely profitable kind," and it can urge him to revoke the Order and allow them to carry on the business. If I know the complexion of this Government and governments of the same kind, they will be extremely sensitive to pressure of that kind and will after a time revoke the

    2013
    Order and allow the business to be carried on by the private concern.
    We understand also that it might be possible for the local authority to make provision in the original plans for stands or stalls, and ultimately they would lease them to private concerns. The hon. Member asked if it was fair that a local authority should use the rates in order to carry on unfair competition against those who have to pay the rates. Here is an instance where the local authority is asked to incur a vast capital expenditure on what is known beforehand to be a heavily losing concern. What the hon. Member is suggesting is that the ratepayers as a whole should provide the expenditure in order that particular ratepayers might be able to make a profit. It is absurd for the Minister to suggest that one of the reasons why the Clause has been adopted is in order to protect the ratepayer. It is not. It is in order to protect private interests. He may say that we are pressing the matter because it is strictly in accordance with our Socialist principles to do so. On the other hand, ought he to set the interests of this small class of persons against the national interest? Ought he not to be able to say to local authorities, "If you are prepared to build an aerodrome you should be complete masters in your own house. You should organise the aerodrome as you wish and you should carry on any ancillary business you care to, without any interference from us."
    I have been a member of a local authority for many years and, if it was suggested to me that we should raise a large loan to build an aerodrome and establish businesses and then find ourselves entirely under the orders of a State Department not making any contribution to the capital outlay, I should regard it as an absurd proposition. I know of no provision of this kind in any other Statute. It is a piece of sheer financial irresponsibility. I admit the claim that, if a local authority is to spend money part of which the State provides, the State is entitled to have a say in the administration, but here is the reverse principle. Here is a local authority spending its own money and the State saying, "You are to be our instrument in determining how it is to be spent." If the Minister desires to promote the creation of municipal aerodromes, he had better not hedge them round with limitations merely in
    2014
    order to satisfy the claims of reactionary private individuals.
    5.36 p.m.
    Mr. MARKHAM: I have listened with considerable interest to arguments of hon. Members opposite and I am in entire agreement with them. It has been my privilege in the last few years to travel extensively by air, and Imperial Airways, where they have been encouraged to set up aerodromes, have also been encouraged to set up these ancillary services. Here we have municipalities setting up aerodromes but being discouraged—that is the only word one can use—by this Clause from providing these ancillary services. I would ask what are the intentions behind the Clause, and I would particularly refer to the second sentence, that any Order permitting local authorities to institute these ancillary services may be varied or revoked. I feel that this interpolation wrecks the whole purpose of the Clause. Assume that facilities are provided not only for food and drink but also for sleeping accommodation, which is often necessary, and the business becomes profitable. I am not questioning the right of private interests to get business, but you may get terrific pressure from hotel and other organisations, not only on the local authorities but through Parliament. We know that such pressure has been exerted in other matters. The question is whether this sentence is going to be used to put municipalities in a worse position than other interests. I look with considerable sympathy on municipal trading and I hope it will extend.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: We do not want to register an adverse vote if we can help it, but the point has been strongly put that under the existing law the interests of ratepayers are adequately safeguarded. Will the Solicitor-General consider withdrawing the Clause pending consideration in another place? It will be a valuable gesture without any disadvantage to the Government.
    5.40 p.m.
    Mr. W. H. GREEN: I was under the impression that the Amendment in my name was not in order, but I gather that that is not so. I share the view that has been expressed in more than one quarter of the House that, if the Clause is passed as it stands, it will cause grave concern to municipalities. I had understood that the Government desired to encourage the

    2015
    establishment of municipal aerodromes up and down the country. I cannot conceive a Clause which would have a more depressing effect than this on the possibilities of that development. The London County Council, of which I am a member, is disturbed at its wording and, while we did not anticipate going to the extent of voting against it, we felt that a reasonable Amendment might be made which would go at least some way towards allaying the fears of municipalities. The Under-Secretary assured the House—I am convinced that they needed little assurance on the point—that he had been most amenable to reasonable criticisms that had been made of the Measure. When I heard him say that, I hoped that at this late stage of the Bill he was not going to lose his reputation, and it encouraged me to put this Amendment on the Paper.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Terence O'Connor): On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in moving his Amendment? I was under the impression that we were having a general discussion on the Clause.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I perhaps misled the hon. Member myself. The Amendment cannot be moved until the Clause has been read a Second time. It might be for the convenience of the House if he moved his Amendment formally after the Clause has been read a Second time.
    Mr. GREEN: I feel that, if we substituted "desirable and expedient" for "necessary," it would remove some of the objections which municipalities have to the Clause. The word "necessary" seems to me too restricted and too rigid. It might very easily lead to very unhappy results in its interpretation. "Desirable and expedient," it seems to me, may provide all the necessary safeguards for those who fear that this might conceivably open the door to a flood of municipal trading. We are not particularly wedded to the actual words, but we suggest that the word "necessary" is much too rigid, and we find confirmation of it in several parts of the Bill. Where powers are sought to make roads or put up buildings and do other works of the sort, the word "necessary" is not used. In Section (1) of the Act of 1920 it was used and it is found to have been too restrictive and it is to be altered and the
    2016
    expression "desirable or expedient" substituted.
    There are many ancillary purposes which a municipal aerodrome will find it necessary to develop, and one feels that municipalities ought not to be placed in the position that they are only entitled to develop those services where a dead loss is certain before they start, and, if municipalities are to be encouraged in this direction, it is desirable that those ancillary services which will lessen the loss that would otherwise be incurred should be allowed and encouraged. Such services as the sale of refreshments, and, in special cases, the provision and maintenance of a hotel may be ancillary. As has been pointed out, most of these aerodromes will be some distance removed from populous neighbourhoods. It will be necessary to supply petrol and lubricating oil, to repair aeroplanes and supply spare parts, and, as the service develops, other ancillary services may be necessary. The Under-Secretary of State might reasonably accept this alteration in the form of words and make it a little more easy for these municipal services to be developed on the lines that municipalities would desire. I commend the suggestion to the Under-Secretary, and hope that he will find it possible to accept the Amendment.
    5.47 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sorry that I cannot do what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. W. H. Green) suggested, and I think that when one looks at what this proposed new Clause does, it may be that a good deal of the arguments this afternoon have been founded upon a misapprehension. It is not a restricting Clause; it is an enabling Clause. It is a Clause enabling local authorities to do something which they have no statutory right to do at the present time. This is neither the time nor the place to enter into any general discussion as to what local authorities ought or ought not to be permitted to do in the way of invading the realm of private trade. That is a matter of very general interest that certainly would not be appropriate on this occasion. The position is that upon the Committee stage there were a number of Amendments from hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House purposing to restrict the powers of local

    2017
    authorities, so that they should not be allowed to deal in fuel and various articles of that kind. Those were restricting Amendments, and my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General resisted them, and stated that we were not prepared to accept them. It was pointed out that there was an alteration considered desirable in the existing law, not by way of further restrictions, but by way of clearing up a position which was anomalous. I will explain in a little detail what this Clause really effects. By the Act of 1920 local authorities are empowered to establish aerodromes, and Section 8, Sub-section (2) says:
    "A local authority providing an aerodrome under this section shall have power to carry on in connection therewith any subsidiary business certified by the Air Council to be ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome."
    The House will note the significance of the words "an aerodrome," the reason for inserting which I am at a loss to understand. The effect of that Sub-section has been that, where a local authority has established a local aerodrome, if it were desired to get a certificate to permit it to carry on in connection therewith any subsidiary business certified to be ancillary, it had to satisfy the Air Council that such subsidiary business was ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome. That is to say, that, far and wide over the country as a whole, the certificate might apply that such a business is ancillary. What has been the result in actual practice? The Act has been in existence for 16 years, and it has only been invoked on one occasion. I do not know how it comes about that it has not been invoked on more occasions, but one reason which occurs to me is that there may be a considerable difficulty in satisfying the Air Ministry that a particular business is ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome.
    It may very well be—it is no concern of the Ministry whether it should be or should not—that this Clause may or may not increase the number of applications made for certificates or orders. We are providing in this Clause that when the application is made by a local authority, it shall be considered in relation not to aerodromes in general, but to the particular aerodrome in respect of which the application is made. It follows from that,
    2018
    that it is not possible to give an answer in completely general terms to many of the questions which have been addressed to me, for instance, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who both asked whether certain premises would be ancillary. The answer is that we no longer propose to do what was done under the 1920 Act, and say that such and such a business is ancillary to all aerodromes, but the matter will have to be considered upon the circumstances in each case.
    Some of the examples that would, in given circumstances, be ancillary are provisions for the sale of petrol and oil, which might be ancillary in cases where there were not reasonable conveniences in the neighbourhood, the sale of spare parts, where the same considerations apply; the doing of repairs to aircraft and to engines, and, in certain circumstances, the provision of hotel accommodation where otherwise there would be no accommodation for passengers. I ask hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite to consider the proposed new Clause in the light of the instances I have just given. As I read the existing law, which is contained in the Act of 1920, it would be almost impossible to certify that some or all of those particular businesses were ancillary to the business of carrying on an aerodrome in every case.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Does that appertain to municipalities?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Oh, yes; the instances which I have given are instances in which, in my view at any rate, in given circumstances, these businesses would be ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome in a particular locality.
    Mr. HARDIE: The hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed to the present law as being an inducement to municipalities to come forward, but the difference between this Bill and the Act of 1920 is that, under the existing Act, once a certificate is granted by the authorities he has quoted, it remains permanent, and does he think that under the Bill there will be an inducement to local authorities to start anything when they know that it might be revoked by a subsequent order of the Secretary of State?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have not overlooked that point. When I heard it raised from the benches opposite I realised that it was a point of substance, and perhaps I had better deal with it right away. It is true that the Act of 1920 does not provide for the revocation or the withdrawal of a certificate once given. The view is that those certificates are in their nature revocable documents, and that it was not necessary to specify that they should be revoked. Doubt has been cast upon that view, and there has been a suggestion that there might be difficulty in revoking such an Order. Therefore, power is taken in the present Clause to revoke Orders where necessary.
    I absolutely appreciate the point that has been made that it would be almost impossible to ask a local authority to undertake expenditure in connection with sonic business of this kind and then to allow it to be at the complete mercy of the Secretary of State in regard to the withdrawal of an Order he had made. One cannot imagine any Secretary of State acting in a captious way like that, but there is some safeguard in the first Sub-section, because he may make an Order authorising the local authority,
    "subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the Order, to carry on that business."
    It would be possible under Sub-section (1), and indeed a prudent local authority could ensure it, to include among the conditions inserted in the Order a condition giving a reasonable tenure at any rate, so that the Order might endure for a certain period of time. That appears to me to provide material for a practical safeguard. You must have some power to revoke an Order that is made, because the circumstances in which an Order was made might entirely disappear and an aerodrome might cease to be used. Is it then proposed that you should, by virtue of an Order of this kind, leave the authority in possession of a business which had no longer any relation to aerodromes at all?
    Mr. BEVAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that if the aerodrome died all the businesses ancillary to it would die very quickly.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It may be, I do not know. I think it was the hon. Gentleman himself who asked whether a licensed bar would be ancillary
    2020
    to the business of all aerodrome. It might be that a licensed bar would be ancillary in a given instance, but if for reasons of town planning or other developments the aerodrome was abandoned and the bar remained, it would cease to be so. Is it suggested that in those circumstances the local authority ought, by virtue of a provision of an Air Navigation Bill and not as a matter of general policy, have power to continue the provision of alcoholic liquores?
    Mr. BEVAN: I am not a lawyer, but surely the power to carry on any business ancillary to an aerodrome would lapse if the aerodrome itself lapsed?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am not at all sure that that would necessarily follow. If the business at the time the order was made was ancillary, I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman is right that, if the business to which it was ancillary disappeared, the power also would disappear unless there was power to revoke. However, a point of substance has been raised about this power of revocation, and I will give an undertaking that it shall be looked into before the Bill reaches another place, with a view to seeing whether, consistently with retaining the power of varying, because it is both varying and revocation that are necessary—one does not want undue rigidity ill a matter of this kind—we cannot do something to ensure that there shall be some security of tenure, at any rate on the part of local authorities who are granted power in this form. For the reasons that I have advanced, I submit that this is not a Bill which is invading the rights of local authorities, and is not an attack upon the powers of trading, or upon the general issue, which remains entirely untouched. The Clause deals with the simple, narrow and restricted area of local trading which has been placed in rather an absurd position by an earlier Act. I hope that in these circumstances the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to divide the House. As regards the Amendment, perhaps I shall be in order if I deal with it—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No. It was for the convenience of the House generally that the hon. Member speaking on the question "That the Clause be read a Second time," said that as he was then dealing with the subject of his

    2021
    Amendment he would not make a second speech but only formally move his Amendment after the Clause had been read a Second time. When that has been done the hon. Member will formally move the Amendment and it can then be discussed by the House.
    6.1 p.m.
    Mr. GARRO JONES: I should very much like to assent to the suggestion that you have made, that we should now dispose of the Second Reading of this Clause, but in view of the fact that the Solicitor-General has not met us either on the major aspect of our complaint or in regard to any substantial details of them, I am afraid that we shall have to say a few further words about the Clause before we allow it to go to a Division. It was once said about an eminent lawyer Member of this House that he was very great on a small point, but very small on a great point. The hon. and learned Member fulfilled the former of those qualifications in his speech. He endeavoured to rebut our complaint by the suggestion that the words "an aerodrome" were broader than the words "the aerodrome," or vice versa. I was not able to follow his reasoning. It appears to me that the powers he is now taking are very much more restrictive to the enterprise of local authorities than the powers as they stand in previous legislation. He made a great point of the fact that this is an enabling provision, that it is giving something which did not exist before and that we ought to be satisfied with it. I agree that it is an enabling provision, but if we think it right to enable a local authority to do something, surely it is wise to enable them to do it adequately. Our main complaint about the Clause is that it does not enable them to do it adequately.
    If we could detach ourselves from the hidden complex which is to be found in the way the Government Front Bench looks at every trading question as between local authorities and private enterprise, it would appear ridiculous that when a local authority finds it necessary to start some enterprise it should be hedged about with every form of restriction and difficulty which does not apply if that same enterprise is being entered upon by some profit-making concern. That is a farcical position, if we can only take prejudice
    2022
    out of it. Why is it necessary for the Under-Secretary to be so anxious that when a local authority starts an aerodrome it should not start any enterprise which might compete with private enterprise near by? Look at the safeguards in the Clause. First, the enterprise must be ancillary to the aerodrome. That is a strange word. What does "ancillary" mean? It means almost anything that the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State wishes it to mean. The same drawback and vagueness of the term which may prove useful in a restrictive sense to the Secretary of State to-day will prove equally useful in an expansive sense to the Secretary of State probably in some future years.
    The word "ancillary" is one of those very vague words which we frequently find in Statutes. I believe the derivation is from a Latin word meaning hand-maid. Anything which can be taken to be subsidiary, or subservient, or helpful, and comes within the function of the term "hand-maid," can be carried out by the local authority as being ancillary to the conduct of an aerodrome, but that is only the first test that has to be passed. We then find that it is necessary that the local authorities should be empowered to carry it on. It must not only be ancillary, but it must be necessary for the local authority to carry on this ancillary enterprise at the same time. Not only must is he necessary and ancillary, but it must even then be subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may impose. When it has been proved necessary, when it is ancillary, when it has been subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may impose, even then he has power to revoke or vary.
    The position is really farcical, and I cannot understand why the Front Bench opposite persists in that attitude. The trouble is that in their morbid jealousy of the activities of local authorities they are being driven as the years pass into ever more ridiculous position, until the whole attitude they adopt about the activities of local authorities and State enterprise will collapse and bring the Government down with it. I have no wish to make a bigger issue of this point. This is the type of observation which we could make on half the proposals that the Government bring forward, for the simple reason that half the proposals we

    2023
    have debated on the Floor of the House, certainly in this Parliament and in the last few years, have been proposals which have endeavoured to maintain a, semblance of private enterprise without concealing the principle that State and
    municipal control is the most efficient way of carrying on enterprise.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 112.

    Division No. 250.]

    AYES.

    [6.7 p.m.

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

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Penny, Sir G.

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

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Albery, Sir I. J.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

    Petherick, M.

    Assheton, R.

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gunston, Capt. D. W.

    Pilkington, R.

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

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Plugge, L. F.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

    Porritt, R. W.

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

    Hanbury, Sir C.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Beit, Sir A. L.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Blair, Sir R.

    Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Blindell, Sir J.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

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

    Brass, Sir W.

    Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

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

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Salt, E. W.

    Cary, R. A.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

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

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

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

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

    Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

    Savery, Servington

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

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

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Jackson, Sir H.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Chorlton, A. E. L.

    Keeling, E. H.

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

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Smithers, Sir W.

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

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

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

    Kirkpatrick, W. M.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

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

    Latham, Sir P.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Crooke, J. S.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

    Lees-Jones, J.

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

    Cross, R. H.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Lloyd, G. W.

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

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Davison, Sir W. H.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

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

    De Chair, S. S.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

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

    Touche, G. C.

    Dodd, J. S.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Train, Sir J.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Drewe, C.

    McKie, J. H.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

    Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Turton, R. H.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

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

    Duggan, H. J.

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

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Markham, S. F.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

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

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Elliot. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

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

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Entwistle, C. F.

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Everard, W. L.

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

    Wise, A. R.

    Findlay, Sir E.

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

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Furness, S. N.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Wragg, H.

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

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

    Goodman, Col. A. W.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Dr. Morris-Jones and Lieut.-Colonel

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Peat, C. U.

    Llewellin.

    NOES.

    Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)

    Hardle, G. D.

    Potts, J.

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

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Price, M. P.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Pritt, D. N.

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

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Ritson, J.

    Banfield, I. W.

    Holland, A.

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

    Barnes, A. J.

    Jagger, J.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Barr, J.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Batey, J.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Rowson, G.

    Bellenger, F.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Benson, G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bevan, A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Short, A.

    Brooke, W.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silkin, L.

    Burke, W. A.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Chater, D.

    Lathan, G.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, J. J.

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Lee, F.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cove, W. G.

    Leonard, W.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Daggar, G.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Dalton, H.

    Logan, D. G.

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

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Thorne, W.

    Dobbie, W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Ede, J. C.

    MacLaren, A.

    Viant, S. P.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Walker, J.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    MacNeill, Weir, L.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Marklew, E.

    Westwood, J.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Marshall, F.

    White, H. Graham

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Messer, F.

    Whiteley, W.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Milner, Major J.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Montague, F.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N)

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Groves, T. E.

    Paling, W.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Parker, J.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Charleton.

    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. W. H. GREEN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 3, to leave out "necessary," and to insert "desirable and expedient."
    6.17 p.m.
    Mr. GARRO JONES: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make a beau geste and accept this minor Amendment. The word "necessary" is much more restrictive than the words "desirable and expedient," and if the new Clause came before the courts for interpretation a much more restrictive meaning would be placed upon it than the meaning given to it by the Secretary of State. The word "necessary" means almost as much as the word "imperative." On the other hand, "desirable and expedient" can he inserted in the new Clause without destroying the degree of restriction which the Government desire to maintain.
    6.18 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will go as far as I can to meet the hon. Member, but I cannot accept the Amendment in its present form. If he would accept the addition of the words "or expedient" after the word "necessary," I am prepared to accept it. It would give a little more discretion to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. GREEN: I am prepared to accept the suggestion, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In line 3, after "necessary" insert "or expedient"—[The Solicitor-General.]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Agreements for subsidising air transport.)
    6.20 p.m.
    Mr. EVERARD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to insert:
    "and
    (c) no subsidy shall be paid under any such agreement unless the persons intended to be subsidised shall agree to co-operate reasonably with the owners of other British air-transport services and not to use their subsidised position in any way which the Secretary of State may consider to be detrimental to such other services."
    On the Second Reading and during the Committee stage there was considerable discussion as to the granting of subsidies to new companies and the object in moving this Amendment is to get something fairly clear from the Minister on

    2027
    the point. From the taxpayers' point of view it is infinitely better, once a subsidy has been given to any particular company, that every effort should be made to see that duplicate services are not run by another company to the detriment of the taxpayers' money. Originally, four or five companies were working between London and Paris and they were merged into one large company and subsidised under the name of Imperial Airways. There are other instances where subsidies have been given to a merger company, the Cunard-White Star lines, and the railways during the War. The Government have generally considered that it is in the public interest when public money is given by subsidies, that the merger interests should be secured as far as possible. That is particularly necessary in the aviation world. You may have one company operating a service to a given place with an aerodrome and the cost of upkeep, and another company wishing to fly to the same place and having to build another aerodrome. It appears to those who support this Amendment that the taxpayers' money is well expended in Imperial Airways because there has been a merger, and they work on the lines I have indicated. If we are to give subsidies to new companies or to other companies running in competition to the same places, then a great deal of the money—it is not a large sum—which is to be devoted to the development of civil aviation will not be put to the best advantage.
    Sir. M. SUETER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    6.25 p.m.
    Mr. PERKINS: I take this opportunity of once again appealing to the Government to use their good offices to bring together British Airways and British Continental Airways. They both run between London and Stockholm. They are both financed by British capital, and they are both run by British pilots. One gets a subsidy and the other does not. While we are satisfied as to the way in which the subsidy is granted, it is not in the best interests of British flying that these two companies should be competing, and I would urge that everything should be done to bring these two concerns together by the Under-Secretary himself calling a conference and himself
    2028
    presiding over it, to thrash out a scheme which will result in the elimination of a great deal of wasteful competition. The right hon. Gentleman really has got the whip hand. He has offered the subsidy to one company, but it cannot be granted until this Bill becomes law. Is it possible for him to hold his hand until he has done everything in his power to bring these two concerns together?
    6.27 p.m.
    Major HILLS: I agree that any union of companies which can be brought about by the activities of the Secretary of State is of benefit to the Air Service. The duplication of services is a disadvantage to the public. But there is a danger in this Clause. The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) confined his argument to the new companies which are starting under a subsidy. These, I understand, are the Scandinavian services and the South Atlantic services. The companies which fly these services will be put to great expense. They will have to make aerodromes, build up their services, and spend money on making a connection, and I see a danger that some duplication might take place under the Clause. I admit that the Clause is carefully drafted and that the people who are to have the advantage of using the facilities are to co-operate reasonably, and that the Secretary of State is to be satisfied that their co-operation will not be detrimental to existing services. But still I see a danger of getting a duplication of services. There is a danger of our going back to the position as it was before the Imperial Airways merger.
    In the matter of transport the State has decided that competition in transport is not in the public interest. In the early days of railways Parliament was much more willing to grant running powers to rival interests than it is now, and in the case of roads, which at first were free to all who desired to run competing services, the State has now wisely regulated the traffic and does not allow the interloper to butt in at profitable times, run a service to a race meeting or a fair and skim the cream of the traffic. The State, through the Traffic Commissioner, is very wise in doing that, because the regular services would not be so efficient if they were liable to be attacked by an outsider in that way. Although I wish to help civil

    2029
    aviation as much as I can, and do not want to see competition on these new services which the State is going to subsidise, I suggest that there is a danger that if the Clause were passed in this form, the very object which it seeks to obtain might be jeopardised.
    6.31 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: I would like to say a few words in support of the Amendment, because I believe there is a point of substance in it. From information which I have received, I believe it to be the case that Imperial Airways, for example, use their privileged position to: make things difficult for people who try to operate services on the same route. They certainly do not welcome competition, and they have great powers which E am not satisfied are exercised as fairly and impartially as they ought to be. I think that before these great sums of money are given to any company, assurances ought to be received—and steps ought to be taken to see that those assurances are carried out—that everybody will have an equal opportunity on those routes, whether subsidised or not. I do not say this as any criticism generally of Imperial Airways which, as I have said before in this House, have done admirable work. That, however, is no reason why they should misuse any of the powers given to them. Apart from that, this is an issue which will tend to arise more and more as we make further agreements concerning other parts of the world. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air is at the present time dealing with applications from five different firms to run a service to South America, and he told me yesterday that the applications had all been sent back for certain reasons to those who made the tenders. I am bound to say that at any rate one of them has received no information whatever, so that, in fact, the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made seems to have been incorrect. I should be glad if he would be good enough to look into that point. When the subsidised service is run to South America it is conceivable that there may be other people willing to run a service without receiving a subsidy. If that be so, assurances ought to be given that the subsidised service will not use its powers
    2030
    in any way to the detriment of other services.
    6.35 p.m.
    Mr. HARDIE: I would like to support the Amendment if I could, but from the wording I cannot see how it would be applied. The words "shall agree to co-operate reasonably" present enormous difficulties which might have been removed if the Mover had inserted certain definite things which were to be within the power of the Secretary of State for Air. That which seems reasonable to an unsubsidised company may not seem reasonable to a subsidised company, and the fight which is now going on between the two is such that it brings some disgrace—if I may use that word—into the development of civil aviation, which we are trying to assist. If we are to have co-operation in British air transport, it seems to me that this is not the way to obtain it. One cannot ask a company which is not subsidised to co-operate with a company which is subsidised. What we ought to do is to put civil aviation on a national basis. It is absurd to subsidise one company and expect unsubsidised private enterprise to compete with it. If civil aviation is to be developed on a basis which will leave no room for such Amendments as the one which is now before us, every part of it must he under national control, and if that were the case all the difficulties which arise out of one company competing with another would be removed. We have heard to-day about the ever-increasing difficulties in air transport due to private enterprise. It has been pointed out that air transport does not pay, but those who say that always advocate that the corporate body shall spend some money on it. The demand for municipal aerodromes is illustrative of that. While it is known that air services do not pay as services, the municipalities or the nation are always asked to step in to assist in some way. Why not be reasonable and say that since civil aviation has to be assisted in that way, we will now enter into the business on a national basis and so complete the job?
    6.38 p.m.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: I apologise that unavoidable circumstances precluded my being in my place at the time when you

    2031
    called upon me to move this Amendment. With regard to the point which the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) raised, much as I would like to follow him, I do not think this is the time and opportunity to discuss national ownership of civil air transport. We are at the moment faced with the problem of dealing equitably both with subsidised and unsubsidised civil air transport companies, and I think that is the problem to which we must exclusively devote our attention. I suggest there is good reason for introducing this proviso in that Imperial Airways, Limited, which are clearly the largest recipient of these subsidies, appear to my hon. Friends and myself to be taking a view which is logical enough to them, but which appears to us not quite to embrace the conception of a subsidised company in civil air transport held by many hon. Members.
    It boils clown to this main question: Are we subsidising Imperial Airways, Limited, for the benefit of the shareholders of that company, or are we subsidising them in order that we may develop British civil air transport throughout the Empire? I believe the latter is and has always been the intention of this House. Therefore, it is right that we should examine the attitude of Imperial Airways towards other civil aircraft operators who are not in receipt of subsidies. I will give two instances of the policy which Imperial Airways adopt. I would call that policy a hard commercial policy, but I would not in any way suggest that it is an improper policy. I would suggest that probably the Air Ministry have been at fault in the past in not making abundantly clear what are the general responsibilities of a subsidised company to other unsubsidised civil air transport companies. Therefore, if we can elucidate that position so that we may be clear in future, we shall have gained much by this new proviso.
    First, there is the question as to whether there shall be reasonable co-operation between a subsidised company and an unsubsidised company so far as the reception of passengers and freight is concerned. I have here a memorandum, dated 11th February of this year, in which Imperial Airways made it abundantly plain to all their staff what was the atti-
    2032
    tude of the company. The Memorandum says:
    "If they," (that is, the unsubsidised companies) "ask us to carry loads of freight which, for some reason or other, they are unable to accommodate, we politely regret that owing to lack of space we are unable to assist them. With regard to any passengers they may not be able to carry on their services through cancelled services, we are not prepared to accept them straight from the companies concerned with a view to carrying them on behalf of those companies."
    That may be very much in the interests of the shareholders of Imperial Airways in that the air-travelling public will begin to realise that if, for any reason, the services of these unsubsidised companies are curtailed, or postponed, Imperial Airways will do nothing to assist those passengers to reach their destination. That is indicative of the attitude of this vast company with its strides right across the surface of the Empire. Here possibly is another little incident which is more intimate to the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air. Last Monday, unfortunately, an aircraft of one of the unsubsidised companies crashed in the middle of Croydon aerodrome owing to the fact that the pilot omitted to wind down his undercarriage, which was of the retractile type. This is what the managing director of that company wrote by way of apology to the chief aerodrome officer at Croydon Aerodrome on the following day:
    "With regard to the unfortunate accident which occurred late last night, when one of our machines came to grief in the middle of the aerodrome, we very much regret that we were unable to move the machine for many hours and that it had to remain right in the middle of the aerodrome during most of the night. We did our utmost to get the machine away as soon as possible, but as Imperial Airways were the only people who had suitable tackle for lifting and drawing the machine out of the way of other aircraft, we called upon them for assistance. They actually started the work, but when it was discovered by the officials of Imperial Airways that they were helping our firm, which is under their boycott, they immediately instructed their men to discontinue the work. It was too late at night to obtain any assistance beyond that which your own aerodrome staff were able to give us, and after many hours, with the help of several motor cars, we managed to tow the machine out of the way and to a position of safety. Unfortunately, our machine was severely damaged during this procedure. Regretting the inconvenience caused.…"

    2033
    That machine was not only a danger to Imperial Airways, but was a danger to all aircraft using Croydon aerodrome that night. It seems to me very serious that the civil air transport company which we have subsidised in this country should so fail to understand its general responsibilities to the country that it should allow a state of affairs such as I have read out to continue. I particularly wish to emphasise the fact that foreign aircraft operating companies regard their own capital cities as their own particular purview and responsibility. That is to say if any aircraft, German, British, French or Belgian crashed at the Tempelhof Aerodrome at Berlin, as any hon. Member who has been there and has seen the efficiency of that air-port will agree, the Deutsche Lufthansa, the German subsidised transport company, would immediately strain every nerve to have that aircraft removed in the shortest possible time.
    These are not by any means all the incidents that I could bring to the attention of the House to show how necessary it is that this point should be cleared up as to the general responsibilities of subsidised air transport companies to the country, and thus to all other air transport operators. Hon. Members have talked frequently about the inability of certain air transport companies to use certain booking offices. That is another indication of the general trend of policy of our great subsidised company. I appeal to the Under-Secretary, if he cannot accept this Amendment, to give us a definite indication of the attitude of the Government towards all subsidised companies—I do not speak only of Imperial Airways. I ask him to tell us whether he will call upon all these companies to behave, generally, in a manner which will assist the reputation and the development of British civil air transport. The point was made by the hon. Member opposite that there was a possibility of the word "reasonably" being misunderstood, but I do not think there is any fear of that. The word "reasonably" is to be interpreted by the Secretary of State in relation to what he considers to be "detrimental to such other services." I hope, in view of the strong support which I know is felt throughout the House for this proposal, that my right hon. Friend will be able to assist us in this matter.
    6.49 p.m.
    Mr. GARRO JONES: I am sure the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) for bringing before us information which is of grave importance when we are considering the principles upon which State subsidies should be granted to civil aviation companies. He made it clear that Imperial Airways, which is the company receiving the largest amount of subsidy—up to a maximum of £1,500,000 a year—is not only pursuing a policy of non-co-operation with other and smaller companies, which are not receiving subsidies but has embarked on a policy of boycott with regard to them. Indeed we have been confronted with examples of situations in which they have pursued a definitely anti-social policy. Here is the case of a machine which crashes in the middle of a Government aerodrome and because it belongs to a company which is a humble rival of Imperial Airways, they make no effort, in the interests of public safety, to remove the wreckage. It is precisely as if a hangar, outside the danger-zone of Imperial Airways property, at one of these aerodromes, were to burst into flames and Imperial Airways refused to help with fire-extinguishing apparatus.
    Suppose the right hon. Baronet went on a, journey, incognito, and made the first part of that journey in an unsubsidised machine and endeavoured to continue it in an Imperial Airways machine. Apparently, if Imperial Airways knew that he had been giving his patronage to an unsubsidised company, they would refuse to carry him for the remainder of the journey and he might have to stop for a week, perhaps in the middle of the desert, until a service was provided for him. However reluctant the Minister may he to do anything which would arouse the displeasure of Imperial Airways, he must recognise that in this case a vital principle is at stake. I understand that those who move this Amendment are not tied to the words and I think that the words could be improved. I do not anticipate that the word "reasonably" will raise any difficulty of interpretation. It is a word which is being interpreted every day in the courts and is perhaps one of the words which gives rise to least trouble in the courts.
    The second part of the proposal, however, may require some modification. One

    2035
    difficulty is that the company receiving the subsidy is merely required to "agree to co-operate reasonably." I do not know whether that implies that failure so to agree, would involve the sanction of withdrawal of the subsidy. It should be made crystal clear that the provision will apply, if a company in receipt of a subsidy maintains an anti-social policy in the conduct of its services—which we have shown to be possible—or has a lesser degree of guilt in maintaining an attitude of non-co-operation or boycott towards its rivals, or has a still lesser degree of guilt in withholding its cordial co-operation from unsubsidised companies. The principle which we want to establish is that such a company should look upon these other companies not as rivals but as younger brothers, if I may put it in that way, engaged in the same great pioneer work of building up the civil aviation of this country. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Baronet will recognise the importance and reasonableness of the proposal and accept this Amendment, or something like it.
    6.54 p.m.
    Mrs. TATE: I wish to endorse all that has been said by the last two speakers. I have here the bills of a private flyer who had to land at various Imperial Airways ports between here and India. I do not think anyone will disagree with me as to the importance of encouraging private flying in this country at the present time. This pilot had to land at Gaza and there he was charged, in addition to the half-crown landing fee, no less than £1 for services in connection with the clearance of the aerodrome. He had to land at Gaza to clear the Customs and he was only on the ground for 30 minutes and all that the station superintendent had to do was to telephone to the Customs officer, approximately a mile-and-a-half away. For that, as I say, a fee of £1 was charged, and at every station where he landed on an Imperial Airways landing ground, the same extraordinarily heavy charges were made. In view of the fact that we pay a very sufficient subsidy to Imperial Airways and that in many cases the service of their aerodromes is provided for them. I think the least we might expect in return is that they should do all in their power to encourage anyone who has to use those aerodromes.
    2036
    I should also like to mention the case of the Railway Clearing House and the subsidised lines. As hon. Members know, the Railway Clearing House is a body formed in order that railway companies might have certain power in regard to the sale of tickets on their lines by agencies. That has been extended to cover the booking of tickets on various air lines and the position to-day is that Messrs. Pickfords, Thomas Cook & Son, Dean and Dawsons and other companies, are unable to sell tickets for some of the air lines of this country, and I think I am right in saying that they cannot sell tickets to people abroad for any British line other than Imperial Airways. I think it is an appalling situation that we in the House should allow that system to continue, when we all recognise the importance of encouraging civil aviation and when so much lip service is being paid to the importance of civil aviation. To quote one instance, the Blackpool and West Coast air services established the pioneer air service between Liverpool, Blackpool and the Isle of Man. I think I am right in saying that they were two years in advance of any railway air service but from the moment the railway services began to run their air line and they actually took over the aerodrome which had been provided by the pioneer company, it was impossible for any ticket to be issued by Cooks or any of the well-known travel agencies for the Blackpool and Liverpool lines. I think it is most important that we should have an assurance from the Under-Secretary that an end shall be put to that disgraceful state of affairs and I hope that, in addition to giving that assurance, he will accept the Amendment.
    6.57 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I suppose a case can be made out for the contention that the resources of a great company which has practically a monopoly should not be put at the disposal of its rivals. For instance, if a vehicle belonging to another undertaking breaks down on the road, it can be argued that there is no necessity for London Transport to get out their breakdown gear to clear the wreckage. But what shows itself clearly in this discussion is that unless we get a national spirit in these subsidised companies, the sooner they go the better and the sooner we go the whole hog and have a nationalised Imperial service the

    2037
    better. If companies which are taking the British taxpayers' money are to behave like ordinary companies, competing one against the other, with no Imperial or national ideal, then they will go. We may pass Acts of Parliament thinking that we are going to have these subsidies for many years but things will change. Everything can be wiped out by the power of this House. Although it may be difficult for the Under-Secretary to accept this actual Amendment it is high time for him, speaking with the authority of the Government, to say clearly to all these undertakings which are accepting public money that they will have to behave themselves as the representatives of an Imperial interest.
    6.59 p.m.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I very much regret that I cannot accept the Amendment for reasons which I shall presently explain, but I am in full sympathy with the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) who moved it and those who have supported it, in their desire to ensure that there shall be no abuse by subsidised companies of their position in any way that would be detrimental to British civil air aviation. Perhaps I may explain some of the difficulties in the way of accepting the Amendment. In the first place, I am advised that a provision of this kind would not be suitable for statutory enactment on various grounds. It would, for example, be extremely difficult to define what is and what is not reasonable co-operation. It might also be difficult to define what is detrimental to other services. In the second place, I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that in this as in other matters there are, generally speaking, two sides to the question. A great many instances have been brought to notice to-night about various acts of unfriendliness by Imperial Airways towards other companies. I do not think that I can take up the time of the House or that hon. Members would wish me to in going into all these cases. I am sure that the House will agree that there is nothing to be gained by pursuing charges and counter-charges when we are all in substantial agreement on the matter. That would only make the position more difficult.
    We all wish to ensure that between subsidised companies and unusubsidised companies there should be reasonable
    2038
    co-operation in the interests of British civil aviation, and that there should be no tendency on the part of a subsidised company to abuse its position. I can assure hon. Members that the desire of the Air Ministry is to see fair play in this matter, and it is the policy of the Government that a subsidised company must not take an unfair advantage of its position. The Air Ministry is prepared to examine any representations from other companies which are brought before it and are prima facie reasonable, and, if the grounds of complaint are substantiated, to call on the company concerned to fulfil the understanding upon which the subsidy is based. The Air Ministry will make it perfectly clear when they grant a subsidy that it is given on the direct understanding that the company does not abuse its position. We think we shall thus ensure by effective administrative action, that while there shall be no interference with the free play of legitimate commercial competition, subsidised companies shall not snake use of their position in an unfair way because they are recipients of Government grants. I think that after this explanation and of the difficulty of framing a proviso such as this, hon. Members will realise that I have gone as far as I can to meet their desires.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Do I gather from the Under-Secretary that an inquiry will be instituted to find out whether the statements which have been made are facts, and, if so, that the causes will be removed?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I will certainly make an inquiry.
    Mrs. TATE: Will the Under-Secretary, in regard to all the cases brought to his notice of discrimination in the selling of tickets at ticket agencies, use his influence to see that that is not the case in the future?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Certainly, but that does not lie with the Air Ministry; it lies with the railway companies.
    7.4 p.m.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: It is a little more than that. Imperial Airways is a semi-State undertaking which is in a special position. If we are to make our present service efficient and satisfactory to the public, the Government must see

    2039
    that the balance is fairly held between the various interests concerned. They must not be merely negative, but positive. It is true that these tourist agents under pressure are inclined to give a monopoly to the railway services and to Imperial Airways. We have to face facts. I understand that we want the country to be air-minded, and if anybody wishes to travel by air he goes to these agents. The Minister should make it clear to Imperial Airways, the railways and the tourist agents that if these kind of things are going on the Government will find it necessary to reorganise the whole of their policy and to change their attitude to Imperial Airways. There is a lot to be said for monopoly and a lot for competition, but at present we are in danger of having the worst of both possible worlds.
    7.6 p.m.
    Sir ROBERT TASKER: May I ask whether the position cannot be safeguarded by the introduction into the contract with Imperial Airways of terms which, in effect, will give the Minister the position of arbitrator if a dispute arises?
    Mr. SIMMONDS: I appreciate what the Under-Secretary has said, that he will watch from the administrative point of view to see that the subsidised companies implement the general responsibility which, he tells us, they have undertaken to the Air Ministry. But with regard to the case of the crash at Croydon Aerodrome—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken.
    Mr. EVERARD: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: No.
    7.7 p.m.
    Mr. EDE: I do not think that the House should part with this matter in that way, because the statements made by the hon. Members for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) and Frome (Mrs. Tate) were very categorical, and it seems to me that they reveal a shocking state of affairs. I can recollect nothing like it since the days when insurance companies had their own fire brigades and a brigade was not
    2040
    allowed to put out a fire which occurred at a house insured by a rival company. It is said that the firemen of one company went up to watch the fire to make sure that it did not accidentally go out. These statements are extremely serious because in one case, unless there is some answer to it, it seems that the people who prevented the removal of a wrecked aeroplane were acting against ordinary, common humanity. That involves the public interest. It is obvious that some unsuspecting person might attempt to land on an aerodrome and be severely injured in the process because somebody had refused to help, if the statement made by the hon. Member for Duddeston is true, and there has been no reply to it.
    We understand that to remove that spirit the Under-Secretary proposes to address a stream of platitudes to the offending company. It was my experience as a schoolmaster that platitudes, while extremely gratifying to the person who utters them, have little effect on the party to whom they are addressed, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will arm himself with something more effective. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sanctions."] I would not trust them with sanctions. I imagine the answer of the right hon. Gentleman would be "I will try sanctions." There should be some fight behind the sanctions on this occasion, and it should be made clear that a repetition of the policy outlined this afternoon will be met with the withdrawal of the subsidy, and that what the House wishes is that there should be a widespread desire on the part of all concerned with this industry to help one another, especially to help private flyers in any difficulties which they may encounter in the course of their flying. I could hope that somebody speaking on behalf of the Government would say that they propose, in view of the instances which have been brought before the House, to arm themselves with effective powers to make it clear that if people who get subsidies attempt to make those subsidies into monopolies they are to be appropriately dealt with, and that they should regard the receipt of a subsidy not merely as a benefit but as conferring on them certain responsibilities with regard to any dangers that may be encountered by less fortunate people.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House dividend: Ayes, 107; Noes, 180.

    Division No. 251.]

    AYES.

    [7.11 p.m.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Hardie, G. D.

    Ritson, J.

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

    Harris, Sir P. A.

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

    Adamson, W. M.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

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

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Rowson, G.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Holland, A.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Jagger, J.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Short, A.

    Barr, J.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Silkin, L.

    Benson, G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Bevan, A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Brooke, W.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

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

    Burke, W. A.

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Chater, D.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lee, F.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Leonard, W.

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

    Cocks, F. S.

    Leslie, J. R.

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

    Cove, W. G.

    Logan, D. G.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Daggar, G.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Thorne, W.

    Dalton, H.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    McGovern, J.

    Walker, J.

    Dobbie, W.

    MacLaren, A.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Ede, J. C.

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Mander, G. le M.

    Westwood, J.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Marklew, E.

    White, H. Graham

    Gardner, B. W.

    Marshall, F.

    Whiteley, W.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Messer, F.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Milner, Major J.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

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

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Paling, W.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Groves, T. E.

    Potts, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

    Mr. Charleton and Mr. John.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    NOES.

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

    Dawson, Sir P.

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

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

    De Chair, S S.

    Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

    Agnew, Lieut.Comdr. P. G.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Albery, Sir I. J.

    Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

    Jackson, Sir H.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Drewe, C.

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

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

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Blindell, Sir J.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Entwistle, C. F.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Everard, W. L.

    Loftus, P. C.

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

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Bull, B. B.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Furness, S. N.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

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

    Goodman, Col. A. W.

    McKie, J. H.

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

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Chorlton, A. E. L.

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Clarke, F. E.

    Guest, Capt. Ht. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

    Markham, S. F.

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

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

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

    Gunston, Capt. D. W.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

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

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

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

    Hanbury, Sir C.

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

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

    Hannah, I. C.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

    Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

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

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Nall, Sir J.

    Crooke, J. S.

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

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

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Holmes, J. S.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

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

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Penny, Sir G.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Train, Sir J.

    Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Simmonds, O. E.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Petherick, M.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

    Plugge, L. F.

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

    Turton, R. H.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Smithers Sir W.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

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

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Storey, S.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

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

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

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

    Wise, A. R.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Wragg, H.

    Savery, Servington

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Selley, H. R.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Touche, G. C.

    Dr. Morris-Jones and Mr. Cross.

    7.20 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to insert:
    "(c) the intention of the Secretary of State to consider proposals for an air transportation scheme covering the route involved in the agreement shall be publicly advertised and reasonable opportunity shall be given for the presentation of competing offers; the Secretary of State may however in the case of Imperial Airways, Limited, be authorised to omit this action provided that public notice thereof is given."
    Perhaps I may explain the circumstances under which I have put down this Amendment. When the Bill was before the House on 25th May, in Committee, I moved an Amendment which in terms was very similar, and after considerable debate the Solicitor-General was good enough to say that, while he could not accept the actual wording of the Amendment, he would, subject to certain alterations, give an undertaking on behalf of the Government to put down an Amendment on the Report stage. I am quite certain that he had every intention of honourably carrying out that pledge, but I understand that certain technical drafting points have arisen which seem to make it difficult to find a suitable form of words. Therefore, as a contribution, and only as a contribution, to the subject of finding the right terms, I have put down my Amendment. I understand that the difficulty is the exclusion of the right already granted or to be granted to Imperial Airways, by which they are to be the sole contractors on certain routes. Obviously, where that has been done, it would not be fair to insist on competition and to call in other people. I do not know whether these particular words meet the case, but I attach some importance to the words at the end of the
    2044
    Amendment, "provided that public notice thereof is given," because if that were done, that, I should have thought, would prevent any possibility of the Air Ministry attempting, in any case highly improbable, to get round the understanding by granting to Imperial Airways some agreement to which they were not really entitled and which ought to be subject to competition.
    The Government may say—and I quite appreciate the point—that they have made a new and a very specific declaration that it is their intention to give public notice such as is referred to in my Amendment wherever competition is to take place. I agree that that meets the point now, but it is not statutory, and it may be that in the future the Air Ministry will not be staffed with such a far-sighted statesman as is the case at the present moment. It might be staffed by a man with a more restricted view of their responsibilities, and, as he would be quite entitled to do, he might say that in future they could not give any public notice when a contract was to be made. I hope the Solicitor-General and other hon. Members will assist in the task of finding a form of words which will carry out the undertaking which the Government gave and which I know they are anxious to implement, but if it is not possible to do so, I quite appreciate that it may be necessary to release the Government from their undertaking.
    Miss LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    7.24 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As it is owing to my perhaps over-exuberant observation on the Committee stage that

    2045
    this matter arises, perhaps I ought to explain exactly how the situation stands at present. On the Committee stage the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment moved an Amendment which had two limbs to it. The first was to provide that each agreement made for the payment of a subsidy should be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than 14 days, and that if either House during that period carried an Address against it, it should have no effect. That was the first limb of his Amendment. The second was that the intention of the Secretary of State to consider proposals for an air transportation scheme covering the route involved in the agreement should be publicly advertised and reasonable opportunity given for the presentation of offers on a competitive basis. As regards the first limb of his Amendment, that is to say, the laying of the agreement on the Table of the House and the power of the House to annul it, no specific undertaking was given. All that I said was that it would be looked into; but, as regards the second limb, it divided into two parts by me, and what I said was that the Government could not accept the final part dealing with the presentation of offers on a competitive basis. I will quote my exact words. I said:
    "My right hon. Friend is not prepared at the moment to accept the words in the second part of the Amendment. The hon. Member suggests that a reasonable opportunity should be given for the presentation of offers on a competitive basis. We do not wish to incorporate in an Act of Parliament anything that will suggest, even in the remotest degree, that we ever intend to allow this new service to get into the state of competitive chaos which exists in the United States."
    I made is perfectly clear that we could not accept the latter part of his Amendment, and the same considerations apply to that part of his present Amendment which deals with reasonable opportunity for the presentation of competing offers. I do not recognise any undertaking or any obligation on that question. But I went on to say:
    "We will endeavour to avoid that, and for that reason we do not like the words 'competitive basis' at the end. Subject to that, it is the intention of the Government before the Report stage to frame an Amendment which will carry out the meaning which my hon. Friend intends to attach to the Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1936; col. 1731; Vol. 312.]
    2046
    That was an undertaking that before the Report stage we would endeavour to put into words as a statutory necessity that the Secretary of State should publish his intention to make proposals. Having given no undertaking to the hon. Gentleman about laying the agreement on the Table, we have now put on the Paper—and it will be moved in an Amendment at a later stage by my right hon. Friend, so that it would not be in order for me to discuss it now—an Amendment providing that every agreement shall be laid on the Table of the House and that the House shall have an opportunity of annulling it, so that we are according the power for which he asks. This is the undertaking that has been given by the Secretary of State in absolutely explicit terms:
    "In order that in future there may be no conceivable ground of grievance or misunderstanding, my Noble Friend proposes that so soon as a decision has been reached in principle that a new service shall he inaugurated or a new route opened up in an area not covered by existing arrangements, publicity shall be given to that decision, whether by announcement in this House or through the medium of the Press, so that all who are or may be interested shall have an equal opportunity of submitting proposals."
    There has been that absolutely explicit undertaking by the Secretary of State.
    Mr. MANDER: For this Government.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is an undertaking which I do not imagine any Secretary of State in future would consider he was entitled to overlook, but supposing that the danger that the hon. Gentleman pointed out, were to arise, it is met by our acceptance of the first part of the Amendment, because we have provided that he can annul, by an Address of the House, any agreement which is put on the Table. So that we have complete control. If the Secretary of State brings forward an agreement in respect of a route which has not been made public in the way in which the undertaking suggests, all that the hon. Gentleman or anybody has to do is to move to annul the agreement under the powers that will be incorporated in the Bill by the next Amendment on the Paper. I venture to suggest, therefore, that in these circumstances it is unnecessary, in the first instance, for any provision of this kind to be put in an Act of

    2047
    Parliament. It would be merely cumbrous and repeat something that exists.
    I recognise that there was this undertaking, but that is not the sole answer I would desire to give. Not only have the Department and the draftsmen been into this matter of implementing this undertaking, but, needless to say, I was sensitive of the undertaking I gave and I have been at some pains to consider whether it was practicable to carry it into effect. I am satisfied that, on the material we have at present, no draftsman could satisfactorily frame an Amendment. Let me explain in a little more detail why that state of affairs exists. At the present time there are agreements under discussion between the Ministry and Imperial Airways. There are drafts in various forms and skeleton proposals; there are understandings, and nothing more. There are also existing agreements and prospective agreements which will be effective if this Bill comes into operation, but may not take effect for some time. These will cover all the different parts of the Empire routes, and until a position has been reached when a new service has been inaugurated or a new route opened up in an area not covered by existing agreements, it will be impossible to draft a Clause which will exclude potential existing arrangements in respect of which there is an honourable undertaking.
    Mr. MANDER: Would not the final words of my Amendment meet the point?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that the final words are not satisfactory because they deal with Imperial Airways, and there is no agreement with Imperial Airways. There is only an intention to deal with them. There is also at least one agreement with another company, so that that case would not be covered. It would not be satisfactory to incorporate in an. Act of Parliament something which ties the Government down in a way that was very much objected to on the Committee stage as being even a possibility of entering into an agreement with Imperial Airways. It is a possibility, at any rate, that the agreement might not be concluded. I am not saying that it is a practical possibility, but in a technical sense it is a possibility. For these and many other reasons, the
    2048
    limiting words which the hon. Gentleman has put down, no doubt as a result of a conversation he had with me, do not, I think, meet the position. For the reasons that we cannot do it in practice at the present time, that in any case we are, by accepting the first part of the Amendment, doing everything that can reasonably be expected, and that to-day I have reiterated with full responsibility the undertaking which has been given, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me from my largeness of promise on the last occasion, and will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. MANDER: I must confess to some disappointment that it has not been found practicable to frame a form of words which covers this point. If that be so, I cannot dispute it because I am not in a position to suggest words. I fully appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman has done his utmost to carry out the promise that he gave and has found it impracticable. He has met me on the other point where no other promise was made, and, while there is no question of any bargaining, I believe that he has done his best, and I ant willing to accept the position and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.36 p.m.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert:
    "(3) It shall be a term of every agreement made in pursuance of this section between the Secretary of State and a company that no subsidy shall he payable under the agreement unless such directions (if any) as may be given by the Secretary of State for securing that one or more of the directors of the company shall be a person or persons nominated by the Secretary of State are complied with.
    (4) A copy of every agreement made in pursuance of this section shall, as soon as may be after the agreement is made, be laid before each House of Parliament and if either House, within fourteen days from the day on which a copy of such an agreement is laid before it, resolves that the agreement he annulled, the agreement shall thenceforth be void, without prejudice, however, to the making of a new agreement.
    In reckoning any period of fourteen days for the purposes of this sub-section no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for more than four days."

    2049
    The new Sub-section (3) puts in proper statutory form the proposal that has been accepted that the Secretary of State shall be entitled to appoint one or more representatives on the board of any subsidised company. The new Subsection (4) meets the object of the proposal made that subsidy agreements should, after being made, be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than 14 days.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    7.37 p.m.
    Mr. GARRO JONES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out "(if any) as may," and to insert "to."
    My proposal is that the Minister should be obliged to nominate a director to the board of any company in receipt of a subsidy rather than that it should be left to his discretion to do so. I would apologise for the fact that the Amendment to the Amendment is not couched in as precise language as it might be.
    Major HILLS: It does not read.
    Mr. JONES: It does read, but it does not read quite as well as it might have done, for the Clause itself does not read as it is intended to read. I shall, I think, show the right hon. Baronet that, whether he accepts my alteration or not, he will have to make a drastic alteration to his Amendment before it goes on the Statute Book. The Amendment is intended to empower the Minister, if he thinks fit, to nominate one or more directors and to require the company to accept his proposals. He has power under the Amendment to nominate all the directors of the company and the company may be compelled to accept that. It will be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to make some Amendment to the Amendment because it says,
    "for securing that one or more of the directors of the company shall be a person or persons nominated by the Secretary of State."
    If he requires that eight directors of Imperial Airways shall be nominated by the Secretary of State, the company will have to accept that proposal. I believe
    2050
    that the reason this mistake was made was that, in drafting this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman noticed that it was within his discretion to nominate directors and, feeling that he would always be able to avoid the necessity of nominating directors, he was not quite so punctilious in examining the Amendment as he would otherwise have been.
    The principle in the Amendment that I am proposing to the Amendment is that, where a subsidy is paid, the Secretary of State shall nominate one or more directors, and that the number shall be proportionate to the size of the board and the company. That is the respect in which the wording of the Amendment to the Amendment is not as precise as it might have been. We have not been encouraged on this side to devote the large amount of time and thought to the drafting of our Amendments that we should have devoted had we found that they are treated with more respect and receptivity by the right hon. Baronet. I do not say that in a personal sense, but I consider that he has not been sufficiently willing to meet sound principles when they have been put forward.
    Sir P. SASSOON: This Amendment is a concession.
    Mr. GARRO JONES: This is a concession which the right hon. Baronet gives with one hand and takes away with the other. When we were discussing the Clause we said we wanted to establish the principle of no subsidy without a Government director on the board, and what the right hon. Baronet has given us is an Amendment to give him the power to nominate a director if he thinks fit. We know how that will operate in practice. There will be a small company receiving, say, £20,000 a year subsidy. They will meet at the Air Ministry to discuss the amount, and four or five hard-boiled city men will say, "Of course, you are not going to push a Government director on to us in this case, are you?" and the Minister will say, "I do not think it is necessary because the amount is so small." We do not want to put that power in the hands of the Minister. He has shown himself at every stage of this Bill to be suffering from a prejudice against the State being introduced into civil aviation at all. The least principle he can concede to us is that where a subsidy is paid he must nominate a director.

    2051
    We have heard in the discussion on new Clauses to-day that companies in receipt of subsidies have not shown their responsibilities to the public in the way that they ought to have done. It has been shown that the largest of the companies in receipt of a subsidy has maintained a policy of non-co-operation bordering on boycott against companies endeavouring to develop civil aviation without the subsidy. What were the two Government directors doing on Imperial Airways when these matters were being discussed? It is not sufficient that the right hon. Gentleman should have the discretion to appoint directors. It is not even sufficient that he should be required to appoint directors. He should be required to appoint them and see that they carry out their job. I suggest, without imputing any personal neglect on the part of any directors of civil aviation companies in receipt of subsidies, that they should be instructed what their duties are, namely, to look after the principle that, if a subsidy is being received by civil aviation companies, the public interest must be put, at any rate, equal to the private interests of the companies.
    If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment to the Amendment, as I hope and believe he will, I trust that he will see that persons of the right type are made directors of these companies. It is no use making it a sort of retired job for military officers. I make no complaint against the Government directors of Imperial Airways; I have never met them; but I believe they have been appointed principally for the purpose of looking after the strategical factors involved in the development of civil aviation. Let us make certain that in future appointments of directors the Government will appoint men who know something about civil aviation and commerce and will not look upon it as a plum by which some gallant soldier can augment his pension. I hope the Minister will accept this very reasonable proposal on the lines on which he indicated he would accept it during the previous Debate.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. HARDIE: We are trying to establish the principle that where the nation gives money the nation ought to have representation, and further to that point
    2052
    arises the character of the representation. We want to get away from the "money-bug" type of directors, the gentleman who is not necessarily an ex-naval or ex-military man, but of the type that is about the City of London, always waiting for a chance to make money. The type of director we want ought to have activity, plus knowledge. I have come in contact with many hon. and right hon. Members in this House, and judging their knowledge by what they say I think, on looking at their directorships, that they are not being paid for what they know, but what they can do. We want to guard against any of this interloping business, against appointments being made on the grounds of friendship or business contacts. We want to put this matter on a purely business basis and to appoint only men who have knowledge of the subject, because we cannot expect to get things done if the people in charge do not know what they are doing. That it what is wrong in so many cases at the present time. The Directory of Directors clearly shows that. If we could get rid of this incubus which is simply sucking the life out of many industrial concerns to-day a great many things would immediately improve. I hope the Under-Secretary will say that he is prepared to grant what we are seeking, in order to leave things more clean, if I may put it that way.
    7.48 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) which asks for a great deal more than was asked for by the right hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston). He did not ask that it should be mandatory upon the Secretary of State to appoint a director, only that he should be entitled to do so. We have gone as far as we could to meet his request and have carried out in detail the undertaking we gave on that occasion, because when my right hon. Friend said that he proposed later to put down an Amendment he said that it must be regarded as non-mandatory and that it would be left to the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion in each case. In my submission it would be absurd to make this mandatory. Many of these are small companies, even if they are limited

    2053
    liability companies at all, consisting of two or three people with only a small amount of capital, and to make it imperative for the Government to nominate a representative on the board of such a company when, possibly, it is to receive only a small amount of subsidy, on one specific occasion, for carrying out a single service, would be so absurd a proposal that it could not be accepted either by this Government or by a Government which took, perhaps, a stronger view about the desirability of having Government representation on the board. Even if this Amendment were accepted the gap would not be stopped, because this Clause deals only with a company. How about a partnership? How about a concern run by only one person with a few aeroplanes? To be logical the Government would have to be empowered to introduce somebody into the partnership. I think the concession which has been made by my right hon. Friend to meet the case put forward by the right hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan is a very real one, and will meet that case, and I hope the hon. Gentleman's Amendment will not be accepted.
    7.50 p.m.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I can assure the Solicitor-General that we are not prepared to admit that there is the absurdity which he appears to find in this Amendment. The suggestion of the right hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) was tentative in character, and I am sure he would accept this Amendment. The Solicitor-General ought to give better reasons for rejecting it than he has so far put forward. He talks about small companies and about two or three persons working in partnership, and says that it would be ridiculous for the State to insist upon a representative of the public being upon the board in such cases. I would point out that the Under-Secretary's Amendment speaks of "the term of every agreement,"—does not say that the appointment to the board shall be permanent, but that it shall be made in respect of work done or services rendered for which a subsidy is given by the State. If there is any justification for giving a public subsidy the work will be of importance and it will be carried out by companies of some substance, and this argument about little tinpot companies receiving public subsidy is not a reasonable one
    2054
    to put forward. It does not meet the case for the Government to say they have complied with the tentative suggestion put forward by the right hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan. We have gone much further in the discussion of this Measure since then. We appreciate the extent to which the Government have given way to criticism and have met the Opposition and other sections of the House, and we feel there is nothing absurd, unreasonable or illogical in asking that this power should be made mandatory rather than left to the discretion of the Minister.
    7.54 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: I realise that there is a good deal in what the Solicitor-General said about the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, but is not this a case to be dealt with on the same lines as he dealt with an Amendment of mine, and that is that there should be a declaration of the Government's intention, which would be to a large extent binding. I think we are entitled to ask from the Government an assurance that when they are dealing with companies of a substantial size and with a good deal of capital it is their intention to exercise the power to appoint one or more directors. In the case of the service to South America, for which tenders are now being asked, I should like to know whether the Government have any intention of exercising this power of appointing a director on the board of the company whose tender is accepted. I think we ought to get an assurance from the Government, because otherwise we may be furnishing them with a power which they have not the remotest intention of exercising. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would give us such an assurance it would go a long way to reconciling some of us to his inability to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
    7.56 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again I would say that it is the intention of the Ministry, in the case of substantial tenders, to take steps to see that this power, which is permissive, is exercised. That is as far as I can go.
    Mr. HARDIE: What does that mean? Does it mean that you are accepting the Amendment? Otherwise, while you may be prepared to act justly the next man

    2055
    may not see his way to act as you promise to do.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: For the reasons I have given we do not think it would be right for the Government to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which would force them to appoint a director even when a company was undertaking only a trifling service, in circumstances which might occur only once. But it is the intention of the Government, in the case of substantial companies, and where there is a proper contract, to adopt the provisions contained in the Amendment proposed by the Under-Secretary.
    Mr. HARDIE: We have had no information from the Government as to the size of the company and the amount of its capital in the cases in which they propose to take action. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how they will decide what company is large enough and what is too small?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid I should be out of order if I were to do that.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 96.

    Division No. 252.]

    AYES.

    [8.0 p.m.

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

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Perkins. W. R. D.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Gunston, Capt. D. W.

    Petherick, M.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Pilkington, R.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Hanbury, Sir C.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hannah, I. C.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

    Ramsbotham. H.

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

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Blindell, Sir J.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

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

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Ross Taylor. W. (Woodbridge)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Bull, B. B.

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

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

    Jackson, Sir H.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

    Clarke, F. E.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Savery, Servington

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

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

    Seely, Sir H. M.

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

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Simmonds, O. E.

    Crooke, J. S.

    Latham, Sir P.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

    Leckie, J. A.

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

    Crossley, A. C.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Locker-Lampoon, Comdr. O. S.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Lyons, A. M.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

    De Chair, S. S.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Spears. Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

    McKie, J. H.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Drewe, C.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

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

    Sutcliffe. H.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Markham, S. F.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Maxwell, S. A.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Dunne, P. R. R.

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

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

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

    Waterhouse. Captain C.

    Everard, W. L.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Findlay, Sir E.

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

    White, H. Graham

    Fleming, E. L.

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

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

    Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

    Munro, P.

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Nall, Sir J.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Goodman, Cot. A. W.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Wragg, H.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Guest Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

    Penny, Sir G.

    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin and Mr. Cross.

    NOES.

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

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

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

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Ritson, J.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Holland, A.

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

    Banfield, J. W.

    Jagger, J.

    Rawson, G.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Salter, Dr. A.

    Barr, J.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Batey, J.

    John, W.

    Short, A.

    Berson, G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Silkin, L.

    Bevan, A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Brooke, W.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Burke, W. A.

    Lathan, G.

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Chater, D.

    Lee, F.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Leonard, W.

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Leslie, J. R.

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

    Cocks, F. S.

    Macdonald. G. (Ince)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Cove, W. G.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Thorne, W.

    Daggar, G.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dalton, H.

    McGovern, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Mac Laren, A.

    Walker, J.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Watkins, F. C.

    Dobbie, W.

    Marklew, E.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Ede, J. C.

    Marshall, F.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Mathers, G.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Gardner, B. W.

    Messer, F.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Montague, F.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Paling, W.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Potts, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hardle, G. D.

    Price, M. P.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Delegation of certain functions of Secretary of State as respects civil aviation.)
    8.9 p.m.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, after "be," to insert:
    "so constituted as to consist of—
    (a) persons."
    This Amendment, taken in conjunction with the one that follows, is in accordance with an undertaking given in Committee. The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) moved an Amendment to provide for the appointment by the Secretary of State of an independent member of the Board, and I have put it down as an official Amendment. The second abject of the batch of Amendments of which this forms the first provides that the board shall include a member who has had not less than five years' professional experience as—
    8.10 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE BRABAZON: On a point of Order. May I call your attention to the fact that although you have put the question "That those words be there inserted, the Clause as moved by the Under-Secretary has never been put to the House.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I am afraid I do not quite follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: An Amendment was moved by an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House to leave out "(if any) as may" and to insert "to," and that is what we have been talking about. That Amendment was negatived by you from the Chair, but we have never had put before the House the original Amendment as moved by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be under a misapprehension. Unless Subsection (3) had been left out, it would not have been in order to move the proposed Amendment to the new Sub-sections that it was proposed to put in its place.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: But that is an Amendment to the substantive Motion here on the Paper, which has never been before the House.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not quite followed it. Unless the original Subsection had been omitted, it would not have been in order to move an Amendment that the proposed new Sub-sections should be inserted in place of the old one. The House agreed to leave out the words,

    2059
    and rejected an Amendment to amend the words which it was proposed to insert.
    Mr. EDE: Surely what happened was that the original Sub-section (3) was left out, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary formally moved to insert the other words. An Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), and that was the Amendment on which the Division took place. That Amendment was declared by you from the Chair defeated. I suggest that you did not put the question that the proposed new Subsection be there inserted.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for North Shields (Mr. Ede) is under a misapprehension. After the Division I put the question, "That those words be there inserted."
    Sir P. SASSOON: I was pointing out that one of these Amendments provides that there is to be one person who has had at least five years' professional experience as a pilot of civil aircraft.
    Captain GUEST: On a point of Order. At what moment in the moving of these Amendments by the Under-Secretary of State will those who wish to speak have an opportunity to do so? Will it be as he moves them one by one?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am somewhat in the hands of the House. If hon. Members wish to raise points upon individual Amendments, we had better take them separately. We can deal at this moment with points that relate to the original statement of the Minister. As far as I can make out, the Amendment we are discussing is consequential to the one concerning the appointment of one independent person by the Secretary of State.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, after "aircraft)," to insert:
    "and
    (b) at least one person appointed by the Secretary of State as being an independent person."
    8.10 p.m.
    Mr. EVERARD: I should like to ask one question. Under the new board which is being set up, there are, so to speak, four panels. There are four instructors,
    2060
    four nominees of the operators, and four nominees of the insurance companies. I understand that these 12 are to elect four other members outside those interests. Is this particular person, who is to be put in independently of those interests, to be one of the four to be elected by the other 12, or is he an extra one, appointed by the Secretary of State himself?
    Sir P. SASSOON: He will be an extra member.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 22, leave out "his," and insert "the."
    In line 23, after "functions," insert "of the Secretary of State."—[Sir P. Sassoon.]
    8.12 p.m.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that any such body as aforesaid shall be so constituted as to include among its members at least one person who has had not less than five years' professional experience as a pilot of civil aircraft."
    This provision complies with an undertaking which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division (Captain Guest) in reply to a proposal which he submitted as to the representation of pilots on the board.
    8.13 p.m.
    Captain GUEST: I rise to thank the Under-Secretary for having come to an agreement with those who were trying to put the case of the professional pilot, and to welcome very much the way in which he has inserted the provision into the Bill, but I cannot pass by this Amendment quite so rapidly as he has done. There is a great deal of misunderstanding, certainly among those outside the House who are concerned with the carrying out of this great Bill, first of all, as to how this original body was set up. We have had only a very short sentence, given to us a few weeks ago by the Solicitor-General. According to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he said:
    "In August, 1934, letters were sent to the principal aviation interests inviting them to form a representative committee to frame a scheme for the consideration of the Secretary of State, and a committee was formed under the chairmanship of Mr. Handley Page for this express purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1936; col. 1759, Vol. 312.]

    2061
    That is all that we were told. Those of us who have to find out things as best we can have more or less come to the conclusion that two very big organisations in the country, one the Society of British Aircraft Constructors—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I hardly think that we are entitled, on this Amendment, to deal with that matter.
    Captain GUEST: I will not go beyond your Ruling, but, if the pilot who joins this board is to be of any independent value, he must be nominated by someone other than his employer, because otherwise he becomes merely a delegate or nominee. I will not go over the speech I delivered when the Under-Secretary saw the point and very kindly surrendered, but I would ask him to give us a little further information as to who is going to nominate this independent pilot. I have mentioned the Society of British Aircraft Constructors in order to draw the attention of the House to the fact that they were approached as a body, and have nominated their people. Coming to the operators, we must guess, because we do not know, but in all probability Imperial Airways will hold the field and will nominate people to represent them as operators. We know now that there are to be four independent persons, and I presume that the pilot referred to in the Under-Secretary's Amendment is to be an independent person, but I am not in a position to say to my own pilots—I have the honour of representing the Guild of Air Pilots—that the distinction has been conferred upon them or upon some other body, for the nomination will be of an independent character. I do not see any sense in nominating a pilot who is a servant of one of the operators or one of the constructors if we are to get a fair deal and if the pilots' point of view is to receive proper consideration.
    I think we are entitled to ask the Under-Secretary definitely whether he is going to appoint the pilot in question. I do not mind if he does, but, if the pilot is appointed by his own employer, he will not dare to say that a machine is badly constructed or flies badly, because he would lose his job. Therefore, I ask for a definite statement from the Under-Secretary as to how the nomination is going to be made, and I press this point because I think it is only fair
    2062
    to the public, seeing that it is the pilot who takes care of the public. The operator stands on the ground, and so does the constructor, but the pilot does the work. It is the pilot who takes care of the lives of the human beings who entrust themselves to his care, and, if he is not independent, he might just as well not be on the board at all. If the Under-Secretary cannot see his way to reply now on this point, I shall raise it again on the Third Reading.
    8.19 p.m.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The question which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised is a very important one. The Under-Secretary will remember that he has just said, in reply to a question, that the person appointed by the Secretary of State as an independent person would be in addition to the members of the last of the four sections comprising the board, and the Clause itself says that he shall be appointed by the Secretary of State. It is very significant that as regards the pilot there is no indication as to whether he is to be in addition to the 16 or whether he is to be just one of those four who are co-opted by the other 12, and I think we should have an assurance upon that point. I should like to take this opportunity of adding my thanks on behalf of the Opposition to the Under-Secretary for meeting us on these two points so well as he has. So far as that goes, it makes the Bill a better Bill than it was.
    8.21 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for the Drake Division (Captain Guest) on having persuaded the Under-Secretary to include a pilot in this body. I represent the Royal Aeronautical Society, and I put before them the question whether they wished to be represented on such a panel. They said that they did not. I think that the claims of societies to be represented on a panel like this are really as substantial as those of the pilots, but from a Parliamentary point of view we are in a, little difficulty, because, in setting up statutory bodies of this kind in a Bill like this, it, is usual to state in the Bill itself who is to represent what. Here, however, we have a very extraordinary state of affairs, in which the Secretary of State may by

    2063
    Order proceed to delegate to a body appearing to him to be substantially representative. In other words, he will look about for a body which happens to coincide with his desires. That would be a very extraordinary thing if it had not happened that, long before this Bill was adumbrated, the industry itself had set up a body, rather similar to Lloyds' in the insurance world, which was actually dealing with risks and issuing certificates of airworthiness. That disappeared, but some of the gentlemen who were on that organisation met and decided that the organisation should go on. In re-forming that organisation, it has, of course, to be re-formed according to the desires of the Minister, because otherwise it would not be a body appearing to him to be substantially representative, and I take it that obviously it will include a representative of the pilots in addition to the fourth section, which itself is additional to the three other sections which are the foundation of the panel.
    8.23 p.m.
    Mr. EVERARD: My right hon. and gallant Friend appears to take a rather different view from myself. He draws attention to the fact that the pilots are not mentioned as an association, but I would point out that none of the other associations is mentioned in the Bill; there is no mention of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors, Imperial Airways or anyone else. The whole thing is being organised, I understand, by this authority which has been convened by the Secretary of State, and is now busily engaged in setting up its own organisation, with representatives of different bodies. The whole question seems to me to boil down to this: Is this extra representative to be additional to the 16? There is already to be a 17th representative; will he be the 18th, or is the Secretary of State going to have some say with the board in order to earmark one of the last category of four in the 16 as this particular pilot? It does not seem to make very much difference really. I have the greatest confidence in my right hon. Friend, and know that the pilot will be someone who will be independent.
    Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I have no objection to making the num-
    2064
    ber 18 instead of 16. But I think it would be a pity to put in the name of any particular organisation. If that were done, the Royal Aero Club, of which at the moment I have the honour to be the chairman, would, I am sure, expect to be included, and no doubt every organisation would expect its name to be put into the Bill. The only point that really arises is whether this person is to be nominated by the Secretary of State or is to be co-opted by the other members of the body. I have no feeling in the matter at all, but I should imagine that it would be better that he should be nominated by the Secretary of State as an extra member.
    8.25 p.m.
    Mr. EDE: The desire was expressed in Committee that a person should be on this board as a pilot. It may well be that on the list that the Minister receives from the various bodies there will be someone nominated who incidentally may be a pilot. He will not have been appointed because he is a pilot but because he represents one of these three major interests and happens to have the requisite amount of professional service as a pilot. I do not think that the recognition of such a person as fulfilling the requirement of this Amendment would be quite carrying out the spirit of the discussion that we had in Committee. I think it was the sense of the Committee that we should have a person who would be more or less nominated by some such body as that of which the hon. Member for the Drake Division (Captain Guest) is the president, who could be regarded as representative of pilots and who would be speaking for them. I hope it may be possible that this person may not be taken from the persons representative of other interests but may be an 18th member who shall be on because he is a pilot and for no other reason.
    8.27 p.m.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I thought when I moved the Amendment that it would completely satisfy my right hon. and gallant Friend, because these are exactly the words that I used on the last occasion, when I made this concession, and he thanked me very much for them. I was, therefore, surprised to find to-day that it did not meet in any way with his approval. It is obvious from the discussion that we have had that the sense

    2065
    of the House is that we should have a representative of pilots on the board—definitely a representative of independent pilots—and that if the other groups on the board were to nominate him it might lead—although I do not agree—to the appointment of someone who was sufficiently under their control for him not to be able to bring to bear the full measure of independent assistance and experience that might be necessary. I am, therefore, willing to meet my right hon. and gallant Friend to this extent that he should be an independent member nominated by the Secretary of State.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, at the end, to insert:
    "but the revocaton of such an Order shall be without prejudice to the making of a now Order under this Section."
    This is to meet a suggestion of the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt).
    Amendment agreed to.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, after the words last inserted, to insert:
    "(3) No Order delegating or entrusting any functions to such a body as aforesaid shall be made under this Section unless, at least twenty days previously, a draft of the Order has been laid before each House of Parliament, and if either House, within twenty days from the day on which a draft of such Order is laid before it, resolves that it is inexpedient that an Order in terms of the draft should be made, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice, however, to the making of a new draft Order.
    In reckoning any period of twenty days for the purposes of this Sub-section, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for more than four days."
    This is to implement an undertaking that I gave to the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who asked for a promise that we would turn into proper form an Amendment of his with regard to laying the orders of the board before Parliament. That is being done and this is the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Information as to air trans port undertakings and use of customs aerodromes.)
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to-move, in page 7, line 12, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) No information with respect to any particular undertaking which has been obtained by virtue of an Order in Council under this section shall, without the consent of the person carrying on that undertaking, be disclosed otherwise than in connection with the execution of this section or of such an Order, and if any person discloses any such information in contravention of this sub-section, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine."
    This Clause provides that an order may be made for requiring certain statistics to be furnished so as, among other things, to permit the Minister to answer questions in the House. This Amendment is introduced, in conformity with an undertaking that we then gave, in order to prevent the possible disclosure of information.
    Mr. EVERARD: As I moved the original Amendment in Committee, I should like to thank the Solicitor-General very much for meeting me.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Power of common council to combine with other local authorities.)
    Amendment made: In page 10, line 37, leave out "II," and insert "III."—[Sir P. Sassoon.]
    Sir P. SASSOON: I beg to move, in page 10, line 41, to leave out "and," and to insert "or by or under."
    This is consequential upon the insertion of a new Clause relating to the carrying on of ancillary industries by local authorities at aerodromes.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Trespassing at licensed aerodromes.)
    8.33 p.m.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that this section shall not apply to any person engaged upon trade

    2067
    union business with persons employed in connection with the aerodrome."
    When I raised this question on the Second Reading, the right hon. Baronet's reply was that the question of trade union representatives on aerodromes was a matter between the trade union and the contractor doing repair work or erecting buildings and so forth. That is all very well and, if it were just a question of the contractor and the trade union, it might be left where it is. But it is proposed in the Bill to give a third party the power to control entry upon the aerodrome, and it is very necessary that that power should be given, but we are very much concerned about the possible misuse of it. There is the possibility that people with certain prejudices in connection with trade union matters will use the power given them to make it difficult for trade union representatives to carry out business which in many trades is regarded as quite normal. I speak particularly of the building industry, where the attendance of a trade union representative upon the job is a regular thing. My experience with regard to this matter has been at service aerodromes. When I was at the Ministry the matter was very urgent and many trade unions were raising the question of the attitude of certain commanding officers with regard to the entry upon aerodromes of trade union representatives and the manner in which they should conduct themselves. All that we desire to do is to safeguard the position and not to interfere with discipline and control of the aerodrome grounds, but we desire that the common and normal method of trade union representation and control shall not be interfered with merely as the result of the prejudice of other persons who previously had not been able to exercise any influence in that direction.
    8.35 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sorry to have to interrupt the harmonious trend which we have been pursuing lately in accepting practically all the Amendments put before us, but I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment, and for very good reasons. It would be entirely anomalous to insert in a Clause which deals with trespass that one particular type of person should not be dealt with if he is a trespasser. If he is a trade
    2068
    union official going about his duty, he is not a trespasser, but if he is trespassing on land forming part of an aerodrome, it is a little difficult to see why such an entirely anomalous provision should be made in favour of one class of person. If that is not class legislation with a vengeance, I really do not know what is. You might say, for example, that* lawyers entering neighbouring aerodromes should not be dealt with for trespassing on land forming part of an aerodrome. Where is the matter to stop? If trade unions were thought by Parliament to require some special kind of provision, it ought to be in some general Act dealing with the matter, but it is most inappropriate that a provision of this kind should be put in a special part of this Bill.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I regret having the presumption to cross swords with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on the Report Stage of the Bill, and that he has exhausted his right to speak on the Amendment.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am following the usual rule.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that recently we have been dealing, with Bills from the Committee upstairs, but on this occasion the Bill was taken in Committee of the Whole House.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Is it possible to put a point?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: To ask a question, yes.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of the trade union representative as a trespasser, and I submit that he is begging the question, because the effect of the Amendment is to rule out trespass on the part of a trade union representative. I submit that that is the point of the Amendment.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that my argument still applies. This Clause provides that any person who trespasses on land forming part of an aerodrome shall be punished. What the hon. Gentleman would do, if his Amendment were carried, would be to give to

    2069
    trade union representatives a licence to trespass.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: No.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that that is exactly what the Amendment does. It says:
    "Provided that this section shall not apply to any person engaged upon trade union business with persons employed in connection with the aerodrome."
    In other words, any such person engaged in trade union business cannot be guilty of a trespass. There are plenty of circumstances in which he would not be guilty of trespass and would not come under the Clause, but to give him a general licence, as the Amendment would do, to commit trespass, I am sure, is not what the hon. Gentleman intends, and would not be appropriate.
    Mr. LATHAN: Am I correct in understanding the Solicitor-General to say that it is not the disposition of the Government to regard the presence of a trade union official at an aerodrome endeavouring to get in touch with his members working there as in the nature of a trespass?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Certainly not.
    Mr. LATHAN: If that is so, would the hon. and learned Gentleman be prepared to issue instructions that this Clause is not to be interpreted in such a case as though he was committing a trespass?
    8.40 p.m.
    Mr. HARDIE: When we were dealing with the matter before, the whole question of trade union representation was brought into the picture and the history of the fight for the rights of men to stand at the gates was gone into, and I am surprised that we are wasting the time of the House going over that matter again. This is not a case of ordinary trespass. We dealt with that matter in the last Debate. Trespass was defined that night, and the Attorney-General Lad to submit certain things which meant a great change from what was done in the Bill at the time. We ask for this Amendment because of the practice of a great many organisations and employers, who insist on preventing their workers from exercising the right to organise and their representatives from seeing
    2070
    whether the conditions under which they should be employed are being carried out, and whether or not the proper wages are being paid. We have, as working-class people, always to fight against that kind of organisation.
    The Amendment is a purely working-class claim. The Attorney-General, on the last occasion on which he spoke, said that there was no such thing as trespass in Britain. The law of trespass does not exist so far as a person moving about is concerned, but it does exist if that person moves about in a way that he does some damage, which is quite a different thing. In this Bill, for the first time as far as I am aware, the Government seek to prevent what has always been the custom, namely, the right of the secretary of a trade union or trade unions to have access to the place where his members are working. I can see tremendous difficulties arising if this part of the Clause is not changed. This kind of work will be such that it will require specialists in many cases, and if something goes wrong and for some reason or other the men refuse to work, what will be the method of dealing with them? If you leave the matter as it is, you cannot expect the secretary of a trade union to come and attempt to deal with the difficulties. The idea seems to be in the mind of the Solicitor-General that if the proposal in the Amendment were accepted these men would always be running about the aerodrome. There would be nothing of the kind. The man who looks after trade union business goes to the place where his men may be when he is wanted. He is not always running after them. I hope that it will be seen clearly that on the question of trespass nothing can be brought against the Amendment. The rights of trade unions have been long recognised and the Government should not pinprick in this way. Let us get the thing through in the proper spirit.
    8.44 p.m.
    Mr. FLEMING: I entirely agree with what the Solicitor-General has said with regard to the Amendment, and I am rather surprised that during the moving of the Amendment no legal supporters of the Opposition were present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes."] Then I am rather surprised that not one of them got up to speak about it before the Solicitor-General spoke. However, as

    2071
    the Labour party have their legal defenders here I shall wait and see what they have to say to the Solicitor-General. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to cases where representatives of trade unions had tried to approach commanding officers on certain service aerodromes, and he wanted the House to understand that in those instances they were not received very well by the commanding officers. That is a general statement. He knows as well as I do that if such things did occur and the trade union representatives were on lawful business they had a remedy, as any legal adviser would explain. If a trade union representative goes to an aerodrome on lawful business, he is not trespassing. If, however, the words of the Amendment were inserted in the Clause, then undoubtedly, as the Solicitor-General explained, we should be licensing a certain class to be trespassers. That, as the Solicitor-General said, would be class legislation of the worst type. I am sure that the Labour party would not desire such a thing, because from what I recollect of their speeches they do not want class legislation. Why, therefore, should we make the mistake of falling into an error now? Those who drew up the Amendment did not, I should imagine, consult the legal advisers of the Labour party, otherwise they would not have needed to ask the Solicitor-General to explain what was meant by the law of trespass. Seeing that the legal defenders of the Labour party are here I will sit down and listen to what they have to say to the Solicitor-General, who can look after himself.
    8.47 p.m.
    Mr. OLIVER: I should like to put to the Solicitor-General the position which the Amendment postulates. Does he suggest that in the circumstances related by the Mover of the Amendment a trade union organiser entering the property of an aerodrome is in precisely the same position as a trade union organiser entering the property of a private person? A trade union organiser is placed at a disadvantage because trespass is here made a criminal offence, whereas if he enters the property of a private person the trespass may be a civil offence. Therefore, there is a vast difference in the situation created
    2072
    between trespass on to an aerodrome under this Clause and on private property not covered by a Clause of this character. We suggest that a trade union organiser should not only have the same facilities as are offered to him by private employers, without much trouble, but that he should have facilities extended to him so- that in no circumstances could it be suggested that he had broken the criminal law. As a general rule trespass is a civil offence and not a criminal offence. I respectfully submit to the Solicitor-General that a trade union organiser going on to the property of an aerodrome is decidedly at a disadvantage and may be subject to interference by some truculent person, unless this Clause is amended, and he may be brought before the magistrates and fined £5.
    8.49 p.m.
    Mr. EDE: The only Clause that I can recollect that is anything like this one is a Clause that operates in regard to railways, where it is made an offence to trespass on a railway. In that case the penalty is only 40s. I have always understood that that Clause was inserted to make it a rather expensive form of committing suicide if you change your mind after you have started on the project. I suggest to the Solicitor-General that trespass, generally speaking, is not an offence. We all know that owners of property put up notices: "Trespassers will be prosecuted," but everybody knows that that is a prophecy which will never be fulfilled unless a person incidentally commits some damage. He may then be proceeded against. There is also the case that he may be trespassing in pursuit of coneys. That offence, I understand, is not one of trespass, but that he was in pursuit of rabbits. It is desirable that this point should be placed clear of doubt.
    The occasion when a trade union representative is likely to be refused admission to an aerodrome, when he is engaged on trade union business, is likely to be at a time when feelings are rather heated, and some of the people who may subsequently have to deal with him—I do not want to say more about it than this—may also be feeling some of the heat that ha? been engendered by the strike at the aerodrome. It is, therefore, very important that it should be made absolutely clear of doubt that if a man

    2073
    goes there on trade union business and not merely because he is a trade union official, he is not committing an offence.
    The Solicitor-General may have led the House to think that the Amendment would guarantee exemption to any person who was a trade union official, no matter what might be his business at the aerodrome. That is not so. It does not exempt a trade union official simply because he is a trade union official. It says only that if a person is there doing trade union business he shall not be a trespasser. The position is entirely different from the one stated by the Solicitor-General, and I hope the Government will see their way to remove all doubt by accepting the Amendment. If the Clause means no more than the words say, then all that the Solicitor-General can say against it is that it is unnecessary. If it is unnecessary and if people have the right to go to an aerodrome on trade union business without being trespassers, there can be no great harm in making certain of it by putting it into the Bill.
    8.53 p.m.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is it not possible for the Solicitor-General, having regard to what has been said, to accept the Amendment? If he cannot accept the Amendment he might accept other words with a similar object. The words in the Clause are: "If any person trespasses." That phrase infers that no one has any legitimate right to be present on that particular ground. If it is the intention of the Government that in regard to aerodromes and the performance of work there should be proper co-ordination, then, the workpeople and those connected with the workpeople should have all the facilities which are essential for proper co-operation. Surely, it is not the intention of the Government that any protective Clause which gives access to workmen is to prevent any official legitimately engaged in trade union work from having access. The officials connected with aerodromes and the type of labour there are of a highly technical class and are men who will be required for co-operation.
    If we are going to give exemption to any organisations of labour from the law of trespass it should be contained within the Bill. The Solicitor-General is not so dense as not to know the point which is
    2074
    now being argued. I agree that the wording of the Amendment does not carry out exactly what is intended, but the Solicitor-General is aware that we are contending for a right of access for those who are entitled to go to these particular places to deal with the men in legitimate hours. It is not intended to deal with a man who is wandering about an aerodrome at night time, when the men are not engaged in their business, and who, when a policeman comes up and says "Who are you? ", replies "I am a trade union organiser," and who, when the policeman says "I am going to lock you up for trespass," says "You cannot do that because under the Act I am exempted." No one is so silly as to suggest that such a thing should be included in a Clause of this description.
    Let me tell the Solicitor-General my opinion about it. I think that in any organisation of men in aerodromes or any other places, if you want to avoid revolt, if you want to have satisfactory arrangements, true co-operation and a better understanding, in critical times, if you want to get better workmanship from the men in their jobs, the thing to do is to create friendly relations between the men inside the workshops and the men who have the right to organise labour. I am not a trade unionist unfortunately, but I say that any man who has any authority as a trade union official is a very valuable man when it is a question of dealing with the conditions of employment. You very often find that the boss on the job is not always able to control the men as well as those who have a sense of responsibility as trade union officials. The Amendment is moved in a spirit of co-operation. It is not moved in the interests of a "nosey parker," because ways and means can be found to send him about his business. But there is the legitimate trade union official who has a right to see after the well-being of the workmen, and I hope the Government will consider the Amendment from the standpoint of co-operation and better relationships. It may be badly drafted, but the Solicitor-General no doubt can frame words which will give protection to the legitimate organiser of labour who should have a right of access in order to deal with the men.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIS SMITH: I want to submit a few ideas on this question in the hope that the Government will reconsider their

    2075
    attitude. These are the days of organisation. The employers are well organised, shop-keepers are well organised in chambers of commerce, the legal profession is well organised. All interests are well organised and, therefore, it is essential that the workers should also organise themselves. They have organised themselves relatively well in certain sections of industry. They appoint their representatives. In modern methods of production, particularly in aerodromes, production, takes place on one side of the aerodrome and experiments take place on the other. They are also used for commercial purposes. It will be possible for mechanics to leave their workshops and then play a part in the experiments in the aerodrome. Friction might possibly occur between the representatives of various interests and, therefore, it is essential that the representatives of the men should have access to all parts of the aerodrome in order to negotiate difficult questions which may arise. I have been employed in modern large-scale industry and I know the value of this kind of thing. Unless you have an authority, a card, it is not possible to have access to some places, but if you are acting in a representative capacity on behalf of the men and can show your authority you can have access in that capacity.
    I am hoping that the Government will reconsider their attitude so that the legitimate grievances of men employed on aerodromes may be ventilated. They can only be ventilated if their representatives have the right of access to all parts of the aerodrome. Those who have had any experience of meeting the police know how they are treated. Unless you can show some card of authority you are treated as an average member of the public, and the police are, of course, entitled to treat you in that way. But, if you can produce a card showing that you are acting in a representative capacity, they treat you as such, and you can go wherever your duty may take you. Therefore, seeing that military men with a military attitude and mentality will be in charge of aerodromes, and knowing how they react to these kind of things, it is most important, in order that friction may be prevented, that the workmen should have their legitimate interests represented by their trade union
    2076
    organiser. I hope the Minister will reconsider his attitude.
    9.5 p.m.
    Mr. KELLY: I want to ask the Minister why, in this particular Measure, the Government are asking for this provision when it is not asked for in any Department of State? At the present time we are able to visit aerodromes and even Government establishments, where there are supposed to be many secrets. Now, when it comes to the people to whom we are handing out the subsidy, the condition is being laid down that if any person trespasses on any of the land forming part of an aerodrome licensed in pursuance of an Order in Council under Part I, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £5.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That has nothing to do with the subsidy.
    Mr. KELLY: It deals with these aerodromes. I am asking that those who are engaged upon business in connection with the working conditions of the employés of the aerodromes shall have the opportunity of being able to consult with the people concerned so that the grievances, if they are real ones, may be remedied before they develop into serious difficulties and give us the trouble which we so often have by reason of the long-continued existence of grievances. It is a short-sighted policy and it is not in the interests of the country that there should be denied to these people the opportunity of consulting together and of meeting the managements of the undertakings in order to point out to them what is happening, and even suggest what might be remedies for the difficulties. I am trying to find out why it is that the demand is being made at this time for a penalty for trespassing. Why is this condition asked for now when it is not asked for in any other case? In the interests of the country and of obtaining better working conditions for our people who are employed in these undertakings, I hope this Amendment will be accepted.
    9.8 p.m.
    Mr. GALLACHER: I would like to add my view on this matter, and I do so because of an experience I had at the General Election in connection with an undertaking somewhat similar to those

    2077
    which are being considered in this Bill. In my constituency there is an Admiralty dump with a considerable amount of ground attached to it. On that ground there are the homes of the men who are employed at the dump, and it may be that you will have an aerodrome with ground around it on which the houses of the employés of the aerodrome may be built. To get to the Admiralty dump in question, one has to leave the main road and go along a road leading to the dump. On the private road, as well as within the precincts of the homes of the workers, meetings were addressed by representatives of the parties, but when I went there at the General Election the police were present to prevent me from getting on to the ground to which I am referring. I could not speak to those constituents of mine.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that if this Amendment were accepted it would not help the hon. Member.
    Mr. GALLACHER: I want to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to the fact that there might very well be an aerodrome at which it is very difficult for those who are employed to get in touch with the organiser of the trade union other than at their work, and it is therefore essential if proper attention is to be given to the conditions under which the men have to work that the organiser should have access at any time in order to meet the representatives of the men and the management. Therefore, I want to add my word of support to those who have already spoken. During the War I had experience of trying to get on to forbidden territory in order to settle grievances, and I very often succeeded in getting on to it. I know that while I succeeded in getting there to settle a grievance in my particular way, others, who were bona fide representatives of trade unions, could not get there. They were not prepared to take the measures I took, and were legal and constitutional. I managed to get to Rosyth and to do my particular job among the men and sailors who worked there, but the trade union organisers could not get there. The same situation might arise in connection with these aerodromes.
    Mr. LOGAN: You would be a trespasser.
    Mr. GALLACHER: I am certain I should get on to them, but the important thing for the Under-Secretary to understand is that the trade union official, who has the responsibility of looking after the interests of the men and very often stopping trouble before it goes too far, should have open access. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) knows that he and his colleagues often had to come to calm things down after the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and myself had been on the job. It may be essential at any moment that a trade union organiser should be able to go right on to the aerodrome to take up a particular grievance. If he is not able to do so, I am sure the grievance will be taken up. Let there be no mistake about that. Consequently, I suggest that in order to get the best results from the point of view of the men, the general organisation and the aerodromes, the representatives of the men should have access at any time to the management and to the employés in the aerodrome.
    Sir ROBERT YOUNG: If there were an industrial dispute and if the men sent to the organiser or secretary of their trade union to tell him that trouble was brewing and he appeared there in response to their message, would he be trespassing?
    9.15 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can only speak again by leave of the House. Of course it would depend entirely on the circumstances. As the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) said it is most important that there should be good will in these matters, and one hopes that in every case there will be good will between those in control of the aerodromes and the trade union representatives. In that case no question of trespass would arise. One hopes that in such a case as the hon. Gentleman has in mind there would be no question of trespass. This Clause is only to deal with cases in which there is exclusion of certain people because the will of the owner of the aerodrome—the local authority or whoever it may be—is that these people should not come on the premises.
    It has been pointed out that if Parliament passes this Clause it is taking a somewhat unusual step. Trespass is not

    2079
    a criminal offence but if we pass this Clause we are going to make it a criminal offence—for a very good reason, namely that people who trespass on aerodromes are putting in peril members of the public who are travelling on aeroplanes, just as it is made a criminal offence to trespass upon railways. In those circumstances people who are, in the true sense of the word, trespassers, must be kept off the premises by a provision of this kind, whether they happen to be trade unionists, or parsons who come there to look after the cure of the souls of the workers, or doctors or anybody else. All persons who go there against the will of the proprietor must be treated in the same way, whether they are trade union representatives or anybody else. For those reasons I am sorry that the Government cannot accept the Amendment which, as I have said, would be class legislation of the most invidious kind.
    Mr. LATHAN: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give the assurance for which I asked? I gathered that a trade union official who went to an aerodrome for the purpose of getting into touch with members of his union would not be regarded as a trespasser. If that be the case, will the Minister give instructions that action is not to be taken against such a person as if he were a trespasser?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As I have explained, it depends on circumstances. Normally, of course, he would not be a trespasser, if there was ordinary good will between the aerodrome proprietors and the trade union. These are licensed aerodromes, and in most cases probably the proprietors will be local authorities, and one assumes that in most cases there will be good will and that no question of trespass will arise. But I would not care to make the general statement that in no circumstances would the entry of a trade union representative be trespass. I want to be frank with the House, and I give an instance. Suppose the aerodrome authority, be it a local authority or any other body, were involved in a trade dispute and desired to exclude trade union representatives from the premises and made plain their intention to do so. It would, in my opinion, be trespass in that case if a
    2080
    trade union representative, notwithstanding that exclusion, attempted to go upon the aerodrome.
    Mr. LOGAN: Suppose a workman who felt that he was suffering under a grievance refused to do his work inside the aerodrome, would he be a trespasser?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I presume the hon. Member is referring to a sort of "stay-in strike." I understand that a distinguished colleague of mine at the Bar is at present examining that question and perhaps I had better not anticipate his decision.
    9.20 p.m.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: What the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said is not quite a candid statement of the position. He has said that a person would not be a trespasser on an aerodrome unless he went there notwithstanding an exclusion. That is not the fact. He would be a trespasser unless he had permission to go on to the aerodrome, which is a very different state of affairs. Any person going on the aerodrome without permission or invitation from the controlling authority would, of course, be a trespasser. An inspector of the Air Ministry must go there by virtue of the authority given to him under the powers of the Secretary of State, otherwise he would be a trespasser. In case of an accident, a doctor, unless invited to go upon the aerodrome by the management, would be a trespasser. If the hon. and learned Gentleman went there for a view of the aerodrome after the accident, unless he had been invited by the management he would also be a trespasser and any trade union official, unless he could show that he had been invited either expressly or impliedly to attend, would be a trespasser and liable to exclusion. If this Clause is passed in its present form it would be necessary for such an organiser to get, either a general permission to go on the aerodrome at all times to interview members of his union or else an express permission to go there at particular times.
    The question raised is whether, in view of the desirability of the swift and satisfactory settlement of grievances, it is not desirable that a trade union organiser should have the right when on trade union business but not on other occasions, to go upon an aerodrome without having

    2081
    to get, on each occasion, express permission which might very well be refused. If we are making it a criminal offence for the first time for people to go upon aerodromes, it is desirable that we should exclude from that provision special persons such as trade union organisers. There may be other classes of persons in the same category. For instance a postman, if he is not to be a trespasser under this Clause, would have to get permission on each occasion to go there or else possibly a general permission from the Postmaster-General. A taxicab driver would have to get permission to go there with a passenger or else he would be a trespasser. All people who have not express invitations or licences to go on an aerodrome will be trespassers and you will have not class legislation permitting certain people to go on an aerodrome, but class action stopping certain people from going there. The other people who are technically trespassers will not be interfered with but the trade union organiser, if his presence is not accept-
    able to the management, will be excluded. It will be very handy to be able to rake up this Clause in order to get him off the premises, in much the same way as other provisions have been raked up out of the laws of the past in order to stop people making speeches which were inconvenient to the Government of the time—as in the case of Tom Mann and others. The danger of this type of legislation is that it may be used hereafter selectively. If this provision is enforced in every case in which there is a technical trespass, well and good, because it will be repealed in a year because of its absurdity. But if it is to be used selectively, in order to give a power over trade union officials which otherwise would not exist, then it is the worst type of class legislation.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 181.

    Division No. 253.]

    AYES.

    [9.26 p.m.

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

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Ritson, J.

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

    Holland, A.

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

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hopkin, D.

    Rowson, G.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Jagger, J.

    Salter, Dr. A.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Barr, J.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Short, A.

    Batey, J.

    John, W.

    Silkin, L.

    Bellenger, F.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Benson, G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Bevan, A.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

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

    Brooke, W.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Burke, W. A.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lathan, G.

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, J. J.

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

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Cove, W. G.

    Leonard, W.

    Thorne, W.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Leslie. J. R.

    Thurtle, E.

    Daggar, G.

    Logan. D. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Walker, J.

    Day, H.

    McGovern, J.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Dobbie, W.

    Marklew, E.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Ede, J. C.

    Marshall, F.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Messer, F.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Gallacher, W.

    Montague, F.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Paling, W.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Potts, J.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Price, M. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hardle, G. D.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    NOES.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

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

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

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

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

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

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Apsley, Lord

    Bernays, R. H.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Blindell, Sir J.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Assheton, R.

    Bossom, A. C.

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Boulton, W. W.

    Bull, B. B.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

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

    Rayner, Major R. H.

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

    Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

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

    Jackson, Sir H.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Craddock, Sir R. H.

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

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Crooke, J. S.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Cross, R. H.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Kimball, L.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Savery, Servington

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Little, Sir E. Graham-

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Simmonds, O. E.

    Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Drewe, C.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

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

    Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

    Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Mac Donald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Somervell, Sir D B. (Crewe)

    Dunne, P. R. R.

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

    Spens, W. P.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Maitland, A.

    Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Everard, W. L.

    Markham, S. F.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Maxwell, s. A.

    Touche, G. C.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Foot, D. M.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

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

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

    Furness, S. N.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Wakefield, W. W.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

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

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

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

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Goodman, Col. A. W.

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

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

    Wedderburn. H. J. S.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Munro, P.

    White, H. Graham

    Grimston, R. V.

    Nail, Sir J.

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

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

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

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

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Gunston, Capt. D. W.

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Guy, J. C. M.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Hanbury, Sir C.

    Peat, C. U.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Hannah, I. C.

    Penny, Sir G.

    Wragg, H.

    Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

    Perkins. W. R. D.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Petherick, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Commander Southby and Captain

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Pilkington, R.

    Hope.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

    Amendment made: In page 11, line 13, leave out "appears," and insert "appear."—[Sir P. Sassoon.]

    CLAUSE 13.—(Limitation of liability for certain damage caused by aircraft.)
    9.35 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I bog to move, in page 11, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert:
    "(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, where a person or his estate is liable to pay damages by reason of loss or damage which, after the commencement of this Part of this Act, is caused on any one occasion to persons or property on land or water by, or by a person in, or an article or person falling from, an aircraft while in flight, taking off or landing, then, if the loss or damage was caused without his actual fault or privity, his or, as the case may be, his estate's total liability to pay
    2084
    damages by reason of the loss or damage shall be limited in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act.
    Any reference in this Act to the total limit of liability appropriate to an aircraft shall be construed as a reference to the total amount to which a person could, in the circumstances mentioned in this Sub-section, limit his liability to pay damages in respect of loss or damage caused on any one occasion by that aircraft, whether to persons or to property; and any reference in this Act to the limit of liability for property claims appropriate to an aircraft shall be construed as a reference to the amount to which a person could, in such circumstances, limit his liability to pay damages in respect of loss or damage caused on any one occasion by that aircraft, if that loss or damage were only loss of, or damage to, property."
    In order to explain to the House the purpose of this Amendment, it is necessary for me to travel outside what would

    2085
    strictly be the bounds of order, because the Amendment is not comprehensible without reference to the amended Schedule which appears on page 1110 of the Order Paper. The Amendments of which this is the preface, the whole series of them culminating in the Schedule, are designed to carry out what was felt to be the general opinion of the House at the time of the Committee stage in respect of the Clause which limits liability for damage in certain circumstances. From all sides it was felt that if possible the limits of liability in respect of personal injury should be raised and I desire to pay a tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thorn-bury (Captain Gunston), who was, I think, mainly instrumental in raising the point. An undertaking was given by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that the matter would be looked into before the Report stage and that if it proved possible to do so without, of course, ca using great increases of premium, which would be contrary to policy, he would do what could be done to improve the limits of liability in respect of personal injury.
    The effect of this first Amendment is to make a fundamental alteration in the structure, but in nothing else, of Clause 13 as it is in the Bill. Instead of having, as there, the limits of liability in the Clause, we have transferred them into the Schedule, and the total effect of the Amendments will be this, that there is no alteration in the position of airships, where the limit of liability remains at £25,000, and there is no alteration in respect of balloons which have been left at £5,000. In respect of gliders, which are the poor man's aeroplanes, and it is very important to keep the insurance down, we propose to double the limit of liability. It was £1,000 under the Bill, and it is proposed that it should be £2,000, but so that only one-half of that could be available in respect of loss of, or damage to, property, which means that there is a complete £1,000 in any case available for injury to the person and possibly another £1,000, ranking, of course, with the claims of property.
    Then, in respect of other aircraft, no change is made in respect of aircraft over 10,000 lb. in weight, in respect of which the limit remains at £1 for each pound of weight, as it was in the Bill,
    2086
    and the maximum of £25,000 remains what it was before; but in respect of the intermediate classes of aircraft, where they do not exceed 5,000 lbs. we have increased the limit of liability to £10,000; where it, used to be £5,000; that is, an increase of £5,000, and there again there is a provision that only £5,000 of that shall be payable in respect of loss of, or damage to, property, so that the whole of the extra £5,000 is available for injury to the person. In the case of aeroplanes between 5,000 and 10,000 lbs. in weight, the limit is again £10,000, and the limit in respect of loss of, or damage to, property is £1 per pound of weight. I do not propose to go in detail into the way in which this works out, because that was very fully gone into in the Committee stage, and hon. Members who took an interest in this Clause will be familiar with the working that was provided in the Bill as originally framed, which is retained under the present proposal, but the net effect is to make, in respect of those two classes of aeroplanes, a further £5,000 available for personal injury, and in respect of gliders an increased amount available of £1,000, and to leave it at the other figures in respect of the remaining classes.
    Inquiries have been made, and it has been ascertained that these increases can be made without any very substantial increase of premium, which is a very important consideration. That could not be said if an increased risk to property were covered, because that immediately attracts a very much higher premium. It may be said by some of my hon. Friends—I apprehend that it is more likely to be said from this side of the House—that we ought perhaps to have increased the limit of liability as regards property. The answer that I make to that is that the provision of £5,000 for property losses covers at any rate any pretty substantial house and contents, and, in the case of a mansion or very substantial house, it is open to the owner to insure himself at a comparatively small rate of premium. I understand that something between 1s. 6d. and 1s. 9d. will cover all risks, including fire. In any case, the proposals are very much more generous than in the Convention and than in the Bill, and they are a genuine attempt to meet what was felt to be a widespread feeling in the House.

    2087
    I hope that, with that explanation, the House will allow us to have the Amendments, the first of which I am now moving.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: On a point of Order. Do I understand that it is open to the House to discuss together these Amendments to which the Solicitor-General referred?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that there is a series of Amendments, and it would be convenient to discuss them together.
    9.43 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: This first Sub-section as on the Paper is so incredibly drafted—I know that it follows almost the wording of the other Clause, but it was not worth while discussing the draftsmanship of that Clause when the principle was still under discussion—that it can only be hailed as a paradise for the lawyers. First of all, it does not make English at all. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the third line, he will see that it says:
    "… is caused on any one occasion to persons or property on land or water by, or by a person in, or an article or person falling from …"
    What does that mean? It means absolutely nothing. Whether there is a "by" omitted after the second "or" I do not know, but, if so, it would then read:
    "… by, or by a person in, or by an article or person falling from, an aircraft while in flight …"
    It would then have some meaning. I imagine, therefore, that there must be some error in the form in which this appears on the Paper. There are some other more serious matters about the meaning of which I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman. What is the meaning of "any one occasion"? Does that mean one flight? Suppose an aeroplane is flying over my house and drops something on somebody in my garden, and then drops something on somebody in the next garden. Is that two occasions or one occasion? This matter is very important because if one occasion means one flight, then damage done when taking off and landing would be the same accident for the purposes of this Amendment, and that might extend
    2088
    from Land's End to John o'Groats. It seems to me that "any one occasion" is a very unhappy phrase. It apparently contemplates a single accident, and that all the damage will be done simultaneously.
    Take the unhappy case of an aeroplane disintegrating in the air, as one did a year or two ago over the south of England, where one of the wings came off first, then the engine detached itself from the aeroplane, and they fell scattered over a large area. Would the damage in that case be on one occasion, or would there be different occasions, namely, the occasion on which the wing fell to earth, the occasion on which the engine fell to earth, and the occasion on which the rest of the aeroplane fell to earth? It strikes me that unless something is done to clarify this provision, it will possibly lead to a great deal of litigation as to whether, when there is an accident, the occasion on which several persons have been injured is the same occasion, or whether each person or bit of property injured is a separate occasion. I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that something must be done as regards that. In regard to injury to persons or property, I notice that it says "on land or water." Is there any particular reason why persons in water should not be protected? Take the case of an aeroplane passing over a bathing pool where many people are bathing. The people in the water are apparently not included. The people on the land will be, and anybody who is in a boat on the water will be, but anybody who is in the water will not be included at all.
    One next comes to the extraordinary expression,
    "if the loss or damage was caused without his actual fault or privity."
    Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what is the criterion of "privity"? Suppose an hon. Member owns, as some hon. Members do own, a private aeroplane and it is being driven by a private pilot to whom a salary is paid, and some accident occurs. Is that an accident which is with the privity of the person who owns the aeroplane? It clearly would not be his fault. Suppose, to take another case, there is an aeroplane taking a party to some race meeting and some member of the party is so unwise as to throw an empty champagne bottle out of the aero-

    2089
    plane. Would that be with the privity of the owner, or would it be necessary to show that the owner has either drunk some of the champagne or handed the bottle to the person who threw it out; or would the mere fact of being in the aeroplane with the person be sufficient to make him privy to the throwing of the bottle out of the aeroplane? I am not aware—perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is—that this phrase has been used before or has any particular legal significance as regards responsibility for accident. The use of a vague word of this sort seems to be well calculated to stimulate activities not in the air, but in the law courts, which, presumably, is not the main objective of the hon. and learned Gentleman in proposing this Amendment. Therefore, I suggest to him that before this provision becomes law, he should get someone to tidy it up and make it intelligible, which it is not at present, and to see that there are as few uncertainties in it as possible, and therefore as few opportunities for himself and myself and others to make money out of it.
    9.51 p.m.
    Captain GUNSTON: I should like to thank the Solicitor-General for having so kindly adopted the suggestion which I put forward the other night. I must say that when I listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), I thought, "What wonderful people lawyers are!" None of the suggestions he made ever entered my mind when I made my suggestion the other night. My suggestion, when the House was in a difficulty, was that the value of life was more than the value of property. No doubt the mind of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol does not run on those lines. I feel that if it is necessary in order to get compulsory insurance to limit liability, we ought to try to get greater compensation for the loss of life than for the loss of property. It is on those grounds that I thank the Solicitor-General. May I ask him one or two points arising out of the Amendment? As he pointed out, if a man who owns a glider crashes and kills anybody, the total limit is £2,000. If there is damage to property not more than £1,000 will be paid for it. Suppose a glider kills a man and the damage to property is only £200, may we take it that the balance of £1,800 will be paid in respect of the life?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL indicated assent.
    Captain GUNSTON: With regard to a machine weighing 5,000 lbs., I suppose the same thing will apply. If eight people were killed and only £200 damage was done to property, I take it that £9,800 would go in compensation for the loss of life?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL indicated assent.
    9.53 p.m.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: Will my hon. and learned Friend further explain the point, because, although the Amendment is a distinct advance on what was proposed on the Committee stage, I do not understand the intention of the Government in this limitation. I appreciate that it is better to have a certain limit for which insurance can be effected than to have no limit which cannot be covered by insurance, but why limit the total liability? One can understand the limit being placed on the total sum for which compulsory insurance can be effected, but I cannot see any reason why, in limiting the total sum which must be compulsorily covered by insurance, that figure should be taken as the extreme limit of liability. Why should a person who suffers damage have his ordinary rights under Common Law restricted in this way? I am sure that the Government even at this stage will review the matter. It is right to limit the total amount for which insurance must be compulsory, but it is wholly wrong to limit the liability in the case of a person who may have ample means although not insured beyond the figures in the Bill.
    9.55 p.m.
    Mr. PRITT: The hon. Member opposite, in his references to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), treated his criticisms of the wording of this Clause rather as if they were an attack on the principle which he supports, and he claimed that lawyers are wonderful people. So, in a very limited sense, they are. They are wonderful because people rely on them to do their best for their clients, and if a client is an insurance company it does involve lawyers arguing with solemnity that a, person in the water is not on the water and that therefore all his dependants must starve until

    2091
    they can find a job. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that the Government should somehow get into this Measure the correct wording to ensure that it will do whatever it is that they want to do, and therefore I think that in criticising the words we are not in the least attacking the principles put forward by the hon. Member. As to the principle of the limitation of liability, or torts, in some way, like the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) I do not like it, but under the present system it may be necessary, to enable commerce to be carried on, to introduce some such principle, and, of course, it has been operated under the Merchant Shipping Act for a good many years. I have no doubt that while the present system lasts it will continue to be applied in the interests of any great group of industrialists who have sufficient influence in this House to protect their pockets in this way. But so far as the wording goes we are not being meticulous; we are only trying to protect the public from ourselves in fighting for a better wording of these Statutes.
    9.58 p.m.
    Mr. FOOT: I share the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall). I do not see why there should be any limit of liability at all in the case of personal injury, in particular where death results and an action is brought by the dependants of the deceased. I am not, however, going to labour that point, and I want only to put to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General one question which concerns the last part of the second Amendment. It deals with an application made to the court under the last preceding Sub-section and says:
    "the court may stay any proceedings pending in any other court in relation to the same matter and may give such directions as the court thinks proper for the joining of persons interested as parties to the proceedings, for the exclusion of claims which are not brought before the court within a certain time, and".
    I should be grateful if the Solicitor-General would say why it is necessary to have that power to limit the time. In cases where the accident has resulted in death a number of the actions will be
    2092
    brought under Lord Campbell's Act, and already there is a limit of time, a limit of six months in which the executors of the deceased or the administrators can bring proceedings, and a limit of 12 months within which the widow can bring proceedings. Why should there be any further limitation of time in cases of fatal accidents?
    10.0 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If I may speak again by the leave of the House I would like to say that I do not wish to follow the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who was perhaps unfortunate in the adjectives he used about me when he accused me of lack of candour. But I think I am entitled to say that he was present during the Committee stage, and these exact words were before us then, and he did not then think they were worthy of either comment or amendment. Also, it might have been suitable if he had thought fit to put down some Amendment on the Report stage indicating what he desired. I am afraid that one must look upon his intervention as being extemporaneous and unconsidered. Nevertheless, it is worthy of attention, and, being worthy of attention, I think I may say that in one respect at any rate he is right. I think the Clause would be better with the word "by," which is a drafting Amendment which I shall move if the House will permit me to do so. The other Amendment which is suggested I do not think is necessary. If the hon. and learned Member would like it he can have "in" as well as "on" in regard to water, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the circumstances he referred to would be included in the phrase "on the water." I do not think it is necessary, but if he would like it in the case of a glider landing on a bathing party, he can have it. As to "privity," I am not prepared to agree with him about that. It is a word which has a construction. I think he has overlooked the Merchant Shipping Act, from which this Clause is taken and in which that word appears.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to tell me what "on one occasion" is intended to mean?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the loss or damage occurs on one occasion, that is in respect of one accident to the persons who are making their claim, or to the property in respect of which the claim is made. That is simple enough.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: But if there is a row of six houses and each one of them is damaged by the fall of an aeroplane, is that six occasions under which the six people are injured and has each one of them a claim as "on one occasion."?
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: No, certainly not. Quite clearly the one occasion is the occasion of one accident occurring to the aeroplane. It is that occasion that I am taking as an instance. The single occasion is the accident of the fall. Let me deal with another incident which I apprehend would be more than one occasion. Supposing that in the course of a flight over a distance of two or three miles a pilot were carelessly to jettison spanners at intervals. That would be more than one occasion, and in respect of each of those occasions the damage would only be limited in accordance with the Clause. I do not think there ought to be any difficulties in any court in interpreting those words. With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall), and I think also by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), that there was no reason to limit the liability, at any rate where personal injuries were concerned, to the amount by which the insurance is affected, that again, is a point which has never been raised before. The Clause in its present shape has been remodelled so as to meet every reasonable criticism that was made against it on the Committee stage, and that point is one which has not been raised before. I do not know whether it be the case that it would involve an increased premium or not, but that might be one of the reasons why it has not been considered. All I can say is that it has not been considered, and that nobody up to this moment has suggested that it should be. Therefore we have pursued the error of our ways.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. OLIVER: I followed the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman very carefully, and there seems to be some confusion between two of his statements. If I understand him aright, if an aero-
    2094
    plane fall upon a row of houses and four or five people are thereby injured, that would be regarded as one occasion. His other statement, in regard to a bag of tools being thrown overboard—
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No. Not a bag of tools, but the tools one by one. Suppose there were a trap door open, and the airman dropped a spanner in Surrey and a winch somewhere else; that would be more than one occasion, and in respect of each occasion there would be a right to a claim, and a claim to limit the liability under the Act.
    Mr. OLIVER: I appreciate the distinction which the Solicitor-General has now drawn, but surely there must be a limit to one occasion. May I give an illustration, which is quite a likely thing to happen, in reference to the fall of tools, showing the unsuitability of the words "one occasion"? If a bag of tools fell on to the floor of an aeroplane and dropped out at intervals, a second or two between each separate tool, could that possibly be described as one occasion? Which would be the one occasion, the five separate tools being one group, a sequence of five, or would each tool be regarded as one occasion? I put this case only because it illustrates the unsuitability of the words which are used, and which are not adequately defined. I hope the Solicitor-General will not think it is too late to make an Amendment in this regard.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the Solicitor-General undertake to give further consideration to this matter?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The point will be looked into, between now and the time when the Measure reaches another place, and if it is found that there is any substance in it I will certainly suggest that alterations should be made.
    Mr. BELLENGER: Do I understand that the Amendments which the Solicitor-General would accept are to be taken in now?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman said they will be considered.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.9 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As I understand that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)

    2095
    would like, as I would myself, one at least of these Amendments to be made, may I move, in line 4—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have already inserted those words in the Bill. I understood that the words are to be considered, and if necessary, amended in another place.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We must proceed to the next Amendment.
    Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 27, after "claims," insert "for damages."
    In line 30, leave out from the second "court," to the end of the Sub-section, and insert:
    "may assess the liability to pay damages, and determine whether, and, if so, to what amount, it can be limited under this Section, dealing separately, if need be, with such of the claims as are in respect of loss of or damage to property, and, if the liability can be so limited, may distribute the amount thereof among the several claims on the following principles:

    (a) if the claims are solely in respect of loss of life or personal injury or solely in respect of loss of or damage to property, the amount of the liability shall be distributed rateably;

    (b) if there are claims both in respect of loss of life or personal injury and in respect of loss of or damage to property, one-half of the total limit of liability appropriate to the aircraft concerned shall be appropriated, so far as necessary, to meeting claims for loss of life or personal injury and shall be distributed rateably among them, and the other half shall be distributed rateably among all the claims, including claims in respect of loss of life or personal injury if and so far as they exceed the aforesaid appropriation.

    (4) Where an application is made to the court under the last preceding Sub-section the court may stay any proceedings pending n any other court in relation to the same matter, and may give such directions as the court thinks proper for the joining of persons interested as parties to the proceedings, for the exclusion of claims which are not brought before the court within a certain time, and for requiring security from the person by whom the application to the court was made."—[The Solicitor-General.]

    CLAUSE 14.—(Provision to be made in respect of aircraft against third party risks.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 14, line 27, leave out from "the" to "to," in line 28, and insert "total limit of liability appropriate."
    In line 31, leave out "several maximum sums so determined in relation," and insert "total limits of liability appropriate."—[The Solicitor-General.]

    CLAUSE 19.—(Provision for giving effect to a certain Convention signed in Rome.)
    10.12 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 18, line 3, to leave out "and."
    This is an Amendment of a different kind, although it is only formal. The effect will be to enable separate Orders in Council to be made to carry into effect the requirements as to liability, in insurance for third-party risks, not only in respect of aircraft from foreign States who are parties to the Convention, flying in this country, but our own aircraft leaving this country and flying to other States. We leave out the word so that separate orders may be made.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Wages and conditions of employment of persons.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 22, line 9, leave out "persons in receipt of subsidy under this Act," and insert "subsidised person."
    In line 10, leave out "them," and insert "him."
    In line 25, at the end, insert:
    "In this sub-section the expression 'subsidised person' means a person in respect of whom there is subsisting an agreement made under Part I of this Act for the payment of a subsidy to him by the Secretary of State."—[Sir P. Sassoon.]

    CLAUSE 30.—(Application to Scotland.)
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, in page 24, line 6, at the end, to insert:
    "and any reference to the Lord Chief Justice shall be construed as a reference to the Lord President of the Court of Session."
    This is a drafting Amendment for the purpose of translating an English term into a term applicable to Scotland.
    Amendment agreed to.

  NEW SCHEDULE. — (Limits of liability.)
  1. The limits of liability under sub-section (1) of section thirteen of this Act in respect of such loss or damage as is mentioned in that sub-section shall, in the case of an aircraft of any such description as is mentioned in the first column of the follow-

  2097
  ing Table, be an amount to be ascertained, in relation to that description of aircraft, by reference to the second column of the said Table.

  Description of Aircraft.

  Limit of Liability.

  (a) Airships

  £25,000.

  (b) Balloons (whether fixed or free).

  £5,000.

  (c) Gliders

  £2,000, so, however, that not more than £1,000 shall be payable in respect of loss of, or damage to, property.

  (d) Other aircraft—

  (i) if the weight of the aircraft fully loaded does not exceed 5,000 pounds.

  £10,000, so, however, that not more than £5,000 shall be payable in respect of loss of, or damage to, property.

  (ii) if the weight of the aircraft fully loaded exceeds 5,000 pounds but does not exceed 10,000 pounds.

  £10,000, so, however, that, in respect of loss of, or damage to, property, there shall not be payable more than £1 for each pound of the weight of the aircraft fully loaded.

  (iii) if the weight of the aircraft fully loaded exceeds 10,000 pounds but does not exceed 25,000 pounds.

  £1 for each pound of the weight of the aircraft fully loaded.

  (iv) if the weight of the aircraft fully loaded exceeds 25,000 pounds.

  £25,000.

  2. References in the foregoing table to pounds of weight shall be construed as references to pounds avoidupois; and the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the manner in which the weight of an aircraft fully loaded is to be ascertained for the purposes of this Schedule, and direct that, in the case of an aircraft of any particular description, such document as may be specified in the regulations, being a document which purports to show the weight of the aircraft fully loaded, shall be evidence of that weight.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
  This new Schedule is consequent on the Amendment to Clause 13 which we have already discussed.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. EDE: I am bound to say I view with regret the insertion in the Bill of a Schedule fixing limits of liability. I understand that this is on the basis of the Merchant Shipping Act, but I always understood that that was one of the most
  2098
  unsatisfactory Acts that had ever been passed. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) shakes his head, but what he would regard as a satisfactory Measure might be regarded by laymen as being very unsatisfactory. I regret this provision because the Road Traffic Act imposes no limit of liability, and I should have thought that in these days we should be more likely to take that as a precedent than the Merchant Shipping Act. I sincerely hope that this will never be quoted as a precedent for inserting limits in the Road Traffic Act or similar legislation. I had hoped that we should have divided against the earlier Amendment to insert the new Sub-section (1), but I realise that, as we did not do that, it is difficult now to raise the question in an effective form. I want, however, to utter my protest against reference to the precedent of the Merchant Shipping Act when the precedent of the Road Traffic Act was in existence and would have been more in accordance with modern ideas.
  10.17 p.m.
  Sir J. NALL: I regard this Schedule and the Clause relating to it as most important provisions which will have to be considered in relation to the Road Traffic Act and liability on the roads. It is well known that the question of damages in relation to road accidents is becoming extremely chaotic, and for that reason I hope the Minister in charge of the Bill will review this matter, in the light of what I said earlier, before the Bill goes to the other House. I cannot see the slightest reason why the liability should be limited in this way. It was made perfectly clear that the reason for limiting insurance to a certain maximum was because it would be impossible to insure for unlimited liability, but it seems to me that the whole question of this Schedule and the Clause relating to it should be reviewed, and that it could be considerably simplified if the basis were converted into one of compulsory insurance within fixed limits and the question of liability left open.
  10.18 p.m.
  Sir M. SUETER: I desire to refer to the first item in the Table, namely, Airships, where the limit of liability is £25,000. I should like to ask the Solicitor-General how that figure of £25,000 is fixed for airships. Airships are of three

  2099
  types. There is the ordinary flexible small airship, like the S.S. airships and the coastal airships that we had in the War; there are the semi-rigid airships of different types; and there are the rigid airships. If a rigid airship like the "Hindenburg" were forced down, with 5,000,000 cubic feet of hydrogen, on a city like London, and if that were fired, a great deal of damage would be done, and I cannot understand how it could be limited to £25,000. I should like the Solicitor-General to explain how that figure is fixed.
  10.19 p.m.
  Major HILLS: My hon. Friends do not seem to appreciate the fact that the liability is only limited in cases of pure accident. If the damage occurs through the fault of the owner, then the liability will be assessed by a jury in the ordinary way, but where the owner is in no sense responsible for the accident—and, of course, responsibility has a very wide extension—the same principle which obtains in the case of ships at sea has been adopted. It is not really a question of insurance, which is quite a different matter. The principle here is that, in case of accident where no fault or privity rests upon the owner, it is reasonable that there should be a limit to the sum which that owner should pay in damages.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. EVERARD: I should like to utter a word of regret on behalf of some of my friends of the Light Aeroplane Club at the fact that the Minister has altered the original figures that appeared in the Bill. This part of the Bill is based on the recommendations of a committee upon which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) and I, among others, sat. I should like to read a short paragraph from our report which shows the position that we were in.
  "After careful consideration we have arrived at the conclusion that it would be in the general interests of the community to introduce a scheme of compulsory third party insurance, or adequate alternative indemnity, against the damage caused by civil aircraft to persons or property on the ground provided that the liability is limited as proposed in paragraph 84."
  In paragraph 84 we said:
  "We consider, from the evidence which we have taken, that the lower limit of 600,000 francs (£7,700) proposed in the Con-
  2100
  vention at Rome is too high. In order that premiums may not constitute an undue burden on private flying in this country, the lower and upper limits should not exceed £5,000 and £25,000 respectively."
  After very careful consideration our figures were arrived at, very largely on the basis of the Rome Convention, which was a Convention of all the great flying Powers of Europe, but some of us would have considered quite seriously whether or not we could accept the principle of third party insurance if we had realised that the figures were to be as high as they are in the Bill. Although it is true that under the provisions of the Bill, a private owner is to receive some relaxation of control, nevertheless, if he has handed himself over to the insurance interests entirely, he is going out of the frying pan into the fire. We are very anxious, particularly from the point of view of the light aeroplane club movement, that no embarrassment should be put on an already extremely difficult financial undertaking by way of increased premiums, but we regret that this alteration should have been made, entirely contrary to the findings of the committee.
  Sir J. NALL: Surely the committee's report relates to liability to insurance? It indicates the limit of liability for which insurance can be effected.
  10.24 p.m.
  Captain GUNSTON: I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether the members of the committee considered the effect of raising the insurance in regard to life, because the House felt that the limit was much too low in regard to life. I put forward the suggestion that it ought to be increased and the Government accepted that suggestion. Now my hon. Friend complains that his committee has been thrown over. The House had a very long Debate about it. An object falling out of a machine might break through a glasshouse or a roof or something like that, and might not hit a person. But if a man was hit and was killed he might leave a widow who might have very little money to support herself, and we felt that we could raise the liability with regard to life without hitting the aeroplane industry. We felt that the premium could be increased by such a small amount that it would not prevent people from flying. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Solicitor-General has admitted it. He said that, after con-

  2101
  sulting with the insurance people, it was probable that the premium would need to be increased by only very little. Surely it is worth while increasing premiums by that very little, if you are to get the whole of the country behind you. We all want to help the development of flying. The whole feeling was that we would not get the assistance we would like if the limited liability was kept as low as it was. I again thank the Government for accepting the Amendments, the effect of which will be not to limit flying but, by getting the good will of the country, to help flying.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. PERKINS: The statement has been made that this increase—in my particular case from £5,000 to £10,000—is only going to affect premiums by a very small amount. I hope that that is so. I ask the Solicitor-General whether that is really true, whether he has discussed the matter with the interests involved, and whether he has had any negotiations whatever with the insurance companies in older to prevent an undue rise in premiums.
  10.27 p.m.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) really have been answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard). The reason why we get any limitation in the Bill at all is that the Gorell Committee recommend that there should be compulsory insurance and that there should be a limitation of liability. The recommendation is that every aircraft should be insured against this liability for an amount calculated on a pound for pound basis. That was the origin of these proposals. But there was also another origin. Broadly speaking, it followed the scheme of the Rome Convention. It does not follow it literally, and in many respects it is a good deal more generous than the Rome Convention. We have not ratified it yet, but it is undesirable to have two codes of law which are completely in conflict operating in the same areas if you can possibly avoid it. It may very well be, even now, with these more generous scales that we have provided for in the Bill, it will pay anybody to be hit by something falling from a British aero-
  2102
  plane coining from Paris over the Kent coast, rather than hit by a French aeroplane going back to Paris, because the terms provided in that Convention are not as generous. I have said enough to indicate that this outline, whereby there is a limitation of liability of fixed figures, does not come so entirely out of the blue. It was matured by the Committee, and was considered under the Rome Convention.
  Sir M. SUETER: Did they consider the question of rigid airships being forced down, as the R. 101 was forced down, and so firing a great area of buildings? I cannot understand how they selected the sum of £25,000.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) that in any one of these cases if you cared to look at it as a pure matter of logic, great damage might be done. For instance, any aeroplane that came down in the City of London might do damage which would be incalculable. The sum of £5,000 or £10,000 which is here provided would be quite irrelevant in cases of that kind. For reasons which were explained on the Second Reading risks of that kind could not be insured against without burdening aeronautics with such premiums that it would not be possible to carry on. Therefore the principle of limitation had to be faced; there was nothing else to be done. The same argument applies to airships, of which my hon. and gallant Friend spoke. Of course, the damage might in certain instances be fantastically high, but if you are not going to cripple airship development entirely by incurring high premiums you must do something of the kind here proposed. This is the best compromise at which we have been able to arrive.
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. HARDIE: I had hoped that those who have been engaged on this subject would have brought forward something much more fair and that the statement which has been made by the Solicitor-General would have been preceded by more reference to human life as apart from property. I think that the human life side should be given more consideration and that those who have property should take out their own insurance. As the Clause is now drafted there is a limit. Suppose we get to the stage where we

  2103
  carry more individuals and consequently more people may be killed. What will be the position then? Take the case of a, subsidised company carrying 30 or 40 passengers in one aeroplane. When we consider the amount of £25,000 or even £50,000 we are faced with this difficulty, that while the damage to property may in the City of London amount to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 the question of life loss is even greater than the question of the sum of money represented here. I look upon this as a futile method of trying to make a calculation. How can you calculate the amount of damage done by a measurement of that which does the damage? It is a mathematical impossibility. Since you cannot do that, we should put life before property. Let us make a calculation on the basis of human life lost and let property stand by itself and insure itself. There is reference in the Schedule to balloons, whether fixed or free.
  What is meant by the phrase "whether fixed or free"? Does it mean that if it is free it will do more damage than if it is fixed, or does it mean that if it is fixed it will do more damage than if it is free. I am afraid that those who drafted this Schedule have not been thinking out clearly what may take place. I can understand the fixed one. A balloon with a heavy basket underneath may do more damage than a glider in full flight out of control. The matter must be straightened out if we are to prevent the many legal trials which are bound to take place, and which will mean a great deal of unnecessary expenditure. Wise men always try to keep the laws out of the hands of the lawyers, but so far their wisdom has not succeeded in preventing lawyers from getting on top. I hope that something will be done to rectify what I consider a great blunder in the Bill.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. BEVAN: I have a very lively memory of what happened in Committee. The Solicitor-General is quite right when he says that the alteration in the figures has been made in response to a promise made by the Government in Committee. The charge made against the original Bill was that it was unreasonable there should be any limitation on the liability of a company in respect of loss of life.
  2104
  There was some argument against a limitation of liability in respect of property, and the Government gave a promise that they would raise the figures. I suggest that they have gone the wrong way to achieve their object. The reason given is that if there is no limitation at all the premiums will be so high as to put an intolerable burden on an experimental and developing industry. The hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston) put the point that there was far less liability in respect of loss of life than in respect of loss of property. By raising the maximum liability you will also raise the premiums. I am not moved to deep emotion about property, but if the possibility of loss of life is much less than the loss of property I should have thought that you could make the liability for loss of life unlimited, reduce the maximum liability in respect of loss of property, and thus keep the premiums down.
  It seems to me that we are making the worst of both worlds. We are not keeping the premiums down, because we have to put the maximum figures up to cover both categories, whereas we could put the figures lower, leave the liability in respect of loss of life non-rigid, and thus meet both cases. I think the Solicitor-General should make inquiries from insurance companies to find out whether if the maximum figures were lowered—I do not mind that—and the liability for loss of life was unlimited the premiums would be materially affected.
  I put to him the specific point: Will not the insurance companies tell him that by raising the maximum figures he is, in fact, increasing the premiums more than they would be increased if there were unlimited liability for loss of life? The point has been made from various sides of the House and in Committee that on this matter we have not got exact information from the insurance companies and that the Government have not informed themselves on the matter sufficiently to enable them to put a proper Clause in the Bill. There is a very great amount of feeling on this matter, and therefore, I would ask the Solicitor-General to consider between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place whether it would not still be possible for him to meet the recommendations of the

  2105
  Committee and also our requirements that there should be no limit of liability in respect of loss of life.
  10.42 p.m.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am certain that inquiries have already been made as to whether these increases would involve increased premiums. The answer is that they would. I followed the hon. Member's point. Some inquiries have already been made as to whether in the circumstances to which he referred there would also be an increased premium. I do not wish to mislead the House. I am not suggesting that even in those circumstances we should be prepared to alter the scheme, because there are the other considerations that were given, one of which is that in the case of internationally competing aircrafts it would be a dangerous thing to put British aircraft at a complete disadvantage compared with the aircraft of other countries. However, the matter shall be looked into with a view to seeing whether there is anything that can possibly be done.
  Schedule added to the Bill.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to policies of insurance, securities and deposits.)
  Amendments made: In page 33, line 34, leave out paragraph (iv), and insert,—
  "(iv) in the case of any aircraft, by specifying as the amount up to which the insurer undertakes to indemnify the insured against liability incurred by him by way of damages in respect of loss or damage caused on any one occasion to persons or property on land or water by, or by a person in, or an article or person falling from, that aircraft while in flight, taking off or landing, an amount not less than the total limit of liability appropriate to that aircraft;
  (v) in the case of any aircraft, by specifying as the amount up to which the insurer undertakes to indemnify the insured against liability incurred by him by way of damages in respect of loss of or damage to property on land or water caused on any one occasion by, or by a person in, or an article or person falling from, that aircraft while in flight, taking off or landing, an amount not less than the limit of liability for property claims appropriate to that aircraft; or".
  In page 36, line 1, after "insurer," insert "in relation to any aircraft."
  In line 2, leave out from the second "court," to end of line 14, and insert:
  "may determine the maximum liability of the insurer in respect of the claims and also, if need be, his liability in respect of such of those claims as are for loss of or damage to property, and may distribute the amount of his liability among the several claims on the following principles:—

  (a) if the claims are solely in respect of loss of life or personal injury or solely in respect of loss of or damage to property, the amount of the liability shall be distributed rateably;

  (b) if there are claims both in respect of loss of life or personal injury and in respect of loss of or damage to property, one-half of the insurer's total maximum liability shall be appropriated, so far as necessary, to meeting claims for loss of life or personal injury and shall be distributed rateably among them, and the other half shall be distributed rateably among all the claims, including claims in respect of loss of life or personal injury if and so far as they exceed the aforesaid appropriation."

  In line 15, leave out "in determining the total amount of the claims," and insert "for the purposes of this subparagraph."
  In line 18, at the end, insert:
  "(5) Where an application is made to the court under the last preceding sub-paragraph the court may stay any proceedings pending in any other court in relation to the same matter and may give such directions as the court thinks proper for the joining of persons interested as parties to the proceedings, for the exclusion of claims which are not brought before the court within a certain time, and for requiring security from the insurer."—[The Solicitor-General.]

  SIXTH SCHEDULE. —(Enactments repealed.)
  Sir P. SASSOON: I beg to move, in page 49, line 21, column 3, after "six," to insert "sub-section (2) of section eight."
  This Amendment is consequential upon the insertion in the Bill of a new Clause relating to the carrying on of subsidiary businesses.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can make any statement with regard to the further business to-night?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): We have asked the House to give us the Third Reading of this Bill to-night and I understand the agreement to be that in that case we would not ask that the Cattle Order should be taken to-night.
  10.46 p.m.
  Captain GUEST: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The matters involved in the Third Reading of this Bill are important and cannot easily be dealt with in the time now at our disposal. I suggest that it is unwise to begin the discussion on the Third Reading of a Bill of this character at this hour, and I move this Motion in order to make my protest. I cannot say from what quarter support for it may come.
  10.47 p.m.
  Mr. BEVAN: I wish to make my protest against the practice which has now become almost universal of taking the Third Reading of a Bill immediately after the Report stage. We have made many alterations in the Bill and I suggest that we should have an opportunity of considering it in its amended form before giving it a Third Reading. The Bill has still to be considered in another place and we have a right to suppose that the Members in another place sometimes read our speeches.
  Mr. EDE: At any rate it is better than reading their own.
  Mr. BEVAN: We have the right to hope, in any case, that the reflections which may occur to us on Third Reading will have some influence upon the Amendments that will be put down in another place. If that is not a reasonable conclusion, one is driven to ask why is there another place. With every respect to the Leader of the House I submit to him that, having spent the whole evening on the details of this Bill, our minds are changing upon it and that we ought to have an opportunity of considering afresh the whole scheme of the Measure. If we discuss it now, it will be impossible to see the wood for the trees. Our minds are still preoccupied with the details and it will be impossible for us to have that wide survey of the principles of the Bill which is appropriate to a Third Reading discussion. I respectfully submit that the
  2108
  right hon. Gentleman would be meeting the wishes of the House if he postponed the Third Reading to a more suitable time, when justice could be done to the important matters involved.
  10.49 p.m.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I also appeal to the Government to postpone the Third Reading. I do so from no desire on the part of the Opposition to hold up Government business. The Measure, although it has many controversial aspects, has been generally supported in all sections of the House. I do not think that the Solicitor-General or the Under-Secretary can complain about the progress made on the Report stage. The other point raised by my hon. Friend seems to be important. It is a growing practice to take the Third Reading of a Measure immediately after the Report stage. The purpose, it seems to me, of the various stages is that after the alteration of Bills and the reporting of those alterations to the House there ought to be time for consideration in the minds of Members of the Bill in its new form, and that cannot be done without some time in between the Report stage and the Third Reading. For those reasons I urge on behalf of the Labour party that this reasonable Motion be accepted.
  10.51 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: When the Leader of the Opposition was asking the Prime Minister about business a few days ago and raised this very point of the Third Reading following the Report stage the Prime Minister told us that he would review the situation as it arose and that if the Report stage slipped through he would ask us to have the Third Reading. I do not think that anybody can say that the Report stage has been unduly delayed, and here we are at 11 o'clock, and I am certain that if the Prime Minister were here he would not consider this a reasonable hour to start the Third Reading. It is true that Members on the Government Front Bench think that this is a Measure like others, and that the only thing to do is to get it through, but there are many people who look on this as something of tremendous importance to this country. I know that aviation is a nuisance, but for the first time we are considering civil aviation. This is not an armament but some great influence for the peace of the

  2109
  world, and after a gruelling day to be faced suddenly with the Third Reading is unfair on those who are interested in this Bill.
  10.53 p.m.
  Sir M. SUETER: May I join hon. Members and ask the leader of the House whether we cannot postpone the Third Reading to some other opportunity? We want to study all these Amendments which we have passed and go into them carefully.
  Mr. EDE: I hope that the Home Secretary will agree to the appeal that has been made to him. I am sure that Members who, like myself, have sat through the Debate will agree that no one can suggest that there has been the slightest obstruction. There has been quite as much speaking from the Government side of the House as from the Opposition, in a friendly endeavour to make this Bill the best possible Bill in the interests of the country, and in his opening remarks to-day the Under-Secretary thanked Members in all parts of the House for the way suggestions had been made in Committee and had enabled him to put these various Amendments on the Paper to-day, and it is hardly fair to expect Members, many of whom would desire to speak on the Third Reading, to start such a discussion flow. I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will recognise the spirit in which he is being met by Members in all parties.
  10.54 p.m.
  Sir J. SIMON: I admit at once, as far as I have followed the earlier stages of this Debate—and I have been following them both inside and outside the House—that our discussion has been carried on in a perfectly reasonable way, and I quite admit that important changes have been made in the Bill in the course of the Report stage. The object we all have—and certainly the object which the Patronage Secretary and I have, in the absence of the Prime Minister—is to get the business of the House properly dealt with, and at the same time to realise what is the programme we have to fulfil. When I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition just now what proposals we had regarding the rest of the business to-night I understood from him that he was of the view that we might perhaps take the Third Reading on receiving an assurance
  2110
  that nothing else would be taken. It was on the assumption that that was the foundation of his intervention at that moment that I gave the answer that I did. I perhaps should have been more prudent and have first got from him a specific statement. But that is neither here nor there.
  This is a matter for the House as a whole, and, of course, hon. Members interested in this most important subject in several parts of the House would prefer that the Third Reading were taken on another occasion. Very well, but I must make it quite plain to the House that while we will certainly meet what I think is the real wish of the House to-night, it is quite impossible to undertake that there shall be time given for the Third Reading such as might have been, I think, taken now, and it may be that we shall have to take the Third Reading by making some special arrangement. I hope not, but the Cattle Order down for to-night, which would have been taken if we had had any idea that this was the view of Members of the House, cannot very well be taken now to-night. Therefore, though, of course, we will do everything possible to meet the general wishes of the House with regard to this Third Reading stage, I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will realise that we must get through the business to which we are potentially committed, and that it means a further loading of the programme for some future date. That is a matter which will be discussed, I am sure, through the usual channels with every desire to meet the general convenience. Having given that warning to the House, I am prepared to agree that we shall not ask for the Third Reading tonight, and at the same time, of course, I shall not seek to retract the assurance which I gave across the Floor, apparently under a misapprehension, namely, that we would not to-night endeavour to take the Cattle Order.
  10.57 p.m.
  Mr. ATTLEE: It is a very difficult thing in an overloaded programme to see how everything can be fitted in, but we warned the Government at the time that they had a very heavy programme in trying to take both stages of this Bill and also the Cattle Order to-night. The Cattle Order is a very important Order,

  2111
  and it is a matter which raises debate on all sides of the House. So does the Third Reading of this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman will remember that I specifically pointed out that it would be difficult to take the Third Reading immediately after the Report stage, I think it is clear that it is the general view that we should take the Third Reading on another day. At the same time it is not the Opposition's fault that the programme is overloaded. There have been many hours lost this Session, not in any way owing to the fault of the Opposition, but because of the way in which the Government business has been handled. I think both these matters are very important, both the Third Reading of the Air Navigation Bill and the Cattle Order, and we must try to get them taken at a proper time.
  10.49 p.m.
  Captain GUEST: May I thank the Government and the Patronage Secretary for having given way to the feeling of the
  2112
  House? It is not so much that one is disinclined to talk on the Third Reading late at night, but it is hard to do so after a prolonged Debate on the Report stage. I would like to register my thanks to the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary for the action they have taken.
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.
  Bill, as amended (on re-committal and on Consideration) to be printed. [Bill 141.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'Clock.

  EDUCATION (SCHOOLS FOR DEAF).
  EDUCATION (SCHOOLS FOR DEAF).
  INDIA (HOUSE SEARCHES, AMRITSAR).
  INDIA (HOUSE SEARCHES, AMRITSAR).
BROADCASTING.
  TELEVISION STATION (ALEXANDRA PALACE).
  TELEVISION STATION (ALEXANDRA PALACE).
  ULLSWATER COMMITTEE REPORT.
  ULLSWATER COMMITTEE REPORT.
  FORTY-HOURS WORKING WEEK.
  FORTY-HOURS WORKING WEEK.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS) ACT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS) ACT.
  MOTOR TRAWLER "GIRL PAT."
  MOTOR TRAWLER "GIRL PAT."
  ROYAL AIR FORCE DISPLAY, HENDON.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE DISPLAY, HENDON.
  FOODSTUFFS (IMPORT DUTIES).
  FOODSTUFFS (IMPORT DUTIES).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  CIVIL SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION).
  CIVIL SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES.
  MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES.
  DRAINAGE SCHEME, LITHERLAND.
  DRAINAGE SCHEME, LITHERLAND.
  SMALLPOX (GUY'S HOSPITAL).
  SMALLPOX (GUY'S HOSPITAL).
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULA TION) ACT.
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULA TION) ACT.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  SHOT-FIRING.
  SHOT-FIRING.
  UNFIT WORKERS (REJECTIONS).
  UNFIT WORKERS (REJECTIONS).
SCOTLAND.
  SALMON FISHERIES.
  SALMON FISHERIES.
  BRACKEN CUTTING.
  BRACKEN CUTTING.
  TRADE DISPUTE, CARDOWAN COLLIERY.
  TRADE DISPUTE, CARDOWAN COLLIERY.
  LENDING LIBRARIES.
  LENDING LIBRARIES.
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
TRANSPORT.
  MOTOR CAR PARKS (LICENSED BARS).
  MOTOR CAR PARKS (LICENSED BARS).
  RURAL ROADS (GRANTS).
  RURAL ROADS (GRANTS).
  DE-RESTRICTED ROADS, LEEDS.
  DE-RESTRICTED ROADS, LEEDS.
  TELFORD'S BRIDGE, LANARKSHIRE.
  TELFORD'S BRIDGE, LANARKSHIRE.
  PENARTH DOCK (CLOSING).
  PENARTH DOCK (CLOSING).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LAND REGISTRATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PETROLEUM (TRANSFER OF LICENCES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT (CON- VENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX (IMPROVEMENTS, ETC.) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to emphasise the fact that the Bill which I am recommending to your Lordships' approval this afternoon is an absolutely non-party measure. It is promoted jointly by the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council. It is true that there is a Labour majority on the London County Council, but it is equally true that there is a Conservative majority on the Middlesex County Council. It therefore looks as if this was one of the rare and welcome occasions on which Socialists and Conservatives are able to join hands in the public interest. I hope your Lordships will consider this measure entirely on its merits as a method of improving the transport facilities in the London area.
The project of improving the western exits of London has been under consideration by the authorities concerned for over twenty years, and the need of such an improvement has become particularly urgent in recent years. This has been due partly to the fact that

225
some important new arterial roads have been built on the outskirts of London. I refer to the Chertsey By-Pass Road, to the Great West Road, and to the North Circular Road; and these roads cannot be fully utilised by traffic until they are extended eastwards. It has also become even more urgent than before on account of the appalling traffic congestion in Hammersmith Broadway, Hammersmith Road, and King Street. I need not labour this point with your Lordships. I think there is not one of your Lordships who has driven out of London in a westerly or south-westerly direction who has not experienced the inconvenience of the traffic blocks that cannot be avoided in these roads or at the junction between Hammersmith Broadway and King Street. In order to meet these requirements this Bill contemplates the construction of a new arterial road, nearly four miles long, from the end of West Cromwell Road to the eastern terminus of the Great-West Road.
In order to undertake this big task it is indispensable for the authorities concerned to acquire the necessary powers from Parliament. In the first place, they have to get authorisation to purchase the land and properties through which the road will have to run, and Part II of the Bill deals with that aspect of the problem. Again, they must have authorisation to embark on the engineering operations entailed by the construction of the road itself, and this demand is embodied in Part III of the Bill. Part IV concerns the financing of this project. The whole new road will cost a little over £2,500,000, and 60 per cent. of this sum is to be found by road users all over the country and will come out of the Road Fund. The remaining 40 per cent. will come from the rates that are raised in the areas concerned. That covers very broadly Part IV of the Bill. Those are the main provisions contained in this measure. I have done my best to outline them very briefly and to avoid describing any provisions, however important, in detail.
Let me say in conclusion that this is a measure that has been agreed upon after the fullest possible consideration by all the principal authorities and interests concerned. It is supported by the London County Council, by the Middlesex County
226
Council, and by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and your Lordships will recollect that this Committee has on it representatives of all the local authorities and of all the traffic authorities in the London area. It is also supported by the Government and by the Ministry of Transport. Besides—and perhaps this is the strongest argument of all—every alternative scheme that any person or body might wish to propose, and every material modification of the present scheme was brought before a Select Committee in another place. Learned Counsel, arguing with customary eloquence, was able to put these objections in full so that they could be considered for seven or eight days by the Committee. The shape of the present Bill is the shape which this Committee agreed unanimously that it ought to have. I therefore sincerely hope that your Lordships will see your way to give the measure a Second Reading and thereby put on foot operations that will construct a road which will redound to the credit of this great City. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD DICKINSON LORD DICKINSON had given Notice that he would move the rejection of the Bill, and also that, in the event of the Bill being read a second time, he would move. That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred, to insert provisions whereby if any land at present open to the public is taken for the purpose of the Bill the promoters shall provide for the use of the public in the neighbourhood of the land so taken such other land as the Minister of Health shall consider to be reasonably equivalent to it.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for taking up your time with regard to this Bill. I am much obliged to the noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill for the clear and excellent way in which he has stated what the Bill proposes to do. Unfortunately, he has not referred to a certain feature of it to which a great many people object and in reference to which I have ventured to put down a Motion. Perhaps I had better say at this stage that, after consultation with the Chairman of Committees, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I have been

227
advised to alter the actual wording of that Motion in this way:
" That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that as a condition of approving of the Preamble of the Bill the promoters should give an undertaking to seek powers to provide for the use of the public in the neighbourhood of the land taken, such other land as the Minister of Health shall consider to be reasonably equivalent to it."
I will explain why it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with this Motion.
The Bill, as has been stated, has gone through the House of Commons, and in the House of Commons it was thoroughly investigated by a Select Committee in the ordinary way. Among the petitioners against the Bill was a collection of societies and individuals who appeared in order not only to oppose the Bill but also to draw attention to the fact that the Bill does offend against a principle which has been recognised by Parliament already on several occasions—namely, that when it is proposed to take a public open space and to make use of it for the purposes of an improvement it shall be obligatory upon the promoters to provide some other alternative piece of land in compensation for that which is taken. I may add that the process of investigation which went on in the House of Commons will not, so far as I understand, be possible in this House, because those who spoke on the side of the open spaces associations cannot afford the necessary money for the purpose of appearing before a Committee of your Lordships' House. Therefore it is possible, indeed I think it is almost certain, that unless this question were raised here it would not be raised at any other stage in your Lordships' House.
I speak as Chairman of one of those societies, the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association. That is an association which was founded more than half a century ago by the late Lord Meath, and during that time it has done a very great deal of work in providing open spaces, saving plots from being built over by builders, safeguarding disused burial grounds and such like places of rest, and also parks and open spaces in and around London. In doing that it has necessarily had to arouse public opinion and also to collect considerable sums of money. It has succeeded in obtaining for the public the use of some hundreds
228
of open spaces of different kinds throughout London. The money with which these open spaces have been purchased has been raised for the express purpose of the land so acquired being permanently assured for the recreation of the public, and it is certain that enough money could not have been raised if it had been thought that in some future year that particular use of the land would be departed from and the land taken for other purposes.
In this particular case there are two important open spaces to which this society and others have contributed in the manner I have described. They are Chiswick Park and Homefield Recreation Ground. I will refer to them again later, but I mention them now because I think the very fact that the society over which I have the honour to preside and the other society with which I am well acquainted have contributed to secure these grounds, gives me a certain justification for addressing your Lordships as I do this afternoon. In the last fifty years these associations have with the assistance of Parliament established a very important principle and I want to appeal to your Lordships to maintain that principle in this case. When first the County Council came into existence attention was drawn to the fact that the commons in the neighbourhood of London were being cut up into slices by railways passing into and out of London. There was a case of which I had experience where the Midland Railway Company proposed to take the old St. Pancras Churchyard for the purpose of its business. That company was compelled by Parliament to provide money for the provision of open spaces in the neighbourhood.
The principle has been embodied in many Acts of Parliament. For instance, in the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, Section 19 (1) provides:
"Where an order…authorises the acquisition of any land forming part of any common, open space, or allotment, the order, so far as it relates to the acquisition of such land, shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, except where the order provides for giving in exchange for such land other land, not being less in area, certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to be equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to commonable or other rights, and to the public."

229
It is further provided by that Act that a metropolitan common or any land dedicated to the public use is to be similarly protected. That general principle having been established, I venture to say that the promoters of this Bill ought to have borne it in mind.
I do not think for a moment that any private undertaking bringing in a Bill of this kind would venture in these days to omit a provision to this effect. Unfortunately we now find ourselves faced my far moe formidable opponents in public authorities. I could give numerous examples of cases in which public authorities have proposed to take for other purposes land dedicated for use as open spaces. The most recent case, as your Lordships will remember, was the proposal of the London County Council to utilise thirty acres of Hackney Marshes for the building of houses for working-class people. That was challenged by societies and individuals and it was decided by the Courts of Law that neither the County Council nor the Ministry of Health had power to take this action. Nevertheless, the County Council introduced a Bill in the present Parliament for the purpose of enabling them to utilise this land without making any compensation by providing land in the neighbourhood of equal area to be used as an open space. Fortunately, public opinion was so strong and the societies interested agitated so successfully that the County Council have been persuaded to provide an approximately equal area in the neighbourhood to replace the land that they are taking for houses. Highway authorities at the present time are our arch enemies. We find them everywhere taking little bits of greens or open spaces for the purpose of widening the roads or improving traffic facilities. Their justification for so doing is of course the public need, but we hold that the public need is for open spaces just as much as roads, and that therefore the authorities should find some better way of providing roads than by taking open spaces.
This particular Bill is a very striking instance of what is being done in that way. In a distance not exceeding one mile there are affected by this Bill no fewer than seven plots of land unbuilt upon, all of which are more or less of
230
value as open spaces and more or less of a public character. There are two public recreation grounds, two churchyards, two schools the playgrounds of which will be affected, and one institution. I do not want to exaggerate the effect of this Bill and I must say that some of this land is very slightly affected. Nevertheless, all this open ground is affected to an extent which I think is of public interest. There is, for instance, the case of St. Paul's School. That school, as most of your Lordships will know, has a magnificent playground edged by a double line of very fine trees. This new road is to cut off that line of trees and cut off a section of the cricket and football grounds. That proposal has been vigorously resisted by the authorities of the school, and from the general public point of view I regard it as an encroachment on an open space. In the case of Homefield Recreation Ground there will be a very serious encroachment. The new road will cut through the middle of the recreation ground. The recreation ground now is about ten acres in extent. It is proposed to take about two acres for the road and the remaining ground will be cut into two plots of about three or four acres each. That will leave it practically useless for the purpose of the recreation of the public.
This interference with open spaces would, in my opinion, justify the Bill being thrown out but I do not ask your Lordships to do that. I quite recognise that a Bill like this must be thoroughly considered by a Committee of your Lordships' House and that your Lordships will not reject on Second Reading a Bill of this character. At the same time I consider that there is no other opportunity for your Lordships to decide whether the principle I have referred to shall be applied except this occasion of which I am now taking advantage. All I ask is that if these pieces of land are taken for the purpose of roadways, compensation shall be given by providing approximately equal areas of land somewhere in the neighbourhood. There is little doubt that it is possible to do this. During the discussion before the House of Commons Committee, Counsel for the promoters actually suggested a plot of ground immediately contiguous to this Homefield Recreation Ground which it was said would be suitable as an alternative. Unfortunately, however,

231
it transpired that this would add to the cost of the scheme some £60,000, and accordingly, when the matter came before the Committee of the House of Commons, the Committee considered that they were not justified in compelling the Minister of Transport to pay this additional sum. I submit that this was a very unjust decision, because this land is now being got for nothing, and got for nothing because years ago people were generous enough, and sufficiently anxious to provide for the recreation of the public, to subscribe their money and to buy this land to prevent it from becoming building land. To say now that this land is to be taken without any compensation seems to me to be extremely unjust.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, because this is a very important point? Do I understand him to say—I think my ears must have deceived me—that the Middlesex County Council and the Minister of Transport together are going to take this bit of land without paying any compensation at all?
LORD DICKINSON: Yes, there is no doubt about it—the recreation ground. There is no compensation, because, in the first place, there is no one to compensate. You cannot pay the public the money, you can only compensate the public by giving the authorities money to buy another recreation ground in the vicinity. That is the principle upon which we are all so anxious to persuade your Lordships to insist on this occasion.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Would the noble Lord allow me? This is a friendly interruption, and I only want to get this clear. I am told by him that, when land has been dedicated to the public, the County Council together with the Minister of Transport can come and take it away for nothing for road widening. It is well known that if the land belongs to a private individual they have to pay for their road widening. Have I correctly interpreted the position?
LORD DICKINSON: Yes, that is what they are proposing to do by this Bill. By the law they could not do it. In fact, as I have already pointed out to your Lordships, if they were to carry out this road improvement under the ordinary law and not under a special Act, they would
232
be bound to provide such an area as the Minister—I think it was the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the case I quoted; I am not sure it is not the Minister of Health at the present moment—would decide to be adequate compensation for taking away the land. But they are not doing this; they are bringing in a special Bill of their own by which they will not pay—I am quite prepared to be corrected by the noble Lord opposite, but I understand they will not under this Bill be compelled to pay a penny to anybody. That is the reason why we are asking that they should be compelled to provide another space in lieu of that which is taken.
I might just point out, too—though perhaps I am repeating myself—that these open spaces have been bought by public authorities and private individuals for an express purpose to be permanently secured for ever, and in order to give the spaces permanent security they have generally been made subject to Acts of Parliament. So far as I know, even this recreation ground is subjected to an Act of Parliament. At any rate there is no doubt that whoever holds this ground—I am not sure whether it is the Middlesex County Council or whether it is the Chiswick Borough Council—holds it on the distinct understanding that it is never alienated from that purpose but devoted to the recreation of the public. Your Lordships are asked now by this Bill, if I am not using too strong language, to endorse what I consider to be a breach of trust. They have no right to propose to convert this land, considering the conditions under which it was obtained, and the least we can do at the present moment is to insist that if the land is taken the public shall not suffer but shall have something adequate put in its place.
I apologise for keeping your Lordships. I shall not detain you very much longer, but I should like to add this. We have a practical reason for asking your Lordships to take this course. In and around London, as your Lordships must be aware, the unbuilt-on areas have been disappearing very rapidly indeed. I am informed that it was officially stated by some Committee of the County Council that within the last ten years 21,000 acres of unbuilt-on land have been covered with buildings and

233
that at the present moment within that area there only remain 7,700 acres of unbuilt-on land. I quite admit that the growing population needs new houses and new roads, but the more houses it has and the more roads you make, the more places of recreation and rest and, if I may say so, safety from traffic the public require. We ought now to be doing all we can to increase the number of public gardens in London, and that, I regret to say, is not being done. There have been grandiose schemes for making a green belt outside London while there are thousands and thousands of children in London who have no other playground than the streets. In my opinion it would be far better even to turn to increasing the number of open spaces in London than to increasing them outside. At any rate it is a very strong argument, I submit to your Lordships, for refusing to allow a single open space, a single acre of recreation ground, in London to be utilised for any other purpose than that for which it was intended. In any case we ought to insist that in a Bill like the present one this decision should be made. The Motion which I have therefore put before your Lordships I have already read. I trust that your Lordships will think it right to give such instructions to your Committee that they will see that proper compensation is given if this land is to be utilised for the new roadway. I therefore respectfully move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out (" now ") and at end of the Motion insert (" this day six months ").—(Lord Dickinson.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I think the Amendment is, That this Bill be read a second time this day six months, but in the usual manner to which your Lordships are accustomed my noble friend has taken his two proposals together, and if your Lordships permit I should like to follow his example. I hope, and I think the noble Lord would not disagree, that your Lordships will send this Bill to be examined by a Committee. I think in every case that anybody who occupies the position which your Lordships have done me the honour to entrust to me, when asked for an opinion, has always urged that a Private Bill should have an opportunity of being argued before a Committee of this
234
House. Therefore I trust you will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow it to proceed upstairs. As regards the Motion which the noble Lord has put down in the event of the Bill being read a second time, it is quite accurate, as the noble Lord has told your Lordships, that I ventured to draw attention to the fact that his original Motion would not be possible for certain technical reasons, such as the giving of notice, and so forth. I do not think the Committee could put such a clause in the Bill, but the practice of giving an undertaking is well known to your Lordships and has a similar effect. The effect of accepting the Motion would be to give an instruction, a mandatory instruction, to the Committee that they should insist upon compensating land being given for any land taken.
That, if I may venture to say so, is rather a strong measure. This Bill has been before a Committee of another place, and it has had very long and careful consideration, and I think it would be perhaps rather a strong order for your Lordships, by instruction on the Second Reading, to tell a Committee of this House to override a Committee of another place. The promoters, or anybody, would say, and I think justifiably, that a great deal of trouble was taken in another place, that the matter was argued and carefully heard on both sides, but that the House of Lords instructed their Committee to override the decision of the Committee of another place merely after a Second Reading debate. I think that would perhaps be regarded as a somewhat strong order. I do not in the least desire that this Bill should not receive the earnest consideration of a Committee. I think it should, and that the Committee should go into the matter and come to such conclusion as they may think desirable on the evidence submitted to them.
For that reason I would venture, with your Lordships' permission, to suggest, if my noble friend agrees, that the instruction, if you wish to send an instruction to the Committee at all, should read in this way:
" that as a condition of approving of the Preamble of the Bill, the Committee shall consider the desirability of requiring an undertaking from the promoters that they will provide for the use of the public in the neighbourhood of the land taken, such

235
other land as the Minister of Health shall consider to be reasonably equivalent to it."
That, as your Lordships will see, gives the Committee power to reject or to accept the decision of another place, and I think it would be only right that the Committee should have exactly the same powers as the Committee of the House of Commons had in considering the Bill.
Now I come to another question. Whatever decision the Committee may come to, at least if it comes to a decision to support the Committee of the House of Commons, I think it should be made clear by your Lordships in this House that such a decision to acquire land without giving compensation is one which is based upon exceptional and peculiar circumstances, and is in no way to be taken as a precedent in future for the acquisition of land. I think I am right in saying that never before has land been taken without compensating land being given in exchange, and I think that if this particular acquisition of land is made it should be registered that it cannot be used in Committees of this House or of another place as a precedent for further transactions of the same kind. I hope your Lordships will consider the suggestions which I have made, that the instruction should not be made absolutely mandatory, and also that it should be made perfectly clear that if the Committee decide to report in favour of the Bill that decision should not be made a precedent for future use.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I would like to make a few observations in support of what Lord Dickinson has said, and also with reference to one other point which I hope may be considered by the Committee. There are two particulars which I think one must consider in a proposal such as this. One was dealt with fully by the noble Lord—namely, the fact that this proposed road would diminish the available open spaces, which is a very serious proposition where we have a crowded population. Another consideration is the fact that this road infringes some of the most up-to-date principles which ought to be in the mind of anyone promoting a great arterial road, because it will not allow of the freest movement of traffic, and unnecessarily endangers human life. Nobody who has to travel out of London
236
by motor car would deny the need for having more exits out of London, particularly in the West. I was not much influenced by the fact brought forward by the noble Lord in moving the Second Reading of the Bill that Conservatives and Socialists are agreed upon the Bill. I have known them to be agreed on unwise proposals as well as to disagree. I do not think that that should influence us unduly.
I will not traverse the ground which has been already dealt with by Lord Dickinson—he has explained to your Lordships the proposal to take this land without compensation—but I would like to emphasise one point. Not only would the road, if made as now proposed, deprive the public of certain open spaces, not only would it deprive the public, as I understand it, of two disused churchyards, now used as open spaces, but it would also seriously damage a great public school—St. Paul's School. It would take away one out of three grounds now used for Rugby football and at least three cricket pitches. I merely mention the fact because it has not been referred to, and I support entirely all that the noble Lord has said already about the damage done to playing fields and open spaces.
Let me turn to another point which I hope will be considered by the Committee. This arterial road, I understand, proposes to follow the line of an existing street. Now there is an alternative whereby a new exit from London could, by bridging over a railway, be built parallel to the proposed road. If this alternative were adopted the present street would still be available for the public, and in addition there would be this new arterial exit out of London, and it would have many advantages. The present proposal has the disadvantage that it goes through many cross-roads. It has another disadvantage in that it goes past the fronts of houses; that is to say, it would once again in the course of its transit seriously endanger the lives of many children who are constantly going out of houses on to high roads. If the alternative which I have in mind were adopted there would not be that danger. If the new road were carried on a bridge over the railway it would pass behind the backs of houses instead of in front of them. There would then not be the

237
danger of children running on to the roads; nor would you have the butchers' and bakers' cars drawn up in front of houses, thereby impeding the through traffic.
I understand that there are two objections, which I think are relatively unimportant, which have been brought forward against this alternative proposal. One rests on the ground of expense and the other on the ground of delay of time. If we are really going to provide London with the most up-to-date arterial road and exit, I do not believe that we should be held up merely because a few extra months might be required in fully examining—which has not yet been done—this alternative. As regards the expense, I understand that it will not really be very serious, considering the magnitude and importance of the roadway proposed. So I suggest that when this Bill goes before a Committee the Committee will bear in mind, first, this possible better alternative exit out of London and, secondly, the points which have been brought to your Lordships' attention by the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I feel bound to say something on this occasion, because this Bill, which adumbrates a scheme which has long been before the County Councils of London and Middlesex, has received a great deal of attention from all parties concerned, and I wish to emphasise the statement that has just been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that this is not a Party matter on the Councils concerned. The great point I wish to make is that this Bill as at present drawn is quite contrary to the practice required in the past and contrary also to what is laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932.
I should like to quote part of one paragraph of the Third Schedule of that Act, which says:
" Where a scheme or an order made in connection with a scheme authorises the acquisition or appropriation of any land forming part of any common, open space, or allotment, the scheme or order, so far as it relates to the acquisition or appropriation of such land, shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, except—

(a) where the scheme provides for giving in exchange for such land other land, not being less in area, certified by the Department, after consultation with the
238
Department of Agriculture for Scotland, to be equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to rights of common or other rights and to the public; or

(b) where such land is required for the widening of an existing highway and the Department, after consultation with the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, declare that the giving in exchange of other land is unnecessary either in the interests of the persons, if any, entitled to rights of common or other rights, or of the public."

This land is subject at the present moment so far as London is concerned—and I believe also Middlesex—to a town plan. That is to say, a resolution has been approved by the Minister of Health whereby this land is to be town planned. It is true that at the moment there is no such scheme in being, although I understand there is a scheme in preparation for that section of the land under this Bill which lies within London. If this Bill goes through as it is now proposed, that town planning scheme would have to be promulgated under a great disadvantage—namely, that Parliament had consented to these open spaces being very materially spoilt, notwithstanding the fact that Parliament has already passed an Act laying down that compensation should be given for land taken for an improvement. But there are other objections besides that. The London County Council at present is very rightly doing all it can to preserve land from being built upon by contributing to the expenses of neighbouring authorities who can help to keep land unbuilt upon in and around London, and it seems to me that this Bill as drawn goes quite contrary to that principle, which is a principle which anybody who is interested in the better planning of unbuilt-on land would agree is the right and proper method, in order to protect the future from the mistakes of the past.
Then again, both Councils concerned have to provide playing fields for their schools, and yet without any apology they are going right through a school football playground. There is also the case of Chiswick, but as that has been referred to I will not dwell upon that. But I do feel it is a mistake to give the Bill a Second Reading without some guidance to the Committee that the principles already approved by Parliament for the whole country should be followed in this Bill. As one who has been responsible for a good deal of town planning

239
in London and in Greater London, I feel I should not be doing my duty if I did not almost implore the House to have regard to those very important principles which have been laid down in the past, and which ought not to be made of no effect by either a Private Bill or a Public Bill. But whether it is possible for this House to do all that it would wish to do, seeing that this Bill has already been through another place, I am not sure. Obviously it would mean more expense, but I suggest that if it does, even so you would have to acquire land for open spaces in the near future anyhow, and you might just as well incur the expense for keeping open spaces rather than destroying them and finding new ones. It is a serious matter when you take land away from an old-established institution like St. Paul's School. The great cry to-day is for more land for youth. It is in everyone's mind that a great appeal has gone out to the public at the present moment to enable more land to be added to that which exists for playing fields for the young. It seems to me that this Bill goes right against that principle and against the appeal that has been made to the public. May I suggest that when an appeal like that is before the public, important public bodies ought to take notice of it and try to put something in such Bills as this which will support the appeal which is before the country to-day? With these few remarks, I feel I must support the proposal of my noble friend.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, speaks for the Government, may I ask one question of Lord Dickinson which I think is of some importance? I understand that a major part of the playing ground of St. Paul's School will be taken for the use of the road.
LORD DICKINSON: Not a major part—a slice, I understand, off the side.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Anyhow, a part of the land is to be taken for the use of the road. Normally, unless there was legislation, the County Council would have to pay St. Paul's School for the land taken away even though they could find a suitable area to give them in exchange. I am amazed at the audacity of the County Council in coming to your Lordships' House and saying: "Payment always has to be
240
made when land is taken for road widening without legislation, but we would not like to pay this large sum to St. Paul's School, therefore we are promoting this Bill."
LORD DICKINSON: I must have explained myself badly. When I spoke of no compensation I was referring to the parks. Compensation no doubt will be paid to St. Paul's School, but I doubt whether compensation will be paid for the churchyards.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: If I may try to dissipate a misunderstanding, I would like to make it perfectly plain that the ordinary machinery of compensation when land is taken over compulsorily by a local authority would be used by the County Council in both cases—in the case of St. Paul's School recreation ground and in the case of the Homefield Recreation Ground. I should like to make that perfectly clear in case there may be misunderstanding.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I think it would be right if I were to state the Government's view with regard to this Bill now. The Government support the Bill warmly. It is common ground, I think, that some scheme of the kind embodied in this Bill is absolutely vital from a traffic point of view. It is essential that we should create a new traffic artery leading out in a south-westerly direction from London. This matter has been given very full and very careful consideration by all the bodies concerned. As your Lordships have already heard, it has the support of the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council, who are the promoters, and of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee as well. Therefore I doubt whether there will be any one in your Lordships' House who would disagree with my proposition that some scheme of this kind is inevitable. The various proposals which have been made have been considered by the various authorities, and they have definitely come to the conclusion that the proposal embodied in the present Bill is the most suitable one from every point of view. It is undoubtedly the most suitable one

241
from the traffic point of view because it deals with certain problems into which I shall not attempt to go now but which, until now, have caused a good deal of trouble. Then it is also the cheapest of the three alternatives that have been seriously considered. I believe that the scheme referred to by my noble friend on the Cross Benches—the scheme of carrying this road over the top of the District Railway—would probably add something like one million pounds to the total cost. I am not suggesting that these are over-riding considerations.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask what is the first cost of the scheme?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I think I am right in saying it is just over £2,500,000. It is also the best scheme from the point of view of interference with general amenities. I am sorry that the noble Lord in moving his Amendment referred to those who were on the side of open spaces. I believe every one of your Lordships is on the side of open spaces in London or in any other thickly-populated area. Speaking for myself, I sympathise very warmly indeed with those who are jealous of every square inch in a district such as we are dealing with which is at present devoted to recreation purposes. But the fact obviously remains that if we have to undertake big schemes of this kind, as indeed we must, it is inevitable that there should be some kind of interference with amenity and, perhaps, with open spaces as well. As I see it, the object ought to be to do what you want to do—that is, to effect the improvements that you want to effect, with as little interference as possible with these particular amenities. I do not intend to go into the details of the provisions of this Bill. Personally I do not think it is necessary, nor would it be of any advantage for me to do so at this stage, but a certain amount has been said about the Home-field Recreation Ground to which I think I must refer out of courtesy to your Lordships and in order to provide some information and to correct some confusion of thought which seems to exist.
It is perfectly true that, in so far as that recreation ground is concerned, the Bill will result in one acre, not two acres, being taken out of ten, which is the total area of that open space, for the purpose of building this road, and it will also cut
242
off a portion of about three acres from the other part; but I ought to point out that it is not going to cut right across the middle of the recreation ground. As a matter of fact these three acres are already cut off from the remainder of the ground at the present moment in that they are devoted to tennis courts, and even now, I think I am right in saying, there is netting up along the line which it is intended this road should take. The noble Lord said that as far as he knew no compensation of any kind was going to be paid for this acre of land which it would be necessary to take in order to carry out this scheme. I do not think that is quite the position. The position is this, that the Homefield Recreation Ground belongs to the Chiswick Urban District Council, and the Middlesex County Council have assumed that if a claim is made for compensation for that particular area of land, they will pay to the Chiswick Urban District Council a sum of money which is to be based on the valuation of the district valuer. I do not think it is strictly correct to say that there is to be no compensation whatsoever.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: No compensation to those who use the ground.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am going on to that, but I want now to apply myself to the larger principle which was propounded by the noble Lord, and that was that whenever you take an area of open space that has been devoted to recreational purposes there should be some equivalent compensation in some other area in the vicinity or contiguous to the area actually affected.
LORD DICKINSON: I said in the shape of land. The question of money compensation was raised by my noble friend below me.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: That was the point I was taking. With regard to that there are certain considerations which, I repeat, are not in my view by any means overriding ones. I do not want to prejudge the details of the Bill, but there are considerations which are of some importance in a matter of this kind. The first is that since this measure was first under consideration some additional 68 acres have been added to the open spaces of that district by the acquisition

243
of the park of Chiswick House, and towards the acquisition of that land the Middlesex County Council provided a sum of £58,000. Furthermore, as a matter of fact, the Chiswick district is by no means badly off so far as open spaces are concerned; indeed, it is far better placed so far as open spaces are concerned than most parts of London or other congested districts. There is this consideration as well, that when this Bill was being considered in another place the Middlesex County Council made it quite clear that they would be prepared, if Parliament placed the obligation upon them, with the help of a grant from the Road Fund to acquire certain property contiguous to the Homefield Recreation Ground with a view to throwing it into that recreation ground. That would have cost a sum of £52,000. This matter was completely considered in the Committee of the House of Commons, and that Committee definitely decided that they did not think that in the circumstances that was necessary.
The only point I want to make is really this, that in those circumstances I think it would be wrong for your Lordships, by accepting an instruction such as the noble Lord suggested, to tie down the Committee which will be appointed to examine this measure. I think that it should be left free, just as the Committee in the House of Commons was left free, to examine this particular question and to come to its own conclusion about it. No doubt other important suggestions that have been made to your Lordships by various members of your Lordships' House will also be considered. I want to point out that the offer, if I may use the word, which has been made by the Middlesex County Council with regard to this particular piece of land that I was referring to still holds good, and it is for Parliament to decide whether they wish to put upon the promoters of this Bill an obligation such as that. I think that a very good compromise has been suggested by the noble Earl the Lord Chairman in regard to this particular matter. He has suggested that the instruction should not be a mandatory one, but rather that it should be an instruction to the Committee that they should consider the desirability of requiring from the Middlesex County Council an undertaking of that description. That seems to me a very fair compromise. It
244
is one which the Government are prepared to support and which, I understand, the mover of the Second Reading of this Bill is also prepared to support. In those circumstances I hope that your Lordships will give the measure a Second Reading and accept the solution which has been suggested by the Lord Chairman.
LORD BALFOUR OF BUBLEIGH: My Lords, I must apologise for not having been here earlier in this debate, but I was detained by public business elsewhere. I understand that we are asked to agree to a Motion which is not on the Paper. I am not quite clear about it. I would like to ask the noble Lord who has suggested it whether it is now too late, for instance, to petition against the Bill, or whether the obtaining of this instruction in your Lordships' House is the only way of ensuring the principle which he is anxious to preserve. I do not know if the noble Lord can answer that question, but I think it materially affects what is now before your Lordships.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, if I have got correctly the sense of what my noble friend said, he asked whether the only way in which this matter can be brought before the Committee was by moving an instruction in your Lordships' House. I gather that no petition has been laid which deals with this matter; therefore if some instruction is not given to the Committee to consider it I doubt if it could be raised before the Committee. I believe that is the case, and, therefore, if your Lordships wish it to be carefully considered by the Committee, I think it would be necessary for the House to give this instruction. I think I am right in saying that, if that is what the noble Lord asked.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, in view of what the Lord Chairman has said it seems to me essential that your Lordships should give an instruction to the Committee. I am bound to say I was a little disappointed to hear what the noble Earl representing the Government said. He said that every one of your Lordships was in favour of this principle of open spaces, and then proceeded to add what I think can only be described as a little nibbling. Both the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Listowel) and the noble Earl on the Government Bench (the Earl of

245
Plymouth) are inclined, in spite of their devotion to open spaces, to nibble. It is only an acre or an acre and a bit, but it is this process of nibbling which I think your Lordships ought to resist. It may be that Chiswick is fairly well supplied with open spaces; but I doubt if the defender of the Bill would say that even in Chiswick the open spaces are adequate. It is quite certain that in the whole of London they are very far from being adequate.
I regret this practice of the Transport Authority coming along with a scheme without sufficient regard to open spaces and to the other interests affected. It does point to the need for the much more coherent plan of which we have heard from time to time in your Lordships' House. On this occasion I think the best course is for your Lordships to give such an instruction to the Committee as will ensure that this principle of the preservation of open spaces is adhered to. We had a good example of the force of opinion behind that principle in the Hackney Marshes controversy the other day, and I think your Lordships will make a very great mistake if you part with this Bill and send it upstairs without some instruction which will safeguard the open spaces principle.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in replying to those who have spoken on this question I will only detain you for as short a time as possible. I am assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson, has accepted the terms of the Motion suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and that is the issue on which your Lordships will be asked to vote. My task is much simplified by the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, who I think answered exceedingly effectively the objections raised by Lord Dickinson when he said that this Bill would cut into the open spaces of London. Let me say that the promoters of this measure, in common with every member of your Lordships' House, are infinitely anxious to preserve as far as possible these playgrounds that are to so large an extent a safeguard for the health of the young inhabitants of the London area. It could only be under an imperative necessity that they would trespass, to however small an extent, on any open space.
246
The tiny fraction affected by this Bill has had the fullest consideration before a Select Committee in another place. For eight days every argument against the acquisition of these small parts of two open spaces—the playground of St. Paul's School and the Homefield Recreation Ground—were put forward by eloquent and learned Counsel. I therefore hope very much, as your Lordships have only been discussing this Bill for an hour and twenty minutes, that a step not taken after eight days full consideration by a Committee in another place will not be taken by your Lordships. I hope that your Lordships will consider that the matter is one which requires further time before a final decision can be taken. I hope, therefore, very ardently, that your Lordships will be guided by the advice of the noble Earl who so often points the way in matters of procedure, and will support a proposal that will enable this whole question of open spaces to be discussed and considered in detail when this Bill passes to another stage. In view of that I hope that the two Motions on the Order Paper will not be pressed.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson, is going to move some instruction to the Committee, but as I sense the feeling of the House we do not want to give a mandatory instruction to the Committee to do something, but we do want to bring to the notice of the Committee the necessity of considering the matter. Would not that be accomplished if we amended the instruction standing in the name of Lord Dickinson by leaving out "insert provisions whereby" in line 3 and substituting "consider whether if"? It would then read "That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to consider and"—
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily, but a Motion is in the hands of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, in the form suggested by the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees. I think that really meets the case.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May the Motion be read?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, in form we are

247
discussing the rejection of the Bill. When that has been disposed of, if the Bill is read a second time, the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson, presumably will move an instruction in such form as he sees fit and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will then move an Amendment to it. It is not inconvenient to discuss the whole thing at once, but it is inconvenient to discuss the exact wording of an Amendment which has not been moved.
LORD DICKINSON: My Lords, I will withdraw my opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. At any rate that will simplify matters.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LORD DICKINSON: My Lords, I will now move an instruction to the Committee in the form suggested by the noble Earl:
"That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that as a condition of approving of the Preamble of the Bill, the Committee shall consider the desirability of requiring an undertaking from the promoters that they will provide for the use of the public in the neighbourhood of the land taken, such other land as the Minister of Health shall consider to be reasonably equivalent to it."
I am quite willing to accept the noble Earl's suggestion and move it in that form.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Before that is put, may I ask whether that will enable the Select Committee to consider the alternative route referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor?
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that as a condition of approving of the Preamble of the Bill, the Committee shall consider the desirability of requiring an undertaking from the promoters that they will provide for the use of the public in the neighbourhood of the land taken, such other land as the Minister of Health shall consider to be reasonably equivalent to it.—(Lord Dickenson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
YORK GAS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
AXBRIDGE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (RURAL DISTRICT OF EASTRY).
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, that the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act for extending Section one of that Act to the rural district of Eastry and laid before this House on the 19th of May last be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
DERBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVI- SIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
READING CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to remove certain inequalities and indeed injustices which exist in the method of assessing the pensions of Governors, and particularly Governors with previous civil service. It is a slightly complicated one and requires just a little explanation, but I assure your Lordships that I do not intend to take up much time. The present position is this. A Governor does not get a pension at the Governor's rate unless he has served as a Governor for ten years. If he has served for any time less than ten years he is granted a pension as though he had remained in the Civil Service appointment which he last held and as though he had not been promoted at all to the post of a Governor. I ought perhaps to explain that, for the purpose of assessing the pension rate, Governorships are divided into four different classes and the rate of pension is fixed according to the period of time which any particular Governor has served in any particular class or classes.
I think it is quite obvious that a system under which a Governor is not paid a pension at Governor's rates unless he has served as a Governor for ten years is contrary in spirit and in effect to the ordinary rule which regulates the granting of pensions in the public service: that is, that an officer's pension should be fixed according to the position which he held at the time of his retirement. But, apart from what I think I may call the intrinsic injustice of that system, there are certain other definite objections to it. In the first place, it tends to restrict the Secretary of State's freedom of choice in selecting Governors. By that I mean that
250
there is a tendency—I will not go further than that—for him to select those who have ten years in front of them before they reach the age of retirement. There is also a tendency to allow Governors to go on to complete ten years service for some years after they reach the retiring age when really, in the interests of the public, they probably should have retired.
To pass to the various clauses of the Bill: Clause 1 (1) alters this position, and if it becomes effective the result will be that in respect of a person who is a Governor on or after January 1 this year, if he has completed not less than three years service as a Governor and if the total period of his service as a Governor and in the permanent Civil Service amounts to not less than ten years, a pension may be paid to him at the Governor's rate. In other words, in future a civil servant, instead of having to do ten years as a Governor, has only to do three years as a Governor and ten years altogether before he can be pensioned off at the Governor's rate. The remaining subsections of this clause and the remaining clauses of the Bill deal with matters of greater detail, and I will only refer to them briefly. Clause 1 (2) provides that service as Governor-General of the Sudan shall rank for the qualifying period with ordinary civil service. Clause 1 (3) is designed to enable the present Governor-General of the Sudan, who before receiving that appointment was a Colonial Governor with previous civil service, to get the benefit of this clause in spite of the fact that he ceased to be a Governor before January 1, 1936. Without this Bill it will not be possible to give him a pension at all for his Colonial Governorship. As a matter of fact that defect in the present system is remedied by Clause 3 (1) and not by this particular subsection.
Then, Clause 1 (5) provides that the benefit of Clause 1 (1) may be extended to any Governor who retired between January 1 of this year and the date when the Bill receives the Royal Assent. That provision perhaps requires a little explanation. The point is that the Financial Resolution in connection with this Bill was introduced in another place as long ago as July of last year, and it was therefore reasonable at that time to suppose that the Bill would become law before the end of last year. As your Lordships know, certain events arose which inter-

251
fered with a smooth procedure of that kind, and as a result certain expectations had been aroused which could not nave been fulfilled unless this provision had been inserted in the Bill. The object of Clause 2 is to enable a Governor with previous Sudan civil service to be regarded as a Civil Service Governor for the purposes in view unless, of course, he happens to take his pension from the Sudan and draw it during his time of Governorship. Clause 3 (1) appears rather complicated when first read, but I think I can best explain this subsection by saying that it means that if a man who is a Colonial Governor goes on to the Governor-Generalship of the Sudan and retires from that office in circumstances in which he is eligible for pension from the Sudan, you can also assume that he is eligible for and will be granted a pension for his previous Colonial service.
I hope the House will think that I have now given sufficient explanation of this measure, and that it will be sympathetically disposed towards it. We are dealing with a class of men who have given many, and indeed the best, years of their lives in the service of the Empire, men who have often served under conditions and in climates which are bound to take full toll of health and energy. In consequence I feel certain that your Lordships will not only be prepared but will also be anxious to remove any inequalities and injustices which exist at the present time in the assessment of their pensions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the opening words of my noble friend who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and also his concluding remarks: that it was right to remove any inequalities or injustices in the assessment of the pensions of Governors, who have served the Empire so faithfully and so well. I have risen to-day to interpolate a few words and to ask His Majesty's Government to consider whether or not they would be prepared to remove another inequality and another injustice under which certain Governors suffer to-day in comparison with those who have already received or are receiving the benefits of the original Act and of the Acts of which this is an amendment. The original Act, the Pensions
252
(Governors of Dominions, etc.) Act, 1911, Section 12 (1), defines the term "Governor." It describes the particular class of official who will be entitled to receive the pension provided under the Act of 1911, as amended by the further Act of 1929, and now to be amended again to-day. That clause, Clause 12 (1), reads like this:
" The expression ' Governor ' means the Governor or administrator of any part of His Majesty's Dominions (exclusive of the British Islands and of British India) "—
I ask your Lordships to mark those words especially," British India "—
" or of a British Protectorate, and includes the High Commissioner of Cyprus, and the expression ' Governorship ' shall be construed accordingly."
These pension benefits are to-day granted to any Governor who has served for ten years in any part of His Majesty's Dominions, with the exception of British India.
I am going to leave out the British Islands, because I do not think they apply, and I am going to ask the Government whether they will not consider including under the provisions of this amending Bill Indian Governors as well as the Governors of these other Dominions. After all, the Governors in India have duties to perform just as important as, perhaps even more difficult, more delicate and more meticulous than, those of Governors of the self-governing States or Dominions. I think it is hardly fair to them, who have today to meet heavy expenditure and are faced with taxation, just like any other Governors, that they should serve the Crown faithfully and well, as most of them do, in that great country of India, and when they return should be treated differentially from Governors who come back from other places. I know there may be some little difficulty in arranging this matter with the Government of India, but I would like to say this, that it is within the recollection of your Lordships that there are cases, quite recent cases, and cases which may come to pass quite shortly, of Governors who have served the Crown most faithfully and with great distinction, and yet find themselves without any pension after a service of ten years and even more under the Crown. Therefore, on the Committee stage of this Bill I propose to put down an Amendment for consideration, which will

253
provide that the words "and of British India" shall be excluded from Section 12 (1) of the principal Act. I do not ask my noble friend to give me any definite answer on this matter to-day, but I do most sincerely hope that he will pass on these representations to the Government, and that they will give very careful and sympathetic consideration to the case which I have tried to make, with a view to removing the injustices and inequalities of pensions so far as the Indian Governors are concerned.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, my noble friend was so good as to give me notice that he was going to raise this particular question, but I am afraid that I have not had time to go into the matter sufficiently carefully to be in a position to give him any kind of definite answer this afternoon. But I understand that Indian Governors' pensions are assessed on an entirely different system, as a matter of fact, from the pensions of Colonial Governors, and I imagine that a good deal of examination and negotiation would be inevitable even if it were possible to fall in, with the suggestion of the noble Viscount. As I am at present advised I understand that it would be difficult to deal with that rather complicated matter in this particular Bill, but I can assure him that I will go into the matter very thoroughly, and when he puts his Amendment down I shall examine it, and all those concerned will give it full consideration. I hope to be in a position to deal with the matter more thoroughly when we reach the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill that stands in my name. The purpose of this Bill is a perfectly plain and perfectly simple one. It is set out in the first clause, and indeed made clear by the title; it is to enforce the closing of certain retail shops on Sunday. I hope to show that
254
this Bill is a necessary Bill, and that the first reason why it is necessary is an historical one. The fact is that the Act passed in 1677, which still governs all Sunday legislation, has become a dead letter. It is no longer applicable, and never can be made applicable to modern life. It has many provisions and many prohibitions. Among the prohibitions is one against travel by water, and it recommends that those who do not pay the fine provided for in the Act be put in the stocks. In particular it provides a 5s, fine for those who trade on Sunday. Of course 5s. in those days was a very much larger sum than it is to-day, when, as we all know, it is not a deterrent. The only place where the provisions of that Act are still strictly enforced is the City of Hull, whose pious pedantry manages to extract £4,000 a year from those of its traders who are summoned in their courts every Monday morning. I may say that in my opinion those £4,000 are the only things going to be lost if this Bill passes. If a thing is illegal in Hull it must be illegal all over the country, and we have the recent dictum of the Lord Chief Justice that if the law is wrong and cannot be applied properly, the real remedy is not to turn a blind eye but to alter the law. The purpose of this Bill is to alter the law and to bring it into line with modern thought.
The Bill is also necessary in my view because this practice of Sunday trading which has grown up under the 1677 Act is steadily increasing. I would like to give a few figures to show how great this evil is. In Islington alone 1,500 shops are open on Sundays. The same applies in varying degree to the other London boroughs. All over the country you find the same sort of figure—in Birkenhead there are 500 odd, in Cardiff 1,000, in Middlesbrough 1,000 also. If this practice is not stopped now, it is going to grow very much more rapidy, because we all know that if one man in a district where all the shops are normally shut on Sunday decides to open his shop in the hope of capturing his neighbour's trade, then all his neighbours have to follow suit. That is happening all the time, with the result that we have reached the position where hundreds of thousands of shopkeepers and shop assistants are working, very often against their own religious convictions,

255
nearly always against their own inclination, simply in necessary defence of their livelihood.
It may be said, and has been said, that this evil—I do not think that any one would deny that for a man to work seven days a week is an evil—is a necessary evil, because to try to do away with it would involve an impossible alteration in the habits of our people, which they have acquired during the last few years owing to cheaper forms of transport, a higher standard of living, and perhaps to a changed conception of what Sunday means. I can assure your Lordships that if that contention were true, if, in the terms of the Amendment, the Bill were likely to involve an "unreasonable and vexatious interference" with the lives of our people, this Bill would never have been proposed, and I certainly would not be sponsoring it. But in fact, nothing of the kind will happen if this Bill passes. What I claim is that this Bill will give a much-needed relief to hundreds of thousands of people who are now working seven days a week, without interfering in the least with the normal Sunday habits of our people to-day.
I say that for this reason. There are two classes of goods which retail shops sell. The first are those the desire for which can be satisfied just as easily one day as the next. It does not matter in the least whether you buy your book on Monday or Tuesday or a cap on Thursday or Friday, The desire is there, and no loss is incurred if on one particular day you are unable to satisfy it. The number of shops which are open on Sunday which sell that sort of commodity is simply enormous—shops like booksellers, boot and shoe shops, corn chandlers, motor cycle shops, radio and gramophone shops, and many more. It is totally unnecessary from the consumer's point of view that those shops should be open on Sunday, and totally unnecessary from the shop-keeper's point of view, because, after all, one does not increase the volume of trade by opening on Sunday, one merely spreads it over a longer period. No one suddenly walks out and says: "It's a fine Sunday morning and therefore I will buy a pair of trousers." That is not the way the consumer's mind works. The volume of trade is exactly the same. You either buy your pair of trousers on Sunday or
256
you do not buy, but certainly if you do not want a pair of trousers on Saturday you are not going to buy because you see the shop open on Sunday. Those are the shops which are going to be affected by this Bill, and I suggest that they can perfectly well close on Sunday with an immense amount of benefit to their employees and owners, and without any harm whatever to the consumer.
Now we come to the second class of goods. Those are goods the desire for which has to be satisfied at once or not at all. Either you want an ice now or you do not want it. If you cannot get petrol immediately you are definitely inconvenienced. If you cannot get cigarettes on the day you want them it is no consolation to be told that you can get them on Monday. If the shops selling those classes of goods were to be affected by this Bill then both the consumer and the shopkeeper, whose livelihood would be destroyed, would have a real sense of grievance. But if you look at the Bill you will see that Clause 2 expressly exempts from the provisions of this Bill the whole of the shops which sell the articles mentioned in the First Schedule. If your Lordships will look at that First Schedule you will see there as complete a list as any man could desire of the things that any reasonable person might require at short notice on Sunday. You have alcohol, meals and refreshments, mineral waters, table waters, sweets, ice-cream, petrol, coffee, newspapers, medicine, fresh milk and cream, fresh fruit and fresh vegetables. I would like at this stage to point out that this provision for fresh fruit and vegetables is specially designed for those wayside traders, men and women, who try to sell on Sundays fresh fruit and flowers to motorists. Then there are also tobacco, post-office business, postcards and so on.
I suggest that that is a very complete list. It is deliberately designed so that no member of the public should be inconvenienced on Sundays. The list has gone through a very prolonged examination in the Committee stage in another place, and I would further add that I understand that to it is to be added in Committee here, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, a further Amendment based on information gained from all the seaside resorts in the country with the aim that we should do their

257
business no harm. As we are on the Schedules at the moment, I would like to point out that in the Second Schedule there is a further short list of exemptions, such as bread, fish and groceries, which can be sold on Sunday morning until ten o'clock if two-thirds of the traders of the district present a petition to the local authority desiring to be given power to take advantage of that provision. I am perfectly prepared to admit that there may be left out of the Schedule some article that ought to be in it, and I would like to take the opportunity of saying that if this Bill is given a Second Beading and your Lordships have any other additions to make to it I shall be only too glad to give them my deepest consideration. Therefore I do feel that in view of that Schedule it is quite wrong to suggest, as the Amendment does, that the general public will be seriously affected by this Bill.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May be.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: May be seriously affected. Still less may the small shopkeeper be seriously affected by this Bill because, after all, what does the small shopkeeper sell? Tobacco, newspapers, mineral waters, sweets—all of which are in the First Schedule. Therefore I feel the case is made out that this Bill confers a great deal of good on a very deserving class and at the same time that the public at large will hardly be affected by it at all. In conclusion, I would only like to draw your Lordships' attention to three other clauses. The first is Clause 9, which deals with the obligation upon an employer to give those employees in the exempted trades who have to work on Sundays holiday on another day of the week instead. This clause establishes for the first time that no employee, no shop assistant, shall have to work seven days a week. I think that is a good clause because it does away with that curious anomaly that whereas you cannot work a man on his half-day, you can work him on Sundays as often as you like.
Now I come to the last two clauses to which I wish to draw attention—Clauses 5 and 6. People of certain faiths, not ably Jews and Seventh Day Adventists, hold their Sabbath on Saturday, and it would obviously be a great hardship to them if this Bill were passed into law
258
preventing them from opening on Sunday. Accordingly, following and, I believe, bettering the provisions of the Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Act, 1930, Clause 5 provides that those orthodox Jews who care to make a statement that they do not intend to open their shops on Saturday are entitled to keep their shops open on Sunday until two o'clock. There are two points of view about that. It has been argued very forcibly that those who come to live in a Christian country must, while reaping its advantages, conform at the same time to its peculiarities and that therefore the Jews do not deserve particular consideration in this matter. I think that is a totally wrong attitude to take up. It seems entirely out of the tradition of tolerance in religious matters of which we have been so proud in the past to make a Jewish trader, because he is honest enough to believe in his religion, lose two days of the week from his trade. On the other hand, as probably most of your Lordships are aware, the Jews themselves are not quite satisfied with the clause because they consider they should be allowed to open on Sunday not merely until two o'clock but until six o'clock. That is a doubtful point, but it is obviously a Committee point, and I do not think I can do better than leave it to your Lordships to bring in an Amendment on the Committee stage if you so desire.
Finally, Clause 6 is designed for those places or markers, particularly in London, where Jewish and Gentile traders have been accustomed for a long time to trade in more or less equal numbers. Its object is to avoid the undesirable consequences that some people fear might arise if suddenly the Gentiles found that a monopoly of Sunday trading had been given in those markets to the Jews. Therefore similar provision is made that any Gentile who so desires can trade on Sunday provided he does not trade on Saturday.
These are the main provisions of the Bill, and I do not think there is any other point with which I need weary your Lordships. It is a Bill which has an enormous backing. The most reverend Primate gave me authority to say that he much regretted he was not able to come and support its general principles. It is backed by the Shop Assistants' Union, by the National Union of Distribute

259
Workers, and by many other people who know what the workers desire. In another place only eight out of just under 200 voted against it, and it passed through a stormy but very valuable Committee stage during which it was much improved. The Home Office has been very useful and kind in helping to improve it also. In general it is a Bill that has great support and has been very carefully thought out. It establishes two main principles—that every man is entitled to one day's rest in seven and for that reason Sunday trading should be discouraged; and also that the public habits of our people should be changed as little as possible in attaining that very desirable end. With these considerations I commend the Bill with confidence to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE had given Notice that on the Motion for the Second Beading he would move, That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which may involve unreasonable and vexatious interference with the freedom and comfort of the public, and which may inflict grave injustice and hardship upon numerous small shopkeepers until better opportunity has been provided for full consultation with all the interests concerned, and until a careful examination of all the issues has been carried out by a Committee specially set up for that purpose.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the reasoned Amendment that stands in my name, I hope the noble Marquess will allow me—and I am sure I speak for all your Lordships—to congratulate him on his speech and on the moderate way he presented his case. We are very glad to see one who is comparatively so young so very much grown up in intellect and eloquence. I entirely agree with the last two remarks made by the noble Marquess when he said that every man in this country—and every woman, too, of course—should if possible have one day's rest in seven. We all want to try to get that. We also want—I am sure the noble Marquess will agree—to ensure that the British public should be as little inconvenienced as possible in trying to bring that about. Therefore, there is not really so much between the noble Marquess and myself
260
except that which stares one in the face in my Amendment. Though I hope we are trying to reach the same goal, I am not quite sure that the researches of the noble Marquess and of his friends have been sufficiently extensive to assure us that he is including and excluding exactly the right articles.
When I put down this Amendment I was not hostile to the general principle of the Bill. I simply wished to bring to the notice of your Lordships' House the fact that, in my opinion, there has not been sufficient consultation with local authorities and other interests up to now, and that the effect of the Bill and the injustices which it must create have not been sufficiently weighed. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs, and I do not think you can have this sort of legislation without creating hardship for some people or some classes. What we ought to do, therefore, is to confine the injustices to as small a compass as possible. Personally, I think a Bill such as this ought not to be a Private Member's Bill at all. It ought to be a Government Bill for the reason that the Government can speak with so much more authority in these matters. The Government have means whereby they can get the views of people and societies much more effectively than private individuals. A Minister sends for the president of any society you like to mention; the president is flattered and comes at once to see the Minister, and puts the Minister wise about everything connected with that particular form of commercial activity. On the other hand, if Lord So-and-So wants to get hold of the chairman or president of this or that society or organisation, he will receive the same courtesy, but he will not receive a quarter of the information that a Minister gets. Moreover, a Minister has trained assistants whose business it is, whose lifelong interest it is, to deal with matters such as this. Therefore I regret that this is a Private Member's Bill and not a Government Bill.
The noble Marquess said that the Home Office had been most helpful. I do not think the Home Secretary has taken much trouble over the Bill. I understand the Home Secretary never entered the House of Commons when the Bill was being debated, much less did he speak on it, and it might have been

261
a Bill put forward in Northern Ireland or in Dublin for all he troubled himself about it. On the other hand the Undersecretary, Mr. Lloyd, was very courteous, and to a degree helpful; but he always has, I understand, taken the attitude that this is not a Government Bill. He said in effect: "This is not our Bill; you must do this on your own responsibility." I think it makes it all the more difficult for us to accept the provisions of this Bill when we know that the Home Office have been so very lukewarm in the matter.
Will your Lordships bear with me for a moment while I read a few remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, I think on the Third Reading, at the very end of the discussions in another place. Mr. Lloyd said:
" After the Second Reading, the Bill went straight to a Standing Committee, and I think it is probably true to say that the interests affected had not become fully alive to all the issues that were raised."
That is the diplomatic or Parliamentary way of saying that nobody knew about it at all. He went on:
" It is also true that the Report stage followed very soon after the conclusion of the Committee stage."
That means, I understand, that the Committee stage followed three days after Second Reading—rather quick work seeing that the Bill was not printed until three days before the Second Reading was moved in the House of Commons. It cannot be said that any enthusiasm was shown for the Bill when less than half the members of the House of Commons Committee upstairs attended that Committee. Mr. Lloyd added:
" Then we found that while the House was considering the Bill on Report the interests concerned were actually altering their views on the subject we were discussing."
I am not blaming the noble Marquess or his friends for that, but it does show that matters at that stage were certainly in a very fluid state, and that it was difficult for the promoters of the Bill to know whether they were voicing the views of any particular trade or not. Mr. Lloyd ended by saying:
" That sort of thing "—
the things I have just described—
" makes it extremely difficult for the House of Commons to give proper consideration to a Bill."
When a Minister says that it is extremely difficult for the House of Commons to give proper consideration to a Bill it usually means that no proper consideration was given at all. Mr. Lloyd was very diplomatic in the way in which he put it. But let us leave for a moment, for after all it does not very much matter, what happened in the House of Commons. What we have to decide is what we will do here. I am surprised that a late colleague of mine in another place should say "hear, hear" to those remarks.
LORD SNELL: Ironical.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: In all seriousness, I am not quite clear from the noble Marquess's speech, or from what I road in the Press, whether this Bill is founded on what I call the moral law—that is, that it is wicked to do anything except go to Church and sit still on a Sunday—or on expediency—that is to say, on the ground that we should try to get as much Sunday closing as we can without exasperating the British public too much. I do not think it can be founded on the moral law, for if so the promoters would not definitely exclude all wholesale traders, the use of employees on a Sunday afternoon to get ready for Monday morning, all public-houses, all post offices, all road and railway transport, and all seaside diversions. Therefore, if they have deliberately excluded all those forms of activity on a Sunday, I take it that they are not worrying about the Lord's Day Observance Act or any Biblical recommendations, but are acting from the point of view of getting as much leisure as they can for the workers of this country.
I want to put before your Lordships three further matters. The first is that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will be a gold-mine to the lawyers. The definitions are so loose and so vaguely drawn that even no lawyer can understand what they really mean, and I think very many costly law suits will result if this Bill be passed. How can you say what are "necessary supplies"? What is the meaning of "for immediate use"? What is "fresh fruit"? No doubt many noble Lords will say that they can easily define fresh fruit, but is an orange fresh fruit? It remains fresh for a long time but it does not follow that it therefore comes under the head "fresh fruit."

263
What are "fresh vegetables" and what are "medicines"?
May I point out one or two results of this Bill if it is passed in its present state? I see my noble friend Lord Swaythling present and I hope he will take part in this debate. I do not see how you can possibly justify the treatment of the Jewish community in this Bill. At present the Jewish community, I understand—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—close their business places at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon and open them again at nine o'clock on Sunday morning, and they remain open until five or six o'clock in the evening. The proposal now is that they shall close at five o'clock on Friday as heretofore, open on Sunday at nine o'clock as they have done for many years, and close again at two and not at six o'clock. What has happened that the Jewish community should be treated differently from the way in which they have been treated for the last hundred years in London? This seems to me an attempt on the part of certain interests to get at the business of the Jewish community in London. I cannot see any other reason for treating them in that way. Is it suggested that they have committed some crime that they should be treated differently from the way they have been treated for the last fifty or hundred years? I shall be interested to hear from the noble Marquess when that particular clause comes up in Committee what reason he can give for treating the Jews in the way that they are going to be treated.
Then look at the absurdities that will result from this Bill unless further investigation is made and more accurate ideas are put forward as to what should be included and what excluded from the Bill. If a street trader has strawberries on his barrow and a tinned pineapple taken out of its tin side by side with the strawberries, he will be allowed under this Bill to sell the strawberries but if he sold the pineapple he would be liable to a fine of £5. I can see some point in any one wanting to diminish Sunday labour if there were not other things to be sold, but when these things in the Bill can be legally sold from a barrow why in the name of fortune should not the street trader be allowed to sell some other things if the British public want them? If the barrow is there and certain goods can be sold from it legally, why in the
264
name of Christianity not allow the man to sell other things if he is asked for them? Take another instance. I understand that if you belong to a sports club you can buy on a Sunday golf clubs, tennis rackets, tennis balls and all the equipment of sport without any let or hindrance from this Bill; but if a working man with a child wants to buy a ball for the child he cannot do so and anybody who sold him a ball would be liable to a fine of £5. Take chemists. Chemists under the Bill can only sell medicines and medical and surgical appliances. Therefore if I go to my chemist to ask him to make me up a prescription and suddenly remember that I have lost my toothbrush, and see a toothbrush upon his shelf, I shall not be able to buy it because it is not a medical or surgical appliance and is not medicine.
LORD MARLEY: You cannot do that now.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: The noble Lord will agree that it is very hard that I should not be allowed to buy a toothbrush on a Sunday if I want one. Take the newspapers. The big newspapers have looked after themselves exceedingly well, as usual, As I read this Bill, bookstalls and newsagents can sell newspapers, periodicals and magazines on Sundays, but they cannot sell a book or a pamphlet or a pencil. That is to say, at Waterloo on Sunday morning, I can buy a Sunday newspaper full of pictures of film stars and reports of divorce cases, whereas if I ask the bookstall keeper to sell me a Bible he would be liable to a fine for £5 for doing so. Noble Lords may laugh, but I think I have shown that there are certain Amendments which could be made in Committee.
Then again, take the provision relating to museums. A public museum or picture gallery can, on Sunday, sell guide books, postcards, photographs and souvenirs, whereas the Zoological Gardens can only sell these things by permission of the local authority. The Office of Works have restored extremely well many abbeys and ancient castles, and in some of them they have established little museums. If I go on Sunday to one of the little museums I can buy a picture postcard, but if the First Commissioner of Works sold me a picture postcard just outside without asking the local

265
authority's permission he would be committing an offence and be liable to a fine of £5. I could go on at considerable length quoting such absurdities. Therefore, I think I am perfectly justified in moving my reasoned Amendment to draw attention—I do not want to be rude to the noble Marquess—to the rather hasty way in which the Bill has been brought forward. I trust—indeed I am sure—that when we come to the Committee stage he will approach each Amendment on its merits. Everybody here wants to do his best to make it a good Bill, and will wish the noble Marquess all success.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after (" That ") and insert (" this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which may involve unreasonable and vexatious interference with the freedom and comfort of the public, and which may inflict grave injustice and hardships upon numerous small shopkeepers until better opportunity has been provided for full consultation with all the interests concerned, and until a careful examination of all the issues has been carried out by a Committee specially set up for that purpose.")—(Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I should like to explain briefly the point of view of the Opposition. Broadly speaking they give the Bill general support. The noble Marquess has explained it excellently. He put his case briefly and clearly and simply. Possibly he rather over-simplified the Bill in the explanations he gave. The noble Lord who moved the wrecking Amendment brought forward a number of Committee points, some of which no doubt have substance. Naturally his toothbrush is of vital importance to him on Sunday morning. Perhaps some means can be found by which he will be able to get his tooth-brush. The Government helped considerably with this Bill in another place, and I do not think it can be said that it has been hastily dealt with. It received consideration for nine days in Committee, and nine Committee days is a very considerable period for a Bill of this type.
We on this side of the House are very much against restrictions on the liberty of the individual. That is why we are Socialists; because Socialism provides an environment within which complete liberty may be available for all people. But sometimes we have to restrict the
266
liberty of some people in order that there may be liberty for others. That is a difficulty illustrated of course by the strawberry merchant who also wanted to sell pineapples. If this Bill passes there will, of course, be certain restrictions on selling, and if we want to buy things on Sunday we shall have to train our memories. Yet on the whole the benefits of the Bill seem to us to be greater than its disadvantages. The main disadvantage from our point of view is that it tends to hit the small consumers, the people who have nowhere to store food. These people have no refrigerators; probably there are about five or six people living in one room, and they are therefore in the habit of buying each day what they need. If they cannot buy on Sundays that will be a definite disadvantage to them. On the other hand, there will be an advantage to all those who work in shops, and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, that it is not a question of moral law or expediency, but of justice to a section of the community who, without some such measure, would have no day of rest in the week. So far as workers in shops are concerned we believe it is right that a Bill of this type should be brought forward. I agree that some vested interests have benefited somewhat by exemption.
One point I would like to put to the noble Marquess, and that is that it is of vital importance that provision should be made for inspection to see that when the Bill is passed the law is not habitually broken. The law of 1677 is, of course, habitually broken. In connection with this point I would like to ask the noble Marquess to have regard to the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops. In spite of the fact that there are a considerable number of inspectors, there are thousands of cases of overwork contrary to the law because the inspectors are not sufficiently numerous and, not being able to be in two places at once, cannot see that the law is enforced everywhere. In that Report one case quoted is that of a boy of seventeen working from eight o'clock in the morning of one day until one o'clock the following morning. That is sixteen and a half hours. Another case is one of young boys who are working after eleven at night, until four in

267
the morning, and are back again at seven for a sixteen-hour day following that. And these people were only discovered by the inspectors looking through the letter-box and seeing a boy working. When they got in, the boys had been hidden in a cellar by the employer. We do not want this sort of thing to happen, and therefore I think it is very important that adequate inspectorate should be provided for so that we shall not have breaking of the law.
The exemptions on the whole seem to me to be very reasonable. I do not suppose that everybody wants to buy trousers on Sunday, and we can quite well buy them on other days. Personally I am bound to say that I should like these exemptions to be made conditional on fair hours being worked. I do not know whether it is possible, but if we could say that we would only give exemptions provided that the total hours were fair and reasonable, I believe it would be a good thing. That is why personally, although I am probably disagreeing with those in my Party, I should prefer two shifts, so that we could definitely have legislation to clear up the hours of work. It would give more employment, and we could easily reduce the hours to forty a week. I think it is a great misfortune that the Government were not able to support the forty-hour week at Geneva a few days ago when it was discussed at the International Labour Organisation.
Finally, I want to say a word about Clauses 5 and 6. Again I realise that this is a Committee point, but I would say that, broadly speaking, as I understand it, the Jewish traders in this country are perfectly prepared to accept this measure and work it honestly and honourably, but they feel that it would be only fair if they kept open till, shall we say, five o'clock on Sunday instead of having to close at two o'clock. I think that the noble Marquess might expect to have the support of the Government in such a modification of Clause 5, because I notice that the Under-Secretary of State said in another place that he was not prepared, with regard to the position of persons of Jewish faith, to take a definite line as to the desirability or adequacy of these provisions. I think that statement might be used as a wedge if the noble Marquess desired to make the alteration, which I think would be a just alteration, to get that modification
268
through. I understand that agreement has been reached upon a completely new Clause 5. I do not know whether I am right, but I understand that a new Clause 5 has been discussed between the promoters of the Bill and the Departments concerned, giving a better wording; and it might be easy in that new Clause 5 to make the alteration, shall we say, from two o'clock to five o'clock in the afternoon for those who are closed on Saturday and want to remain open as compensation on Sunday.
There is a reason for that. We were told by the noble Marquess that it was desired to interfere as little as possible with the normal Sunday habits of the people. It is not my habit, but I am told that people have a normal habit of what is called "lying in" on Sunday morning; that is to say, they apparently do not get out of bed and work, as your Lordships do, of course—
A NOBLE LORD: We go to church.
LORD MARLEY: —they remains in bed, in many cases. Therefore, if they wanted to make a purchase on Sunday they would either have the discomfort of getting up early and buying at the shop before two o'clock, or they would have to go without, and the particular Sunday traders would have a loss. Moreover, it is a fact that to-day the shops which are illegally open are open long after two o'clock on Sunday, and it is also a fact that all the exempted shops in the Bill will be open until seven or eight o'clock at night. That seems to be a reason why we should not make a special exception which would amount to an injustice to the people of Jewish faith who desire to close on Saturday and to keep open on Sunday. We hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading, that the House will sweep aside the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, and that on the Committee stage we shall make the Amendments which we desire.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, as a supporter of the Bill I am anxious to direct the attention of the noble Marquess to certain provisions in the First Schedule particularly affecting the sale of fish. I should like to ask the noble Marquess why it has suddenly become so remarkably unsabbatarian to eat fish and chips on Sunday. I understand

269
that one may eat fish and chips in a restaurant, but not in what is alternatively described as a "fried fish and chip shop" and as a mere "fried fish shop." That is in lines 10 and 13 of the First Schedule. I should like to know what has happened to the chips in line 13! Apparently, also, one can eat almost any other kind of fish on a Sunday. One can eat oysters in an oyster bar, and apparently one can buy oysters under the Second Schedule; if I understand it rightly, one buys them before ten o'clock during the summer months on a Sunday. Is my interpretation of those provisions correct, and may I further ask the noble Marquess what is happening to that splendid institution of the shrimp tea on Sunday?
LORD MORRIS: My Lords, at this late hour I desire to say only a word or two about this Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, will not think it presumption on my part if I support his Amendment. I do so for three reasons. First of all because I think that this Bill, if passed as it stands, offends against the principle of toleration for religious minorities which this House has carefully safeguarded, and I think there is no doubt whatever that if the Bill were to be passed as it stands at present it would inflict very great hardship on the orthodox Jewish trader. I am neither a Jew nor a shopkeeper, but I understand that the Jewish Sabbath starts at about five o'clock on Friday afternoon and goes on until late on Saturday night. If they cannot be open all day Sunday they are going to lose the cream of the week-end trade, which is rather more than fifty per cent. of their turnover. So much for the first objection.
Another thing I have against the Bill is that to me it savours of class legislation, of which we have such unfortunate examples in the licensing laws, the betting laws and the law relating to landlord and tenant. It is very difficult to argue that this type of Bill is not class legislation. It is not aimed, after all, at Harrods' or Selfridge's. It is aimed at the unfortunate down in the East End, whose profits I do not suppose are particularly large; and it seems to me that it is, I do not say hypocritical, but a little unfortunate that the noble Marquess representing the Home Office
270
should ask us to do away with these men's livelihood, or at any rate curtail it, while certain places which I will not mention in the West End are doing a roaring trade serving intoxicating liquors all night at fabulous prices to people who might be better occupied, and shopkeepers, publicans, innkeepers and so forth are not able to earn a living because of the restrictions imposed by the Government.
My third and final objection to this Bill—I have very nearly finished, my Lords—is that it seems to me to be part and parcel of the mania which has afflicted Governments since the War of issuing orders which prohibit this, that or the other thing. I now find that I cannot buy chocolates after eight o'clock, or it may be half-past eight; I cannot buy cigarettes after nine o'clock or half-past nine, and I cannot buy a drink after ten unless I go to those places to which I have already referred. I know this, however—though this is a well-worn topic and I do not claim any originality for touching on it to-day—that even the longest worm has a turning, and a time will come when the British public will get absolutely sick, as I am already, of this type of legislation, of which the Licensing Act, 1921, Section 9, is a classic illustration of the gross stupidity of the people who concoct these measures.
With the Coronation coming on next year our endeavours should be to make a success of ourselves as a nation of shopkeepers, now that we are no longer the workroom of the world. I think we should make every effort to attract people to this country, rather than to turn them away. The Belgian coast is rapidly becoming the poor man's Le Touquet, and this measure which proposes that the British public shall not be allowed to go and buy what they want on a Sunday must tend to keep visitors away from this country. We know that we cannot have dances and such things on Sunday, but if we go on closing everything we shall end by closing the churches, too. Therefore the Amendment has my warm personal support, and I think myself that the Bill ought not to be given a Second Reading.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I do not suppose that the noble Lord who spoke last seriously supposes that this House is going to reject this Bill. In the first

271
place I would like to reiterate what has been already said of the pleasure given to us by the manner in which the noble Marquess introduced the Bill. It was a speech which thoroughly explained the Bill and the motives behind it which induced the promoters to bring it in. I have all my life been an advocate of one day's rest in seven, and I had the great pleasure of getting through another place a Bill on behalf of the police. I am therefore glad that there is a chance of that being extended to these deserving people, who do not get as much rest as we should desire. Of course there are Committee points, and no doubt it is possible to make fun of smaller points in the Bill, but I do not think it is quite right to say that this Bill has not been fully considered. As Lord Marley said, it has gone through considerable stages in another place, and now it is getting the advantage of being considered by a Second Chamber whose duty it is to revise. I am sure that a great many of the points which have been raised to-day are Committee points, and if this House does its duty, as it does on all occasions, the Bill will emerge in a form which is satisfactory to everybody.
There is one point on which I would challenge what Lord Marley said. Ho talked about six people in one room. A good deal of water has passed under the bridges since he was sitting on this side of the House, and during the interval there has been a rather comprehensive Housing Act passed into law. A great many slums have been abolished, and I hope that in the course of time they will all be abolished. There is just one other point, relating to the Jewish community. I have received, as no doubt a good many other noble Lords have received, a strongly-worded circular from the President of the Jewish Board of Deputies, which is a sort of parliament of the Jewish community. The only thing I would like to say is that what they ask for is that the time should be extended to six o'clock and not five o'clock.
LORD MARLEY: Perhaps I ought to say that, like the noble Lord, I received a circular from the Jewish Board of Deputies, and I had a personal discussion with the President, and he agreed that in all the circumstances he would be prepared to accept five o'clock.
LORD JESSEL: I am glad to receive that correction. I only raised the matter
272
because I thought the noble Lord had not received the same document as I had, but I now understand that he has later information. I am quite content with the explanation. I hope that the Bill will get through, backed as it is by some powerful sections of the community. I do not think that when it has been passed into law the public will suffer the inconveniences which are feared in some quarters.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I desire very briefly to indicate the views of the Government in regard to this Bill. We are, I may say, in general sympathy with the objects of the measure, and we shall do our best on the later stages of the Bill to see if we can co-operate in making it a good, workable Act. I think the House should be reminded that in the event of your Lordships giving a Second Reading to the Bill this evening, it will be necessary to ask the House to agree to a number of Amendments at a later stage, and perhaps I might, before I deal with the Motion which Lord Mount Temple has put down, remind you of one or two remarks which were made in another place during the passage of the Bill. Lord Mount Temple read quotations from the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, but I think he left out the principal part of his speech on the Third Reading, when he said:
"The Government are disposed to the view that the Bill, as it now stands, will give effect, in a reasonable and workable manner, to the principles approved by the House on Second Reading, and that the House would be justified in voting for the Motion for the Third Reading."
He coupled with that a warning that when the Bill reached this House the Government would have to ask your Lordships to consider various Amendments, both of substance and of drafting.
There is one other point which I would like to deal with, and that is the question of Jewish traders. Mention has been made by one or two noble Lords of a complaint that Jewish traders under this Bill could keep open on the Sabbath only till two o'clock. I would remind your Lordships that when the Bill was originally introduced the time was one o'clock. Since then it has been extended to two o'clock, but there was a very long and protracted discussion upon an Amendment to leave Jewish shops open on

273
Sunday till six o'clock. I think the general feeling in another place was against that proposal, and the Amendment was negatived without a Division. I will not say anything further on the matter at this stage; no doubt it will come up again in Committee.
With regard to the Amendment of my noble friend, suggesting that your Lordships should refer this Bill to a Committee of an unnamed sort, may I point out to him that this Bill comes to us after most careful investigation has been made by both the Home Office and the promoters into the requirements of the public and general traders alike, and I cannot help feeling that your Lordships will be well advised to take the discussion of the Committee stage down here, and not send the Bill upstairs to a Committee for prolonged discussion. I hope my noble friend will see his way to withdraw his Amendment and to allow the Bill to proceed in the normal course. I must make one other remark. I understood Lord Marley to say, in the course of his remarks, that Socialists believed in complete liberty for the people. That is a remark which I cannot let pass without saying how surprised I am that after many years we should hear at last that they believe in the complete liberty of the subject and of the person.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to make one observation. I am speaking as President of the Zoological Society, and I gather from my noble friend Lord Dufferin that he is willing to introduce Amendments if necessary to enable the public who wish to do so to obtain goods at short notice on Sunday (they would not be any use to them on the Monday). I understood also from my noble friend Lord Munster that he proposes as the result of further consideration to move Amendments with a similar purpose. I want to ask him if the following matter might be taken into consideration. If your Lordships will look at page 14, where the list of goods exempted is given in the First Schedule, you will see that it includes "The sale of guide books, postcards, photographs and souvenirs at any gallery or museum…. or at any zoological, botanical or horticultural gardens, or at any aquarium." That gives protection to any zoological garden, for example, in the case of the sale of photographs. But a great many people like to come and bring their
274
films and take their own photographs. Very often they are so much attracted by the things they see for picture taking that they have not enough films and want to buy others to fit their cameras. I wonder therefore whether it would be possible to consider the addition to this Schedule of photographic films for cameras. There may be objections to that; I do not know; but I would ask my noble friend if he—and also the Home Office—would give the matter consideration.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has considerably altered my view. I did not realise, nor indeed had it been said, that we were going to have a real spate of Amendments to this Bill, as apparently we arc. Probably those Amendments will clear up my doubts, and, that being so, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MAEQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I do not think, after the general consensus of opinion, that I need say very much in reply. I thank the noble Lord for withdrawing his Amendment, and it is quite obvious that I could not deal with half his jokes to-day. I will reply as well as I can later on. I think that almost every point that was raised in the course of the debate was a Committee point, and it would be far better if I left everything that has been said to be dealt with on the Committee stage. If the Bill is read a second time, I think it is intended by those in authority to have the Committee stage on July 2, if that meets with the approval of your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, perhaps it would be more convenient if the very few observations I have to make should be made on the Motion to go into Committee. As your Lordships may remember, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, drew particular attention to

275
the form of this Bill, and it is true that some special procedure has to be adopted in relation to it. Your Lordships are aware that this Bill is similar to the Act of 1933; that is, it is a further measure to consolidate and clarify the Statutes which relate to public health. As was the case in the 1933 Act, this Bill was submitted to a Joint Committee of both Houses under the Chairmanship of the Chairman of Committees. As the result of close examination of the Bill by this Committee some 300 Amendments have been made. Many of them are of a drafting character; the rest partly represent Amendments suggested by the Minister of Health and partly points suggested by various associations, different classes of statutory undertakers, the Federation of British Industries, and so forth.
The question now arises of the most convenient way to deal with these Amendments, which your Lordships will see it is proposed to insert in this Bill of over 300 clauses. The proposal I have to make is that, although this Bill is not wholly consolidation, the most convenient procedure would be that which was adopted in the case of the 1933 Bill, that is, to have a formal Committee stage and to insert all these Amendments en bloc. This would do away with the somewhat laborious task of moving each individually at this late hour. On the Report stage your Lordships would then have all the Amendments printed and inserted in the Bill, and you would have a much easier task, I think, in moving any Amendments which you might see fit to move. The Government propose to give ample time for consideration of the amended Bill, and they suggest, if your Lordships see fit, that the Report stage should be taken on July 2. I beg to move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as I happened to be Chairman of the Joint Select Committee which examined this Bill, perhaps I may say one or two words on what passed at the six meetings which the Committee held. In the first place your Lordships will remember that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, drew attention to the undesirability as a general rule of combining amendment
276
and consolidation, and it was pointed out on the Second Reading that the amendment which was proposed by the Bill was merely to enable the public health law of the country to be consolidated in a form which was reasonable and suitable for working purposes. It did not propose to amend what it may be necessary to amend in the future, but it did propose to consolidate in a useful form the whole public health law of the country, together with certain stock clauses which have been accepted in local Acts; and for that purpose it was necessary to amend the law and not stick to pure consolidation.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury is not in his place to-day, and I am sure your Lordships will deplore the reason for his absence, but I think I can assure your Lordships and those who were concerned at the noble Marquess's observations, that the Committee were very careful to limit the Amendments which they proposed, and which are on the Paper, to those which are absolutely necessary for the purposes which I have indicated. I do not mean to say for one moment that we do not all of us find a great deal in the public health law of the country—which your Lordships will now be able to see in the most convenient form—which requires considerable alteration. I think every member of the Committee felt that there was a good deal to be done both in the way of addition and of alteration to the public health law as it stands, but we did not seek to do more than make the actual public health law of the present time easily understandable by everybody.
There are two points to which I think it is only right that I should draw the attention of your Lordships, in case they may be missed by those who wish to discuss the matter on the Report stage. The Committee of its own volition—it was not proposed by any outside society or by a Government Department—made two more or less important alterations in the Bill which perhaps go a little wider, though not very much wider, than is necessary to amend the law to make it easily comprehensible. They added measles to the list of notifiable diseases. I do not think that is going very much further, although I am told there are difficulties in connection with the notification of measles. No doubt we shall be told by the Department about that on

277
the Report stage. We made one other alteration which has a certain amount of importance—namely, with regard to Clause 267, which deals with the power of local authorities to control the use of movable dwellings. All local authorities have this power except rural district councils, and it did not seem to us that the rural district councils should be under a disability in this respect. By including them we considered we were making the law more simple. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is here and will correct me if I have omitted to mention any other, but I think these are the only two points that the Committee dealt with and put in without any suggestion from outside bodies.
On the Committee we were assisted by the two Departments concerned—the Ministry of Health and the Home Office—and we also had with us the draftsman of the Bill. Sir Harry Pritchard, Secretary of the Association of Municipal Corporations, was also there to help us, and we had representatives of the Federation of British Industries, the National Property Owners' Association, and the Catchment Boards. There may have been others, but I am not quite sure. A good many Amendments were put forward by these bodies, and we did our best to give effect to their wishes. About sixty Amendments were put into the Bill at the instance of the Federation of British Industries, the National Property Owners' Association, and the Catchment Boards, and they were accepted by the Government. We amended the Bill in such a, manner that it is practically an agreed Bill on all major points. I do not think I have anything to add regarding the doings of the Committee, but as we are taking this report so very shortly to-day, I thought I had better give, some kind of explanation which might be useful on the Report stage.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I do not intend to keep your Lordships more than three minutes. On the question of the Amendment to Clause 267 I wish to say—I am speaking on behalf of the Boy Scouts Association—that we have been met by the Ministry very considerately and they have helped us out of our difficulties. We were formerly very much opposed to the whole of the clause as it would have applied to us and also
278
to the Girl Guides Association and to the Salvation Army. But we realised that something should be done to restrict bad camping, and we thought that the sheep and the goats should not be mixed up together. We classed ourselves rather as sheep. I now want to say that since we have been met so considerately by the Ministry, and since all our difficulties have been removed, we are now wholeheartedly in support of the measure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: I beg to move that the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee be agreed to.—(Viscount Gage)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (COM- MENCEMENT AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Secretary of State for India I beg to move the Motions standing in his name. Your Lordships will remember that yesterday these Draft Orders were approved by the House and that there was a debate on the subject. I now move the first Motion.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House yesterday.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (DISTRI- BUTION OF REVENUES) ORDER, 1936.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House yesterday.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (COM- MENCEMENT AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House yesterday.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (PRO- VINCIAL ELECTIONS) (CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ELECTION PETI- TIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved, with an Amendment, by the House yesterday.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (COR- RUPT PRACTICES AND ELECTION PETITIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that an Order be made in the form of the draft approved, with Amendments, by the House yesterday.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past seven o'clock.

Preamble
COLNE VALLEY AND NORTHWOOD ELECTRICITY BILL.
BRENTFORD AND CHISWICK CORPORATION BILL.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (EALING AND SHEPHERD'S BUSH RAILWAY EXTENSION) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY (No. 1) BILL.
CIRENCESTER GAS BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX (IMPROVEMENTS, ETC.) BILL.
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
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:

E. Airlie,

E. Hardwicke,

V. Gough,

L. Saltersford (E. Courtown),

L. Redesdale (Chairman):

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday 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.

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY (No. 2) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Manchester Ship Canal Bill [H.L.] and another Bill do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Gas Light and Coke Company (No. 2) Bill: Read, and agreed to. All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners
282
praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
BRIDGNORTH GAS ORDER, 1936.
NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT) GAS ORDER, 1936.
WINSFORD GAS ORDER, 1936.
LEICESTER GAS ORDER, 1936.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION GAS ORDER, 1936.
CANNOCK ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (EXTENSION OF PERIOD) ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Order raises important questions of policy and principle which have been accepted already by the House when passing the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1935, under which the Order is submitted for approval; that the Order is founded on precedent, inasmuch as an Order has already been submitted for the approval of Parliament under this Act; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order can be passed by the House without special attention, subject to any arguments on the merits which may arise in debate, and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

CLEARING OFFICE (RUMANIA) ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their

283
opinion the provisions of the Order raises important questions of policy and principle which have been accepted already by the House when passing the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, under which the Order is submitted for approval; that the Order is founded on precedent, inasmuch as a similar Order has been submitted for the approval of Parliament under the Act, although this Order dealt with another country; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

CLEARING OFFICE (SPAIN) AMEND- MENT ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Order does not raise important questions of policy and principle; that the Order is founded on precedent, inasmuch as it provides merely for the amendment of an Order which has received already the approval of the House; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order can be passed by the House without special attention, and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

CENTRAL (COAL MINES) SCHEME (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that they have received and considered a Report from the Board of Trade; that in their opinion the Order raises important questions of policy and principle; that the
284
Order is not founded on precedent, although an Order has already been submitted for the approval of Parliament under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, which was of a different character; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (PORTOBELLO LAND) ORDER, 1936.
Special Order in respect of the compulsory acquisition of servitudes or other rights for overhead main transmission lines in and over certain land situate at Portobello in the City and County of the City of Edinburgh:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEST HARTLEPOOL) BILL. [H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI-SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (PLYMPTON SAINT MARY) BILL. [H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BARNSLEY) BILL. [H.L.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ST. HELENS) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

MEASUREMENT OF GAS.
A witness ordered to attend the Joint Committee: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to desire their concurrence.