Sitting of 30 March 1936

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Thornton Cleveleys Improvement Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill.
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Huddersfield Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Bill [Lords].
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  INDIA (CIVIL AVIATION).
  Mr. DAYasked the Under—Secretary of. State for India the total amount of expenditure, and financial assistance given by the Government of India for the purpose of developing civil aviation in India, for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The ordinary expenditure on civil aviation during the year 1934–36 was Rs.14,35,220. In addition, a capital expenditure of Rs.73,876 was incurred during the year and was met from the special fund of Rs.92½ lakhs set aside by the Government of India from their revenue surplus for the development of civil aviation.
  Mr. DAY: Were any of these sums given to the Light Aeroplane Club?
  Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Member had better put that question down.

  GERMANY.

    REARMAMENT.
    Lieut.-Commander FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
    1602
    whether he will inquire and make a statement as to how Germany is financing her rearmament?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): My information is that Germany is financing her rearmament by internal borrowing.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the Indian Government, by importing £1,000,000 worth of railway material from Germany, is also assisting them to rearm?
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Is there any truth in the statement made in the House that the expenditure last year amounted to £800,000,000?
    Mr. EDEN: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

    LOCARNO TREATY.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statement he made to Herr von Ribbentrop, in which he referred to the possibility of the German Government rejecting the proposals jointly made by Great Britain, France, Belgium and Italy, was made with the knowledge and approval of the other three Governments concerned?
    Mr. EDEN: I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind the answer which I gave in the House last Monday, when I said that I had made it clear to Herr von Ribbentrop that His Majesty's Government hoped that the German Government would be in a position to accept the joint proposals contained in the document of 19th March, but that in any event His Majesty's Government felt that the German Government should assist them in their task by making some constructive contribution to improve the situation. My conversations with Herr von Ribbentrop have been designed to secure the acceptance by the German. Government of the joint proposals and the other Governments were in agreement that His Majesty's Government should use their best efforts in this direction.
    Mr. THORNE.: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be able to persuade Herr Hitler to marry and keep him well balanced?

  DANZIG.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action the Danzig Senate has taken, particularly with regard to the protection of national associations, to the alteration in the penal code, and to the freedom of the Press, in pursuance of the recommendations of the League of Nations Council and in accordance with the promises made by the President of the Senate?
  Mr. EDEN: On 20th February the Danzig Senate issued four decrees by which the legislation of the free city has been amended on the points mentioned in the hon. Member's question in the manner recommended by the Council of the League of Nations. I will arrange for translations of these decrees to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible.
  Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that all these decrees issued by the Senate are being implemented?
  Mr. EDEN: That is not a matter for me.

  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the French Government have refused permission to the Abyssinian Government to import arms by the Jibuti Railway; and whether, in view of the terms of the agreement, he will make representations on this subject to the French Government?
  Mr. EDEN: I am not certain to what agreement the hon. Member refers, but I cannot in any event undertake to answer for the action of a foreign Government.
  Mr. MANDER: Would it not be a breach of the sanctions policy agreed upon by the League to prevent munitions going by the Jibuti Railway? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point?
  Mr. EDEN: I do not think it can be so described.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is being taken by the Government alone or through the League of Nations to protest against and prevent the Italian bombing of Red Cross hospitals and the use of poison gas, contrary to the 1925 Protocol?
  Captain CAZALETasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information in regard to the dropping of gas bombs by the Italian force in Abyssinia; and whether, seeing that the use of such bombs is contrary to the Protocol of 1925, which was ratified by Italy on 3rd April, 1928, the Government intend to make any protest?
  Mr. EDEN: On 22nd March I received from His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa the text of a, protest communicated to him by the Ethiopian Government on the previous day against the continuous use by Italy of asphyxiating gas and similar gases, in violation of the Hague Convention (No. 4) of 18th October, 1907, and the Geneva Protocol of 17th July, 1925. This protest, which had been preceded by a. briefer protest telegraphed to Geneva on 17th March, was addressed to His Majesty's Government, as a signatory of the instruments referred to above, as well as to the League of Nations and to the other Governments represented at Addis Ababa. These complaints, together with the protests which have been addressed to the League by the Ethiopian Government regarding the bombing of Red Cross units, were considered by the Committee of Thirteen at its meeting in London on 23rd March. The Committee decided to refer the complaints of the Ethiopian Government to the Italian Government and to remind that Government of the provisions of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and I understand that this has now been done. The representative of His Majesty's Government associated himself with that decision.
  Mr. MANDER: Would not by far the most effective action be to put on oil sanctions and thus end the war?
  Mr. McGOVERN: Extend the war.
  Mr. EDEN: This is a matter for the Committee of Thirteen. As soon as the Italian reply has been received, His Majesty's Government will certainly do their best to see that the whole position is reviewed as soon as possible.

  AGGRESSION AND SANCTIONS.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make clear to the French Government that action against an aggressor

  1605
  must operate equally everywhere, and that support for France against aggression by Germany is dependent in British public opinion on French support for sanctions against Italy?
  Mr. EDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a somewhat similar question asked by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on 16th December last, of which I am sending him a copy. I have nothing to add to that reply, except that any question as to whether support is due to a country must be considered in the light of the circumstances of the case and of the relevant treaty provisions.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not clear that France cannot have it both ways?
  Mr. DALTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it is very discouraging to Powers outside the Locarno area to observe how this country and France carry out their obligations under the Covenant?
  Mr. EDEN: I hope there is no doubt anywhere that this country is prepared to carry out, and is carrying out, her obligations under the Covenant.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it not be possible for the members of the League of Nations to understand that the method in which they carry out their obligations to others must necessarily influence the way in which we carry out our obligations?

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. F. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the ill effects caused to ex-Service men suffering from neurasthenia or shell-shock by the non-permanence of their pension; and will he arrange for all such pensions that have been given continuously for eight years or more to be made permanent?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Of the total number of pensions in issue for neurasthenia and shell-shock over 91 per cent, have been made permanent. To make awards permanent in cases where the prognosis is
  1606
  still uncertain would not be in the interests of pensions, but awards for prolonged periods are given in all suitable cases.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Does 19 per cent. refer to cases under eight or 10 years duration?
  Mr. HUDSON: Some cases are periodically under review. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I will undertake to have it specially examined.

  REGENT'S PARK.
  Sir CYRIL COBBasked the Minister of Agriculture whether London University will, in accordance with the terms of its lease, repair and repaint the buildings of St. John's Lodge, Regent's Park, this summer so that their present derelict appearance may be terminated?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The University are required by the terms of the lease to repair and paint St. John's Lodge both internally and externally within six months of the date of the lease, which was 20th February, 1936.
  Sir C. COBBasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will transfer to the old Archery Garden the two red brickdust tennis-courts in the west portion of the Queen Mary Garden in Regent's Park, which are closed on Sundays and are restricted to the use of few persons on other days, in order that the space may be restored to the Queen Mary Garden for the enjoyment of the general public on every day, as a flower garden or as a screened-off lawn, with seats in either case?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I propose to devote the funds which are at my disposal for the Queen Mary Garden this year to the improvement of the north end of the garden, and this work is now in progress. The two long established courts to which my hon. Friend refers will be demolished in due course, but meanwhile are used, without any restrictions, for the playing of netball principally by school teams. After the close of the netball season, they will again be available for tennis. An additional netball court is at present being laid down in the old Archery Garden.

  FRUIT AND VEGETABLES (NATIONAL MARK).
  Colonel GOODMANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether fruit and vegetables grown elsewhere in Great Britain than England and Wales are contained in the cans bearing the National Mark.
  Mr. ELLIOT: The only exception to the rule that fruit and vegetables contained in cans bearing the National Mark applicable to England and Wales must have been grown in England and Wales relates to raspberries grown in Scotland but canned in England and packed under that Mark.
  Colonel GOODMAN: Do I understand that Scotland and Northern Ireland cannot grow fruit and vegetables of the requisite quality to be nationally branded?
  Mr. ELLIOT: No, I think that would be an incorrect assumption.
  Colonel GOODMAN: Then is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a brochure having been issued by the Ministry of Agriculture informing housewives that, if they see the National Mark, they can be sure it is produce grown in England or Wales?

  HERRING INDUSTRY.
  Sir EDMUND FINDLAYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the latest report of the Herring Board; and whether, in view of the strong protests from the fishermen, he will consider making grants for reconditioning the fleet in view of the owners' inability to meet even their existing loans?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on Tuesday last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Gallacher), to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. GALLACHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fleet is proposing not to go out to sea in view of the parlous condition of the trade?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I do not think that applies to the English fleet.
  Sir E. FINDLAYasked the Minister of Agriculture what were the earnings of share fishermen in the herring industry during the years 1933, 1934, and 1935?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.

  POST OFFICE.

    AIR MAIL (STAMPS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the introduction of a special air mail stamp; what is the estimated additional amount of revenue that would accrue; and are there any special reasons which prevent the use of the same?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): The only practical purpose to be served by air mail stamps would be as an indication that a letter intended for transmission by air; it would be impracticable to insist upon excluding the use of ordinary stamps to prepay air postage and in the circumstances this purpose could not be attained. The blue air mail label, which is prescribed by the International Air Mail Convention, and can be obtained free of charge at any Post Office, already provides a clear and satisfactory means of marking such air mail letters as need this indication. I do not anticipate that any appreciable amount of additional revenue would accrue from the sale of air mail stamps.
    Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say why we are practically the only country in the world that has not an air mail stamp?
    Major TRYON: No, Sir; that is not the case. For instance, in India they had an air mail stamp and gave it up.
    Mr. DAY: Is it not the fact that all foreign countries, including America, have no air mail stamp and drive great benefit from it?
    Mr. GARRO-JONES: If they have to put on a blue label, why cannot they put on a blue stamp?
    Major TRYON: For the obvious reason that it is much more convenient for the general public to use ordinary stamps.

    OVERHEAD WIRES (AEROPLANES).
    Mr. HOLDSWORTHasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware

    1609
    that a fatal accident happened on Sunday last, 22nd March, 1936, caused by a pilot hitting Post Office wires along Harrogate Road at the Yeadon Airport, Yorkshire, when corning in to land; and whether, in view of this attendant danger and the fact that the Auxiliary Force, No. 609 squadron, expect to start flying from this ground on 1st May, he will have this danger removed at once by putting the wires underground at this point?
    Major TRYON: I am having inquiries made into the circumstances. I will examine the question of removing the overhead wires concerned, and communicate to the hon. Member the result of my inquiries.

    ADVERTISEMENTS.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the unfairness to the deaf arising from exaggerated advertising of aids for hearing; whether he will decline to accept advertisements for insertion in books of stamps and other Post Office publications from dealers whose business practices are thus prejudicial to the interest of the deaf and, before accepting advertisements of aids for the deaf, whether he will communicate with the secretary of the National Institute for the Deaf?
    Major TRYON: I am looking into the question raised by the hon. Member and will write to him on the subject as soon as possible.
    Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Does not the reply mean that the Government should support some Measure, such as that which was counted out last Friday, to prevent fraudulent advertisements?

  PROCESSIONS (LONDON).
  Mr. THURTLEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will explain the circumstances in which, contrary to precedent, a Fascist procession was permitted to march along Constitution Hill past Buckingham Palace and along Birdcage Walk on the evening of Sunday, 22nd March?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that the Commissioner Police, in the interests of law and order, directed the procession to take this route.
  Mr. THURTLE: Should not the police have first obtained permission from the Office of Works for the procession to proceed in this way; and, if so, has the right hon. Gentleman made no protest to the Commissioner of Police against their having done this without his permission?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that this happened late on Sunday night. Efforts were made to get into touch with me, but, unfortunately, I was dining out. I take full responsibility for what the Commissioner did in the circumstances of the case.
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is undesirable that this particular route should be used for processions as a general rule?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir, I am quite sure that that is the general view of the police. It so happened that the police who were conducting the procession found a crowd of the opposition in Grosvenor Place, and at the last minute they diverted it to this route, which would not normally be used.
  Mr. McGOVERN: A means of escape.
  Mr. GALLACHER: Are we to take it from the answer that if it were a Communist procession they would have taken it along that route?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I hope that in future it will be possible to avoid processions of any political character being taken past the Palace.
  Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Does not the First Commissioner of Works think that Rotten Row would have been the best route?

  MATERNAL MORTALITY.
  Mr. LYONSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the report of the British Medical Association on the problem of maternal mortality and the further steps advised thereupon; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend is aware, a Bill has recently been introduced for securing an organised service of salaried midwives throughout

  1611
  the country, and my right hon. Friend thinks that before deciding what further action should be taken he should have before him the report on the investigation into the causes of maternal mortality which is now being made by medical officers of his Department.
  Mr. LYONS: While thanking the hon. Member for what he has said, can he give an assurance that, in dealing with this grave problem, the Minister will take into account all the relevant circumstances that may come to his notice with a view to fighting the disease of maternal mortality?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Yes, Sir, certainly.

  COMPANIES ACT, 1929 (PROSPECTUSES).
  Mr. ELLIS SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider introducing legislation with a view of improving the law relating to the issue of prospectuses and making it more difficult to obtain money from the public by fraud or other improper means?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): This matter has been noted for consideration when the amendment of the Companies Act, 1929, is under review.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (MANNING AND STEERING GEAR).
  Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Trade when it is proposed to frame revised regulations for the Mercantile Marine on the basis of the reports on manning and steering gear; and whether any legislation is required to implement the recommendations in the report?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Revised instructions on manning are in draft and will be referred to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee shortly. As the hon. Member was informed in a reply to a question on 25th February, no new legislation is necessary for this purpose. As regards steering gear, revised regulations cannot be prepared until the Supplementary Report promised by the
  1612
  Steering Gear Committee has been received. That question whether legislation will be required to carry out the recommendations of the committee is under consideration.
  Mr. EDE: In view of the very great anxiety that exists with regard to this matter, can the right hon. Gentleman give any approximate date when the Regulations will be actually framed?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I cannot give any accurate date, but the matter is being pushed on.
  Mr. EDE: Will it be this year?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Oh, yes.
  Mr. GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he undertook to give consideration to fishing vessels, and can he now say whether they are to be included in the draft Regulations?

  ACCIDENT (COATBRIDGE).
  Mr. BARRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give the House any information as to the accident in Coatbank Street, Coatbridge, whereby three persons have lost their lives through the collapse of a building in process of demolition; whether he is aware that there are a large number of tenement buildings in this street and its courts in a semi-demolished and dangerous condition; that these courts are the playground of large numbers of children; that a similar accident took place a month age whereby a schoolboy was badly injured; whether during the weeks of demolition the owners or contractors have put up any barricade or notice of warning or set any watchman to on the buildings; and whether he will take immediate action against the recurrence of such accidents?
  The UNDER-SECPETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The circumstances of the accident referred to are at present bring investigated by the Procurator Fiscal and may form the subject of a public inquiry under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act, 1906. It would, accordingly, be inappropriate for me to make any statement at the present stage.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT.
    Mr. POTTSasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of John Robert Atherton, residing at 2, Castle Road, Monk Bretton, Barnsley, Yorkshire, employed as a haulage tractor, who, although he has paid his unemployment insurance contributions regularly, was refused unemployment benefit after two weeks when, owing to weather conditions, he became re-employed; and can he say under what authority the man was refused benefit?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): Payment of benefit was suspended because certain of the contributions in respect of which benefit had been authorised were found to have been paid in respect of work that was not insurable.
    Mr. POTTS: If this man is not entitled to become an insured contributor, and seeing that during the whole of the time that he has worked as a haulage tractor his contributions to National Health Insurance have been stamped regularly, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House why, during the first two weeks of unemployment, he received unemployment benefit and then was referred to the Statutory authority, who for the remaining weeks referred him back to the public assistance authority?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I have given the hon. Member the reply to the question he asked. I may say that, leaving out of consideration those contributions which were found to have been paid in error, the man was still found to be entitled to some benefit, and this benefit was paid.
    Mr. POTTS: I want to know what will be his future position, seeing that he is still working at the same kind of work, and has been told that he is not now an insured contributor? What will arise now, after having paid contributions during all these years?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The future position will be governed by the appropriate Regulations.
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he has yet seen
    1614
    in draft the revised scales for the payment of benefit under the Unemployment Assistance Board; whether he has made any comments on any draft or proposals of the board; and when he last heard from the board on the subject;
    (2) whether he proposes to submit the revised scales for the payment of benefit under the Unemployment Assistance Board to the House before Easter, 1936?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: There is nothing I can add at present to previous answers on this subject.
    Mr. EDE: Seeing that none of the previous answers dealt with the specific question as to whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman's right hon. Friend has yet seen the draft, can he say whether, in fact, the draft has been submitted to the Minister for his observations or not?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The House is entitled to certain statutory information at the proper time, and all relevant matters will be laid before the House at the proper time. The method of communication between the Minister and the board meanwhile is a matter for the Minister and the board.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what he considers to be the proper time? Have we not been waiting long enough for what was called "the proper time"?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The proper time will be in the Spring.
    Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Is not Spring Day on 21st March?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Spring has come, but not yet gone.
    Mr. EDE: Will not the Minister spring into action?
    Mr. PARKER: Will it be the Spring of 1936 or 1937?

    JUNIOR INSTRUCTION CENTRES, GLASGOW.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour the number of junior instruction centres in the city of Glasgow; the average attendance at each centre during each week in February; the number drawing unemployment benefit; the number of parents who have been summoned for

    1615
    non-attendance of their children; and the number of young people themselves who have been proceeded against for non-attendance?

    There are, in Glasgow, two self-contained Junior Instruction Centres, Bankbead (Boys) and South Carntyne (Girls). There are in addition a number of classes held in schools situated in different parts of the City, which are for administrative and statistical purposes regarded as one Junior Instruction Centre, known as the Glasgow (Mixed) Centre.

    Average daily attendance.

    Week ending—

    5th February.

    12th February.

    19th February.

    26th February.

    B.

    G.

    Total.

    B.

    G.

    Total.

    B.

    G.

    Total.

    B.

    G.

    Total.

    Glasgow (mixed).

    1,369

    1,320

    2,689

    1,360

    1,284

    2,644

    1,379

    1,254

    2,633

    1,372

    1,272

    2,644

    Bankhead

    432

    —

    432

    426

    —

    426

    423

    —

    423

    445

    —

    445

    South Carntyne.

    —

    451

    451

    —

    459

    459

    —

    457

    457

    —

    503

    503

    Average number of juveniles claiming unemployment benefit.

    Glasgow (mixed).

    735

    496

    1,231

    740

    469

    1,209

    752

    463

    1,215

    756

    443

    1,199

    Bankhead

    228

    —

    228

    223

    —

    223

    215

    —

    215

    229

    —

    229

    South Carntyne.

    —

    130

    130

    —

    124

    124

    —

    120

    120

    —

    128

    128

    Since the passing of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, the Department has received intimation of the institution of proceedings in the City of Glasgow in 16 cases in respect of the failure of parents or guardians to secure the attendance of juveniles at authorised courses of instruction conducted under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1934–35, and in 48 cases against juveniles between the ages of 16 and 18 years in consequence of their failure to attend such courses.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the amendment of the Unemployment Act so that all disability pensions under the amount of £1 per week will be excluded from calculations under the means test when such disability has arisen out of, or in the course of, his employment, as well as disability arising from service in the Great War?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am informed that it is the practice of the Unemployment Assistance Board to treat payments of the kind referred to as if they were payments under the enactments relating to workmen's compensation. The Unemployment Assistance Act provides that, in computing the resources of an applicant for an allowance, such payments shall be disregarded to the extent of one-half, and I am not
    Lieut.-Colonel MU IR H EAD: As there is a table of figures included in the answer, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    aware of any sufficient grounds for amending this provision.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the hon. and gallant Member say why this distinction should be drawn between a pension received for an industrial accident and a pension granted for disability received in the War?
    Lieut.-Colonel MU IRHEAD: When the House came to the conclusion it did about disability pensions received in the War it had certain definite considerations in mind.

    COURT OF REFEREES, GLASGOW.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases heard by the court of referees It the Bridgeton Exchange, Glasgow, presided over by Mr. Doig; the number of claims disallowed by this court during the last six months to the nearest available date;

    1617
    and the number of cases in which leave was given to appeal to the umpire when the claimant was not statutorily entitled to appeal through his trade union?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Between 1st September, 1935, and 29th February, 1936, 642 claims for unemployment benefit or unemployment allowances were considered by the court of referees sitting at the Bridgeton Employment Exchange. Of these 54 were allowed and 588 were disallowed. These figures include 20 claims allowed and 153 claims disallowed by the court at sittings which were not presided over by Mr. Doig. With regard to the last part of the question, I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not compiled.
    Mr. STEPHEN: In view of their importance to the unemployed, will the Minister see that in future these statistics are available?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I will take the hon. Member's suggestion into consideration.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RELEASE (APPEAL, H. NEEDHAM).
    Mr. POTTSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the case of Harry Needham, No. 4613692, Depot, the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, Halifax, Yorks; and whether, in view of the fact that the father is unable to work, that Needham supported the father and mother, and that his job is being kept open for him, he will immediately grant a release to this man on compassionate grounds?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am making inquiries into this case and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as they are complete.

    RECALL TO COLOURS.
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary of State for War whether instructions have been issued informing men who served in the Royal Army Service Mechanical Transport during the Great War, and who are resident in Monmouth, Salop, and Wales generally, that in the event of mobilisation they must report to Oswestry; and whether any men transferred to Class Z on demobilisation are liable to be recalled to the colours for service?
    Mr. COOPER: I can only imagine that some obsolete instructions have come into the hands of the hon. Member. Class Z of the Army Reserve was abolished in 1920 and men of this class have not been liable to recall to the Colours since then.
    Mr. DAGGAR: Does that answer apply to reservists in Class Z?
    Mr. COOPER: I understood the hon. Member was referring to reservists in Class Z.

  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  Sir GIFFORD FOXasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the average price of the English gas-mask compares with that used in other countries?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I understand that manufacturers and traders are for the most part awaiting the announcement of the Government's policy for the regulation of the sale of anti-gas respirators, and I do not consider that any useful comparison can be made between the prices now being charged for respirators in the present limited market and the prices in other countries, where plans for the Government approval of types of respirators are already in force. I hope to make a statement of the Government's policy at an early date.
  Sir G. FOXasked the Home Secretary (1) whether any local authorities in the London area are operating his anti-gas Order; and whether he can give the names of such authorities;
  (2) the number of local authorities who have taken any action in the direction of providing gas masks and providing anti-gas training?
  Mr. LLOYD: A circular letter was sent to local authorities on 24th February last inviting them to submit the names of employés who should receive training as instructors in anti-gas measures at the Civilian Anti-Gas School. As the circular letter suggested consultation among neighbouring local authorities, it is too early yet to make any statement about the general response to the circular, but I am quite satisfied with the progress that has been made so far. It is hoped by the end of this year that approximately 600

  1619
  qualified instructors will have passed through the school. The Government have undertaken to provide respirators and protective clothing at the cost of the Exchequer to persons employed on air raid precautionary services.
  Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many replies he has had from the local authorities?
  Mr. LLOYD: No, Sir, not without notice.

  DEATH SENTENCE.
  Mr. THURTLE.asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent case at the Old Bailey in which a widow was sentenced to death for the murder of her eight-year-old daughter, and to the remarks made by the judge regarding the nature of the case; and whether he will give consideration to the possibility of introducing a modification of the existing law which will absolve a judge from the necessity of pronouncing the death sentence, and of going through the ritual connected therewith, in cases where such a sentence is repugnant to general public feeling?
  Mr. LLOYD: I am aware of the circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member refers. The point which he raises is not one that can conveniently be discussed in answer to a Parliamentary question, and I can only say that the possibility of some modification of the law in the sense suggested has often been considered, but it has been found impracticable.
  Mr. THURTLE: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend the fact that there is very strong public feeling on this matter, and urge him to see whether it is not possible to make some modification of the law?
  Mr. LLOYD: Certainly, but those who have gone into this matter in the past, with the best will in the world, have found that the more they have gone into it the greater has appeared the difficulty.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Member ask his right hon. Friend to go into this matter? Seeing that he has broken all precedent by the rapid manner in which he dealt with this matter, for which everybody is grateful, may I ask
  1620
  the hon. Member to ask his right hon. Friend to approach this question in the same spirit?
  Mr. BARR: Will the Government take into account and into serious consideration the recommendation of the Committee on Capital Punishment, which dealt with this whole matter?

  PRISON SERVICE.
  Mr. T. SMITHasked the Home Secretary whether he will give particulars of the new standing order issued by the Prison Department requiring a prison officer to sign statements of evidence of a charge made against him?
  Mr. LLOYD: There has been for many years an order that when an officer is charged with an offence he shall be allowed to see all the information against him. The new order merely provides that when for this purpose written statements or reports are shown to an officer charged with an offence, he shall initial such documents so that there may be a record of his having seen them. I will send the hon. Member an extract from the relevant standing order showing the addition which has been made.

  CARDIFF ASSIZES (SENTENCES).
  Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Home Secretary whether he has received any report upon the trial and sentence of a number of citizens in the Taff Merthyr district of South vales at the assizes held at Cardiff; and whether, in view of the grave unrest which prevails in that neighbourhood, he will consider a review of the sentences imposed?
  Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend has seen Press reports relating to the cases in question, but he knows of no sufficient reason for advising any remission of the sentences imposed by the Court. It is open to the prisoners. or any of them, to apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against sentence if they or their advisers consider that there is good ground for doing so.
  Mr. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these people are so very poor that they cannot even contemplate an appeal? Therefore, will he represent to his right hon. Friend the desirability of

  1621
  reviewing these sentences in a favourable light? May I also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to receive a deputation of Members of this House on this very grave and very difficult matter?
  Mr. LLOYD: I would point out that there are provisions under an Act for making an appeal of this sort without cost to the person concerned. My right hon. Friend is always ready to receive deputations from hon. Members, but I would point out that there is at present no information before the Home Secretary which would justify any interference with the sentence which the court, after hearing all the evidence, thought it right to pass.
  Mr. JONES: If the right hon. Gentleman receives a deputation I shall be able to put before him such information as is necessary.

  PRISONERS ON TRIAL (POLITICAL OPINIONS).
  Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the growing tendency, when evidence as to a prisoner's previous record is being given by the police in cases of riot or industrial disturbance, to make reference to a prisoner's political opinions; and whether he will take steps to secure that no allegations as to a prisoner's activities shall be made where no previous conviction for such activities has been recorded?
  Mr. LLOYD: It is a well-established practice for the courts to call for information from the police as to the antecedents of a convicted prisoner before deciding what sentence, if any, should be imposed, and this practice has been specifically approved by the Court of Criminal Appeal. It is for the court to decide whether such information is relevant and what weight is to be attached to it, and my right hon. Friend does not propose to take any action in the matter.
  Mr. JONES: Has the Under-Secretary appreciated the fact that it is a very serious matter for information to be adduced at this particular point of a trial in relation to a person's political convictions, and has any court the right to examine even the allegations of a person's
  1622
  previous activities when he has never been given an opportunity of answering them, and has never been before a court and been convicted?
  Mr. LLOYD: Lord Chief Justice Alverstone made a governing statement on this matter when he indicated that the practice was desirable, and showed also what safeguards there were in its operation in the courts of this country. It is for the court itself to decide whether in particular circumstances the course should be adopted or not.
  Mr. JONES: Is it permissible for a further series of allegations to be made concerning a prisoner, in regard to which he has never had a chance of giving an answer, and in regard to which he has never been previously convicted in the courts?
  Mr. LLOYD: The Lord Chief Justice said:
  "Very often it is in the prisoner's interests that his antecedents should be stated, and, if it is not so, it is not the fault of the police but the fault of the antecedents."
  Mr. BERNAYS: Can it ever be possible for a man's political opinions to have any relevance to his sentence?
  Mr. LLOYD: I think the use of the words "political opinions" in the way they have been used in the House is not quite in accordance with the facts as they are brought before the court. In actual practice the police draw attention to certain acts which may have sprung from political opinions.
  Mr. JONES: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that in this case evidence was given of this person's political convictions, and may I ask whether it is proper for such evidence to be given against a person?
  Mr. LLOYD: The hon. Member's question was at first general, but he is now raising a particular question. If he will bring the circumstances to the attention of my right hon. Friend we shall be pleased to consider the case.
  Mr. JONES: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise the matter at the earliest possible moment, on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  ACCIDENT, HOVE.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information in regard to the accident to a workman who was buried by the collapse of a trench in Hove Street, Hove, Sussex; and whether the trench was properly timbered?
  Mr. LLOYD: No, Sir. Inquiry will, however, be made and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  ACCIDENTS (EMPLOYERS' NOTIFI CATION).
  Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether notification is obtained from all employers by his Department when accidents are sustained by their workpeople that necessitate their being away from their employment three days or more; and whether the nature and cause of the accident are in all cases reported?
  Mr. LLOYD: Accidents involving the disablement of a person employed for more than three days are reportable to the district inspector of factories when they occur in a factory or workshop or in certain other classes of premises to which the provisions of the Factory Act as to notification apply. Particulars as to the cause or nature of the accident are required to be given.
  Mr. THORNE: Then if I had waited a few more days, I should have got all the information about the accident?
  Mr. LLOYD: That may be so.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MAJOR POSTS, APPOINTMENTS).
  Mr. T. SMITHasked the Prime Minister what is the procedure for filling a vacancy for the permanent head of a Department of the Civil Service?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on the 25th and the 26th instant respectively to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan, Western (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and myself. As the hon. Member will see
  1624
  from those replies, moor posts in the Civil Service are tilled after the most careful review of the qualifications of all suitable officers irrespective of sectional considerations, with sole object of securing the appointment of the lest all-round men.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that the stipulations he has just read out were carefully observed in the recent appointment as chief civil servant at the Ministry of Agriculture?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman personally satisfied himself on that point?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. During all the time I had been Prime Minister I have always been in the closest touch with every one of these appointments. It is one of the Prime Minister's duties to discuss with the In heads of the Civil Service; and every Prime Minister is always looking to the service to see who are the best of the younger men coming along in the hope that they may provide the right men for the responsible position 'as head of a Department.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to let us know whether he personally satisfied himself that, in the particular case to which I have referred, permanent officials who may have expected normally to receive promotion as the head of the Ministry of Agriculture were deservedly passed over in this case?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think the best man for the appointment was selected, but no one has any right to expect any particular promotion to the head of his own office or to any other.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (QUESTIONS).
  Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Prime Minister whether questions may be addressed to the Minister without portfolio upon all matters which have been stated by Ministers to be receiving the consideration of the Government; if so, on what day such questions may be put; and, if not, on what questions the Minister in question may be questioned?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative: the second part, therefore, does not arise. As regards the last part of the question, as my right hon. Friend is not in charge of a Department, questions should continue to be addressed to Departmental Ministers.

  STAFF CONVERSATIONS.
  Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the contact between the General Staffs envisaged in paragraph 3 of the proposals of 19th March, 1936, maturing, the British General Staff will be accompanied by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence or some other Minister?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
  Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that French generals are frequently politically-minded while our own generals very wisely do not concern themselves with political matters, and that they are therefore likely to be at a disadvantage in such conversations with the French?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think such a practice as the hon. and gallant Member suggests would be a good one, for the simple reason that the mere presence of a Minister at any conference of this kind would lend an importance to the conference in the public eyes and in other respects which the conference really has not. A technical conference in that way might become much more serious.
  Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that these technical talks will not result in definite commitments until they have been considered by the Cabinet?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That particular point was discussed in the Debate, and an assurance was given to the House which I beg to confirm now.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).
  Mr. KENNEDYasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is prepared to consider the appointment of a representative Committee of the House to
  1626
  consider an amendment of the Standing Order allocating time for private Members' business in order that, if possible, more of the time of the House may be devoted to normal legislative business;
  (2) whether he is prepared to consider the desirability of imposing by Standing Order a limitation on the time occupied by individual Members addressing the House in order to facilitate the avoidance of unnecessary repetition or, alternatively, to provide that typewritten and manuscript speeches should be printed and circulated instead of being read by Members in Debate?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Procedure of this House was considered as recently as 1931 and 1932 by a Select Committee, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a further inquiry. The question of a time limit on the length of speeches has been considered many times, and no satisfactory remedy has been found. The matter was dealt with in evidence given before the Select Committee to which I have referred. I venture to suggest to the House that the solution rests with hon. Members themselves, and, in this connection, I would commend to their notice remarks made on various occasions by Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. EDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring these remarks to the notice of his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench?

  TRANSPORT.

    CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received a further report from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, in response to his request for them to further review the possibility of the construction of a bridge in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross; and will he give particulars?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): Not yet, Sir.
    Mr. DAY: Will the Parliamentary Secretary hurry up this decision, as the matter is causing a lot of inconvenience to business people in the neighbourhood who desire to rebuild their premises?
    Captain HUDSON: If the hon. Member will put down another question after Easter I may be able to give him a reply.

    SAFETY CYCLE LAMP.
    Mr. E. SMITHasked the Minister of Transport what has been the result of his examination of the safety cycle lamp recently sent him from Longton, Stoke-on-Trent?
    Captain HUDSON: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the letter which my right hon. Friend caused to be addressed to the inventor. It would obviously be impossible for my right hon. Friend to express to individual inventors opinions which might put commercial competitors at a disadvantage.

    SPEED LIMIT.
    Mr. E. SMITHasked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view of minimising the danger of the roads, he will consider the adoption of the suggestions relating to the alteration of the speed limit in certain industrial areas contained in the statement sent to him by the Manchester and Salford Trades Council?
    Captain HUDSON: No, Sir. The proposals are not practicable.
    Mr. SMITH: Has the Minister considered all the proposals contained in the statement?
    Captain HUDSON: Yes, Sir.

  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  Mr. GRIMSTON (for Major DESPENCER-ROBERTSON)asked the Minister of Health in how many cases of slum clearance the sites have been utilised for the erection of working-class dwellings which conform with modern requirements?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 192 cleared sites have been used by 74 local authorities under the Act of 1930 for the purpose indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend.

  ITALIAN MOTOR CARS (IMPORTS).
  Mr. GRIMSTON (for Major. DESPENCER-ROBERTSON)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many motor cars were imported into this country from Italy during the fortnight immediately previous to the imposition of sanctions, and of what make were such cars?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Apart from motor cars which may have been imported temporarily under the tourist regulations, as to which there is no information immediately available, I understand there were no importations of motor cars from Italy during the period to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to go tonight if the Motion to suspend the 11 o'clock rule is carried?
The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to get the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Money Resolution on the Air Navigation Bill.
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, 199; Noes, 82.

Division No. 121.]

AYES.

[3.30 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Blaker, Sir R.

Cautley, Sir H. S.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Blindell, Sir J.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

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

Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

Christie, J. A.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Brass, Sir W.

Clarke, F. E

Assheton, R.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Clydesdale, Marques of

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

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Cobb, Sir C. S.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

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

Bull, B. B.

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

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Bullock, Capt. M.

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

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Butler, R. A.

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

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

Campbell, Sir E. T.

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

Bernays, R. H.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

Blair, Sir R.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Cranborne, Viscount

Holdsworth, H.

Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

Crooke, J. S.

Holmes, J. S.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Cross, R. H.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Petherlck, M.

Crossley, A. C.

Hopkinson, A.

Plckthorn, K. W. M.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Howltt, Dr. A. B.

Pilkington, R.

Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)

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

Ponsonby. Col. C. E.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Pownall, Sir A. Assheton

De Chair, S. S.

Hunter, T.

Ramsbotham, H.

De la Bère, R.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Jackson, Sir H.

Remer, J. R.

Denville, Alfred

Keeling. E. H.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Donner, P. W.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Drewe, C.

Kirkpatrick, W. M.

Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Latham, Sir P.

Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

Dunglass, Lord

Leckie, J. A.

Sandys, E. D.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Savery, Servington

Ellis, Sir G.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Elliston, G. S.

Levy, T.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Elmley, Viscount

Lewis, O.

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

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Liddall, W. S.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Lindsay, K. M.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Errington, E.

Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

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

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Lloyd, G. W.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide)

Findlay, Sir E.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

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

Foot, D. M.

Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

Storey, S.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

Lyons, A. M.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Furness, S. N.

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

Sutcliffe, H.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

Tasker, Sir R. I.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

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

McKle, J. H.

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

Gluckstein, L. H.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Goldle, N. B.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Goodman, Col. A. W.

Magnay, T.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Gower, Sir R. V.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

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

Wakefield, W. W.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Grimston, R. V.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

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

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

White, H. Graham

Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Willoughby de Eresby. Lord

Hanbury, Sir C.

Moreing, A. C.

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

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

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

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Harris, Sir P. A.

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

Wise, A. R.

Hartington, Marquess of

Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Harvey, G.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

Munro, P. M.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Herbert, Ma|or J. A. (Monmouth)

Orr-Ewlng, I. L.

Sir George Penny and Lieut.-

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

Palmer, G. E. H.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Patrick, C. M.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Holland, A.

Ritson, J.

Adamson, W. M.

Jagger, J.

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

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Rowson, G.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sanders. W. S.

Barnes, A. J.

Keily, W. T.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Barr, J.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Sexton, T. M.

Batey, J.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Shinwell, E.

Broad, F. A.

Leach, W.

Short. A.

Charleton, H. C.

Leonard, W.

Simpson, F. B.

Cluse, W. S.

Leslie, J. R

Smith, Ben (Rotherhlthe)

Daggar, G.

Logan, D. G.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Dalton, H.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

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

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McGhee, H. G.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Day, H.

McGovern, J.

Stephen, C.

Dobble, W.

MacLaren, A.

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

Ede, J. C.

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Mander, G. le M.

Thorne, W.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Marklew, E.

Thurtle, E.

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

Maxton, J.

Tinker, J. J.

Gallacher, W.

Messer, F.

Watklns, F. C.

Garro-Jones, G. M.

Milner. Major J.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Montague, F.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

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

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Groves, T. E.

Paling, W.

Wilson, G. H. (Attercliffe)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Parker, H. J. H.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Hardle, G. D.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Potts, J.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Pritt, D. N.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

COINAGE OFFENCES BILL [Lords],
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.
3.40 p.m.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I beg to move:
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Provincial Legislative Assemblies) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament, subject, however, to the following amendments:—
In paragraph 2 of Part I, after line 28, on page 2, insert,—
'"member" in relation to a constituent body for a commerce and industry, mining or planting constituency, does not include an associate member.'
In paragraph 6 of Part II, in line 31, on page 8, after 'is,' insert 'an Indian Christian.'
In paragraph 9 of Part IX, after line 29, on page 60, insert,—
'(6) Paragraph 9a of Part IX of the Sixth Schedule to the Act shall apply in relation to the Shillong constituency as it applies in relation to territorial constituencies.'
In paragraph 14 of Part XI, in line 14, on page 69, leave out road and public works,' and insert local, 'land or village.' "
I think it would probably be convenient if we were to take on this first Motion a general discussion embracing all these Orders. Most of the points of interest are raised on this first Motion and are repeated either in the Provincial Legislative Councils Order or in the Orders relating to Burma. These Orders in Council represent a further series of steps in the steady progress which is being made with those arrangements which are necessary under the Government of India Act. They mark a stage in the steady progress which is being made towards the establishment of the new Constitution in the Provinces of India. As such, I think they will be welcomed by the House. The magnitude of the task involved cannot be exaggerated. Hon. Members looking at this massive set of documents, may well marvel at the expedition with which this machinery of representation has been perfected by those responsible.
There is some urgency that the House should give its approval to these Orders, since, after Parliamentary approval has been given, it will be possible to make
1640
the administrative arrangements necessary in order to set up the electoral machinery which will bring into being, in due course, after the Elections the new legislatures in the Indian Provinces. It is essential that such administrative arrangements as the making of the electoral rolls should lie undertaken in the course of this summer, if the elections are to be held, as we hope, next cold weather. If Sir Otto Neimeyer's report on the financial conditions of the Provinces is not unfavourable and if the House approves an Order which the Government, in due coarse, hope to lay on the subject, setting up the new Provinces, the new legislatures will be able to start their wok and provincial autonomy will be able, to begin next Spring, which is the time, I referred to when introducing the previous Orders the other day.
The handling of masses of detail has become almost second nature to all those officers who have to deal with this complicated problem and it will be appropriate if I pay a tribute on behalf of my noble friend to the very remarkable work of the Delimitation Committee in preparing this material. Sir Laurie Hammond left this country in September last and was joined in India by his two Indian colleagues, one a judge of the High Court of Madras and the other a judge of the High Court of Lahore. They toured India and covered nearly 10,000 miles and in the short period of just over three months produced a very interesting, very detailed, vary efficient and, what is, perhaps, most important, a very human set of blue boot s on this interesting subject. Hon. Members no doubt regard themselves as experts on electoral matters. I think we all regard ourselves as experts on such questions, at any rate in our own constituencies, and, as experts, I think we ought to appreciate the human, quasi-judicial explanation of the many problems involved in t his subject which is to be found in the Hammond Report. I stress the fact that the inquiry was quasi-judicial, in that the committee included two judges of the High Court.
In order to make those Orders a little more easily comprehensible my Noble Friend has issued an explanatory memorandum in which hon. Members may have been able to read a description of the Orders themselves and also the particular points on which the Government differ

1641
from the report of the Hammond Committee. Actually those points are not very considerable. They are set out in such detail and so clearly in this memorandum that it will not be necessary, I think, for me to deal with them at great length. I shall, however, try to make clear the chief points in these Orders, as I see them, and, of course, if any points are raised by hon. Members in the subsequent Debate I shall be only too glad to answer them. It seems to fall to my lot to have to try to explain, as shortly as I can and I hope as clearly as possible, rather complicated pieces of machinery such as this machinery of representation with which we are now dealing.
I think the House would be wise to accept, some of the detail at any rate, from the Committee, having regard to its quasi-judicial character, but I shall touch upon the main points. I propose to consider, first, the territorial constituencies and the problems raised by them and afterwards the special constituencies in which special interests are to be represented. All the constituencies follow the Table which the House approved in the Fifth Schedule to the Government of India Act and which is sometimes known as the communal award. The task of the Committee was to set out the limits of those territorial constituencies geographically, according to the communities and according to the Table already approved by the House. The territorial constituencies therefore are on a communal basis. A certain number of them are to be classed as general constituencies. These are, for the most part, single-member constituencies though, in some, seats are reserved for representatives of the scheduled castes, according to the scheme laid down in the Poona Pact negotiated between the scheduled castes and the caste Hindus. There are a few, especially in Bombay, where the general opinion is in favour of multimember constituencies, in which seats are reserved for representatives of such races as the Mahrattas who have the privilege of having reserved seats for some areas.
One of these Orders sets out a list of the castes which are to be regarded as "scheduled," according to local conditions in the particular Provinces named. If I refer to that particular Order now it
1642
will enable me to touch upon that subject. The Government of India (Scheduled Castes) Order of 1936 sets out, in its schedules the different castes which, for the purposes of reserved seats in the general constituencies, are to be regarded, according to local conditions, as scheduled castes. If hon. Members want to pursue the definition of "scheduled caste" more closely they will find the most authoritative work upon the subject, at any rate in a short compass, to be the chapter dealing with scheduled castes in the original Franchise Committees report. It gives some idea as to how these castes were chosen as being scheduled.
The second type of territorial constituencies, apart from the general constituencies, are the Mohammedan constituencies, which are fixed according to the Table of the communal award in the original Act. The third type are the Sikh constituencies, which are to be found in the Punjab and North-West Frontier provinces, Then there are seats fur Europeans, Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians included in nearly every province. The territorial seats then are on a communal basis and divided out among these various communities. The size of these constituencies may be of some interest to hon. Members, and I think the best way of arriving at a realisation of the size is to turn to volume II of the Hammond report and. study the tables at the very beginning of the report, which set out the average area, population and voting strength per constituency and, on the back of the tables, per territorial seat in the new Houses in the provinces. That sets out clearly the size and the population and the number of electors likely to be found in each seat. To sum up the results of that table for the benefit of the House, it is true to say that the new seats, thanks to the size of the House having been increased, in each case will be approximately half the size of the seats in the old Chamber, and therefore to that extent the difficulties which candidates have experienced in getting into touch with the electors will be reduced by one-half.
Now let me turn to some of the difficult decisions which the Committee had to make in deciding upon these territorial constituencies. They had to decide, first, upon the complex question of urban

1643
versus rural, which has been referred to in one of the early chapters of the Hammond report. They had to decide which -constituencies should be urban and which rural, and they had—a very important matter for India—to see that the weightage received by the towns was not too great in comparison with the countryside, which is, after all, the largest feature of India's problem. I think part of the common sense methods adopted by the Hammond Committee is found when they try to define a town. After going through various technical descriptions, they come down on this common sense one: "When is a town not a town When it is so declared by the local government, with the support of popular opinion." It seems to me a thoroughly common sense description of an otherwise very technically difficult subject, and in alluding to this definition I think it sums up the sort of common sense with which hon. Members ought to approach these Orders.
Provincial and local idiosyncrasies have been followed wherever possible. That was the principle which animated those of us who served on the Franchise Committee, because it is hardly necessary to remind the House that these Provinces of India have their own local characteristics and that each one of them is as large as a European country. The upshot of their decisions about urban versus rural is that India, in the villages, which I believe Parliament has always wished should not be dominated by the urban element, will find a proportion of its seats slightly in-creased from what they were previously in the ratio of urban versus rural; that is, the proportion of urban seats will be reduced from what they were before by a small percentage.
The second problem to which the Committee applied their minds was whether these constituencies should be single-or multi-member. I am summing up some of their problems so as to try to make these Orders a little clearer. The Committee decided that the general rule should be for single-member constituencies, except in the general seats to which I have referred, in which one seat has to be reserved for members of the scheduled castes, and in a few other cases, notably in the Presidency of Bombay, where the general rule is to be a multi-
1644
member constituency. I will allude to that in a minute.
The Government have shown in their explanatory memorandum that the Committee originally decided in favour of multi-member seats in Madras. The Committee thought at first that it would be easier to secure the election of representatives of some of the sub-castes into which the Hindu community is so very much divided were there to be multimember constituencies, but the Government, on considering this matter, after taking into account public opinion as expressed in a debate in the Council recently in Madras, have come to the conclusion that it would be wiser to adhere to the single-member system, because, after all, there are sub-divisions of the Hindu community in other Provinces and other parts of India as well as in Madras. A single-member constituency is more simple, and in view of the massive nature of this electoral machinery it is surely wise to go for simplicity where we can.
In the case of Bombay, however, there is a, different problem. There it is races that desire representation, and not simply sub-castes of the Hindu community. For some years Bombay has had a multi-member system, and it has been thought wiser to continue a multimember system, particularly with regard to the racial sub-divisions, in particular the Mahrattas and the Parsees. Therefore, in view of past history and of these particular races in Bombay, there are to be multi-member constituencies in Bombay. The general rule is for single-member constituencies, except in Bombay and in one or two isolated cases where geography demanded, as it has appeared to demand in this country one or two double-member constituencies, that the system of double-member constituencies should prevail. Therefore, the decision upon the question of single-versus multi-member is for simplicity and in favour of single.
What is decided about the method of voting? What sort of vote shall be used in these constituencies? Some critics of this plan have thoughts that it is likely to be very complicated, but I would again point out here that we do not wish to throw any sop to those higher mathematicians who take a great interest in the intricacies of the different kinds of votes. Our wish is to try to adhere to simplicity, and therefore the simple

1645
rule has been followed that in single-member constituencies the single vote shall be used. In double- or multi-member constituencies the decision is in favour of the cumulative vote. The cumulative vote sounds very mysterious, but it comes to this, that an elector shall have as many votes as there are seats, and he shall give his votes either in one bunch for one candidate or spread them about, as many votes as he has, among several candidates. The reason we have chosen this cumulative system in multimember constituencies is that, following the advice of the Franchise Committee, we believe it will broaden the choice of the elector and will tend to break down those boundaries of caste and creed which are the basis of all India's difficulties.
Another reason why in multi-member constituencies, of which the House will have seen there are very few, we have chosen this system is because it seems to fulfil the spirit underlying the Poona Pact. The Hammond Committee have written some words of great wisdom about the Poona Pact which are imbued with the same common sense which has led them to come to their other decisions. They say the basis of the Poona Pact, in which one seat is reserved in general constituencies for scheduled castes, is mutuality, that is, that it is possible in the election for scheduled caste voters to vote for a caste Hindu and for a caste Hindu to vote for a scheduled caste candidate in mutuality. It is only in such things that the spirit of the Poona Pact, which was intended to preserve the scheduled castes within the Hindu fold, will be preserved.
The House will remember that in the Poona Pact there is, first, a primary election to elect a panel of the scheduled caste candidates. From this panel four scheduled caste candidates are chosen, again by the simple single vote. Once the scheduled caste panels are elected through the primary election, they then vote with the caste Hindus for the two seats in the general constituency, of which one is reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. The use of the cumulative vote encourages this principle of mutuality. The House will notice that opportunity has been taken in this Legislative Assembly Order to remedy the franchise proposed for the scheduled castes. When some provincial electoral
1646
rolls were being worked out it was found that the scheduled caste electors did not in every case come to 10 per cent., as had been originally suggested, and so the opportunity has been taken to alter their franchise, to give an opportunity to lower it, to give an opportunity for more scheduled caste electors to cast their votes. The last reason in favour of the cumulative vote is that this method has been successfully used in Bombay, where there have been multimember constituencies.
So much for the territorial constituencies, with which these Orders are chiefly concerned. There are also many special constituencies provided for by the orginal Act, so that this electoral system in India is not, as some would suppose, merely a copy of Victorian practice, but combines the territorial and the functional system in a nicely balanced communal framework, and therefore, from the point of view of India, is a thoroughly up-to-date and suitable system. There are special seats reserved for women, commerce, labour, land-holders and universities. The electorate for these seats is included in these Orders in Council and was left by the Act for these Orders to deal with.
The women's seats are to be for the most part in urban areas, because it is found more suitable for women to canvass for votes in urban areas in the present state of social development in India. For the Mohammedan seats in four provinces the women will canvass women alone, because of the social conditions in that community, but for the general seats the women will seek the suffrage of men and women. In passing let me say to those enthusiasts for an increase in the influence that women will be able to exert in these matters in India, that we have found it possible to include a provision abandoning the application requirement for women with a wifehood qualification in Madras. To that extent the number of women in Madras will be increased. The application requirement was abandoned in a good many other provinces when we discussed the Bill, and I am glad to be able to announce that the application requirement has now been abandoned also in Madras.
Then as to the labour seats, if Labour does not succeed in electing its own members in the general constituencies, which owing to the franchise will be possible

1647
in one or two wards of Bombay, there are to be two special methods by which Labour will elect functional representatives—first, the labour constituency as it is called; and, second, the trade union seat. The roll of electors in the labour constituencies will be made up by the pay-rolls of certain factories in certain areas, which are set out in the Schedules of the different provinces in this Order. All those workers working in those factories and included on those pay-rolls will be included as electors of the Labour seats. Perhaps hon. Members opposite will be interested to notice that we have abandoned the minimum wage qualification in these labour constituencies. We think that if there are to be labour constituencies every opportunity should be given to those who fulfil the other conditions laid down in the Orders.
The trade union seats will be elected in the manner described, for instance, in the Madras portion of the Order, in paragraph 24 and onwards, as set out in the Order. This method may be summed up as follows: Only those trade unions which are recognised according to the terms of the Order will be used as electoral colleges for the election of representatives, through their members, to sit for these trade union seats. This method has been found necessary in view of the fluctuating existence of trade unions in India. Unfortunately, some trade unions at any rate tend to be of rather a mushroom growth, and if a trade union is to form an electoral college, the Hammond Committee, and indeed before them the Whitley Commission on Labour and the Franchise Committee as well, recognised that some method of ascertaining which trade unions should be regarded as suitable and permanent enough to be an electoral college, should be devised. The Government, therefore, have suggested that the trade unions should fulfil certain conditions, that the Governor should act as a tribunal and certify certain unions as being recognised for the purpose of forming electoral colleges. In passing I should say that the Governor will be empowered to pass on his duties to a tribunal, which he can set up for the purpose. It would be really rather over-weighting things if we were to suggest a tribunal in every province; since in some provinces only one functional Labour seat is included in the original
1648
table which Parliament passed, it would be rather overweighting the suggestion if a tribunal were to be set up to certify a union for the purpose of one Labour seat only.
We are not discussing the broader and perhaps more interesting question whether trade unionism ought to be encouraged; we are discussing whether trade unions should be used as electoral colleges for the election of Labour seats, and the Government, despite the criticism of Labour leaders in India—the House will see it in the Hammond Committee Report—has decided that it will encourage trade unionism according to the advice of the Whitley Commission, if certain seats are reserved for trade unions. The Government has purposely taken this step on the definite proviso that the trade unions chosen shall be durable and shall not have a fluctuating existence. There are one or two general considerations that are worth making about the labour seats. The representation of Labour in these functional seats is the most important thing. This method is really experimental. Labour may gain certain seats in ordinary general constituencies, but in this transitional period at any rate it is important that there should be some functional seats for Labour to express its views. There are now to be 38 labour seats according to the original table, which is a great advance on the numbers before.
The representatives of commerce are to be chosen in the manner set out in the Order, and here the same principle has been adopted—that those who shall vote in the commerce seats shall really have some commercial stake in the country. The landholders' seats are to be continued, but are not, like the labour seats, to be increased; they are to be continued in the constituencies of the landholders as set out in detail in the Order. It has been found possible to include all the Taluqdars of Oudh and not only, as recommended by the Hammond Committee, those who pay a land revenue of not less than Rs.10,000 per annum They will be a source of satisfaction to all those who have studied the influence of the Taluqdars of Oudh The university seats are to be based not only upon the Senate or Court, but upon graduates of a certain standard. This sums up the different sorts of special seats and the method of

1649
election to each. The methods differ slightly, and in some of them the distributive vote has been adopted, but for the most part simplicity has been followed.
Of the other Orders before the House the first is the Legislative Councils Order, which deals with the Upper House in the provinces. The constituencies of the Upper Houses are to be nearly all single, and as there are fewer seats there the constituencies will naturally be larger and the electorate will be smaller. The House will remember that my Noble Friend placed a White Paper before the House in September, and that it included the electorate for the Councils of the provinces. The contents of that White Paper are now included in these Order, so that in the provincial councils the electorate to the Upper House is included as well. There are no special interests in the Upper House.
The last two Orders refer to Burma, the first the Burma House of Representatives Order and the second the Burma Senate Elections Order. The general principles in these Orders are the same as in the Assembly Order, and follow exactly the same lines, and deal with almost exactly the same problems.
There are one or two minor Amendments on the Order Paper and for these I must apologise, but in the immense mass of material that has been dealt with it is really surprising that the corrections have been reduced to this minimum. The only one I want to refer to is the first one on the Order Paper, following the first Motion, which deals with bodies associated with commerce and the constituent bodies of commerce seats. The reason for this is to exclude the associate members, since many of them are foreign firms. Apart from that the Amendments are detailed or drafting, and I shall move them in company with the main Order.
In conclusion let me say that India has proceeded by slow degrees to the present extent of her franchise and the present nature of her system of representation. This is a massive system of electoral representation but it is no more massive and imposing than our system of social assistance, and I do not believe that it is any less well worked out, or that it will prove any more unwieldy. The slow progress which has led to the laying of
1650
these Orders before the House has entailed at least four years' consideration and includes now nearly 200 years of British Parliamentary and electoral experience. I do not think it is too much to hope that the experience which we gained as a result of the struggle between the Buffs and the Blues in many a county borough such as Eatanswill will be put at the disposal of India and enable India to profit by our experience and learn perhaps by some of our mistakes. I am certain that the Indian countryman when he gets an opportunity to use the method which we are putting before him will be able to decide upon a local figure in exactly the same way as our people decide here at home. I have confidence in his knowledge of public affairs and influence upon them, and the liberty thus won through the trial and ardour of a slowly-expanding electoral system; and I hope that this scheme will achieve the same result and save India from some of the abuses and mistakes that we have made.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member suggested that the Debate should take place on all the Motions together if the House agree. If the House does agree to that course, I will put the Questions separately after a general debate.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words,
"In Part II, on page 13, in line 36, leave out paragraphs 23 to 27."
We are once again called upon to discuss some of these Orders, which are somewhat exceptional in character in so far as the procedure by means of which we can deal with them in this House is somewhat exceptional in itself. I think I am right in saying that we do not take leave of them at this stage, but that they have to go to another place and will return to us at a later stage when they have been discussed there. We hope that our discussions on the succeeding stage will be more or less formal, and we propose to say what we have to say on this stage to-day. The first thing we ought to do is to say how completely one associates oneself—and I am sure my hon. Friends on this side do—with the well-deserved tribute which the Under-Secretary paid to Sir Laurie Hammond

1651
and his colleagues for the colossal piece of work which they have performed. Those who had the privilege of participating in the work of the Joint Select Committee will appreciate how stupendous was the task which confronted the Hammond Committee when it embarked on this study. Its success is really notable, and the fact that it has been achieved in so short a time makes it one that merits our complete commendation.
The work which this Committee undertook was of tremendous importance because, whatever our views may be about the nature of the new constitution which was carried last year by Parliament, we all admit that in the long run any constitution depends on the care and precision with which these particular provisions are laid down in Orders from time to time. When we were discussing this question in the Joint Select Committee I often wondered how in the long run it would be possible to overcome two or three major difficulties. There was the difficulty of religious antipathies and antagonisms—a very important element, so far as I was able to understand the situation in Indian life. Then there were the difficulties within the Hindu community with regard to castes and subcastes. There was, too, the exceedingly difficult task of framing some sort of franchise system which would give something workable when the Constitution was inaugurated. When I thought of these, among other problems, I felt that they were almost insuperable. However, the Hammond Committee has now presented us with some recommendations, and although I do not pretend that we agree with all of them, they do give us a series of proposals which enable us to visualise the problem as it actually is.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1936.

  2. Great Orme Tramways Act, 1936.

  3. Imperial Continental Gas Association Act, 1936.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.
Mr. MORGAN JONES: Before the interruption of our proceedings I think I had just paid my meed of tribute to the work of the Hammond Committee in connection with the report before us to-day, and now I should like to make one or two general observations on the speech of the Under-Secretary. Of course, it was inevitable that the problem of delineating constituencies should be one of great complexity in the Indian situation, and I think it was a wise decision that, in the main, single-member constituencies should be aimed at. I have the happiness to represent a single-member constituency in this House, and if I have satisfaction, about one thing in connection with Parliament it is that I do not belong to a double-member constituency, for the position there must, even in our own country, be attended with considerable difficulty, especially when, as sometimes happens, the Members belong to opposite sides of the House. With the areas and populations in India it is in every sense desirable to have single-member constituencies, because, as the Under-Secretary rightly said, it does lead to a far greater measure of simplicity. I understand that there are one or two exceptions to that rule, Bombay being one. On the question of voting, I do not know that I have anything very critical to say. I understand that in a multi-member constituency the cumulative vote is to be in operation, and personally I have no very strong objection to that. In general, therefore, I have not much to offer by way of criticism on the general observations of the Under-Secretary. I am very glad that the Government are dispensing with the necessity for women electors to make application for registration.
Mr. BUTLER: In Madras.
Mr. JONES: That was a feature to which many of us took exception, and we are not sorry to find that in Madras it has been possible to do away with the necessity for application. Though I have nothing very critical to say about the general observations of the Under-Secretary, I should like to draw his attention to one feature of the Order with which we, on this side, are more particularly

1653
concerned, namely, the Labour seats. One of my hon. Friends who has a much more intimate acquaintance with trade union organisations than I have will later develop this point at greater length, but I am moving the deletion of paragraphs 23 to 27 in Part II so that we may be able to register our disapproval of certain arrangements in regard to the Labour seats, unless the Under-Secretary, between now and the end of the discussion, is good enough to change his mind.
I confess frankly that in this matter we are acting on the invitation of some of our friends in India who are interested in it. To begin with, they take exception to the reservation of two seats only in Madras when, in point of fact, six Labour seats are proposed for that area. They feel that instead of two seats out of the six being reserved for the trade unions, at least three ought to be reserved. It is suggested that the third seat could easily be found from the list in the Schedule to the Order. In addition to that I understand that it is felt that some textile mills in Madura and Tinnevelly should be added to the nonunion Labour seats of the textile workers in Coimbatore and Malabar. I know that this question was considered by the committee, which did not feel able to act on the suggestion, and I understand, too, that the Government of India had the suggestion before it and took the same view as the committee. Secondly, it is suggested that out of the eight seats in Bengal four ought to be given to the trade unions instead of two.
In Bihar there happens to be a large factory area called Jamshedpur. This place seems to have been the subject of a good deal of discussion in the meetings of the Committee. It has had a very checkered career, I gather, from the trade union point of view. At one time, in 1920 or 1921, a trade union of some consequence was established there. Shortly afterwards it came to be recognised officially by the Government, but later, as too often happens in the history of trade unionism in India, a division arose between this officially-recognised union and some other union, and the upshot was that in this very large and important factory area there is now not one trade union deemed to be sufficiently big to merit direct representation and to have a right of nominating to one of these
1654
eight seats. There is a feeling among certain Indian friends of ours that this non-union Labour seat should be converted once again into a trade union seat. I confess that I do not know anything about the situation at first-hand, and can judge only by what friends write to me, but they say that in their opinion there is a case for the creation of a trade union seat there.
Another suggestion is that in Sind, where there is a single Labour seat, it should be assigned not to registered factories but to the trade unions in Karachi. It is true that that proposal was turned down by the Committee. A further suggestion is that in Assam one of the four Labour seats should be given to non-plantation labour. I imagine that there must be a fairly strong case for providing at least one seat for non-plantation labour in Assam. Here, again, I admit that the Hammond Committee, after examining the proposition, found there was no justification for the proposals which I am making.
Lastly, I should like to point out that it looks as though the Government have embraced the idea that the Governor should act as a sort of tribunal to determine what trade unions shall or shall not be a constituency within the meaning of this Order. There is a danger that trade unions nominated by the Governor acting as a tribunal himself, or getting recognition through a tribunal appointed by the Governor, might in some circumstances be regarded as pet trade unions of the Government. On this side of the House, and among people with whom we are associated politically and industrially, there has always been a very strong suspicion of trade unions which are looked upon with excessive favour, or with more than parental interest, by the employers. The trouble to which I referred at Question Time to-day originally arose from a problem of that sort—but I do not wish to discuss that further. We should feel very unhappy if, for a long period of time, the power remained in the hands of the Governor to nominate the trade unions who had the right to elect a representative to one of these trade union seats. If there is any virtue in a trade union it is that it shall be independent. Once a trade union loses its independence it loses much of its value. While I admit that in many parts of the country this

1655
provision may, for the time being, seem inevitable, I hope that the time will come when trade unions will not have to wait for the favour of the Governor to be able to elect a representative for the trade union seats.
Just as we took objection to many proposals in the Act last year, so we do to many of the proposals in the Order. For instance, we should not like it to be understood in the slightest degree, by any silence on our part this afternoon, that we were giving belated approval to Upper Chambers, or that we are giving our support by implication to special landlord representation. Nor do we want to be misunderstood in respect of the proposal that commerce should have some special representation in addition to the representation it gets like everyone else. We do not raise these matters this afternoon, because we consider that our position is understood as it was stated in the House.
We take particular objection, however, to the provision in regard to Labour seats. I am glad that the procedure which is to be followed in this matter is that of Order in Council. I should hate to think that these proposals, desirable as some of them may be in present circumstances, would become like the laws of the Medes and Persians once they were passed, never to be changed. The method of Order in Council gives us an opportunity, as time goes on and experience is gathered, to adjust our arrangements to meet new conditions. We can only be reconciled to many of these provisions because they are temporary in character. I should not like to think that some of them were to be permanent. I do not know whether it is in order to move the Amendment now or at a later stage, but I do so in order to register our disapproval of the provisions in regard to Labour seats.
Mr. SPEAKER: As there is an Amendment before the House, discussion will be confined to paragraphs 23 to 27. When the Amendment has been disposed of, we can resume Debate upon the main Question.
4.52 p.m.
Mr. JAGGER: I must pay tribute to those who are responsible, not only for what we are considering here, but for
1656
the report, and who, by virtue of long residence in the East, know something of the difficulties. Perhaps the very sincere compliment I wish to pay to them may be accepted, although your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, has limited very considerably what I might have desired to say. Within the terms of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend there is, however, room for me to say that, having in view the fact that the principle of encouraging representation of trade unions has received general agreement, not only by the Royal Commission on Labour but by the Franchise Committee, this Order might have been very much more in the direction of that policy than seems to be the case. It is true that trade union membership in India has shown some decline, but the surprising thing, in view of the economic condition there during the last few years, is that that decline has been so small. It is a tribute to the essential stability of the Indian trade unions that they should have been able to keep their membership well over the 200,000 mark, in spite of the difficulties through which they have gone.
Some of the fears envisaged as to the difficulty of allowing greater scope in trade union representation are, to say the least of it, unjustified. Not only is there a substantial membership, but there are no less than 27 railway trade unions, 22 textile unions, 14 unions of municipal employ00E9;s, and 10 dock workers' unions, distributed practically over the whole of the country, with the exception of Assam. After formidable difficulties, they have made for themselves this established position. The proposals in regard to Madras, which is the most highly organised industrial province, are to give six Labour seats, of which, it is suggested, two should be filled by trade union representatives and four should be special Labour constituencies. After the boasted desire to encourage trade unionism, we might have expected something better than 33½ per cent. for organised trade unions and 66⅔ per cent. for non-union industrial workers. In Bengal, only 25 per cent. of the seats allotted to Labour are to be devoted to the trade unions, while 75 per cent. are allotted to the non-union industrial workers. Then there the position in Bihar, Assam and Sind, where there is quite a substantial trade union representation.

1657
A feature that pleases me particularly is the announcement that the salary or wage limitation has been withdrawn. I admit that it was a very low one, but nobody in this House would agree that, either here or in India, the test of citizenship is the amount of money which a man gets from his employer. I congratulate the Minister upon having deleted that part of the proposal. There is also the provision that the railwayman who happens to reside outside the province shall not have a chance of voting as a trade unionist for trade union representative. In the very nature of things, railway trade unionists must be widely scattered in their place of residence. Of the five great Indian railways, all go through more than one province, and some go through three or four. An Order in Council might be made which would allow the railwayman to vote for a trade union representative to represent the railway workers in the Legislature. The encouragement of trade unionism might have been shown, if, where trade unionism is admittedly weak or almost non-existent, as in Assam, it had been made possible that representatives of trade unions disallowed elsewhere might be candidates for Assam. That would have been a real way of encouraging interest in trade union organisation in the Assam province.
Almost my last point is the extra-ordinary suggestion that the employers should prepare the roll of Labour voters who are to cast their votes. We are unwilling in regard to many things that our employers do on our behalf, but we should not entrust our employers with the preparation of the electoral rolls. The report on which the Order in Council is founded refers to illiteracy. Perhaps the most damning circumstance is that, despite our having had charge of India for its own good for over 100 years, we find ourselves hampered, when setting up something like a democratic Legislature, by the illiteracy of the people whom for over 100 years we have been so carefully looking after. Despite that illiteracy, which I am compelled to admit does exist, there is a better way of protecting these illiterates than by letting their employers prepare the register of electors. In the very nature of things the employers cannot do it, because, if it is to be, as is obviously intended,
1658
election by trade unionists, the trade unionists are not all employed by one employer, and one employer does not know who are the members of trade unions employed by another employer. In spite of what I have just been saying about India, there is a magnificent Civil Service in that country, and it would be very much better that work of this kind should be done by these excellent people than that it should be put into the hands of the employers.
Then there is the question of the conditions on which the Labour seats are to be filled. My hon. Friend spoke rather strongly about the decision being left in the hands of the Governor as to which of the trade unions were to be recognised for this—shall I say honourable, or onerous—responsibility. But there is something else. I agree with my hon. Friend that the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in paragraph 24, if that paragraph is carried, might be a test as to the bona fides of the trade union, but that the Governor or the tribunal appointed by him should decide, or that it is necessary that any such tribunal or the Governor should decide, seems to me to be entirely outside the question. Proviso (a) requires the trade union to be certified:
"to be a bona fide trade union existing wholly or mainly for industrial or provident purposes."
That itself is a narrower definition than we on this side of the House care to accept, without any interference by the Governor or tribunal on the top of it. I want very seriously to suggest that, both here and in India, it is not possible to do the industrial and provident work of trade union members without doing something outside industrial and provident work. I know that the whole Government of Indiais united in its determination to jail any trade union official who does any political work, and surely it is bad enough to make it clear that he cannot sit in the legislature unless his work is confined wholly or mainly to industrial or provident purposes, without, on the top of that, bringing in either this tribunal or the Governor. A recognised trade union must also be certified:
"(b) to have been in existence for at least two years and to have been registered as a trade union for at least one year; and
(c) to have had throughout the financial year preceding that in which the certificate

1659
is given at least two hundred and fifty ordinary members who have paid subscriptions for the whole of that year."
In India that means a tremendous membership. Even in England it means a big membership—much more than 250. We know that very few, relatively speaking, of the actual members of a trade union necessarily pay 52 weekly or 12 monthly subscriptions in any one year. There is also a fourth restriction, which seems to me to be all-inclusive. A recognised trade union must also be certified:
"(d) to have complied with any requirements imposed by or under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, with respect to the inspection of its books by the registrar of trade unions and with respect to the audit of its accounts."
I submit that, if there is a trade union which exists wholly or mainly for industrial or provident purposes, if it has been in existence for two years and has been registered for one year, if in that year it has at least 250 members who have paid 52 weekly contributions or 12 monthly contributions in that year, and if its books are kept in such a way as to satisfy the registrar of trade unions, then it is a bona fide trade union, and no further qualification ought to be required in order that its members may be eligible to elect these representatives. I want to see the trade union movement encouraged as—and I am sorry to have to say this—I am, satisfied it has not been and is not being encouraged officially in India to-day. There is general agreement among the three bodies who have gone into this question that it is desirable to encourage the trade union movement in India, and I believe that the Minister is very sincere in that desire. The best way of getting responsible trade unions in India is to give them real responsibility, to give them a real share in this new venture in the government of that country. I would therefore say, make it as bold as you can, and, having made it as bold as you can, make it bigger and stronger and greater as quickly as ever you can.
5.8 p.m.
Sir SAMUEL HOARE: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I, in the course of the discussions on the Government of India Bill, made 500 speeches between us, and it looked at one time as if he was going to make two or three more speeches than myself. However, I
1660
did get in at the post, and beat him by two, and I feel to-day that, if I am not to drop out of this race. I had better say a word or two, so as to be all square with my hon. Friend on the day's proceedings. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and the hon. Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger) have raised, not in any unfriendly or overcritical way, a number of questions connected with the representation of trade union labour. In reply to them I would say that I think we must all be careful not to assume that labour conditions, and particularly the conditions of trade unions, in India, are identical with conditions in the United Kingdom. I wish that trade unions in India were better organised and more stable. I believe that if they were better organised, if they were more representative, if they were more firmly established in the life of the country, they could bring a very useful influence to bear in favour of social reform and of the betterment of conditions; and we all know how much needed that betterment of conditions is in the great cities, and particularly in such a city as Bombay.
But for the time being they are not well organised, in ma ay cases they are not representative, in many cases they are here to-day and gone to-morrow; and, while my hon. Friend and I started, like all of us on the Joint Select Committee, with the idea of making the fullest possible use of the trade union organisations as a basis for representation in India, we did find that it was too narrow a base, as things are now, upon which to found anything in the nature of a comprehensive scheme. Perhaps in course of time that will change. The hon. Member for Clayton was quite right in emphasising the fact that these electoral arrangements must in their nature be of a temporary character and, no doubt, as experience teaches us in course of time, we shall have other Orders in Council for the purpose of altering them. But for the time being I believe that the Franchise Committee have done wisely not to base a greater structure than they have based upon this narrow foundation. Let no hon. Member imagine, however, because the actual representatives of trade unions are comparatively limited in number, that on that account labour is not going to receive a much greater representation in the government of India, and particularly in the provincial

1661
government of India, than it has ever had before.
Let the House remember that more than 90 per cent. of the labour population of India is employed on the land. One of the best features of the changes we are considering to-day is the change that gives a greater representation both to agricultural constituencies and, more important still, to agricultural voters from one end of India to the other. Let the House also remember that the special arrangements we are making for what were called the depressed classes, and are now called the scheduled castes, also mean a greatly increased representation for the actual workers, again mainly on the land, in India. I was glad to hear to-day from the Under-Secretary that, in the delimitation of the constituencies, the balance, which in the past was too heavily weighed in favour of the urban interests in India, is to some extent to be adjusted, and that in future the agricultural constituencies will have a, better say in the affairs of India than they have under present conditions. I would suggest, therefore, that the House should resist the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, and should frankly regard all these electoral arrangements as in the nature of experiments, but should take the view that, as things are now, the considerably greater representation which is being given to labour in India is about as big as representation as present conditions reasonably permit.
Lastly, let me say how glad I am that these complicated electoral arrangements for the constituencies have been carried through with such remarkable expedition. Already a large part of my library is filled with books connected with the passage of the Government of India Bill, and I shall now have to add these 300 or 400 pages that we are considering this afternoon. It is a remarkable achievement, and I hope that our friends in India will observe the expedition with which we are proceeding to bring the Constitution into operation. There is no desire, I believe, in any part of the House unduly to delay the operation of the great Measure that we passed in the last Parliament. Constituencies are now delimited, and it is upon the shoulders of our political colleagues in India to take the next step, to organise themselves for the provincial elections next year, and to make the
1662
new provincial assemblies really representative of India public opinion.
5.15 p.m.
Miss WILKINSON: I rise to speak on this Amendment because during the past three years I have travelled fairly widely in the industrial areas of India and have addressed what trade union meetings I was allowed to address in Madras and in the United Provinces. It is because trade unionism there is in such a very different stage of development from trade unionism in this country that I want the Government to go very carefully even yet through this part that we are moving to delete. I appreciate to the full what the Under-Secretary said, that the Government have every desire to encourage unionism among the Indian workers. But what kind of unionism? This is tremendously important. I lived with Indians. Only very occasionally, and that on purely official occasions, I met English people there. I went to understand the Indian point of view, and I lived in Madras for a time in the house of a trade union leader. The difficulty is that, if you instil into the workers' minds the idea that trade unionism is an English thing and that the unions that are represented are those that are certified as absolutely antiseptic and harmless by the Government, that is just the thing that nothing on earth will induce them to join.
In this House the Government is filled with warm feelings and righteous desires and all the rest of it, but the India that I saw, the India that has been aroused to national consciousness by the Congress, was an India that was being taught to hate everything English, because the English battered them down when they were asking for improved conditions. I was in villages in South India where the organiser who was going to organise the textile mills was being treated by the police exactly as a trade union organiser would be treated in a Pennsylvania coal town, and you cannot say worse than that. The result was a feeling of tremendous indignation among the workers. When you say, as you say in paragraph 24 (a), that it must be a bona fide union existing wholly or mainly for industrial purposes, and that the Governor exercising his individual judgment is the one to decide, you in fact say, whether you know it or not, whether you like it or not, that only those unions,

1663
if there are any such—I have never heard of them—which are absolutely harmless from the point of view of getting any improved conditions for the workers are in fact going to be certified.
What is the position? It is almost impossible to find a trade union leader or anyone in any way representative of trade unionism who is not a member of the National Congress. Trade unions are the organs of the working classes and, where they are engaged in struggling for better wages, the whole general struggle is mixed up in it. It needs only one sentence from the most moderate trade union leader in the conditions of to-day, where you cannot have a meeting without police agents being there, for the Governor in his individual judgment to decide that that union is not going to be scheduled. The net result of all these lists and limitations and ultra-safeguards is going to safeguard the unions so much that no one with any spirit will go into them. A resolution that has been sent to me by air mail, passed by one of the huge mills that I addressed, sums up better than any speech that I could make the feelings of the Indian workers. The mill is extraordinarily well organised. The resolution is:
"That this meeting enters its strong and emphatic protest against the reactionary method of representation of labour under the new Constitution, as it is being foreshadowed, and is emphatically of opinion that the method of representation of Labour through trade unions under the new Constitution, coupled with the setting up of special tribunals to decide which trade unions should be entitled to vote in the elections, reduces the new method to another backdoor method of nomination, and is only intended to shut out all Radical-Socialist elements from the special Labour constitution and make them safe for the pro-employer candidates, and thus shut out real Labour representation from the consstituencies."
That is the opinion of a very large meeting of mill workers. It needs only the slightest understanding to realise that that is the position. It seems to me a pity that the Government should have taken such care that the only unions to be represented should be those that are safe from the employers' and the Government's point of view. Believe me, it does not need the Government to do that as well as the employers. People speak about Indian trade unionism being weak. I wonder how many unions in
1664
this country, if they had to make a stand against the kind of treatment meted out by the employers in India, Indian as well as English, would maintain the strength of unionism that we have. The employers will look after that side of it.
It seems to me that what the Government needed to do, if it was going to throw its weight at all into this, was to throw its weight rather on the side of encouraging independence and not tying them up both to the Governor and to the employers as well. The best way to do that is to keep outside it. You are not dealing with an enormously strong trade union movement. I wish you were. You are dealing with the very beginning of it. Why make it impossible at the very beginning for the keenest and most independent and most ardent spirits to accept nomination? Any man who accepts nomination as a trade union leader under this Clause is stamped in the eyes of the workers as being of no use to them at all. The Government would have been very much wiser, if the cause they have at heart is to encourage trade unionism, if they had as far as possible left the unions free from Government interference and not got these elaborate safeguards.
The Under-Secretary said that these unions are a mushroom growth. What else can they be? Industrialism of itself is very much a mushroom growth. Men coming from the villages work for a time. The wages are dreadful, but they are a bit better than they were. The natives go to work during the dry seasons and drift back to the land as soon as possible. You cannot possibly get more than a fraction who can fulfil these very rigid conditions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) would, I think, admit that all kinds of experts have said that the difficulty always has been that we have gone to India with our centralised ideas of a very ordered country and tried to impose them on the people. I was very interested when the Minister said that our experience of the Eatanswill election w Auld be useful for India. It is like the days when we took Primitive Methodist hymns and hymns essentially connected with the village life of this country and got them sung by the Indian millions. This is the same sort of idea, to impose rule s upon them which would be met with something like opposition in this country, with its strong trade union associations.

1665
You talk about a mushroom growth. It has got to be a mushroom growth. If there is an individual grievance, perhaps because some employer has cut clown wages which are already so low, or imposed additional fines, a whole vast mass sweeps into the union. I have seen these great movements of trade unionism and felt the great pulse-feeling that there is. Perhaps a few months afterwards nearly every single man who had been there has gone back to the land. These are the conditions. We are not anxious to hamper the Minister, but we are really interested that, possibly out of sheer good will, this infant should not be strangled at its birth. You are going to give your guarantee to certain unions, and those are the unions into which the keen India worker will not go. You will put these small groups firmly under the employers' thumb, and you will make it possible for the Government to stamp as illegal all other independent unions trying to put up an independent fight against the terrible wages and conditions. You will have stamped them practically as illegal unions. I appeal to the Prime Minister to realise the importance of this matter, because unless we are very careful the trade unionism which hon. Members are anxious to support may be stamped as illegal. It is because of the complicated nature of the situation that I urge the Minister to look very carefully through this provision once again.
5.31 p.m.
Major MILNER: I support the Amendment because I believe that there is a very great deal in what my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) has said. I would ask the Under-Secretary how far or to what extent these proposals comply with the recommendations of the Franchise Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. The report of that committee was accepted by the Joint Select Committee and by the Government, and I am disturbed to find that there is some departure in a number of respects from the recommendations of that committee. I am confined at the moment to the Amendment which we are discussing. In this connection there are definite departures in spirit from the recommendations of that committee. It is unfortunate that the circumstances of the case leave us no option but to deal with special constituencies. If it had been possible under the conditions in
1666
India to do without them, we should have welcomed that position.
The Under-Secretary explained the two types of constituency provided for special Labour representation, and I noticed that he first mentioned the special Labour constituencies. That, I think, indicates rather that the views which the Government and the various local governments in India took in this matter did not put, as the Franchise Committee intended that they should, the trade unions' constitutions first and the special Labour constituencies second. There has been a departure in the Orders which the Government have brought to the House, from the intention of the Franchise Committee in this matter. The Franchise Committee intended that the trade union constituency should be the primary Labour constituency, and that has been departed from. I take objection, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow, to the eligibility of trade unions having to be decided by the Governor. The right way, which, in general terms, was laid down by the Franchise Committee which went into detail upon all those matters, was that certain conditions were to be fulfilled, and then, as a right, the trade unions should be either part or the whole of a trade union constituency. The Franchise Committee recommended that, in order to qualify as an electoral unit, the union should have been registered for a minimum period of one year and have a minimum membership of a hundred. In the case of a first election under the new constitution, that period might be reduced to six months.
What have we here? We have the fact that the Governor, exercising his individual judgment, which means acting at his own discretion, may accept or refuse a trade union. It is not even laid down that the Governor must accept a trade union for this purpose, even if the trade union complies with the conditions laid down in the Order. I have indicated the conditions which were recommended by the Franchise Committee and duly accepted by the Government, and if one looks at the Order, there are a number of additional conditions. A trade union has to be a recognised trade union and certified by the Governor. A trade union shall be deemed to be a recognised trade union if it is certified by the Governor as a bona fide trade union exclusively or

1667
mainly for industrial or provident purposes. Maybe we cannot properly object to a condition of that sort, but it is an additional one over and above the conditions suggested by the Franchise Committee. It must have been in existence at least two years and to have been registered for at least one year.
The condition laid down by the Franchise. Committee, was registration for one year. The number of Members the union has to have under the Order now before the House is at least 250 ordinary members, all of whom have to have paid subscriptions for the whole of the year. The Franchise Committee recommended 100 members, and said nothing whatever about the payment of subscriptions. Therefore, the position of trade unions has been made extremely difficult. They are being hamstrung to a certain extent. The Government have tightened up the conditions under which they can be permitted to form trade union constituencies, and for that reason my hon. Friend is justified in moving the reference back of the particular paragraph referred to in the Amendment.
There are other points I wish to raise. I gather that the Hammond Committee and the Government attach importance, as far as trade unions are concerned, to the number of members in those trade unions, but I observe that they did not attach the same importance to numbers when discussing Chambers of Commerce. In the United Provinces there are two seats given to one of the Chambers of Commerce with only 65 members. That is an outrageous state of affairs. In respect of the Merchants' Chamber there is one seat, with the number of voters uncertain. The Hammond Committee, apparently, have not been able to obtain any proof that that organisation has even one member, and the only proof that they have in regard to the other organisation is apparently that they have 65 members. Yet those two organisations have three seats. The Government and the Committee take exception to trade unions unless they have, even in the immature state in which we know that they are in India, less than 250 members. The position is made more difficult. The conditions are tightened up.
1668
It is obvious that, instead of encouraging trade union constituencies, the Government, in drafting these conditions, clearly indicate, what I know most of the local governments in India feel, that they do not desire trade unions to extend and to prosper on the lines of the views that we hold on this side of the House. The result will be, as indeed is the case in some places at present, that unions will be set up which are mere creatures of the employers, and certainly the special Labour constituencies as they are termed will not elect true representatives of Labour at all, but representatives nominated or put forward and supported financially or otherwise by employers. Therefore, the Labour representation, as faras it is confined to special Labour constituencies, will be a false representation of labour. I have said sufficient to indicate the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the special Labour representation provided in this Order. It is true, and I take some unction to my soul for it, that there is a very considerably increased representation of Labour in the general territorial constituencies and through the depressed classes and otherwise. That does not justify the Government in coming here to-day and putting on the Table for the approval of the House an Order which, as far as representation of organised Labour is concerned, is an absolute farce. I hope that hon. Members who think with my hon. Friend and those of us on this side of the House will vote in favour of the Amendment.
5.43 p.m.
Mr. McGOVERN: We are again discussing a Measure which has already occupied a large amount of the time of the House, and we have the official Labour party moving Amendments, when their policy has been to attack the Measure and not to co-operate in its acceptance in any shape or form.
Mr. MORGAN JONES: We were the only people in this House who offered consistent opposition to the Act. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were never here.
Mr. McGOVERN: As a matter of fact we stated our attitude.
Mr. JONES: And then ran away.
Mr. McGOVERN: The official Opposition refused to co-operate with the Government, but indicated that when the Bill was passed they hoped that it would be operated. Those were the final statements made from the Front Opposition Bench. I did not rise altogether for the purpose of making that statement. I always listen to the discussions which take place, and I find that the Amendment largely boils down to the fact that Labour is not getting a sufficient representation in the Assembly to give it a semblance of a working-class authority. I am not amazed that the Government adopt the attitude which they are adopting in connection with trade union or Labour representation. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) that, in connection with trade unions, the difficulty was in giving representation because they were not of a permanent nature. He said that they are here to-day and gone tomorrow. He knows something about that, because many of the Labour leaders, when they have been effective from the working-class point of view, have been arrested, imprisoned and deported. It. was only when they became docile and ineffective from the working-class point of view that they were tolerated in India. When they secured the hall-mark stamp of respectability from the ruling classes of India and the Government of this country, they became of no use and were looked upon with contempt by the people of India. Time and again the action of this Government in connection with Labour representation and trade union representations in India has shown that they are prepared to tolerate such representation when the representatives become docile and receive the hall-mark stamp of respectability from the Government.
It is the old story over again. When the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said that the Labour party were unfit to govern, he did not mean that at that time on the Front Bench of the Labour party there were not capable men with the mental capacity to rule this country. He simply meant that they had to conform to orthodox points of view, that they had to dress themselves up in capitalist clothes and capitalist respectability, and in order to do that they must divorce themselves from their militant sections who were revolutionary in their
1670
outlook. Having shed those revolutionary elements, then they would be deemed by the ruling classes as fit to rule in this country. The same thing has taken place in connection with India under this Act. The Government are prepared to accept certain trade union representation. We were told by one hon. Member that they are prepared to accept them if they confine themselves to industrial and provident action. It comes to this, that they are prepared to accept them if they are prepared to sit round the table with the employing classes and to discuss conditions with them, but if they go out into the wider fields and attack constitutionalism or Imperialism in any way, the Government are prepared to outlaw them and to refuse to allow them to have representation of any kind.
When the Act passed this House penalties of all sorts were enforced upon certain classes in India. When we on this bench stated our opposition, I pointed out that the Bill was a fraud and a sham. We appealed to the workers of India to refuse to operate it and to concentrate upon building a militant working-class movement that would have the power to overthrow the ruling class of India and the Imperialists of Britain, and to win working-class power. It was provided that if a man went to prison for 12 months he was to be outlawed from being a member of any legislative assembly in India. In other words, if he had been an effective nationalist or an effective working-class representative and had gone to prison because of his action against the landlords, the Princes and the Imperialists, he was to be denied the right of representation. To-day, we get additional penalties. We are told that unless the working-class leaders become a sort of "yes men" to the Princes, the millowners and the Imperialists, they shall not have representation in the Assemblies of India. That is further proof of what has taken place under this Government in connection with India. Time and again the case has been raised of Mr. Bose, who has been refused admission to India and to Britain, and who is cornered on the Continent. Men of that type are refused representation in India.
This sham Assembly in India is typical of the election which Hitler has been conducting in Germany, where he organised

1671
a spectacle of electing or defeating himself. He carried that out in Berlin and in Germany and the British Government are trying to impose something of that kind in India. They are adopting the sham and make-believe of admitting a few Labour representatives and trying to give them the hall-mark of working-class stamp. It reminds one of the sort of representation of Labour which is provided in the National Government by the Lord President of the Council and those associated with him. Nobody in this country accepts that as being Labour representation. Not one-quarter per cent. of the Labour voting strength is behind the National Labour representatives, and yet we are told that Labour is represented in the National Government. The same sham is being attempted in India, but it does not deceive any person who has a working-class conscience or the power to discern. The National Assembly in India have rejected this Measure. They have rejected the sham advice given by the Labour party in this country because they know that that party has betrayed them both in Opposition and as a Government. The Indian Congress, representing the Indian people, refuse to accept the Measure. It is being imposed upon them.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member is going beyond the Amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN: I can only say that in India this Act is rejected. The people realise that they are not getting the representation, from the trade union point of view, that they could expect. If the vote were given to every man and woman at 21 in India, what would happen? That franchise is not given to the Indian people because they would sweep the Princes, the landlords, the bankers, the capitalists and the imperialists out of India and take complete control of the country. So far as we are concerned on these benches we have refused to cooperate in the past in connection with this Act because we believed that it was a sham and a fraudulent imposition on the Indian people. We are of the same opinion to-day, and I intervene to say again to the people of India, through this House, that they would do well to reject this sham Measure in every shape and form, and to unite 100 per cent. outside
1672
this sham Assembly to build up a militant working-class movement in India, and to fight against the Measure in the streets of India.
5.54 p.m.
Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not intervene to folic w the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. MeGovern) into the question as to what would happen if universal suffrage was introduced into India, but to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), whose genuine desire for the extension of trade unions in India I frankly recognise and appreciate. She thinks, and it was supported afterwards by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) that would be better if the Government encouraged trade unions, however independent, however many there might be and in whatever circumstances they might spring up, rather than endeavour to guide the trade union movement into channels which are concerned with large organisations such as already exist, in order to face the events of the future. She is convinced that that would be the best way to encourage trade unions. I believe that she is entirely wrong.
If we are to encourage trade unionism in India it would be a great mistake to allow the growth of a large number of new trade unions, springing up in all parts of the country, many of which would not have sufficient backing to give them any real authority in speaking for organised labour. It is because it has been proved in the past that trade unions which spring up from time to time in different provinces would stand in the way of the promotion of real trade unionism and the improvement of labour conditions that it has been found necessary to try and lead the trade union movement into the path that will ensure that the large organisations, such as the textile workers, the railway workers and others, can approach the Government and the employers in bodies which can speak for the workers concerned—bodies that will carry weight with the employers and with governments. I am convinced that the hon. Lady, however anxious she may be, however genuine she may be in what she has said, is profoundly mistaken in believing that what she has put before the House is the right way to encourage trade unionism in India.

1673
The question has been asked why, if trade unions are required to have 250 members as a minimum for recognition, recognition should be given to a chamber of commerce with only 62 members. Any one who knows conditions in India and who knows the associations of chambers of commerce in the last century in India, knows their widespread interests, and also knows that they have had representation on the Councils of the Provinces and in the Centre for many years past. They will realise at once that there is no comparison at the present time between the two sets of organisations. Whether in the future it will be desirable or necessary to reduce the number is another matter, but if trade unionism spreads, then the minimum of 250 will be found to be a matter of no moment whatever. I want to make it clear that however anxious the hon. Member may be for the recognition of independent trade unionism in India, the way she suggests is not the way to encourage a genuine trade union movement in India.
5.59 p.m.
Mr. KELLY: I do not intervene to deal with the quarrel which the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has with some one on these benches. I wish he would clear up the quarrel without spending so much time on it in the House. I notice that in the document which has been submitted, for fear lest the Governor should not know what his duty is, in almost every other line there appear the words:
"The Governor, exercising his individual judgment with regard to trade unions."
I cannot understand why the Governor is given this power. Judging from what one knows of the Governors who have been sent out there in the past, and who seem likely to be sent out there in the future, I can hardly think that they have much knowledge of what is to be a trade union and what is a trade union. They have little experience. I should like the Minister to give an explanation of what he means by
"bona-fide trade unions wholly or mainly engaged in industrial or provident purposes."
I have never yet been able to understand that membership of this House is other than part of the industrial work of a trade union. Does the provision mean that if an Indian member of an Indian
1674
trade union became a member of an Indian legislature, that would be other than industrial work? If so, I thoroughly disagree. The proper place for trade unions to conduct their industrial work is in the councils of the nation. What is meant by the restriction placed upon those who are employed in a clerical, supervisory, recruiting or administrative capacity? Since when has a trade union been split up to the extent that clerical workers or those who are engaged in supervisory work are not considered as part of the industrial machine? I hope this will not be pressed, because it will mean such a limitation on the organisation of working people that you may just as well not speak of trade unions at all. Trade unions are representative of all engaged in the industry, whether on the clerical or operative side; they are all part and parcel of the industry. What is intended by the words:
"The Governor exercising his individual judgment."
He may from time to time reconsider the constitution and registration, and revoke the certificate of registration of a particular union. If he is going to exercise his individual judgment we may have the position in which the Governor does not like the appearance of the union or its officers and he may revoke the certificate of the union. Also, is it seriously contended that the books of a trade union may be examined to see whether or not contributions have been paid week by week or fortnight by fortnight? I notice it says that the contributions must have been paid for the year. Does that mean that someone who happens to have overlooked the payment of his contribution for a particular week or month. is to be excluded by this restriction? I do not know who was responsible for this particular provision, but it seems to me that there is an endeavour not to admit trade union representation at all; a determination to restrict it by all means that can be devised. I do not know who advised the Government on this matter, but they were bad advisers if they thought that this was going to give trade unions representation in India.
6.4 p.m.
Mr. BUTLER: We have had a very useful and valuable discussion on a very important aspect of these Orders,

1675
although the number of seats involved is only a small fraction of the many which are concerned. The atmosphere has at times become rather charged, and some statements have been made by hon. Members who have Labour interests at heart, which I think they will rather regret after due consideration. The question of basing part of the representation of Labour on trade unionism has been discussed by many authorities and individuals over a, long period of years, and the decision of the Government was to carry out the advice given successively by the Whitley Commission, in their excellent report which has proved of such value to Labour, by the Franchise Committee and by the Hammond Committee, who all recommended that trade unions should form part of Labour representation. The Government at the same time had to face the facts of the situation, the changes and developments which have taken place, and also had to meet certain strong opposition from local governments who gave evidence before those committees as to the value of trade unionism as a basis of the representation of Labour. Nevertheless, the Government decided to press forward with this scheme, not as a reactionary Measure but really as a progressive Measure of reform in India. If it is not as progressive as the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) desires, I think she will acknowledge that it is as progressive as the circumstances of trade unionism warrant in India at the present time.
I am not at all certain that a trade unionism basis of representation is better than a labour constituency basis. There is nothing in the Order which cuts away from the original decision to increase the number of Labour seats to 38 in the Provincial Assemblies. The question at issue is whether the system chosen shall be a trade unionism basis or a labour constituency basis. Let us examine the problem of trade unionism as the Hammond Committee found it. They summed up the problem in these words:
"Trade unions vary internally, not only in efficiency but also in size, from the North Western Railway Union of the Punjab with a membership of 40,000 to these small unions, 32, which were started in a hurry in order to provide a hopeful organiser with a claim which would justify a trip to Geneva."
1676
One has to take into consideration these facts. In my original remarks I endeavoured to say nothing which would wound trade unions, but as the matter has been raised I must give some of the evidence which was given to the Hammond Committee. The Secretary of the Labour Union, giving evidence before the Commission in a letter dated the 3rd September, 1935, used these words:
"I desire to explain why trade unions should not be recognised as constituencies. In my experience over the last ten years in Madras and as one who started and ran trade unions both registered and unregistered, I have no hesitation in saying that membership of a trade union is very unsatisfactory, that they only represent a very small fraction of the workers, some of them are very small organisations. They will form easy pocket boroughs."
That is the testimony of a secretary of a Labour trade union in Southern India, and it represents the feeling of many workers that His not necessarily the best method of achieving Labour representation. At the same time, the Government wish to give trade unionism encouragement, which we believe the vote will give. All we have done is to make a proportion of the seats trade union seats and lay down certain conditions which shall he fulfilled by the trade unions.
Miss WILKINSON: Is not the point that by putting down these conditions we shall be making them pocket boroughs?
Mr. BUTLER: That, I think, is answered by the double method adopted to secure Labour representation; some by Labour constituencies and others by a trade union basis. Despite the difficulties of trade unionism in India we are determined to give trade unions an opportunity and, therefore, we have laid down certain conditions—upon which various points have been raised. The hon. Member for Jarrow referred to the phrase "the Governor exercising his individual judgment," and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) thought it meant that the Governor would exercise his individual judgment in order to decide this matter. The term "exercising his individual judgment" is a term of art, and means the Governor after consultation with his Ministers. It does not mean what it appears to mean in plain English. It means the Governor assisted by the advice of his Ministers—it is a term of art.

1677
I agree that it looks confusing on paper, but in reality it is a far more democratic provision than hon. Members realise. If we were going to allow the Governor to do this alone we should have put in the term "the Governor in his discretion."
The hon. Member for Rochdale raised the point that we were trying to leave out the clerical and supervising staff. That was a request made by India Labour in all their evidence before the Whitley Commission and the Franchise Committee, and in all the representations made to the Government. The maistres are the jobbers who collect men to work in the factories, and it was thought that if we allowed them to have a share in the election it would mean that they would influence the 40 or 50 men they had recruited and stop them from exercising their free vote. So far from this being a repressive Measure, it is one which is in the interests of Labour, as, indeed, is the whole of the provision. Some hon. Members are afraid that this is to be the pet trade union of the Government. That I think is a legitimate point to raise, because it is not the wish of the Government to confound the choosing of trade unions for election purposes with the quite independent question of encouraging a healthy trade union movement in India. We have taken the advice of the various Committees on this matter and have set up a tribunal, and the best tribunal we can find is the type suggested in the Order. The Governor will be in consultation with his Ministers, and under the new constitution it will be an impartial body.
Trade unions have to fulfil certain conditions, and I give an assurance that it is contemplated at any rate in some of the larger Provinces that the Governors will devolve this work in regard to the tribunals provided for in the Order. I am confident that in several bf the larger Provinces this will be done at once, and that the tribunal will be of a type which will give confidence to hon. Members and will take the question of finding suitable electoral colleges out of the hands of the Government.
Mr. MORGAN JONES: May we take it that the tribunal to be set up by the Governor will also be appointed on the advice of his Ministers?
Mr. BUTLER: Under the terms of this Order, the Governor will exercise his
1678
individual judgment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) raised an important point of detail when he said that he thought the two years' qualification for trade unions was too long a period. I would like to say that we have met that point in Provinces where it was necessary to do so owing to the fact that some important unions might have been left out. The Amendment moved by hon. Members opposite relates, of course, only to the Province of Madras, and they will understand that there are other Provinces in the case of which the terms will not be identical. For instance, in paragraph 18 it will be seen that in the case of Bombay a six months' period has been inserted, because after very careful inquiries of all the local governments it was found that in the particular case of Bombay certain important trade unions would be left out if the two years' period were inserted. We have put the matter to the other Presidencies and Provinces and they consider the terms, as included in this Order, to be satisfactory from the point of view of the trade unions.
I hope that in summarising some of these points I have shown the House that some of the statements made have been rather exaggerated. For instance, I regret that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds should have said that the Labour representation was an absolute farce, because he and I worked together on the Franchise Committee to frame some of this machinery, and, although I realise that he wrote a Minute at the end of the report in which he said that he wished we could all have gone a little further, at the same time he and I thought this was a distinct advance on the Labour representation which exists in India at the present time.
Major MILNER: I am sure my hon. Friend did not wish to misrepresent what I said. I said that the representation of trade unions or through trade unions as set out in this Order was an absolute farce.
Mr. BUTLER: I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend has made that clear. I would not have wished his sweeping generalisation to have covered the whole of the advance we hope India will achieve by this method. I hope that other similar exaggerations in the light of a little debate and criticism will be found

1679
to be limited to this particular province. I realise that hon. Members feel deeply upon it, but I am afraid that, in view of the careful thought which has gone to the making of this Order, I am unable to accept the Amendment which has been moved by hon. Members opposite, and
that we must adhere to the arrangements made in the Order. I hope the House will now be ready to come to a decision.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The House divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 221.

Division No. 122.]

AYES.

[6.18 p.m.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

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

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

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Adamson, W. M.

Hopkin, D.

Rowson, G.

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

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Sanders, W. S.

Amman, C. G.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Sexton, T. M.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Shinwell, E.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Kelly, W. T.

Simpson, F. B

Barnes, A. J.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Barr, J.

Kirkwood, D.

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

Batey, J.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Bevan, A.

Lathan, G.

Sorensen, R. W.

Broad. F. A.

Lawson, J. J.

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

Cape, T.

Leach, W.

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

Charleton, H. C.

Leonard, w.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Chater, D.

Leslie, J. R.

Thorne, W.

Cluse, W. S.

Logan, D. G.

Thurtle, E.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Tinker, J. J.

Daggar, G.

Maclean, N.

Viant, S. P.

Dalton, H.

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Walker, J.

Dobble, W.

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Watklns, F. C.

Ede, J. C.

Marklew, E.

Watson, W. McL.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Messer, F.

Westwood, J.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Milner, Major J.

Whiteley, W.

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

Montague, F.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Frankel, D.

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

Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

Gardner, B. W.

Paling, W.

Wilson, G. H. (Attercliffe)

Garro-Jones, G. M.

Parker, H. J. H.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Potts, J.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Quibell, J. D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hardie, G. D.

Rltson, J.

Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

NOES.

Agnew, Lleut.-Comdr. P. G.

Christie, J. A.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Albery, I. J.

Clarry, Sir R. G.

Furness, S. N.

Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.

Cobb, Sir C. S.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

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

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

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

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

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

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

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

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Asks, Sir R. W.

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Assheton, R.

Critchley, A.

Goldle, N. B.

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

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Goodman, Col. A. W.

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

Crooke, J. S.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cross, R. H.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Crossley, A. C.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Crowder, J. F. E.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Belt, Sir A. L.

Culverwell, C. T.

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

Bernays, R. H.

Davles, C. (Montgomery)

Grimston, R. V.

Blair Sir R.

Davles, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

Blindell, Sir J.

Davlson, Sir W. H.

Hanbury, Sir C.

Boothby R. J. G.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hannah, I. C.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Denville, Alfred

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Bowyer Capt. Sir G. E. W.

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Heneage, Liout.-Colonel A. P.

Brass, Sir W.

Duckworth, W R. (Moss Side)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Brown, Col. D. C (Hexham)

Eales, J. F.

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

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

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

Ellis, Sir G.

Holdsworth, H.

Bull, B. B.

Elliston, G. S.

Holmes, J. S.

Butler R. A.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Butt, Sir A.

Emrys. Evans, P. V.

Hopkinson, A.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Entwistle, C. F.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Errlngton, E.

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

Cautley, Sir H. S.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

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

Findlay, Sir E.

Hume, Sir G H.

Cazalet, Thelma (Isllngton, E.)

Foot, D. M.

Hunter, T.

cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

Jackson, Sir H

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

Seely, Sir H. M.

Keeling, E. H.

Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

Selley, H. R.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)

Munro, P. M.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Kirkpatrick, W. M.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Owen, Major G.

Smithers, Sir W.

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

Palmer, G. E. H.

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Leckle, J. A.

Patrick, C. M.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Peake, O.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Peat, C. U.

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

Levy, T.

Penny, Sir G.

Spens, W. P.

Lewis, O.

Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

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

Liddall, W. S.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Storey, S.

Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

Petherick, M.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Plckthorn, K. W. M.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Lumley, Capt. L. R.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Lyons, A. M.

Pownall, Sir A. Assheton

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. f.

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

Proctor, Major H. A.

Sutcliffe, H.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Tate. Mavis C.

Mac Donald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

Rankin, R.

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

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Rayner, Major R. H.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wiqht)

Reld, W. Allan (Derby)

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

McKle, J. H.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Wakefield, W. W.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Magnay, T.

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

Wayland, Sir W. A.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

White, H. Graham

Mander, G. le M.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

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

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

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

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

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

Salt, E. W.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Moreing, A. C.

Savery, Servington

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

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

Scott, Lord William

Ward and Lieut.-Colonel Liewellin.

Main Question again proposed.
6.26 p.m.
Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I wish to intervene in the general discussion only for a few minutes in order to make one or two observations on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, and in doing so, like my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), I do not wish to raise echoes of any past controversies. We recognise that those matters were the subject of controversy during the discussions on the Government of India Bill on which this Parliament has now come to a decision, and on occasions such as that presented by these Orders, we do not wish to awaken those echoes. If I were minded to do so, I think it would be in connection with the decision of the Government not to adobt the proposal of the Hammond Committee to exten dthe number of two and three member constituencies in the Madras Presidency. I think the Government have taken a wise decision there, and they were fortified in doing so by the opinion not only of the Government of the Presidency, but of the Government of India itself. I only wish that on previous occasions, when we discussed the question of the method of voting for the Federal Legislature, they had paid an
1682
equal amount of attention to the opinion of the Government of India, because, as far, as I can make out, that was the only subject in connection with the Government of India Bill upon which Indian opinion was unanimous.
I imagine that the first reflection of hon. Members on approaching these Orders must be one of congratulation and thankfulness that we ourselves have not to submit our own electoral fortunes to the test within the framework of such a complicated provision as we are now discussing. We must echo the hope expressed by my hon. Friend in his opening observations that the practical working of the schemes set out in this Order, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) pointed out this afternoon, are necessarily to some extent in the nature of an experiment, will lead to the reconciliation of some of the differences of class and creed, in time to the adoption of an electoral system and machinery in India which will fully meet the needs of India. The Constitution, as now established, may be open to certain objections from Indian points of view, but it is certain that Parliament cannot be held responsible for the overriding difficulty which has presented itself in the communal question, and one can

1683
only hope that the efforts which have been made in the past to deal with that difficulty will be renewed in the future and that it may be found possible, at long last, for reconciliation to take place. By that means many of these questions which now present such difficulties and complications may be simplified and the result may be a situation far more satisfactory to India than anything which this country could propose to her at the present time.
I never approach the discussion of these matters in this House without a real sense of the inescapable responsibility of this Parliament, the majority of whose Members, like myself, have had no direct personal experience of Indian affairs. It is a heavy responsibility and one which must weigh upon us all, but I cannot help thinking that Parliament has been extraordinarily well-served by those bodies to which it has delegated the task of working out the details, and indeed some of the principles, upon which these proposals are based. We had, in the first place, the Lothian Franchise Committee and we have had the more recent effort of Sir Laurie Hammond and his Indian colleagues who, in the short time available to them, have dealt in a masterly way with some of those gaps which were left when the Act was under discussion in Parliament. The achievement of that committee, in the time, was very remarkable. May I add that I do not think they could have achieved that result in the time, had it not been for the services of the large number of Indians who served on the Provincial Delimitation Committees and others who came forward with evidence and, in other ways, made possible the performance of what must have seemed at first a task presenting insuperable difficulties. The work of the committee has enabled Parliament to carry out its task, if not in a way which is completely satisfactory to all, at all events in a way which would not have been possible had we been compelled to rely solely upon the judgment of Members of this House who, as I say, are not equipped by personal experience in India to deal with these matters.
I do not wish to touch upon the representation of labour. We have had a considerable discussion upon it and I think the matter has now been ended,
1684
but I would express the view that the somewhat gloomy opinions in regard to the future of trade unionism in India, expressed by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) and others, could only be fulfilled if this arrangement were, in fact, a conspiracy to check the development of trade unionism in India. We know, however, that the case is exactly the reverse. The Lothian Committee expressed the hope that the prospect of responsibility in connection with the electoral machine would lead to a rapid development of trade unionism in India. That unfortunately has not been the case. Whether the proposals in the Order are the best it possible or not, they are reasonable. Nobody who has studied the history of the movement from the formation of the first labour organisation at Jamshedpur could resist that conclusion, that some test of stability is necessary, and I have not heard from any quarter any suggestion of another test to take the place of that suggested in the Order.
The Government have taken a wise decision with regard to the electoral system in the constituencies in the Punjab and Sind, and in limiting the constituencies for the election of women to women voters alone. While there may be some differences of opinion upon that decision, I think it will recommend itself to Mohammedan opinion as a whole. Realising that these proposals are not final and that they are to some extent in the nature of an experiment, I would express the hope that our friends in India will see their way to give practical help and sympathy in the working out and development of these schemes. If that can be done, these proposals, which represent an important stage in the development of the Indian Constitution, may prove a satisfactory foundation upon which better things can be built in the future.
6.28 p.m.
Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I share the view which has already been expressed on all sides as to the excellence of the work done by Sir Laurie Hammond and his colleagues and the expedition with which it was performed. Naturally when we come to deal with the details of constituencies and of urban and rural districts and sub-districts and so forth, it is impossible for anyone who is not closely acquainted

1685
with India to express any opinion. I have gone through the schedules containing the lists of constituencies and while I do not profess to know all the Provinces, I have been able to test those lists in relation to certain Provinces of which I have intimate knowledge. With that intimate knowledge, I am bound to say that in regard to those Provinces I do not think it would be possible to make any better arrangements than those which are proposed in the report. I was gratified to find on examining the Order relating to scheduled castes to find that some rather regrettable omissions from the previous list had been made good.
I think the view expressed by the Opposition on the question of trade unionism is unnecessarily suspicious of the manner in which the representation of labour is being dealt with under the Order. Even supposing that the future recognition of trade unions for purposes of labour representation did rest with the Governor, it must not be assumed that the Governor will necessarily be on the side of the employers and opposed to the side of the workers. In fact, the position of the Governor is such that his natural tendency will be to feel that it is "up to him" to give the greatest consideration to the weaker party in deciding questions of that kind. Although here to-night, in conformity with the Government of India Act, we are discussing constituencies and qualifications for voting and the representation of various interests and although to-day we are going one step further in that direction, there still remains the question of how these constituencies will work.
The most important thing if we are to have a democratic vote is that it shall be honestly given, without fear or favour, and in that connection I wish to draw the attention of the House to Chapters 21 and 22 of the Hammond Committee's report which refer respectively to the conduct of elections and to corrupt practices. Hon. Members will find in the report a plain and straightforward account of some of the difficulties which may be experienced in keeping elections clean and free from intimidation and corruption. The report refers to one regrettable feature of elections in India, namely, the withdrawal of a candidate after nomination or after scrutiny which means, of course, that his opponent is elected unopposed. It has been shown
1686
in certain cases that such withdrawals have been carried out for a pecuniary consideration. Such a practice cuts at the root of common honesty in elections.
The Committee mention that in Bihar and Orissa, the number of withdrawals after nomination was 15 and the number of withdrawals after scrutiny was 55, and they suggest that the Government ought to be extremely strict in the matter and try to check this kind of undesirable practice which appears to have gained a hold in certain Provinces. They have to admit that there will be great difficulty arising out of the fact that, according to the latest returns, 90 per cent. of the new voters will be illiterate. They say that, in such circumstances, having examined all the various ways of voting, they consider that it will be impossible to guarantee the secrecy of the ballot. Some amusing illustrations are given in the report of the kind of thing which happens. For example, there is the case of the voter who has a voting paper given to him, who does not put it into the ballot box at all, but carries it out and sells it. An agent for a candidate collects such papers and arranges for a trustworthy voter to drop them all into the right box. Reference is also made to cases in which the slit in the ballot box is filled up with clay or some other substance with the result that a good many electors, to save themselves the trouble of opening it, deposit their ballot papers in other boxes.
The Committee express the view that we in this country were just as bad ourselves not so very long ago, but the comparison is not very reliable, because, at all events, we had compulsory education since 1870. Under a democratic system there is a large number of illiterate people who are to be got at in every possible way and who would fall victims to every kind of pecuniary temptation and so on. I do not want to dwell unnecessarily on these points, because the Opposition to the Government of India Bill put them forward when the Bill was going through, and the verdict of Parliament was that this constitution should be tried. Therefore, I do not want to revive those old controversies, but I wish to lay emphasis on the need for special precautions being taken by the Secretary of State so as to make any democracy that is introduced into India a little cleaner and purer than it would be if things were left entirely to

1687
their own course. I hope the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State, and the India Office will be contemplating further action to check these things.
As regards the hiring of vehicles, it is no good making it illegal, because the Committee points out that you cannot enforce it, and it says the same thing with regard to treating. You have a sort of general treat. All the people you want to vote for you come to sit down at a certain place. As regards vehicles, they get round that prohibition by "A" being in one constituency and "B" in another, and one of them saying, "If you pay for my vehicles in my constituency, I will pay for your vehicles in another constituency."
Mr. LANSBURY: They do that here.
Sir R. CRADDOCK: That may be, but I am explaining that the Committee did lay stress on the difficulties of elections. This matter has not been mentioned at all hitherto in this Debate, and I hope the India Office will take every precaution to make the introduction of democracy in India as sound and safe as possible.
6.48 p.m.
Mr. KIRKPATRICK: I join with those who have spoken in the praise given to Sir Laurie Hammond and his colleagues, and I tender it specially for the drawing up of this draft of scheduled classes. As all the House knows, these classes are for the most part animistic, totemic, exogamic, nomadic. Many of those on the schedule are of Eponymous origin, many of them occupational and many of them regional. In reference to a remark made by the Under-Secretary of State that the franchise had been increased and the net thrown rather wider so as to maintain 10 per cent., I hope that in taking in these various scheduled classes the net has not been thrown too wide and that there will not be any anomalies which will occur or unfairness or disabilities suffered by some of these people. I speak for a people for whom I can almost literally say nobody else in India ordinarily speaks, except the British official whose job it is. They are poor, despised, depressed people, not liked and unknown. Their manners, customs, and habits are not known to the ordinary Indian. I suggest with all respect that Sir Laurie Hammond's two colleagues on the committee knew much less about
1688
some of these casteless people of Bihar and Orissa, which is Sir Laurie's Province, than he did.
There have been some anomalies in these schedules. Take Bengal. I need hardly point out to those hon. Members who know, that among the scheduled classes there are no Bengalis in Bengal, because Bengali happens to be an ethnographical tribal appellation applied to a predatory class whose habitat is the United Provinces. Bengalis of these scheduled classes belong also to the United Provinces, to the Punjab, and to Bihar and Orissa. Again I see under the head "Bengal," the Muchi is included; that is, a shoe or leather-worker; also the Lohar, or blacksmith. These are occupational titles. A leather-worker might be a Hindu or a Moslem. He is also included under the word "Chamar," which also means a leather-worker. Where these tribes are again mixed up is under Bengal, where Munda, and Oraon, and Garo are found scheduled. The Munda and Oraon are definitely tribal, aboriginal people from the old province of Bihar and Orissa, but in the order we are discussing they are included among mostly castes of occupational origin. Though shown in Bengal neither the Munda nor Oraon ought to be so included. They are not scheduled at all in Bihar or in Orissa, of which Province they are aboriginals, and where there are several millions of them. Many thousands of these aboriginals from Bihar who work in Assam belong to real tribes and are totally different from the bulk of the people included in the Schedules.
Again, take the "Kanjars," which is a generic title applied to nomadic, predatory, gypsy-like people. Kanjars are included in the scheduled caste of the United Provinces. But as I know personally that there are very large numbers of Kanjars in the Punjab, and yet they are not included at all in the draft Order lists. I do not want to appear to be too critical. These are matters which will, I am sure, be cleared up, and any anomalies can be amended perhaps before these Orders come back from another place. That is all that I have to say except to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on the way in which he has conducted this Bill right through and also for the clear way in which he has disposed of all the arguments put up by the Opposition.
6.53 p.m.
Mr. LANSBURY: I will not start by saying that I do not intend to keep the House very long; I intend to keep the House just as long as is necessary for me to say what I want to say. I should not have risen but for the speech of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock). He, of course, has a unique knowledge of India, but I should be very sorry if he went away with the feeling still in his mind that the Indians, when it comes to elections, are really prone to be a little worse in the way of corruption than other people. I think they must have read the history of, the rotten boroughs in this country and of local government in this country. I understand that some people have voted there by collecting voting papers and shoving them all in the ballot box at one time. When I first took part in elections in Bow, it was for a vestry, and it was no uncommon thing to collect up the ballot papers in that way and shove them in all together. When it comes to persons making an agreement t. retire, I have certainly read and heard of, and I think I have seen, hon. Members leaving this House on becoming Peers of the Realm. Perhaps there has been no corrupt bargain, but in some mysterious way one has gone to the Lords to make way for somebody else in order to find a place for a Minister.
We are giving some form of self-government to the people of India, and for goodness sake do not let us be too self-righteous about it. If they are going to learn from us the benefits of democracy, let us be content, even if they do make some of the mistakes that we ourselves have made. We got rid of corruption very largely in municipal affairs the more we broadened the basis of representation, and I am confident that the more you broaden the representation in India and the bigger the electorate is—and give them time to adapt themselves to it—there will be less and less corruption and there will be more honesty in public life. During the Debates on the Bill we were continually hearing of a sort of natural corruption of the people in India. I do not believe that for a single moment. I think that perhaps the so-called educated classes may pass through some phases of corruption that our own ancestors passed through and perhaps some of ourselves have gone through in our own day. Let
1690
us at least concede to the Indian masses the same standard of right and wrong that we claim for ourselves.
6.55 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: The right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who has just sat down, certainly illuminated us on the methods of electing vestrymen in this country, but I am sure we all hope the right hon. Gentleman himself will not leave us for another place, because we should all miss him very much here. We are now at the last lap of this very important constitution, and it is by no means the least important lap either. When I look at the complicated constituencies and the different methods of election—the direct vote, the postal vote, the single transferable vote, and the cumulative vote—I begin to get a bit mixed, but the whole thing that matters is not how representatives are returned, but what kind of representatives they will be when they are returned, and I believe that, although this system is very complicated and varies from Province to Province and from district to district, on the whole the representatives who are returned will be very much better than some hon. Members of this House imagined when we came to the Third Reading of the Government of India Bill.
It is impossible to touch upon the whole of the Orders, and I am going to confine my attention to Assam. We are fortunate in Assam in that we have no urban and rural problem, because there are only three towns in Assam which have a population of more than 20,000 people, and a point that I want to take up later is the question of the scheduled castes. I believe the lists are not full enough. Although in Assam we have not an urban and rural problem, we have something that is almost worse, and that is differences between the Surma Valley and the Assam Valley. These valleys are separated by a range of hills, and on the South, in the Surma Valley, the people are Aryan and speak Bengali mostly, whereas in the North they are largely Mongolian and speak the Assamese language. There is a very great difference between these two valleys. I remember that the late Lord Chelmsford, when he came to Assam, had heard of these differences, and he made the remark that he had heard that one valley

1691
was Belgravia and the other Whitechapel. and he went on to say that wild horses would not drag from him which valley was which. I propose now to exercise the same discretion.
In the Surma Valley proper, there is no more waste land, and the population in that valley is not likely to increase, whereas in the Assam Valley proper there are now 2,000,000 more acres of waste land, which are awaiting settlement.
It is certain that the population of the Assam Valley will increase very much during the next 10 or 20 years. As to the general seats, the scheduled castes mentioned are all Assamese or Bengali castes, but there are a lot of people left out. There are in the Assam and Surma Valleys 1,000,000 ex-tea garden coolies and their descendants who have settled on Government land. Many of them are depressed classes and in any other Province in India they would fall into the list of scheduled castes. It seems likely that the whole of this population will be disfranchised, and I would ask the Under-Secretary of State to consider this point before the Orders come back from another place. These people who come from Bihar, Orissa, and Madras ar einclined to change their caste when they come to Assam, just as many people in England gain a higher social status when they leave the town where they were born. I would ask the Under-Secretary what machinery there is for additions to these scheduled castes. If we look on page 160 of the Draft Statutory Rules, we see in Part 5, Assam (16):
"Any other tribe or community for the time being designated by the Governor in his discretion."
I would suggest that that might well be added to many of the scheduled castes. It is almost impossible to avoid injustice to somebody or other, and if it were given to the Governor in his discretion to add to this sort of case I believe it would save a lot of bad feeling and hard cases in the future. The population of the Assam Valley is certain to increase. The Mohammedan population has increased by 65 per cent. in the last ten years. It is necessary to give some weightage to the Mohammedans in the Assam Valley, because the Mohammedans are more likely to increase than many other castes. I have seen train load after train load of Mohammedans coming into Assam from
1692
the Mymensingh and Dacca districts of Eastern Bengal, and they are filling up the Province at a great rate. There is also the position of the Marwaris to be considered, and I hope that when the Governor makes his nominations to the second Chamber he will not forget them.
If we turn to the women's constituency, I am glad to see that the Hammond Committee selected Ceylon. Among the Khasias matriarchy exists. Property is handed down through the female line, and because of this the women are equal or superior to any class of women in India. I should think that they compare with the Parsees in Bombay. For that reason I am certain that the Committee have selected the right spot for the women's constituency. The Nepalese women are not purdah, and there are many women among them who are the wives or daughters of soldiers in the Ghurka Rifles. Nowhere in the whole of India do we stand a better chance of the election of a good woman candidate. One Khasia man has already risen to a position of a Minister, and I hope that in the future we may look forward to a Khasia woman becoming a Minister in Assam. I think the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) hardly did justice to the Hammond Committee. At the bottom of page 182, paragraph 491, of their report, the Committee state:
"We wish to make it clear that we have recommended special labour constituencies in those cases only in which the creation of trade union constituencies was impracticable."
When I heard the hon. and gallant Member make his speech I almost thought that he could not have read those words. The Hammond Committee tried to carry out the recommendations of the Franchise Committee, and only recommended these Labour seats where it is impossible to find trade unions. We have no trade unions in Assam, and various proposals were made for filling these four Labour seats. I think the Government stated that nomination was the only way possible. They have made a very complicated constituency and provided for rotation of seats. The election takes place every four years, but it is a different constituency each time, and it is another 12 years before it comes back to the same constituency. These tea-garden constituencies are to be represented by the castes and tribes who work on the tea gardens, and

1693
they have opened the constituency very wide in that a man who may be a Munda or an Oraon, or belong to some other of the tribes which come to work in the tea gardens, can stand for election for these tea-garden seats.
I have known several of these castes and tribes to be extremely well educated. I remember a doctor in Assam who had a personal servant who came to him as a boy of seven years old. The doctor became attached to him and taught the boy to read and write, and the boy used to copy the doctor's handwriting. Eventually, when the doctor was fatigued or ill, the boy used to write the doctor's letters home to his wife or mother. I have also read of other people who were taught and have become the head writers of the gardens and have become influential people although originally they came from the depressed classes. I have heard of one of them who came over here and eventually became a mayor of a town in England. There is a danger attaching to these seats, and I would refer the House to the Chargola Exodus, which took place on 31st May, 1921. Some political agitators came to the Chargola Valley tea gardens and inflamed and excited the labour force. Eventually 48,000 of them left the gardens and found their way to the railways, selling their cattle, live stock and belongings on the way. They were told there was a new land awaiting them where work was easy and wages good. The poor people gave away everything they had, and when they reached the railway they had nothing for their railway tickets, 1,000 of them died of cholera and there was heart-rending trouble and suffering. I think the way that the Hammond Committee have selected the representatives for these seats will largely do away with that sort of trouble in future. I hope that it will be a Munda that will be speaking for the Mundas, and that it will not be a political agitator who does not belong to these castes and is not actuated by any real benevolent motives, but a person who is a member of the brotherhood and who is trying to do his best for them.
Unfortunately in Assam there is only one important industry and that is tea. We know what happens to towns in England dependent on only one industry. When depression has occurred in that industry trouble has come upon the
1694
whole town. If anything happens to the tea industry there is no doubt that widespread depression and suffering would occur through the whole of Assam. For that reason I welcome some of the seats that are to be given to Indian commerce and industry, because I hope that new industries will be established in Assam so that the Province will have something to fall back on. I think that the seven seats given to the European part of the tea industry is rather meagre considering that tea is the staple industry of Assam. I am glad to see that Indian tea planters are getting two seats and we wish that more Indians would take an interest in this industry. I have spoken only about one Province. But even for this one Province the task of drafting these rules must have been very complicated and difficult, and it has been accomplished in a very short time, but I have seen only one mistake as regards Assam. On page 146, after the tea garden seats, the Under-Secretary will see that West is mentioned twice and South not at all in the constituency for Jorhat. I think that must be a misprint and that South should be inserted in one of those boundaries instead of West. Another recommendation is for a manual of election procedure. I think that is necessary. Even under the old constitution it was difficult to find one's way through the different slips of paper and circulars that were received. I think it will be well worth while for the Government of India to start the preparation of an election manual. Newly gazetted officers of the Indian Civil Service going out to India might well make an examination in the election procedure part of their work.
The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) referred to some of the irregularities in the election, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and I think that given a chance these things will come right. In my experience since 1919 to 1930, when the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms were in force, every election Indians in Assam became more election-minded and democratic, and I believe the procedure and conduct will get better in the future. To read some of the things the Committee wrote about boys posing

1695
as women and 100 Chowkidahs arriving in Bombay and finding that they had already been impersonated would make one think that Rudyard Kipling had an Indian Election in his mind when he wrote:
"The wildest dreams of Kew
Are the facts of Khat-mandu
And the crimes of Clapham
Chaste in Martaban."
The House owes its thanks to this distinguished committee for the expedition and thoroughness with which it has done its work, and I hope that these Orders will go through.
7.15 p.m.
Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I ask the reason for the various descriptions of "resident" in this Order? In the case of the United Provinces it is stated that a person shall be deemed to be resident in any area if he ordinarily lives in that area. A little later in connection with the Punjab, a resident has to be a person owning a family dwelling-house or sharing a family dwelling-house, In the case of Sind, a person is deemed to be a resident in a house if he sometimes uses it as a sleeping place. That is a definition that might apply to some hon. Members who may claim the House of Commons as a residence. What is the object of these various definitions May they not lead to some confusion? The Under-Secretary may say that there are different conditions in different Provinces, but I should have thought that it was possible to have some more general expression to tell us what a resident is.
7.16 p.m.
Mr. BUTLER: The House will agree that the general discussion we have had has been marked by unanimous tributes to the work of the Hammond Committee. Those who worked so hard in India, the Indians on the provincial delimitation committees, the local governments who prepared the work, and all those hardworking officials and draftsmen who have done so much work, deserve the tributes paid to them on all sides of the House. There has been a general feeling of good wishes for the future Legislatures which will finally be set up as a result of the establishment of this electoral machinery. We have had a discussion on the Amendment with regard to a particular point,
1696
but apart from that there has been no general objection to the provisions of these lengthy Orders, and that is very satisfactory. I should like to reply to the various points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) raised the question of the definition of "resident." If the hon. Gentleman will remember our discussions on the Schedules to the Act, he will recall that "resident" had different definitions in almost every Province in regard to the qualification for the electorate for the territorial seats. The definitions to which he has referred in this Order are those that apply to the electorates for the special seats, and the definitions follow the original definitions given in the Schedule to the Act for the territorial seats. It would be wrong, therefore, to make a different definition of "resident" than that which occurred in the Schedule to the Act. The reason for the differences between the definitions is that these Orders have in each case been drafted according to the idiosyncrasies of the particular Provinces and the definition are appropriate to the different Provinces.
The next question with regard to the scheduled castes was raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick). In this House there is always an expert on every subject, and the hon. Gentleman has clearly shown himself to be an expert on the scheduled castes. His difficulty arises from a slight misunderstanding of my opening remarks, when I said that the qualifications for the scheduled castes were being slightly enlarged. I mentioned the differential franchise qualification. I did not mean that we had at the last minute expanded the tribes that are included. I was referring, of course, to the slight expansion of the franchise for the members of the castes concerned. The actual lists of the castes have not been put before the House until this date because they were being carefully considered in the Provinces. The difficulty arises from the fact that some scheduled castes appear in some Provinces and not in others. The reason is that in one Province, or in one part of a Province, a caste bearing a certain name may be regarded as depressed or scheduled, whereas in another Province or in another part of the same Province it is very often not regarded as depressed.

1697
That is the reason for the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman found in the scheduled castes Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) raised the question of corrupt practices, to which reference was also made by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock).
Mr. LANSBURY: I did not raise it.
Mr. BUTLER: The right hon. Gentleman pursued the subject which was raised by the hon. Member for the English Universities. I do not want to disturb the House by promises of favours to come, but I shall have to introduce a Corrupt Practices Order making provision for this particular subject. Therefore, I do not think that we are in order in discussing it further now. We shall be able to discuss it in more detail after Easter when introduce the Order. The hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), who discussed Assam, raised the question of the ex-tea garden coolies. They will be enfranchised to the extent that they have the necessary territorial qualification of property. We hope that a large number of them will fall into the ordinary franchise. The hon. and gallant Gentleman raised various points in regard to tribes which have been included in these Orders. There is a little confusion, I think, in that the tribes on page 160 of the Legislative Assemblies Order are backward tribes and not scheduled tribes, and the tribes which are to be regarded as tribes upon which a qualification can be based for a, candidate in the tea-garden constituency are different and are included on page 64. Attention will be paid to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated, but I believe that the lists as they stand are probably as nearly accurate as we shall be able to get them. The other points about Assam have been noted by the Government, and I will certainly note the suggestion of the hon. Member that there is a misprint. We have come to rely so much on the officers and on the many papers that come before us that a misprint is a rare thing. The discussion which we have had upon these Orders in Council has been well worth while, and I would like on behalf of the House to wish well to those who have to put into practice a very complicated system.
Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Provincial Legislative Councils) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]
Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Butler.]
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]
Ordered, That the Debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. Butler.]
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (House of Representatives) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Butler.]
Ordered, That the Debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. Butler.]
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Senate Elections) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament, subject, however, to the following Amendments:
In paragraph 6, in line 22 of page 2, leave out 'sub-paragraph' and insert 'subparagraphs.'
In paragraph 6, after line 30 of page 2, insert:
'(4) In this paragraph "minister" means a minister under this Act or the Acts repealed by the Government of India Act, 1935.'"—[Mr. Butler.]
Ordered, That the Debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. Butler.]
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AIR NAVIGATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.25 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time."
  Those who are acquainted—and who is not?—with the progress that has been made in aviation during the past 15 years will not be surprised that it has become necessary to make certain amendments and additions to the Air Navigation Act, 1920. That is the purpose of the Bill which I have now the honour to propose for the acceptance of this House. It is not a long Bill, as Bills go in these days; and its length, such as it is, is largely composed of provisions which, though suitably adapted to the special needs of the latest and most progressive form of transport, have their counterpart in statutes relating to transport by land and sea. If, indeed, certain Members of this House were to complain that the reforms embodied in this Bill in relation to air transport are long overdue, I should be far less surprised by criticism of that kind than I should be were serious opposition to arise to the main provisions of this amending and complementary Bill.
  The House will not expect me at this stage to do more than outline the general purpose of this new Measure and to give in broad, but, I hope, convincing terms, the reasons why the Bill is put before it for acceptance. The Bill is divided into five parts; but the five main questions or matters with which it deals do not correspond entirely with that division. With the permission of the House, I will enumerate briefly the five main points and then proceed to discuss each of them at slightly greater length. The first main point is contained in Clause 1 of the Bill. It is a financial provision dealing with subsidies to Civil Air Transport. Thereby it is sought to empower the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to enter into agreements for the grant of subsidies up to an annual limit of £1,500,000 over a period ending on the 31st December, 1953,
  1700
  in extension of the limit of £1,000,000 over a period ending on the 31st December, 1940, authorised by the Air Transport (Subsidy Agreements), Act, 1930. The second main point is contained in Clause 2. It provides for the delegation, to an independent body representative of civil aviation, of certain of the administrative functions concerning airworthiness at present discharged by the Secretary of State for Air. The third main element of the Bill is to be found in Clause 5. It provides for the setting up (as and when circumstances require it) of a licensing system in respect of air transport services, as distinct horn the licensing of flying personnel and the certification of aircraft as airworthy. Fourthly, Clauses 8 and 9 respectively extend to Metropolitan boroughs the powers at present enjoyed by other local authorities for the provision of aerodromes, and give to all such authorities compulsory powers for the acquisition of land for that purpose. They already had powers to purchase land by agreement, for this purpose under the Act of 1920, and have had temporary powers to purchase it compulsorily under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930.
  Mr. KELLY: Why are the Government introducing into this Measure the Common Council of the City of London, seeing that the County Council cover all the area?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I did not mention it.
  Mr. KELLY: It is here.
  Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps the hon. Member will raise that point in the course of Debate. Finally, by Clause 12, limits are placed upon the liability of aircraft owners for damage done to third parties, concurrently with the introduction under the provisions of Clause 13 of a system of compulsory insurance of civil aircraft against third party risks for damage done either to persons or property on the ground. The special provisions affecting such insurance are set out in Clauses 13 to 17, and in the Second Schedule.
  Those are the five chief matters dealt with by the Bill. It will be appreciated that, even where new in their application to air navigation, they are not to be described in any sense of the word as

  1701
  innovations. The first is merely an extension of powers in regard to subsidy agreements which have been in existence since 1930. The second represents the liberation, to an extent at least, of civil aviation from the shackles of the Air Ministry; thereby meeting a demand which has long since been growing in volume, for the freeing of civil aviation from what has been described—with how much accuracy I will not attempt to say—as bureaucratic control. Two of the other three main provisions merely extend to the air, in appropriate form, principles and methods already in operation in other relations, while the third, broadly, simply makes permanent powers which have been enjoyed on a temporary basis since 1930.
  There are, of course, a number of other supplementary and minor points dealt with in the Bill, to which the full attention of the House will doubtless be directed at the proper time. Clause 3 will enable regulations to be made to govern aircraft when operating on the surface of the sea, in the same way as they can be made for ships, for the prevention of collisions and other matters in which the marine rules are relevant. By Clause 4 facilities are to be given for the collection from the experience of civil air transport of statistics likely to be of advantage to aviation. Clause 18 makes provision for giving effect to the Rome Convention of 1933, when the occasion for the ratification of that Convention by His Majesty's Government arises. Other Clauses in the main either rectify omissions in the Act of 1920 or are supplementary or complementary to the five main provisions with which I now propose to deal in somewhat greater detail.
  Hon. Members are aware that we are in the midst of a process of rapid extension of British air transport services and that, in addition to the development of existing Empire air routes, we are on the point of attacking the greatest of the natural obstacles with which air transport is confronted, namely, the Atlantic. In order to enable these new projects to be taken in hand at all, it is necessary that the Government should be able to enter into long term agreements, for the grant of subsidies, with the air transport companies concerned
  1702
  with them. To come down to detail, the Air Ministry requiries statutory authority to enter into agreements covering up to 15 years and entailing expenditure which cannot be met within the aggregate limit of £1,000,000 a year at present existing. Neither the time limit nor the financial limit imposed by the Air Transport (Subsidy Agreements) Act of 1930 are any longer adequate to meet the developments which are now en train. We are asking, therefore, for an aggregate annual limit of £1,500,000 until the end of 1953.
  I do not think that I need say anything now to emphasise the vital necessity to the British Empire of the development of air transport services, nor yet to justify the general principle of subsidy upon which the House has acted for so many years. Hon. Members are well acquainted with the position in both respects. Relying on that fact, I submit this portion of the Bill in the confident belief that it will be received with universal approval. I need only add that the provision made is to the best of our information adequate without being extravagant.
  I hope that the second of the main provisions will also appeal to all who are interested in the future of civil aviation. It will be within the recollection of the House that the Report of the Gorell Committee presented to Parliament in 1934 advocated the devolution to an Air Registration Board, representative of manufacturers, operators and underwriters, of the supervision of the design, construction and maintenance of civil aircraft and of the issue and renewal of certificates of airworthiness. It also recommended that the authority of the new body should be derived from the legislature, rather than solely from an administrative decision. Various measures have been taken by the Air Ministry in recent years for the progressive relaxation of official control over civil aviation, and in 1933 the conclusion was reached that a further review was desirable, in order to see what additional relaxation had become practicable. Lord Gorell's Committee was the outcome of that conclusion, and the wide measure of approval given to the Report of that Committee testified to the excellence of the work done by it and earned the well deserved thanks of this House.

  1703
  In the second Clause of this Bill the work of Lord Gorell's Committee is brought to fruition. The demand on the part of owners, operators and constructors of aircraft, to which the Committee referred, for the control of airworthiness of civil aircraft to be transferred from the Air Ministry to an outside and fully representative body, is met in substance. I should point out, however, that the Clause provides that the delegation shall be effected to such extent as is specified in an Order of the Secretary of State, and it is not intended that the control of airworthiness of the larger passenger-carrying machines shall be completely surrendered by the Ministry. I think that it will be agreed that this is a reasonable and desirable exception, in the interests of public safety. Even in the case of ships and motor vehicles, the constructional technique of which is far more stabilised, the competent Departments of State have found it necessary to retain some control in the interests of fare-paying passengers. Apart from this, it is intended that the board shall operate with the maximum degree of freedom from the Air Ministry and that there shall be no official representative upon it. I would add that, also in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, power is taken in Subsection (3) of the Clause which will enable a generous measure of financial assistance to be made to the board during the first five years of its work.
  The provision for the licensing of air transport services contained in Clause 5 is not necessarily intended for immediate application. It is for use as and when it may be found to be necessary. It enables a licensing system to be introduced by means of an Order in Council which will have to be affirmed by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament before it is actually made. Parliamentary control of the actual introduction of the licensing system is thus assured.
  At present, while aircraft have to be certified as airworthy and the flying personnel have also to be licensed, no licence is required for the service. It is open to anyone to establish a new air transport undertaking in this country at any time. The disadvantages of such a state of affairs have been clearly demon-
  1704
  strated in the case of public motor vehicle traffic, and it is desired to make timely provision to obviate, in the case of air transport, the unfortunate experience which necessitated the ex-post facto regulation and control of public road transport services. The regulation of public vehicle traffic on the roads was effected by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, after the mischief had already arisen. It would clearly be inadvisable to wait to grapple with this question, as regards the air, until vested interests had been created and measures of control made more difficult. There are, in the case of air transport, further practical considerations demanding the existence of some measure of control, namely, the need for preventing congestion at air ports and the consequent danger of collision in the air.
  That brings me naturally to Part II of the Bill, which gives local authorities power to acquire land compulsorily for aerodromes and so facilitate, as I hope it will, the provision of an adequate number of air ports for this young and growing form of communication. Here again we are profiting by experience and applying old and tried methods to the meeting of new needs. Under the Air Navigation Act of 1920 local authorities can acquire sites for aerodromes by agreement only. It was always possible for the acquisition of these sites to be held up, or the cost unduly increased, by the objection of property owners to part with their land except on exorbitant terms. For the past five years, therefore, power to purchase compulsorily has been given to local authorities and renewed year by year under the terms of the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930.
  Objection has been raised on more than one occasion in another place to the continuance of these powers by repeated renewals of a temporary Measure passed for the primary purpose of relieving unemployment. It may be that there is substance in the objection to such a method of meeting an acknowledged and permanent need. The Bill, accordingly, makes permanent provision for the powers that have actually been renewed year by year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. There is no doubt at all that these powers are needed. That is shown by the fact that at least 13 Orders for the compulsory acquisition of land for aerodromes have

  1705
  been confirmed under the 1930 Act. It will be appreciated that there is nothing new in the principle nor anything novel in the methods by which it is applied. They correspond with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. I feel sure that the House will be agreed upon the necessity for making the powers of compulsory acquisition permanently available.
  I now come to the fifth and last of the main questions dealt with in the Bill, that of insurance. Here, again, we are applying to the air the lessons of the roads. That is in Part III of the Bill. The application of a system of compulsory third party insurance to flying has, however, certain aspects of its own. In the first place, if adequate protection is to be given against damage by aircraft, the insurance must cover damage to property as well as injury to persons on the ground. If insurance is to be practicable at any reasonable premium, some limit must be set to the liability. At present, the aircraft owner is liable for any damage done by him or his machine, whatever the amount of the damage. If he wishes to insure voluntarily against third party risks, as he can do if he wishes, he finds in practice that it is not possible to effect an insurance except for a certain limited amount. That being the situation, and the reasons for it will be readily understood, it follows that, if insurance is to be made compulsory, some limit must be set to the liability. Therefore, Clause 12, fixing the limit of liability for third party damage, so far as power driven aeroplanes are concerned, at from £5,000 to £25,000, according to the weight of the machine, is a natural preliminary to Clause 13, which makes third party insurance compulsory.
  By including provision for compulsory insurance in this Bill, we are again following the recommendation of the Gorell Committee who, in their turn, could point to a precedent in the Rome Convention of 1933, to which I have already referred in connection with Clause 18. It was accepted by the framers of that Convention that it was proper that compulsory insurance should be linked with limitation of liability. Certain exceptions or conditions in policies, corresponding broadly, but not identically, with those allowed in motor vehicle policies, will be permissible. I recognise, of course, that the ideal state of affairs would be that
  1706
  third parties on the ground should he indemnified against all possible loss. The result, however, of excluding all conditions and exceptions from policies would be such a considerable increase in premiums as to be an impossible handicap to aircraft owners.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the rate charged for third party risks, in order that we can find out what the cost would bes as a result of these proposals?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I cannot answer that question just now, but I will answer it later on. The provisions of the Bill under this head are based on the similar provisions of the Road Traffic Acts, 1930 and 1934, and they provide insurance which would cover all normal cases of third party damage. Since aircraft owners will be obliged to insure for the amount provided by the Bill, the general public will be in a far better position than they are to-day, when there is no guarantee that any compensation for damage or injury will be recoverable at all. At the same time, the premium cost to the owners of aircraft will be kept within reasonable limits. From inquiries which have been made it is believed that the making of insurance compulsory will not result in any material increase in premiums. I am sure that the House will agree with me in expressing the hope that this belief will prove to be justified. I would appeal especially to the insurance interests to keep the rates as low as possible in the general interests of aviation. I should like at the same time to mention the great assistance which we have received from the representatives of the insurance companies and Lloyds underwriters in the preparation of the general scheme of third party insurance. The advice which the Air Ministry obtained from this quarter has been given frankly and disinterestedly, and was valuable in the extreme.
  I may here say that the Air Ministry and the Board of Trade have been in close consultation, in regard to Clause 17 of the Bill, with the British Insurance Association which, as hon. Members know, represents practically all the leading insurance companies carrying on business in the United Kingdom. The Association have repeated the views previously

  1707
  expressed, in regard to discrimination between one kind of insurer and another. Such discrimination is, in their view, inevitably to be found in any legislation based, as is Clause 17, on the Assurance Companies Act, 1909. The companies and certain private underwriters are treated differently as regards both the deposits which they have to make and the returns which have to be rendered to the Board of Trade. Returns made by the companies are open to public inspection; those made by private underwriters are not, but the private underwriters have to comply with certain other special requirements. The Association maintain strongly that the Bill should have been framed so as to avoid this discrimination. I am glad to be able to say that they fully recognise the urgent need for legislation in regard to aerial navigation, and for this reason they are unwilling to exert any influence against the passing of the Bill.
  The question at issue is, in the opinion of the Association, an important one, which will no doubt come before the departmental committee which, as already announced, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has appointed, with the following terms of reference:
  "To consider and report whether any, and, if so, what, changes in the existing law relating to the carrying on of the business of insurance are desirable in the light of statutory provisions relating to compulsory insurance against third party risks and by employers against liability to their workmen."
  The insurance provisions of this Bill must, therefore, be regarded as interim legislation pending the findings of this committee. I may add that the companies are anxious that it should not be thought that, by accepting the position I have described, they have in Any way departed from the view already expressed by them to my right hon. Friend.
  The introduction of compulsory insurance will enable another concession to be made which should be greatly welcomed by private flyers. The Gorell committee recommended that certificates of air-worthiness should be optional in the case of private machines that are fully insured. Since that condition will necessarily be fulfilled if this Bill becomes law, it should be possible to exempt private machines, if the owner
  1708
  desires it, from being certified as airworthy for home flying.
  I have endeavoured to describe the general scope and main provisions of this Bill sufficiently, I hope, to enable hon. Members to appreciate the purpose for which it has been put forward. If I have succeeded, and I hope I have, the House will realise that there is nothing strange or alarming in it. It is a solid useful work-a-day Measure, based on the lessons of past experience and the findings of previous enquiry, and designed to carry aviation in this country and in the British Empire yet another step forward. There will, no doubt, be points of detail which hon. Members will wish to raise later. Hon. Members do not need my assurance that any suggestions of a helpful character, from whatever quarter of the House they may come, will be very carefully considered. I am sure that hon. Members are at one regarding the need for the development of British air transport upon the best and most fruitful lines. I hope, therefore, that they will give to the general principle and main provisions of this Bill the acceptance which, I am confident, the Bill deserves.
  7.56 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
  I do not think that any hon. Member will accuse me of not being enthusiastic about the position of air development in this country. I find myself therefore in the somewhat lamentable position of moving to reject the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has explained with all his charm the many things which the Bill actually does, and I cannot quarrel with many of those things. I cannot quarrel with many of the recommendations of the Gorell Committee, upon which I served, now being embodied in the Bill. It is on the financial side that I quarrel with the Bill, and the financial considerations seem to transcend so much the rest of the Bill that I have felt bound to do what I consider is vital to the future of aviation, and to move the rejection.
  I ask the House to look on the Bill as in no way a party Measure. It is not put forward as a Conservative Bill or a National Government Bill. If the Labour

  1709
  party were in office to-day the same type of Bill would be before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members do not like my saying that, but let me point out that this is an Air Ministry Bill to give power to the Air Ministry alone. I cannot get away from being a sort of Cassandra of the House of Commons. I prophesy, hon. Members never believe me, but I am always right. I still harp upon the fact that we did wrong when we compelled that war marriage between military and civil aviation, and I say that it is high time that this very unhappy menage were separated by divorce. The Bill perpetuates the unhappiness which the Legislature imposed upon the future of civil aviation. It is no use saying that civil aviation is helped in regard to research. Nobody who has studied the question will deny that Diesel engines of 2,000 horse power are required for civil machines, of the flying boat type, but we are also aware that the whole resources of the research side of the country are earmarked for the military side of aviation, and any money which can be spared for research is going towards the military side.
  We are asked to hand a blank cheque to the Air Ministry as to the future. In the early days of aviation the granting of subsidies of a monopolistic type was justified. But things have changed. Now we are asked to grant a sum of £1,500,000 a year until 1953. That appears to be based on the assumption that civil aviation is in a static condition, but I firmly believe that nothing is so fluid or subject to change as progress in aeronautics. It may sound unpleasant to my right hon. Friend, but I must ask the House whether the country is really justified in placing confidence in the Air Ministry when we are asked for a blank cheque for £1,500,000 a year until 1953? Looking at the military side of aviation, has the Air Ministry done so extraordinarily well? Has it ever produced good machines? It was not until this House forced it to produce aeroplanes that it did so at all. On the other hand, as regards civil aviation, is our civil aviation in the Empire anything to write home about? Is anyone proud of it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] The advertisements of Imperial Airways may speak well of it, but nobody else does. Compared with civil aviation in every other part of the world it is behind.
  1710
  I am not one of those who say that Imperial Airways should not get a long-term subsidy, for there is a tremendous lot of work to be done in pioneer flying in connection with Empire development, and that requires long-term help. I am not here to say that what the Government decide to give to Imperial Airways is not justified in every way. All that I am against is monopoly, and it is for that reason that I want to see these agreements, with regard to Imperial Airways and anybody else, attached to the Bill. I do not want something to arise in which, while we are paying £1,500,000 per year, we find ourselves tied up with an agreement about which we know nothing and which has taken place behind our backs.
  I look upon this help as something of a capital nature. It is too much to ask a private company to lay down aerodromes, to erect buildings, to get supplies of petrol, to put down beacons, wireless equipment and all that sort of thing; but, if the taxpayer puts down the capital for these things, they ought to be a free port for all. Already one can see that the success or failure of the route to South Africa—a most expensive route to develop—and also of the route to India, is ultimately going to depend on the type of service that is run on those routes, and, if we do not look out, we may find ourselves paying a big subsidy to a company which is running inefficient machines. I do not think that anyone who was not patriotic would go by Imperial Airways to-day. If the taxpayers pay, they should certainly get the best in the world, and I cannot see that happening if this Bill is passed.
  There is another point, which affects the aircraft industry in this country. I have always hoped that the British aircraft industry would eventually become, like the shipping industry in this country, the headquarters of aeroplane construction throughout the world, but if the only possible outlet for civil machines is going to be one company alone, it is quite obvious that the building of machines for commercial aviation will slip out of our hands into somebody else's. I feel that what happened with regard to the railways is going to happen again with regard to shipping. The railway companies forgot all about road transport until, too late, they found a

  1711
  rival knocking them out in every quarter. It is going to be the same with the shipping companies. The cream of the traffic of the shipping companies should go by air. It should be their work to see that it goes by the quickest and best route for them, which is rapidly becoming the air route. But in this country now we are subsidising Imperial Airways from the point of view of mails and everything else, and we have already laid it down that all first-class mail is to go by air. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to take away the subsidies from our shipping companies in the future because first-class mail is now taken by air? If not, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to argue a very curious theme, because he is going to subsidise the shipping companies for not carrying mail, while he is paying Imperial Airways for carrying the mail. That seems to be a very illogical position.
  Moreover, although I do not grudge Imperial Airways the help that they get, we have to remember that the Air Ministry is a part of and a shareholder in Imperial Airways, and, therefore, very naturally, the Air Ministry helps its child as much as possible as a private company. If anyone who tries to run a civil aviation service on the basis of no subsidy at all, but purely on a commercial basis, is going to receive nothing but discouragement from the Air Ministry, that is a very serious thing. If you like to decide that your subsidy shall go to one company alone, give it to them, but I think the position will be come very grave if the Government, qua Government, because it is interested in one company, is going to discourage other people from running lines. I do not know enough about the Ireland-Newfoundland story to say anything about it to the House to-night, but I know that everything was going swimmingly, and the Air Ministry was helping everyone, until Imperial Airways said that they were going to change from the southern to the northern route. The moment they said that, the whole attitude of the Government changed. That is a very distressing thing. I should like to know also from my right hon. Friend what are the machinations of the Fisher Committee. The Fisher Committee is a Treasury Committee, I understand, on which there
  1712
  are representatives of other Departments, and it is investigating the possibilities of air development outside England. The Treasury is a very strong Department, and, if any enterprises are going to be supported which may possibly be running against Imperial Airways, it seems to me that the Treasury is going to try to stop the necessary finance. We have already had indications of that.
  I believe that many hon. Members want to speak on this subject, and there are many points on which later on I should like to say a word in Committee, but we must look upon all this enterprise, and the whole policy as being between complete Socialism and complete private enterprise. I do not suppose that even the staunchest Tory would advocate running the Army on the basis of private enterprise, or that even the staunchest Socialist would advocate the complete nationalisation of children. We are all somewhere between these two extremes. But here we have a principle which seems to me to have no advantage from either point of view. If you say that from the point of view of the Empire, from the point of view of showing the flag, from the point of view of prestige, it is a good thing to run Empire air services on the basis of the State and the State alone, I am willing to agree. It would have many advantages over the present system. If machines were not running up to time, we could question Ministers in the House of Commons, and the people of this country would see that the service was efficient. It might be very expensive, but it would be efficient. But under the present system all we can do is to buy a few shares and turn up at a mutual admiration society's meeting, namely, the annual meeting of Imperial Airways; there is no other way of dealing with the situation. That seems to me to be extremely unsatisfactory. If you are an extreme Tory, if you believe in competition which develops the best type of aeroplane, you will not vote for this Bill. If you are neutral, if you do not care which way aviation develops, why should you consent to pay £1,500,000 of the taxpayers' money every year to subsidise civil aviation? If you are an advanced Socialist, you will look to the complete Socialisation of airways throughout the Empire. I cannot see that there can be any group or individual

  1713
  in this House that can be in favour of this scheme, and, therefore, I hope that the House of Commons, not from any party point of view, but on the merits of the case alone, will reject the Measure.
  8.13 p.m.
  Mrs. TATE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  In the first place, I do not think that this Bill is sufficiently a Navigation Bill. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) that it is unfortunate that civil aviation has remained under the care of the Air Ministry; I think that it should be under the care of the Board of Trade; but I also think that the day has come when it is essential for the safety of aviation that we should have a national scheme of regulations with regard to our air services—that there should be a co-ordinated scheme for aerodromes with regard to lighting, radio communication, and so on. I view with distress the powers which it is proposed to grant to local authorities, under Part II of the Bill, to purchase land compulsorily for the laying down of aerodromes. They can, as the House knows, do this outside their ordinary borrowing powers, and those who have studied the Press lately will have noticed that all over the place local authorities are beginning to think it necessary for their prestige to put forward schemes for aerodromes. To-day, the average cost of an aerodrome is in excess of £100,000, and the average annual cost of upkeep is in excess of £5,500. The average income from an aerodrome is in the region of £250. I think, therefore, that there is a very grave danger in allowing local authorities to send forward schemes for the compulsory purchase of land, and I regret that this Bill has been brought before the House before we have had the Report of the Maybury Committee, who might have suggested some scheme whereby there should be a recognition from the central Government of where it was necessary and where it was desirable to have aerodromes.
  Also we ought to make national regulations with regard to safety. I was very much shocked when on 6th February the Under-Secretary told me, with regard to the "City of Khartoum" disaster, that the responsibility for an adequate supply
  1714
  of petrol in machines rested upon the pilot. It is wholly wrong that an employé of any company should be made responsible for saying when he considers he has or has not an adequate fuel supply. In the United States the "City of Khartoum" would have been carrying another 200 gallons by national regulations. It is high time that we had national regulations with regard to the quantity of fuel that should be carried in any machine.
  If we pass this Bill, we of course continue the subsidy to Imperial Airways for another 15 years. I believe there is a strong case for continuing some subsidy to Imperial Airways, and I am not altogether against it, but I should like to know exactly on what grounds these subsidies are given. A good deal has been made lately of the fact that just recently the Government have allowed British Airways to have a small part of the subsidy for their service to Sweden. I should like to know why it was that British Continental Airways, which ran a service before British Airways ever started a service to Sweden, and which is running a daily service to Antwerp, Brussels and Lille, and spends a great amount of money on it, was never allowed to put forward a tender. Why is it that the arrangement with regard to these subsidies is made behind everyone's back, with no reference to any one at all? If you are giving air mail contracts to a shipping company, it is usual to allow tenders to go forward, and it is a curious and unsatisfactory state of affairs that these arrangements should be made without anyone knowing anything about them until they are completed.
  If we are continuing the subsidy to Imperial Airways for 15 years, we ought to be sure that the service that it has given in the past has been in every case wholly satisfactory, because civil aviation is vital not only to the future trade of the country but probably to the future unity of the Empire, and we cannot risk giving it into the hands of any one company for a further 15 years unless when we look at the past we can be wholly satisfied with the service that it has provided. I do not think that we can be absolutely content with the service that Imperial Airways has rendered in the past. To-day great schemes are going forward. There are 29 new seaplanes

  1715
  under construction and 12 land machines. A few days ago I saw one of those flying boats which is nearing completion. If it is as good as it looks, it is a machine of which we may be pround, but why has it been so long before we have been allowed to have up-to-date machines? Why, if the Air Ministry is doing its work efficiently, and if Imperial Airways has shown that initiative and enterprise which we have a right to demand of the company which has control of something of such vital import to the future of the country as commercial aviation, have we had to bring perpetual pressure to bear? Why is it that the machines run on Imperial Airways routes are obsolete from the point of structure, performance and speed? Why is it that in so many parts of the world we have no service where we ought to have a service?
  South Africa intends to take over her service from Johannesburg to the Cape. It is very probable that she will later on insist upon taking over the whole of her own internal airlines. It is not a matter for satisfaction that she has bought German machines with which to run those services. It is indelible proof that she has not been satisfied either with the service or with the machines of Imperial Airways in the past. You can come to no other conclusion. Australia intends to take over her service from Singapore to Brisbane and Sydney. She is not going to have flying boats. I do not think there is any question that probably the ideal boat to put on that service would be the new Short machine which is shortly going to be flown. But Australia has not thought so, and the machines that she has bought for that route are American Douglas machines. That again is an indictment of the service that Imperial Airways has given in the past.
  It is a serious and a terrible thing that Australia has thought it necessary to buy American machines and that Africa has thought it necessary to buy German machines. It is lamentable. Pan-American Airways is going to run a service to New Zealand. She has annexed three small British islands in order to do so. I cannot remember all the names of these islands and as usual I have lost my notes. One was called Baker Island. I read of it in the "Daily Telegraph," and
  1716
  that is a reliable paper. I should like to know why those islands were annexed. Was it with the consent of the Government and, if so, why was the matter not referred to this House? I believe the service is eventually to be carried on from New Zealand to Australia. Is it not a pity that Imperial Airways is not the service that is connecting Australia and New Zealand? It is a very serious thing. It is imperative for our interests in China and the East that we should run a service from Singapore to Hong Kong and Shanghai. It is Pan-American Airways and Deutsche Luft Hansa who are capturing the trade in China and the East with their air lines. I do not think we can afford, either from the point of view of our trade or of British prestige, to allow this route to be captured entirely by an American service. We should not be asking why that has been allowed to happen if Imperial Airways had given us in the past the service that we have a right to demand and expect.
  Deutsche Luft Hansa intend, I believe, to extend their services from China to India and Persia and Greece and on to Europe. Is that a situation that the House is going to view with equanimity? I do not myself regard it with any great degree of equanimity. If we pass this Bill, we shall give Imperial Airways a monopoly on routes on which it is to-day running no service. But look at those routes on which it is now running a service. Look at the route to Singapore. There is a Dutch service that reaches Singapore in three and a-half days less time than Imperial Airways. I think it is true to say that the Dutch service will not carry British mail because they have found their extra speed of such value to their trade. I cannot look upon that as satisfactory, and again I say that, if that is the service which Imperial Airways have given us in the past, we should be hesitant before we give them this tremendous power and monopoly for another 15 years.
  France, in conjunction with Belgium, runs a line through Marseilles, Oran, and across the Sahara to the French possessions in West Africa in two and a-half days less time to-day than the projected service of Imperial Airways. That again is an unsatisfactory position. We granted a monopoly to Imperial Airways with regard to the North Atlantic route, and I

  1717
  believe it is probably true to say that Imperial Airways are further on with their schemes for running the North Atlantic route than any other company which could start to-day. But that is because every other company has been very clearly told that it would have no backing and no support, no subsidy, and would never be given the carriage of His Majesty's mails. I believe that had that not been the case in the past we might have been further on with schemes for the North Atlantic service than we are at present. The situation as we find it now, however, is such that probably Imperial Airways will be able to give us a North Atlantic route sooner than any other company which could start from scratch would be able to do it. But it is just as well to remember that Pan-American Airways have made very good agreements with France, and with Germany, for the running of the North Atlantic route, and it is also certainly true to say that Germany is further on with her experimental flights over the North Atlantic than this country.
  Whenever we compare ourselves with America we are told, "You must not compare yourselves with America. She has these vast spaces and these wonderful opportunities and we cannot compete." That may be true, but surely we have a right to say that we can compete with Germany. She has not had that vast wealth; she has not a vast Empire to serve. Should Germany to-day be further on with regard to the North Atlantic service than Great Britain? I do not think so, but there is absolutely no question that she certainly is. Germany flies 30 per cent. more route miles than we do, and in 1934 she had 100 per cent. more flown miles and carried nearly three times the tonnage of mails and two and a-half times the tonnage of goods. Holland gives more than half the service which Imperial Airways gives at less than one-tenth of the cost.
  I do not think, when you look at that record, you can feel that you can, with trust and confidence, give to-day a monopoly on these many routes to Imperial Airways without thought. If we give this monopoly it will exist for 15 years. We are told of these great new seaplanes and these wonderful new land-planes which we are building, but I still doubt whether the seaplanes under con-
  1718
  struction are as good as the seaplanes already in existence in other parts of the world. I hope that they are, but, even so, we have got them only after intensive pressure from this House. We have heard about them only in the year when it becomes necessary that the subsidy should be carried on for another 15 years. If we give the subsidy for another 15 years without question, what proof have we that Imperial Airways will show that initiative and enterprise in the future which they have failed to show in the past? What power will this House have to bring pressure to bear upon Imperial Airways if they fail? We cannot afford to-day to risk failure, and therefore, I hope that the House will reject this Bill.
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I assure the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State that his speech in moving the Second Reading of this Bill will not satisfy hon. Members on this side of the House. The Mover of the Amendment put his finger upon one strong objection that we hold when he said that the terms of the subsidies ought to be included in the Bill. I would draw the attention of the House to Clause 1, Sub-section (1), which says:
  "The Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, agree to pay subsidies to any persons and to furnish facilities for their aircraft, in consideration of undertakings entered into by those persons with respect to the carriage by air of passengers or goods."
  The Secretary of State may do this until the year 1953. It may be done without the consent of the Treasury and without any authority or power as to the actual amount which is to go to Imperial Airways or any other operating body, because the Act of Parliament which at present provides subsidies will be wiped out. You have not only an increase from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000, but you have an expansion of the period of time which is not covered by Government control over subsidies at all. That is one of the very strong objections that we have to the Bill.
  The Bill seems to stand for three principles, to each of which the Labour party has more than once expressed its opposition. They are, subsidies from the State, regulations by Orders in Council and control by vested interests. It may be true that, in the special circumstances

  1719
  of civil aviation as at present organised, these, to us objectionable features, are unavoidable, but it would have been the purpose of the Amendment on the Paper which was to have been moved from this side of the House to insist that the circumstances themselves required to be altered and that civil aviation should be placed upon a more logical footing of public service. It is a remarkable thing that the inherent defects of the present system are readily observed by Members on the other side of the House, who prepare elaborate and complicated Measures to deal with the results only while the actual causes of the troubles and the anomalies of which they complain stare them in the face. We had an instance of that on Friday last when admitted abuses were sought to be remedied by a Bill which by its very clumsiness, if nothing else, alone challenged, in the name of freedom and public interest, opposition in all quarters of the House. But none of the critics of that Bill, elsewhere than on these benches, could see the plain fact that the proper and completely effective method of dealing with the abuses described would be a State medical service.
  Similarly, we find that the new industry, service and pastime of flying is floundering in a bog or, would it be a more appropriate metaphor to say that it is trying to find its way out of a fog of anomalies and grievances that are the inevitable result of the compromise which allows so much State interference, perhaps of a niggling and unimaginative kind, to go with so much private enterprise; a compromise under which the interests of the community fall down as between two stools. Only Socialists know and appreciate the reactionary and paralysing inhibitions of mere State interference.
  May I give an instance of what I mean in regard to Clauses of the Bill which deal with the subject of insurance? We are told with complete complacency by the Under-Secretary that insurance for third party risks is to be enforced upon the basis of weight, that is, so many pounds according to so much weight of the machine. What has weight to do with the question of third party risk? A small machine, a machine of small weight, may quite easily create more damage if it falls upon a town than an
  1720
  Imperial Airways liner. You must, of course, have some method of insurance, but here, again, as I pointed out with regard to the Measure in general and with regard to the illustration about last Friday's Bill, the proper solution of the question of insurance is the solution that we propose from this side. If we had a State service of flying as we should have—the air is not private property, but is comparable to the ether that is controlled by the British Broadcasting Corporation—the problem of insurance would solve itself. We could not have a finer insuring authority than the State itself.
  All these niggling, little, foolish compromises and adaptations are brought out in the Bill which allows, without any consideration of detail, a board to be set up according to the recommendations of the Gorell Committee. It allows the board to do certain things and to take control of things which we consider ought to be more directly under the control of the House of Commons. The Bill is designed, beyond its subsidy provisions, to carry out the recommendations of the Gorell Committee. Let us compare some of the provisions of the Bill with the corresponding recommendations of the committee. The committee desired that certificates of airworthiness should continue for regular air transport, air taxi joy riding and training work, in addition to one of third-party insurance and the licences of the crew in each case, while private and aerial work aircraft should be required to carry only the certificate of insurance. The Air Ministry, they contended, should not prescribe the detailed requirements to which aircraft should be built, while such matters as the system of approved firms, approval of modifications, inspection of certificates of airworthiness for renewal, daily inspection certificates and the system of ground engineers should lie relegated to the board. That is what the proposals of the Bill mean, although that is not stated. Nothing is clearly defined.
  I take it that we may assume that the functions of the board correspond in general to the recommendations of the Gorell Committee. That board was to be named the Air Registration Board, representing Lloyd's Register and the British Corporation Register. It was to be an autonomous, statutory, executive body. The Bill is less precise. Under Clause 2, if the Bill becomes an Act, the

  1721
  Secretary of State may—there is a tremendous amount of "may" in this Bill—make provision by Order in Council for delegating to a body appearing to him to be substantially representative of the interests concerned, particularly of operators, constructors and insurers of aircraft, such matters as may be specified respecting the design, construction, and maintenance of aircraft. Such an Order may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order.
  This advisory and executive board is to be more widely representative than the board proposed in the Gorell Committee's report. I understand—I am open to correction by the Under-Secretary, but it seems to have been arranged outside—that one-fourth of the board is to consist of operators, one-fourth of constructors, one-fourth of insurers, and by co-option one-fourth other interests. We do not know what those other interests may be. They may be chambers of commerce, pilots, even users of aircraft, but we have no definite details. There is no representative, in fact the Under-Secretary emphasised the point that there would be no representative of the Government upon the board, and no direct control or authority from the point of view of this House. It is not too clear to members outside aviation interests where the Air Ministry comes in or how far it is to be kicked out.
  I did not understand the reference which the Mover of the Amendment made to this question when he said that the Bill was giving the Air Ministry more control by giving them greater authority. I have read the Bill very carefully and I am afraid I cannot see that. Air transport and other commercial flying is to be regulated by licence under Order in Council, in so far as such regulation may become desirable. This, we are told, is to provide for the rationalising of inland services. There seem to be some hon. Members who think that you can allow for or tolerate chaos in the operating of aircraft at this time of day, that you can have competing interests running over the same routes. Apart from the financial considerations there are surely the considerations of public interest and public safety to be looked at. There is to be rationalising of inland services because there may be a tendency for too many companies to run air services on the
  1722
  same routes. It seems that private owner-pilots are to be allowed to kill themselves if they wish to do so, provided they can find an insurance company to insure their craft, while unless they kill or seriously injure themselves or their friends there is to be no inquest or investigation. I know that is not in the Bill, but it is in the recommendations of the Gorell Committee, whose recommendations are to be implemented by this board, which is not under House of Commons control or public control.
  I should like to know whether the proposal of the Gorell Committee that there shall be no investigation of accidents unless there is a fatal accident or serious injury is to be part of the policy of the new board? In respect of private flyers the insurance companies are to be made responsible for airworthiness; the board is to be responsible of course; but it depends entirely upon the possession of the insurance certificate. One advantage of this, we are told, is that renewals will be facilitated because organisations like Lloyd's have branches in all parts of the world. The proposal to devolve questions of construction and design to this independent board is, as many hon. Members know, the culmination of a long struggle between constructors and the Air Ministry. Such bodies as the Society of British Aircraft Constructors have had a long fight with the Air Ministry about their interference with details of designs, and I am quite prepared to admit that they have some case, that there is substance in the contractors' grievances. Apparently, there has not been sufficient elasticity, and this fact has been of some disadvantage in competition.
  For instance, when I was at the Air Ministry it was regarded as unreasonable to subject manufacturers to the same rules of design in regard to lift, load and take-off, and so on, whether the aircraft was to be used in this country with its mosaic patterns of fields going back to the manorial system, or in Canada with its vast spaces and large aerodrome areas. I admit that there is substance in these grievances, and that they have to be dealt with, and I am confident that they can be dealt with infinitely better under the proposal we make for public control of civil aviation. At the same time, this House, I am confident, will

  1723
  wish to be assured that the high standard of British manufacture will not be impaired. Insurance risk as a measure of safety is all very well, and perhaps it is effective enough, but as one who has flown in many kinds of aircraft in this country and on the Continent, I prefer the comforting thought that the fragile craft in which I may be up in the air has been built to five times its likely stress, to the Continental principle of test to mere destruction. I think that there is too much devolution in this Bill, both as regards second and third parties.
  The Amendment on the Paper says that the principle of State subsidies to private enterprise is in itself a vicious principle. I should like to make a distinction between the question of public subsidies to private enterprise and a mere proposal to break down what has been called the monopoly of one particular company. A dividing up of subsidies is not the breakdown of a monopoly; the monopoly will still exist. So long as private companies run air transport, and particularly so long as the Government rely on civil aviation as a background to the Air Force, in ground organisation and navigation if not in machines, so long will subsidies be paid. I am not at all misled by those who say that big subsidies to one firm are indefensible and ought to be split up in order that competing firms may have a chance. That argument does not intrigue me in the least. I do not want a number of separate vested interests created. I am certain that public ownership in some form or other is inevitable. I have suggested the analogy of the British Broadcasting Corporation but I am certain that it is inevitable in some form or other. I want the transition, when it comes, to be simple; least of all do we want a multiplication of nuisance values.
  In regard to Imperial Airways it may be true that subsidies pay the dividend which over the whole term has been about 3 per cent. It has varied from as high as 7½ per cent. to as low as 2 per cent.; but I fail to see the point so long as subsidised private enterprise exists. Of course subsidies must pay the dividend or some of it. The company, Imperial Airways, are not a philanthropic concern. They take subsidies for a purpose, and they are given it in order to pay the dividend or some of it. But there is this to
  1724
  be said: We are told—and I should like the House to consider this point—that the capital of Imperial Airways, a little more than £600,000, upon which the dividend is paid, is very small on comparison with the present organisation, which points to the fact, as Henry Ford put it, that fructification has gone on from the core and not from the periphery, which from our point of view as well as that of Henry Ford is the sound way of handling what is called, under capitalism, "expansion." It is the co-operative method of finance as it would be the Socialist one—to provide for development first as a charge upon the scheme, not distribute dividends and then rely on public investment for expansion. It is this reliance upon new issues and not upon fructification from the inside which is very largely the cause of the cycles of unemployment and depression and poverty which afflict the modern capitalist system. I should like to know how far these reflections are true of the history of Imperial Airways.
  The consideration brings me to fundamentals with which we in the Labour party are concerned. The Bill raises a Socialist issue of vital importance to those who believe in the public ownership or public organisation of the means and machinery of production. We want to transfer the machinery of production to the public service as the foundation of what we believe will he a noble and decent state of society. I should like the opportunity some day of being able to justify those words. But that is our view of what Socialism will be, and we want to transfer the machinery of production in the most practical and least injurious manner. If civil aviation were organised on the lines of the British Broadcasting Corporation, it would not be Socialism. If all the great industries were nationalised, it would not be Socialism, because the equality for which Socialism stands would not have emerged and the economic consequences of inequality would still persist. [Interruption.] If I were permitted to discuss this matter, I should be very pleased to do so. By equality one does not mean imposed equality. We are not talking about an imposed amount, determined by Act of Parliament, which everybody shall receive as an income. Equality will be the natual outcome of a co-operative state in which education and training are controlled—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member cannot pursue that subject in this Debate.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I rather suspected I could not. The Socialist idea of public ownership—and here I return to the point we are discussing—would provide a structure out of which such emergence would ultimately take place. In creating this form of public service, which we regard as transitional, there is in mind the fact that the nature and scope of an industry would properly determine its mode of management. That is the case in Russia, where the overwhelming number of economic units exist in the form of public trusts and syndicates of various kinds—my words are those of the Russian Ambassador—having freedom and elasticity of management and employing the best brains and organising capacity obtainable. I was talking to a well-known aircraft manufacturer the other day, and I said, evidently to his surprise, that under such a control of British aviation he would stilll be doing his job and doing it well. Of course he would, and as long as the conception of equality remained an ideal of some remoteness for all its common sense in an age of miraculous abundance, he would occupy as good It, relative economic and social position as, say, the high-grade public servant, and he would have as much freedom of control and management as he would desire, subject to considerations of general public policy.
  What objection is there to this policy embodied in our Amendment Surely the objection does not come from those who, in this Debate, will be telling us of the inefficiency and chaos that there are in aviation to-day. We have been told—and I am not inclined to believe the extravagant words of the Seconder of the Amendment—that inefficiency is the rule in British aviation to-day. But everyone recognises that there is, at any rate, chaos in aviation, particularly in international aviation, where in some cases corridors which one is compelled to fly along do not fit with one another at frontiers, where every country imposes different vexatious limitations, and where even the right to fly is a matter of treaty and the treaties are all different. All the internal and external difficulties which will be urged in sup-
  1726
  port of the Bill, and, for that matter, in opposition to it from some quarters, construct and prove the case which we submit for a rational, scientific organisation of air services, which in any event cannot be left to chaotic private monopoly—which I think is admitted—and must not be given over to an even more chaotic private competition.
  I trust that in replying to the Debate the Minister will make it clear that public safety is not to be imperilled. We are very much concerned about this principle and the method by which the evolution is to take place. We sincerely think that the House ought to be taken more into the confidence of the Minister and the Government in this matter, and that, as the Mover of the Amendment said, there ought to be attached to the Bill the definite terms on which these long-term subsidies are to be granted. So far as the control of airworthiness is concerned, again I am extremely anxious, as we all are, that whatever may be done and whatever may need to be done to give greater elasticity to the methods of control of construction and so on, public safety shall not be imperilled. We are not satisfied with the constitution of the board and its obvious concern purely for vested interests. We believe that the difficulties and anomalies which the Bill seeks to rectify would be best solved by the adoption of the principle which was embodied in the Amendment on the Paper and which, had the order of the Debate gone otherwise, we should have moved from this side.
  9.2 p.m.
  Major HILLS: I believe everybody will accept the ideal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who wants a rational, scientific organisation of civil aviation. Everybody in the House wants that. I will go further and say that if I had complete charge of civil aviation in a Socialist Government, I could run it very well. But as my hon. and gallant Friend behind me said, we have now a compromise between Socialism and individualism, and when I come to deal with that point, I hope to show that that is not only a very useful way of running an air service, but is also a principle which has been applied over and over again in similar enterprises.

  1727
  My hon. and gallant Friend made two statements on which I would like to comment. He said, in the first place, that that which the Government did for Imperial Airways was justified, and almost in the same breath he went on to say that Imperial Airways ran the poorest of any civil aviation service in the world. If Imperial Airways were so incompetent, I cannot see why he wanted to continue the subsidy to them. I would like to deal with all the points made by my hon. and gallant Friend. First, I agree with him that we ought to have a unified service—at least, I am not sure that my hon. and gallant Friend would agree to that. I would like to put it to the House that the advantage of Imperial Airways is that there you have a unified service in civil aviation which is especially valuable for running the Empire routes. If money were spent on various Empire services, there would be the risk of wasting part of the money and of not getting such an effective service and such a good return for the money spent. The traffic service is one which requires unity. The machines may fly on one route at one time of the year and on another route at another time, and the more there is unification the more economy is introduced into the service. I submit to the House that this can be done without the disadvantages of a monopoly. My hon. and gallant Friend made great play on the disadvantages of a monopoly. Is Imperial Airways a monopoly? Is it anything more than an enterprise which the State has elected to develop and run Empire services? I submit to the House that it is that, and that the State was very wise in following such a course.
  I always differ with great diffidence from my hon. and gallant Friend, not only because his is one of the most acute brains in the House, but because he was the first Englishman to fly and has studied aviation all his life and has a knowledge of the subject which is unrivalled. But on this occasion I differ from him on two essential points. I do not believe in competition and I do not believe that Imperial Airways service is the poorest civil aviation service in the world. Before dealing with those two points I wish to comment on what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the disadvantages of compromise. His brain is too clear to admit compromise. His
  1728
  logical mind wants either Socialism or Toryism. I submit with all respect and deference that compromise is sometimes a very good thing.
  Here we have a combination of private enterprise—private shareholders in Imperial Airways—and a large State subsidy. That brings in the public and interests them in flying and makes Imperial Airways a more effective machine than it would be if it were entirely financed by the Government. After all, the Bank of England is very much the same. It is a private bank and also a State bank. The Government lately made a large investment in the Cunard Company. They have also found big sums for the railways and those actions, I think have been accepted by public opinion. I think they tend to create efficiency and get business done better than either clear-cut individualism on the one side, or clear-cit Socialism on the other. It is sometimes a mistake to be too logical. Sometimes a quite irrational and muddled-headed mind like my own, which accepts these indefensibly illogical arrangements arrives at better results than the severely logical mind. Is it a good thing that there should be one company or several companies running civil aviation in the country? My hon. and gallant Friend wants to keep on Imperial Airways. I suppose he would leave them their present routes and their subsidy but I suppose he would subsidise other companies too.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: On other routes.
  Major HILLS: He would subsidise other companies on other routes. No aeroplane can go into the air and pay unless it is subsidised. To fly without a subsidy and to make it pay is unknown.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The London-Paris service pays.
  Major HILLS: I wonder. With obsolescence and so on, on a proper footing, I think it remains to be seen whether it will pay or not. Air finance is an extremely complicated matter, as I know very well. It is very difficult and it is a matter in which, unless you exercise great care, you can go extremely wrong. But supposing we are to spend more money how shall we spend it best? Do we spend it best on subsidising one company and

  1729
  giving them all the money and all the routes or on spreading out the subsidy to cover various companies on various routes. I am strongly in favour of the first alternative. I am perfectly certain you get the best organisation, the best machines, the best service and the best staff by singling out a company on which you spend all the money you wish to spend.
  Is Imperial. Airways a company of the character which deserves this subsidy? I agree that is an important matter. May I say, first of all, that I have no personal interest whatever in Imperial Airways except that I hold one share, value £1. I was an original director in 1924. T, then, was not a Member of Parliament. In 1925 I was elected to the House and since the company was subsidised I thought it, better to resign my directorship and give up a work which, may I say, I loved. I thought it best to sell my shares because there were certain dividends on those shares—of which I had received none up to that time—which were subsidised. I sold the shares at a heavy loss and resigned my directorship and so I have no interest at all in the company to-day, but I retain a great belief in the organisation of that great enterprise and the able man who is at the head of it. In 1925, the company operated 1,700 miles of air routes. That, in fact, was the cross-channel or European service. It now operates 17,000 miles a day and its air routes are 25,000 miles. That is not bad progress in 11 years. Its traffic has increased seven times between 1930 and 1934 on Empire routes and the cost per ton mile is less than half. I respectfully submit that those are the results of unity. It runs Empire services to the Cape, India, Singapore, Australia and from the Sudan to Nigeria.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) made a very clear and precise speech unfavourable to Imperial Airways and she complained that they did not run more services. May I remind the House that if you give Imperial Airways more money they will run more services but that you cannot run services without subsidy. When she also complained that the South African Government were buying German machines and the Australian Government were buying Douglas machines, she used that stick to beat Imperial Airways for a crime for which they are not responsible. Imperial Air-
  1730
  ways do not build machines. They have to buy machines like anybody else. My hon. and gallant Friend said if there had been more competing companies there would be more competing manufacturers to build machines for them. When he says that, it either means that the routes would have been flown with an excessive number of machines and therefore too expensively, or that as long as the money is provided Imperial Airways, can fly any route they are desired to fly, for which the Government find the money.
  Imperial Airways have not a monopoly. They do not carry all the mails, they do not fly on Northern European routes, but they are the selected company for Empire routes. The hon. Lady below me said they fly those routes with poor machines that are obsolete and too slow. The machines are improving very rapidly, and it was impossible for Imperial Airways to give an order for the new machines which they now require for the Empire routes until the subsidy question was settled. If you want a long-term policy, you must give a long-term subsidy. A large part of this subsidy might have ceased in 1937, and so they could not take the steps which the Empire routes require until they knew that the subsidy was to be continued. As a. matter of fact, the machines were ordered beforehand, and also, to account for some of the delay, they had considerable trouble in coming to terms with the Australian Government.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Did the company order these new machines, gambling on the fact that this Bill would be passed to-night?
  Major HILLS: I do not know. I have no sort of connection with the company at all. I have no shareholding, and I am not on the board, but my hon. and gallant Friend saw all the machines himself, did he not? I did certainly, and they are being made now. I may be too enthusiastic over Imperial Airways—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—Well I wonder if I am. I am certain that if any of those hon. Members who imply that I am had been there in my place, their enthusiasm would have been much greater than mine, and they would have put it much better than I can. I do not believe there has ever been an organisation of this sort built up so quickly and so cheaply.

  1731
  Our subsidies up to now have been much smaller than those which other Governments pay. It is useless for the hon. Lady below me to say that the Dutch subsidy is only one-tenth of ours. It is perfectly well known that there are all sorts of concealed subsidies, especially in Holland. We have up to now received far less money than have other countries, and for that we have done wonders, so I remain an unrepentant advocate of a single, unified company. I do not believe you can for a moment contemplate breaking up this great organisation; I do not think you can do it now. I also think they are doing their work more efficiently than could have been expected, and when this Bill is passed and the extra finance which the Bill contains is given to them, I do not believe that we shall hear the complaints which we have heard, for I believe that then there will be unanimity in admitting that the service is the best in the world. Outside this country nobody complains of it. It is only here that the service is criticised and that tendentious statements are allowed to appear in the Press, but I believe that when this Bill passes, all the doubts which exist in the minds of some of my hon. Friends will be removed.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. MANDER: In approaching a Bill if this kind, one cannot help regarding it with very grave suspicions at the outset, because it includes two things that are generally disliked, namely, a monopoly and a subsidy; and, seeing the great enthusiasm of the Government for a subsidy as a remedy for all the ills that the economic flesh is heir to, one naturally has to look very closely at a Bill like this, and it is necessary for the Government to make out their case in full, both in general and in particular. I cannot help feeling that some subsidy is still justified, and probably will be justified for some years to come, in connection with the development of civil aviation, because it is clear that if other countries do it, we must play our part. We must not be behindhand in the development of this wonderful new invention. We must be triumphant in the air, as we have been all down the ages at sea. Therefore, we should not grudge any well-worked-out scheme for encouraging a development of this kind.
  1732
  I have some figures here which show how far off we are at the present time from reaching the paying stage. In 1933, I understand, there ware only four companies in Europe that were even halfway to paying without a subsidy. Taking 100 as the point where financial autonomy is achieved, where no subsidy is needed, we find the position to be this: Holland 76, Finland 70, Great Britain—that is, the European routes of Imperial Airways—61, Denmark 55, Germany 35, France 21, and Italy 8.7. It is clear, therefore, that a subsidy of some kind, to some company, is justified. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), said it was impossible to make flying pay without a subsidy. That is very nearly true, but I submit that it is not quite true, because under favourable conditions, such as you find on the flights to Jersey and in Northern Scot land, companies are actually paying without a subsidy now, and there are certainly people who are very anxious to organise long-range flights, across oceans, at the present time without any subsidy at all. Whether they could do it or not may be a matter for argument, but there are certainly responsible people who think they could.
  With regard to the question of Imperial Airways, a great deal might be said in criticism. No doubt they have not done all that they might have done—they have been slow and various other things—but they have done a great work, none the less. They have built up in this country an organisation that we have reason to be proud of, I think. They have a vast fund of experience now, and they are a very powerful organisation. It is most difficult for any other company to raise up its head with Imperial Airways in the field. Indeed, it is rather difficult for the Air Ministry itself to attempt to advance in the matter of civil aviation without relying and calling upon the technical assistance of Imperial Airways. Imperial Airways are the civil aviation branch of the Air Ministry, in the opinion of a great many people.
  While I am going to make some comments on the lines taken by my hon. and gallant Friend when he moved the rejection of the Bill, I think some tribute should be paid to Imperial Airways for the very effective national work which they have done along certain lines, even

  1733
  if it might have been very much better done. It is said that they have not built a very fast machine and that they have gone in for safety. Well, there is a great deal in having a safe machine, and I think—
  Mrs. TATE: Is the hon. Member aware that between October and February this year they have had nine accidents, and is he proud of that as a safety record?
  Mr. MANDER: The point I was going to make is that the general public, both in this country and in other countries, very much prefer to fly in Imperial Airways machines when they can get the chance, because they know that, while they may not go quite so fast, they are not likely to he smashed to pieces, as they might be if they travelled in the machines of other countries, where not quite so much care is given to these matters. The chairman of Imperial Airways said in his speech at the annual meeting that the company was virtually a national undertaking. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) argued in favour of having a national corporation. I agree that the time will come, and should come, when civil aviation in this country will be under such a corporation as the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Port of London Authority, but I do not think that that time has come at present. It is better to proceed on the system where you have some Government control over a company which is directed on the lines of Imperial Airways. The development of civil aviation is a great adventure. You want risks taken; you want forward movement; and that is not generally associated with Government departments. When it becomes more stabilised the time will have come to make it into a more national undertaking.
  I want to raise what is the real criticism against this Bill and against the system of giving subsidies. This is a limited monopoly, and I agree that there should be a limited monopoly for Imperial Airways for the Empire routes, which are of great importance and should be encouraged from the point of view of national prestige, and also for the European routes. But the question I want to put—and I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it very clear—is what is going to be the position with regard to those Empire routes which are
  1734
  either not covered or are not likely to be covered by Imperial Airways for a number of years to come? What is going to be the position on those routes which are not contemplated by Imperial Airways at the present time? It would be greatly in the national interest if it were made clear that any company could come along and on equal terms, in free competition, could take its place with Imperial Airways for a claim for a subsidy, a mail contract and everything of that kind. There should be every encouragement to firms to compete on these routes where Imperial Airways have no intention of going. There is the route to South Africa. There are companies who want to go there, and I believe that plans are actually under consideration at the present time. There is the West Coast of Africa, where Imperial Airways have no plan at the present time, as indicated in the diagram given with their annual report. There are routes also in certain parts of the Mediterranean which other companies would be glad of having a chance of developing.
  In this connection I would like to know what are the precise duties of the Fisher Committee and the Maybury Committee. Is it a fact that all proposals for developing routes abroad have to be passed by the Fisher Committee and that all those in connection with routes inside this country have to be passed by the Maybury Committee? I think that information ought to be given about that. I believe that the present situation in regard to the matters to which I have referred is profoundly unsatisfactory. I have been in touch with several different associations of people of a responsible kind who have got schemes and ideas and actually companies for developing certain routes. Whatever may be the real facts, the impression has been left on the minds of all these people that they have not had a square deal, that they have not been reasonably treated by the Air Ministry. If you are to get in and get any chance of a contract you have to know the right people, you have to be in the swim, and to have certain friends if you are to have any chance at all. This may not be true, but it is the impression strongly graven on the minds of all these persons with whom I have been in contact and who have desired to take their part on equal terms. I have even heard of one case where a public

  1735
  issue was going to be made of a certain air transport company and the Air Ministry put pressure on the persons connected with it not to make the issue, not to provide the funds. That is really a most improper proceeding, and it seems to me that the whole matter wants organising on a more systematic basis. It is far too casual and far too indefinite, and everybody concerned ought to know exactly where he stands.
  I should like to make two suggestions which I believe would put the matter right. First, when it is proposed by the Air Ministry to deal with any particular route, they should advertise the fact to the public. Let it be known through the public Press to everybody interested that such a route is being considered, so that everybody concerned can come forward and if he has a scheme, technical or financial, it will have a chance of being heard on its merits by the Air Ministry. You cannot get that to-day. The other safeguard is that specific agreements should be attached to the Bill and that agreements entered into after the passing of the Bill should be communicated to the House in some way and the House be given an opportunity of considering them and satisfy itself that every possible consideration has been given to all those concerned. It may be that as a result of this all the contracts would go to Imperial Airways. I do not know, and I do not care, as long as everybody concerned has had an equal opportunity. I want to refer briefly to Clause 2, which deals with the question of inspection in future. It seems quite a natural thing to adopt for the inspection of aircraft the system which has worked so well and so long for shipping through Lloyd's Register. It may not be logical, but it is practical; it has worked well. For a considerable passage of time now the inspection of aircraft privately owned has been carried out by Lloyds' Register, and they would be glad enough to have the chance of going on doing that work on a bigger scale, bringing in commercial aircraft, but that the Air Ministry have insisted on bringing forward this new scheme. If you went on with the present practice I believe that you would have in a much shorter space of time a system of inspectors throughout the whole world by which at any given moment British aircraft as well as ships could be inspected by a very
  1736
  competent officer, whereas under the scheme proposed it will take a considerable time before the inspectorate is built up and it will be confined in the beginning to aircraft in this country, and you will not have the world-wide organisation which otherwise would be available.
  It may be that I have not properly understood this scheme. The Under-Secretary ought to give the House some idea of the maximum subsidy which is contemplated under Clause 2. If he cannot give an exact figure, we ought to have some indication of what the amount is likely to be. Under Clause 5 an appeal board can be set up by Order in Council. I feel in general that there are far too many Orders to be made under this Bill. It gives numerous powers to the Minister, and in a great many eases they might be better dealt with by putting the proposals of the Air Ministry into the Bill instead of giving the Ministry such a free hand. I agree that the rationalisation of the home flying services is desirable. There is likely to be, and perhaps there is now, an unnecessary amount of duplication. For instance, the number of services in 1932 internally was six; in 1933, 13; and in 1934, 36. It is clear, therefore, that in due course we may get such a multiplication as to make for confusion.
  The whole point is as to the form and adequacy of the appeal tribunal. It will be fatal if that tribunal is associated with the Air Ministry because the Ministry is a deeply interested party. It is one-half shareholder in certain concerns—at any rate, a 49 per cent. share-holder—and it is clearly essential that there should be some appeal tribunal above the Ministry which can be trusted. We shall have an opportunity of dealing with that question because it cannot be put into force without an Order being brought before the House. In view of the unsatisfactory state of the non-Imperial Airways companies and those who would like to come in either with or without a subsidy—because there are people in both categories—I associate myself with my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill. Unless the Under-Secretary is able to give some definite assurances on this matter, we on these benches will feel obliged to vote against the Measure although no one is more anxious than we are to see this country develop in the realm of civil aviation. I hope I that the right hon.

  1737
  Gentleman will be able to give assurances which will make it clear that fair play will be available for all, and that they will be able in that way to effect the conquest of the air and so make a reality of that splendid motto of the Royal Air Force—Per ardua ad astra.
  9.38 p.m.
  Sir ALAN ANDERSON: Two questions which have been asked by hon. Members seemed to me to correspond so closely that they might be put opposite each other for observation. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. blander) asked how far we are off from paying. The hon. Lady, the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) asked why Germany should be further on in the air than we are. It is a question of money. The whole of this business is subsidised. It is conducted on a completely artificial basis and the nation which is prepared to put its hand deepest into its pocket will, with decent management, get the fastest and most elegant machines. I do not think that we need waste much time about comparing our results in Imperial Airways with the results of other nations which are spending on an entirely different scale. I submit that in talking about this Bill we are really discussing one of the most vital and fundamental points in the whole of our commerce and civilisation. We are on the threshold of speed, and speed lies at the basis of trade and of all progress. We have to learn how to step from our old element the sea, to the new element the air. It is vital that we should do it with the least loss of time and money.
  We have been supreme on the sea for 70 years, and now we want to move from the sea into the air with as little loss and friction as possible. That is a very difficult problem. I oppose the Amendment in favour of the Bill. Speed means cost, and one of the great costs of transport, apart from speed, is waste. The load factor is one of the most important of costs. You can get speed without exaggerated cost if you can load your machine. It is the same with ships. I believe that we in our contact with the air have already come to the point to which the operators on the sea have come after much loss of money and much loss of temper and time. They have had to put their heads together and rationalise the service on a route. Nowadays on almost
  1738
  every route you will find operating steamers which are so expensive that their owners have been driven to put their heads together, and they sit down usually with their customers to try to rationalise the service. That has to be done in the air. We are doing it, and that is the object, as I understand, of the Government in setting up one company and concentrating their subsidies upon it. I do not think that it is at all certain that one company has brains enough to operate services all over the world, but on each separate route it should be our fundamental policy to avoid the waste of competition as long as the services have to be heavily subsidised.
  We are not within sight of getting them economic. We cannot be. I believe that Imperial Airways are moving in that direction faster than anyone else, but the whole question is relative. How much are the Dutch, the French, the Russians or the Germans going to pay to subsidise their services? As soon as we get ours within a reasonable level of paying, somebody else will put on a much faster and more subsidised service, and ours will prove to be a loss, and the operator will be told by critics in the House that they are behind the times. I am afraid, therefore, that we must look forward to many years of these subsidies and of uneconomic enterprise in the air. I regret it, for I think the air offers us an enormous chance of human progress. When we were talking about it last week we saw in the speed of the air a threat to our lives. Let us look also at the promise of the air, the promise of bringing together all the nations of Europe. It gives us, if we use our chances properly, an enormous possibility of progress such as we have not had since we moved from sail to steam. For all these grounds I strongly favour the Bill. There is, however, one point that ought to be remembered. The right hon. Baronet, when he was introducing the Air Estimates, said:
  "Though we are convinced that our policy is basically sound, we do not want the House to think that we are not fully alive to the dangers of monopoly nor yet that we overlook the fact that, with units of organisation too great and a sphere of operations too vast, efficiency may begin to suffer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1936; col. 273, Vol. 310.]
  There is one danger who has not yet been provided against, although it ought to

  1739
  be. We maintained ourselves at the head of the world's shipping on the ocean as long as the ordinary rules of competition prevailed. We have great organisations, with capital and ships and local knowledge, engaged in every trade of the world, and I think it is very important, when we are stepping up from the old element of the ocean into the air, that we should as far as possible use the basis of our past prosperity to help us on in this new service.
  9.46 p.m.
  Mr. G. HARDIE: Listening to this Debate I have been struck by the fact that the science of travel by air has been subordinated to financial and vested interests. All that has been described by the poet and the scientist of what man can do in the command of the air has been turned in this House to—night into a vision of huge, black, ugly vultures trying to feed upon subsidies. The Bill has raised certain questions which must be dealt with, and I hope that the Minister will not neglect the serious statement made by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who put forward a very serious charge regarding the powers that were being used by his Department to prevent what is called honesty in trading. I shall say no more and will leave it for the Minister to deal with. I see that, according to Clause 2, the Secretary of State
  "may by order provide for delegating to a body appearing to him "—
  That is giving me trouble. I am not being personal, but it is a very dangerous thing to leave this power with one individual, I do not care what his mental capacity may be. No one man should be left with so much influence over what is fast becoming an essential of the life of every nation, and especially of ours. If I were somewhere else I could become very personal, and I might make myself more explicit, but I want to go on with the Clause. It continues—
  "to be substantially representative of the interests concerned with civil aviation (and in particular of operators, constructors, and insurers of aircraft)."
  When we get language like that in a Bill it always means the heads of firms. The men who really know about the essentials of things like this are the men who do the work. It is not the director of the
  1740
  firm, who has never been engaged in any part of the work, and who can compel the man who knows only to be in a position to reply to questions. The man cannot say from his knowledge; he can only reply to questions. I do not want to recall what happened in this House in regard to R.101 when that airship was under constructions but my friend the late Mr. Rose and myself made some remarks—we were the only two in the House—which I regret very much proved to be true. We were laughed and sneered at when we were talking about the weights and the impossibility of that machine getting through, and no two men ever regretted more that they had spoken.
  To-night I make an appeal drawn from that experience: If you want to get real knowledge you must go where that knowledge is. If the taxpayer has to pay a subsidy, surely he has a right to get the best knowledge. Why should knowledge filter through the board of a company? I have had some experience of boards of companies, and I know that the average board is made up of what I call the "industrial boneheads." We had an instance of what I am talking about in this House the other night. We had persons coming forward as a firm who could neither answer questions nor say in detail what they were manufacturing, yet these persons were said to be the head of that firm. Suppose you want to know something in regard to the building of aircraft. You do not want to have to consult a gentleman comfortably seated at a table dealing with figures which have been supplied to him. That is waste of time. You want to get the men who know their subject—just as I should like to see on the Treasury Bench the men who know the subject in detail. If you get in the man who knows the job you are going to save time and money. On the question of design you get the man who is capable in that department of science, but he can only go so far, until he meets the practical man who can tell what materials must be used for strength. On those details depend the success of the thing called a flying machine that is going into the air. Clause 2 says further:
  "The matters to which this Sub-section applies are the design, construction and maintenance of aircraft and matters connected therewith."

  1741
  A great deal has been said to-night in criticism of what has taken place in connection with the manufacture of aircraft. We learn from experience, and all that I am trying to do is to get the best experience into the place where things are determined and things done from knowledge and practical experience. We had a speech just now from a Member who has since gone out who spoke about shipping and said that for many years we should have to look forward to paying a subsidy to air transport. He might have told the House that he was feeling very comfortable because he is at the moment getting a subsidy from shipping. It seems to me, since I have come back to this House for the second time, that there has been a great change. It looks to me as though every time the House is meeting on serious business there is someone at the door with a hat waiting for a subsidy. It is just one subsidy after another. If he wears a tiled hat there is no means test; but if people come there wearing caps, then it is assumed that they must be subjected to a test.
  Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Does the hon. Member realise that the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson), whom he has just accused of accepting a subsidy, gets no subsidy at all for his ships? He is a liner owner and not a tramp owner, and is not interested in the subsidy. The hon. Member ought to be more careful in his remarks.
  Mr. HARDIE: Yes, but I was thinking that you would agree with this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] If there was any offence in what I said, I withdraw. I was speaking generally of shipping.
  HON. MEMBERS: No, you were not.
  Mr. GALLACHER: May I ask whether being accused of getting a subsidy is a reflection upon the character of the hon. Member?
  Mr. EDE: It is regarded as a tribute to his abilities.
  Mr. HARDIE: We are told that there must be assistance in order to maintain these air services, that no machine which goes into the air makes a profit that keeps the service alive, and that there
  1742
  are deficiencies which have to be made up in some way. If the nation as a whole were going into the business I could understand flying being done to make the business a success. Why can we not do that? Why should it be necessary for firms of private individuals to come in and get something out of the fact that we need aeroplanes? Why not face the issue now? It has been hinted that we are going step by step into what is called a Socialist business, but it is not Socialism. Socialism means complete ownership and control. We see the capitalists being driven by the stress of their own system into coming here for assistance, and they have no shame in doing it. I have seen poor people having to be coaxed to go to get their unemployment insurance benefit because they needed money, but we find no hesitation here in coming to get subsidies. In a book written by Mr. Cunninghame Graham I read: "The world is to the pachyderm." I did not realise what the word "pachyderm" meant until I came here and saw the pachyderms at work.
  I want to put another question to the Minister in regard to commercial aeroplanes. There was a serious loss of life the other night in a southern part of this country, and I would ask the Minister whether it was within his knowledge that an arrangement had been made for the civil aeroplane concerned to circle round in a certain area in order that the, military might practice with their spotlights on that machine. If so, here is something that we have to face. The pilot was regarded as a man capable of becoming one of the most skilled of pilots. We are told that his use of the commercial aeroplane was combined with a military use, and that he had great skill in evading the spotlight. It would seem that when the first light was thrown on him he took some action which meant that he was thrown to the ground, and all those fine people were killed. Is there to be a provision in the Bill that will prevent that kind of thing from happening? Is the civil aeroplane to be under the control of the military at any time, in order to give the military this practice? These things affect the civil population, and ought to be dealt with.
  A most interesting thing is what we find when we come to deal with the question of insurance of people who commit damage. We are told that the limit in

  1743
  the case of aircraft and airships is £25,000. We come down the scale, and afte we leave the aircraft we find, in paragraph (d):
  "in any other case—
  (i) a number of pounds sterling equal to the number of pounds avoirdupois constituting the weight of the aircraft fully loaded.
  That is to be the basis of calculation of the damage, if one of the machines comes to the ground. I would remind the Minister that here we are dealing with the weights of falling bodies. Are you going to take the weight of the machine when it meets the ground, or what is known as the surface weight? If the machine weighs two tons in the air, and it falls to the ground, is the damage still to be calculated as two tons, or are you going to have a scale with regard to a falling body increasing its weight? Is it not a fact that a falling body may do less damage when falling from a height if it falls in a straight line, than a glider, say, would do in taking a slanting method of getting to the ground? If we are to be in the hands of the machine companies at this end of things, we should be very careful. The Bill seems to be built of a good many things indicating that there will be many complications. I can see men debating for years what weight in avoirdupois is equal to so much pounds sterling, and so on. All these complications contained in the Bill were drafted by people who know all about the law. They are capable of defining things so as to get the fat for which other people have to pay.
  The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment was one of the first of our highly skilled airmen, and he made remarks which I hope will be burnt into the memory of the Minister. He dealt with research, and one great statement he made, which has so far been kept from coming into a real general application, is that the public will have the results of research only in one section of flying. That is most unfair. If the nation is paying for research of that kind, it has a right to receive it.
  The Secretary of State to-night is trying to deal with something which will defeat him, no matter how he tries to escape. It has been proved so by other hon. Members who have tried to support
  1744
  the Bill. They have found that the system under which they live is not capable of putting this flying service into the air so as to meet its own cost. Why not be honest with yourselves and say: "Since this cannot be done in the ordinary way of business, and since it is a service that the nation must have, why not socialise it now?" Why not have the insurance in your hands? Why should any private enterprise, insurance-mongers or brokers, have profit out of the fact that somebody may be killed? Why should any private enterprise men get a single halfpenny of return upon a service such as the air service?
  If the Secretary of Scare for Air had to take the air, as men who are compelled to do it by order, I am certain that he would, for his own safety, say to-night: "This is our service. This is the nation's service, and no private enterprise will enter here. Nothing but the finest knowledge and experience is given by our men, or shall be used in giving us the truth about flying." Instead of that he is putting forward a Bill that says that there shall be delegation, but about that delegation he has so far remained silent. I ask him now, if he has the convictions of a man, if he believes in the right of individuals to all knowledge without profit, if he believes in the nation's right to have that which it needs without its passing through profiteering companies, to stand up and say that once for all these national services shall remain national and shall be supplied by the nation.
  10.5 p.m.
  Sir ALFRED BEIT: I do not think it devolves upon me to follow the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) into the intricacies of his speech, and I do not envy my right hon. Friend who will have to reply to them, but I hope he will take the opportunity of correcting the hon. Member with regard to the statement he made about the increasing weight of falling bodies, which seems to me to be very much at variance with what I learned at school. I am glad to see that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel MooreBrabazon) is now in his place, as I was very interested to hear him repeat his, by now, familiar charge that the Air Ministry has been asleep for many years past. I hope, however, that, if he insists upon

  1745
  pursuing that charge, he will allow me to class him with Rip van Winkle, for he himself can hardly have been awake recently if he still maintains, as he did in his speech this evening, that no developments have taken place in recent years with regard to civil aviation. He seems to have forgotten the statement of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary only 18 months ago, in which he outlined the very remarkable developments that are now being implemented in this Bill.
  My hon. and gallant Friend asked a number of what I thought were rather rhetorical questions, susceptible of easy answers. For instance, he said that, where an air port or an air service or a ground organisation was developed by the expenditure of the taxpayers' money, it should be a free port to all. Surely the answer is that it is a free port to all. I am not aware that there are any restrictions upon the use of it. But, just because the taxpayers' money has been used to put down a beacon or develop a wireless direction-finding service, there seems to be no reason why His Majesty's Government should be asked to find money to subsidise every aeroplane that uses that port. I was also interested to hear of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion that this House should have control of the organisation and administration of the air mail services, in order that he might be able to come down and ask the responsible Minister questions about the late delivery of air mail letters. I wonder, however, whether he has had any very satisfactory experience, during all the years he has been a Member of this House, in asking similar questions of the Postmaster-General about the late delivery of ordinary letters, because it seems to me that many of us have asked such questions of the Post Office and have not derived very much consolation from the answers.
  The hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), who, I regret, is not at the moment in her place, applied to this Bill a number of statements which I feel I cannot have been entirely accurate, and I very much hope that my right hon. Friend, when he tames to reply, will give us some official confirmation of my fear that her statements were not entirely true. For instance, her statement that an Australian company has ordered, or is about to order, American aeroplanes for one of its
  1746
  services, is entirely new to me, and I should very much like to have the Minister's confirmation that it is not in point of fact true. Her reference to the fact that the Union of South Africa uses certain German aircraft on its air lines has certainly no elements of surprise in it, because it has been the case for a number of years. It arose originally, I believe, from some trade agreement which the Union made with Germany. The Union has used these German aircraft for some years past, and has also ordered an equivalent number of British machines. The hon. Lady also seemed to think that the British Empire was in immediate danger of disintegration because Pan-American Airways have been using certain rocks in the Pacific, which can hardly be called islands, as bases and re-fuelling stations. The cumulative effect of the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the rejection of the Bill was very alarming, but I feel sure that any fears that the House may feel can soon be put at rest.
  In supporting the Bill, I welcome it as the fulfilment of the Under-Secretary's statement of December, 1934, and I propose to address myself exclusively to Clause 1, which deals with that and kindred matters. It has taken a long time to appear, but there have been many obstacles to negotiate and many Governments to consult, and I understand that even now certain difficulties have not been entirely overcome. Let us recall the three outstanding features of the scheme which is now being implemented. The first was a very material improvement on the present time schedules on Empire routes; the second was an increase in Empire services; and the third was the very remarkable and novel proposal that all first-class mail should in future be carried by air, and, furthermore, should be carried to India in two days four or possibly five times a week, to East Africa in two and a-half days three times a week, to the Cape and Singapore in four days, and to Australia in seven days twice a week. Those were the original suggestions outlined in the statement of the Under-Secretary in December, 1934, which we are now asked to implement by passing this Bill.
  There has been, and it has been voiced from several quarters of the House this

  1747
  evening, criticism of Imperial Airways, who will carry this traffic exclusively; but, together with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), I feel that that criticism has been unjustified, in that Imperial Airways seem to me to be best qualified to carry this enormous new burden, and I think their organisation will enable them to perform this work for the least amount of subsidy. On looking back over their history, who can say that their policy has been wrong, in spite of what the hon. Member for Frome said? The obsolete aeroplanes of Imperial Airways, to which the hon. Lady referred, are still carrying more traffic than all the other lines in Europe put together, and the volume of this traffic is, I believe, the envy of their competitors. Who, therefore, can seriously suggest that Government money should be used to establish and support costly rivals? In fact, the reverse policy is the tendency throughout the world to-day. For instance, we have seen in recent years an amalgamation of all existing air lines in France into one big organisation, and in a different though analogous sphere we have seen Government support given to shipping companies, such as the Cunard line here and the Italian line, conditionally upon their forming amalgamations.
  On the expiry of the existing agreements there are three alternatives open to the Government. The first, complete cessation of all subsidies, would in present circumstances be both inadvisable and impossible. I think that the second alternative, to continue their present benevolent interest, at the same time continuing with the air mails on a surcharge basis, would merely mean that we were marking time. I feel certain that the support that has been received for the third alternative, which is the new policy which is before us now and which we hope will be adopted, will be justified in every respect. The carriage of all mails by air without surcharge to all parts of the Empire is a very forward policy. I only hope that some extension of this sort will be granted in the case of newspapers. I do not wish to deprive shipping companies of the remaining benefits of the mail contracts that they have but I remember very painfully that in 1932, when I visited South Africa, at the time when the Imperial Airways Service was first opened, it cost
  1748
  7s. 6d. to send a copy of the "Times" to Central Africa by air. I hope, if it is proposed to send letters for 1½d. to these and other parts of tae Empire, some more or less corresponding rates will be brought into operation for newspapers.
  The new policy that we are hoping to carry through has made possible the designing, construction and ordering by Imperial Airways of a new fleet and that order, which is for 29 flying boats and 12 land planes, amounts to £2,500,000, the largest single order ever placed for aircraft, and they are of truly remarkable efficiency and performance. The two years that have been necessary for the programme of design and building—not an unduly long period—is one very good reason why the Bill has not been introduced before, because it would be impossible to design and construct such aircraft, which is a very costly process, without firm orders, and these orders have been made possible by the Government policy. It is surprising that the innovation of all first-class mail by air, which at least rivals in importance the introduction of the penny post by Rowland Hill, seems to have failed to capture the imagination of the aeronautical industry, or even the Press, but possibly the inevitable time-lag between the adoption of the policy and the departure of the first service takes the gilt off the project, and much has to be done to turn the policy into performance.
  In regard to this proposal to send all air mail without surcharge the attitude of Australia remains unsatisfactory. In fact, it is the only weak link in an otherwise perfect chain. Australia still demands a surcharge of 6d. on all air-mail letters. That would mean that letters posted to Australia from this country under the new scheme would only require 1½d. postage but a reply from Australia would require 6d. postage. This differentiation seems to he based on a mistaken idea in Australia of her national needs. We propose a flying boat service all the way to Brisbane. Australia still wants land planes from Singapore to Brisbane, though formerly, when the scheme was first mooted, she wanted flying boats.
  HON. MEMBERS: Who are "we"?
  Mr. GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order. May I ask, Sir, whether you have kept the hon. Baronet under observation?

  1749
  He appears to be reading from a brief, which is contrary to the rules of the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have noticed that the hon. Member has some copious notes to which he occasionally refers.
  Sir A. BEIT: My notes are not nearly as copious as the hon. Member would suggest, and I have read only selected passages. I was asked what I meant by "We". Perhaps I might have been accused of speaking out of turn. I only meant to say that the implementation of the policy which underlies the Bill before us to-night, and which was first brought before this House in December, 1934, by the Under-Secretary of State for Air, would involve the use of flying boats all the way to Brisbane, but that Australia still requires a service of land planes from Singapore to Brisbane. Australia's strategical needs could very well be satisfied if she were to keep those land planes for use on her internal feeder services and if she were to accept the proposition of the Air Ministry, that flying boats should be used over the mainland as far as Brisbane, she would then benefit both economically and possibly strategically from the fact that she would have at her disposal both types of aircraft in case of any imaginary emergency. If Australia persists, a difficult situation will be caused by the fact that there will be smaller return loads of mail and, therefore, what is the bugbear of all transport, an empty return journey will be produced in the most extravagant manner.
  The only alternative put forward to the Government's schemes are the Opposition plan for a State air service, and the anti-monopoly plan, which would mean going back to the days before 1924, when Imperial Airways were formed. In those days there were four competing concerns all using money, and the public interest demands now that we use all our efforts to put up one efficient British air line to compete with the French and the Dutch lines on the Empire routes. Subsidies are not in themselves infallible or even a dispensation of Providence, but neither are they irrevocable. They can be varied or abolished. Under the Bill they will carne to an end in 1953 unless some future Government renews them. Imperial Airways have built up an ever increasing and a more efficient traffic with a declin-
  1750
  ing subsidy, and it is difficult to believe that the State could establish a completely efficient organisation without the vast outpouring of public money, and, if it did, it would be well nigh impossible ever to bring it to an end. The experience of Governments in transport enterprises has not been a very happy one, and a State-supported private venture such as Imperial Airways or any other company which may benefit from the proposed subsidy, could be much more easily rapped over the knuckles for alleged shortcomings than could the Government's own venture. No vested interest is a greater tyrant than one which has been built up by the Government itself or becomes such a veritable Frankenstein monster.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Would the hon. Member advocate that the Navy should be handed over to private enterprise?
  Sir A. BEIT: No, I would not advocate that the Navy should be handed over to private enterprise. Earlier in the evening my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), in pursuing his line of argument, said that, just because he supported the continuance of a subsidy for commercial aviation such as that which is before us to-night, it did not follow that one should want to hand over the Army to private enterprise. If the Government had run commercial air transport since 1924 I wonder whether they would have made as good showing as Imperial Airways? Would they have given us, for instance, increasing efficiency at decreasing cost? Would they have organised a service which, of all those existing in the world to-day, is nearer the self-supporting stage than any other, and which at the present rate of progress might very well stand on its own legs in a few years' time? I very much doubt it. Air transport within the Empire needs as close co-ordination as, for example, London transport. This is an age of co-operative effort, and if we seek to perpetuate the equivalent of the one-man business in air transport we shall just as surely be left behind as if we still persisted in one-man manufacturing units in competition with the vast joint-stock undertakings.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I recall the day when this House honoured itself by elect-

  1751
  ing you, Mr. Speaker, and you asked that we should conduct our debates by way of cut and thrust, but I find it very difficult to do that on this particular Bill. I have sat here for 3½ hours and I have heard three speeches made in support of the Bill. One was made by the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson). I failed to grasp his reason for supporting the Bill. The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) seemed to support the Bill largely on a new definition of air monopoly. Those who were present will remember his attempt to re-define that particular word. The hon. Member who has just resumed his seat spent most of his time in making a Minister's speech replying to the point which other hon. Members had raised in debates. On the whole, the defence of the Bill has been an appeal for Imperial Airways.
  Let me make my attitude on subsidies quite plain. As a Member of the last Parliament, from its beginning, and until now, I have definitely refused to vote for any subsidy to private enterprise. I am a believer in private enterprise, but I have stated before and I re-state now that there is no justification for private enterprise except competition. I say to hon. Members opposite that they will live to regret the day when they voted these subsidies to private enterprise. What answer have I to a constituent of mine who says to me: "You profess to believe in private enterprise and yet by your vote, executed on my behalf, you give to certain people privileges in order that they may derive profit "? I find it impossible to answer that question from the private enterprise point of view. I will vote for no Bill that gives a, subsidy to private enterprise.
  But this Bill goes even further than that. Not only does it give a subsidy to private enterprise, but coupled with the subsidy it gives a monopoly. I believe in Liberalism and it has always been a tenet of that faith that when a monopoly exists there is justification for the State taking over that particular thing. I have not receded from that position. I have been told that Cobden has come to life again, and Gladstone, but I do not apologise for my views. If you are going to have subsidies for this particular industry then the House is entitled to know, before voting a subsidy for a period of 17 years
  1752
  of £1,500,000, a total of £25,000,000, how it is proposed to decide the companies which are to receive the se subsidies. The hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) mentioned that a subsidy was to be given to a company called British Airways, Limited, who, I understand, run a service to Scandinavia.
  Mrs. TATE: British Continental Airways.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: No, a subsidy is to be given to British Airways, Limited. I understand that there is another company in existence, the British Continental Airways, who were in existence before British Airways, Limited, who use the same type of machine and have built up a regular service. I do not speak for either company. I no interest in them, but the point is, why has it been decided to give a subsidy to the one and reject it in the case of the other? Why not give it to both? If there are to be subsidies, I object to one particular company having a monopoly. I understand the attitude of the Air Ministry is that wherever Imperial Airways run a service they are to enjoy the subsidy, but that, where they do not run a service the Air Ministry will decide w hat particular company shall enjoy the subsidy. Whether I am right or wrong about that is not the point. The point is why is not any company which is prepared to tender for a regular service to be given equal opportunities with those companies which the Air Ministry decides is to have the subsidy? It is absolutely wrong in principle to subsidise particular people and refuse others. I understand that if I go to certain companies which issue tickets on certain routes and Imperial Airways are not running on that route it is practically impossible to get them to issue me a ticket for any other line apart from those which are subsidised: they prefer to issue me a ticket to go by a foreign company. Perhaps the Minister will answer that point. Then, again, there is the Air Ministry's attitude towards subsidised companies. In Clause 5 provision is made for a system of licensing, and the Minister made it quite clear that it was not intended to bring this into force immediately, but that they should have the power if there were any difficulty at any future time to regulate by licence this industry. Clause 5 (1, a, iii) reads:

  1753
  "for such flying undertaken for the purpose of any trade or business as may be so specified."
  Is the House to understand that a man who wishes to use an aeroplane for his private business is to be subject to a licence which may be refused by Order in Council? I would like a definite answer to be given on that particular point.
  I would like now to come to Clause 12, which seems to me to be a very important Clause indeed. I cannot understand why a Statute law should be brought into being which takes away the common law rights of an individual. The position is that a citizen of this country is called upon through taxation to subsidise a company which is to be given the privilege of a limited liability if it hurts that particular citizen. That is an absolutely absurd position. The total limited amount if the aircraft is an airship is £25,000, and if this Bill is passed it must be remembered that it applies equally to foreign airships, and other aircraft, as to our own. If an airship came down in Piccadilly Circus on a huge business establishment, or if it set fire to a big factory, in which hundreds of lives might be lost, the liability would be limited to £25,000. In the case of a glider, why on earth is the amount the lowest, seeing that it is the least controlled of almost any aircraft? It might kill two or three people, and yet the liability is limited to £1,000. The liability under paragraph (d) is somewhat amusing. One hon. Member who dealt with this particular Clause referred to a thing being worth its weight in gold, and here we have that saying put into legislation, for the liability is limited to one pound sterling for one pound avoirdupois.
  This point must be seriously met. Is it right that the people of this country should be asked to accept a limitation of liability for something they have already subsidised? I ask the Minister, who is not here at the moment, why there should be this limitation of liability? He made the remark that it would be a costly business. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) handed me a paper and said that in the case of his private light aeroplane, for a maximum in any one accident of £2,500 it would cost him about £12 per annum. The limitation in the ease of a three-ton aeroplane is just over
  1754
  £6,000. Why is there this limitation? It cannot be on the ground of expense, for if the amount were £12,500 it could be covered for £60 a year, although I know there would be an additional premium for the passenger capacity. Neverthless, I am certain there would be no burden on any company of such a nature as to warrant a provision of this kind, and I am not prepared for one moment to give away the common rights of individuals in order that subsidised companies may escape their proper liability. I repeat, that Members of this House who oppose Socialism will regret having ever gone into the Lobby in support of subsidies for private enterprise, as they are now doing week after week. While I am opposed absolutely to Socialism, yet I can find no answer to the case put forward by the Socialists to the effect that if subsidies are needed then the State ought to take any reward that is forthcoming as a result of them. There is no answer to that case and any attempt at an answer must be made with the tongue in the cheek. I hope we shall have an answer to the question: On what principle is it decided to give subsidies to particular companies and to refuse them to other companies? That point ought to be met before we go to a Division on the Bill.
  10.42 p.m.
  Major NEVEN-SPENCE: The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holds-worth) seems to have a, very strong objection to subsidising private enterprise. It seems to me that that is a rather narrow view to take because there are occasions when it is impossible for private enterprise to succeed unless it has the assistance of the State. It is also the case, as I may point out to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) that hall a loaf is sometimes better than no bread. By means of the State assistance afforded in this Bill it may be possible to break a monopoly to which, I am sure, the hon. Member would be the first to object but I shall return to that point later. I welcome the Bill which I think is long overdue. Not nearly enough has been done in this country to foster and develop civil aviation and in particular our internal air services.
  One of the reasons why I intervene to-night is to try to elicit from the

  1755
  Under-Secretary a statement on the question of whether the internal air services are also to receive subsidies wherever necessary. I have been much impressed by the statements made from time to time by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) as to the necessity for making this country thoroughly air-minded and getting the largest possible pool of trained pilots. The occasion may arise, although we all hope it will not, when this country will find itself very thankful that Governments have taken the trouble to train a large number of pilots. That is one aspect of the question which has already been dealt with by other hon. Members but there is another consideration to which I would draw attention. In many parts of the country communications are exceedingly antiquated and slow and I see no hope of improving them in any way other than by the development of our internal air services.
  The Bill holds out great hopes in that respect. The lack of modern transport facilities is a tremendous handicap in the more remote parts of the country. It is depressing to business interests and the people generally, as a result of it, suffer from a want of amenities. One way in which I can see that business development can be possible in these places is through the development of civil aviation. I might illustrate this by referring to my own county of Shetland. One hon. Member referred to rocks in the middle of the Pacific being used as stepping stones on air routes. I would like to call the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Air to some rocks rather nearer home, a group of rocks lying about 200 miles off the North-East coast of Scotland, the Shetland Islands. Communications with these islands are worse to-day than they were 50 years ago, slower and more irregular, in spite of all the advances that have been made in forms of transport, due to steam and so on, and the only hope that I can see of getting any improvement there is through the encouragement of an air service.
  We have been complaining in that part, of the world for 50 years without anything ever having been done to effect any improvement at all, and I think we are coming to about the end of our patience. The communications with
  1756
  these islands—and this is the point about the monopoly to which I referred before—are in the hands of a steamship company which enjoys an absolute monopoly and which has abused that monopoly and treated these islands in the most unscrupulous manner. The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), whom I do not now see in his place, referred to the desirability of air services being used to take the cream away from the mail services. I wish he would accompany me to the Shetlands a fortnight hence; he would very quickly realise that so far from his getting the cream away from that-company, that company would skin him and will continue to take the cream from the people of these islands until that monopoly is broken; and the only way in which it can be broken is through the development of an air service.
  To show how bad things can be where communications are bad, it may astonish hon. Members when tell them that we have only one direct mail service a week at the present season of the year to Shetland. There is not another county in Great Britain which has less than a daily mail service. We have two indirect services, but even so letters posted in London on a Wednesday will be delivered throughout most of the Shetlands on the following Monday. An air service is already in being in the north of Scotland, developed entirely by private enterprise, Highlands Airways, and it is running very successfully to the Orkney Islands and has given them the benefit of very much more rapid communications than they ever had before, and also of a daily mail—[Laughter]—a daily delivery of letters, I mean. Recently there was started an air service to Scandinavia. Scandinavia is in daily communication with Great Britain, and here our own Scandinavian dependency, Shetland, has no such service and has nothing like a daily service.
  One of the counties which I have the honour to represent is neither the smallest county in Great Britain by area nor the smallest by population, but in the matter of communications we are far any away the worst off. If hon. Members wonder how that seat was overturned after 98 years adherence to Liberalism I can tell them that the reason was that we wished to get better communications with the adjacent Islands of Great

  1757
  Britain and Ireland. Now private enterprise is making an effort to develop an air service to Shetland. It is a very recent development, and I am glad to be able to thank the Air Ministry for being about to provide there a wireless station for directional purposes. This company is making a big gamble in starting an air service to Shetland. It is a different problem in the case of Orkney. The distance is greater and the traffic less. It is possible that the traffic will go ahead all right during the summer months, but there is a great danger that the company may not be able to stand on its own legs during the bad season of the year. No doubt the Post Office will be in a position to help, and I hope it will.
  I would like the Under-Secretary, when he replies, to answer this point. In such a case as this, and surely I have made out a case, will it be possible through the operation of this Bill to save an enterprising company like that in the early years, until they see whether they can get a permanent service? It is because I see a hope in this Bill of righting an old standing grievance by a wise development of civil aviation that I support the Bill.
  10.53 p.m.
  Sir RONALD ROSS: It is a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member, and I would explain to him that I live in one of the neighbouring Islands. I mean Ireland. This Bill is providing a fairly long-term policy. We are committed to the year 1953 as regards policy, particularly of the Transatlantic air service. I wonder whether we realize the great importance of what we are doing? This is the first step in the inauguration of the Parliamentary side of the Transatlantic air service. Probably in times that we shall not see that service will be a dominant factor in the life of this nation. It seems to me that in approaching the matter as it is presented in this Bill we are abrogating our duties, because Parliament is muzzling itself, and that we are surrendering our control. Until 1953 the arrangements of the Transatlantic air service will be solely at the command of the Secretary of State for Air. Parliament, in pressing him, will be told that he can do nothing, that he has signed his agreement and that the control is with some company. I understand that the company is to be Imperial Airways.
  1758
  What my right hon. Friend is asking us to do is a thing that Parliament should be very hesitant about doing, namely, to accept a committal to a course of policy over which it will have no control. My right hon. Friend has, I know, made a study of the eighteenth century, and he will recall the days of the South Sea Bubble. He may remember that it was a case of an enterprising body of persons who raised large sums of money for a company the prospectus of which was merely the sentence that it was raised for purposes hereinafter to be divulged. It was a successful money-raising concern. The course proposed here is rather unworthy of the great matter which we have to consider. We shall be told afterwards that it is too late, that the time has passed to criticise these schemes. What are the schemes? Is it a matter so trivial that it can be settled inside the Department? Is it a matter over which Parliament is to have no control? I am particularly interested because my constituency is nearer to the American continent than that of any other Member of the House, and I want to know where the Transatlantic air service is to land.
  My contention is that for that service to be worth doing its first land-fall on the European side should be in the United Kingdom, and its first land-fall on the American continent should also be under the British flag. No one can so insult the members of the Irish Free State as to call their tri-colour the British flag. If the base is to be in the Irish Free State it does not fulfil the hopes that I have for this service. There is only one argument which I will admit as being paramount in making the base for this service somewhere else than in Northern Ireland. If it is held, from a technical point of view, to bring a definitely increased factor of danger into the service at the present time, I do not think that one can ask the men to undertake this almost terrifying task, which it must be at the beginning, and I do not think we have thought quite enough of them this evening. If it is for the time being going to increase their risks, let them go to the safest place. That sacrifices my interests, but I would ask that it should not be in perpetuity. Will my right hon. Friend give me an undertaking, if it be necessary now to land elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, that as soon as it is technically possible and reasonable to

  1759
  land in the United Kingdom it shall be done?
  There has been a company, of which I know little, except that they were proposing to have their base in Northern Ireland and that they were asking for no subsidy but only for air mail contracts. I would ask my right hon. Friend why they were encouraged up to a point until October this year, and were discouraged from that time onwards. The survey which the members of the Air Ministry who went to my constituency made of facilities there was of the most superficial nature. Apparently a decision had already been reached on that point. I should be glad to know whether they were merely sent up there in order that they could say they had been there, or, if not, why their survey of the facilities in those parts was not more thorough. Imperial Airways have come in for much criticism this evening. Imperial Airways, of course, are neither private enterprise nor Socialism, and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite do not display a more friendly spirit towards them, because I think the method which has been adopted is a very effective method of quelling private enteprise, and undoubtedly it has done so. I do not say, because I am not in a position to know, that it is not, perhaps, the best method for the time being. But the money on which Imperial Airways is run is, to a great extent, provided by the State. What control has the State over Imperial Airways? When it is handed this blank cheque—at least it is a blank cheque up to the sum of £1,500,000—what are we to know and what control are we to have over its profits? Is it not a case of taxation without representation—that we are merely the paying organisation, the organisation which runs the money and passes it on to an organisation which can spend it and over which we have no control?
  There are two specific questions which I should like to ask the Under-Secretary for Air, and I implore him on this occasion to refrain from the great ministerial virtue of reticence, because they are questions which ought to be answered before we vote this money. We all know that Imperial Airways will play the greater part in regard to the Atlantic
  1760
  air service. Have Imperial Airways made agreements of which we know nothing with other bodies, and, if so, what are they? Is there an agreement between Imperial Airways and the Irish Free State, and are Imperial Airways to get financial advantages from such an agreement? That is a matter of great importance. As we are going to provide the money out of which they will pay their dividends we are entitled to know whether there are others with whom they are going to make bargains, perhaps at the expense of the United Kingdom, to their own financial advantage. Further, have they an agreement with Pan-American Airways, and in that agreement is there any article which prevents them from co-operating with British air companies? Any firm for operating air services which is assisted financially by this Government ought not to have an agreement to co-operate with firms of non-British origin rather than with British firms. If it is decided that the first landfall on this side of the Atlantic must temporarily be in the Irish Free State because conditions are still too dangerous to allow of anything else, does my right hon. Friend hope, as soon as possible, to be able to transfer that first landing ground to the United Kingdom?
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. T. JOHNSTON: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) asked the Government some very pertinent questions about the projected air service across the Atlantic. He might have added this further question to his questionnaire: "Can the Government tell us why the new company that is to undertake the projected service is returned simply as having been floated in November last with a capital of £100?" Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us at some time later why this concern, which is to undertake a great Imperial air service, is so reticent about its financial inauguration.
  I have no intention at this late hour of attempting to re-cover ground that has been traversed by hon. Members of all parties. There has been a steady stream of criticism of the principle of finding public money for the subsidisation of private financial concerns and of the reticence in the Bill as to the precise amount and method of distribution of the State subsidies that are to be given. I

  1761
  would draw attention to one or two points which have been made by most hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate. The Minister and the Government had a great chance, of immense importance to the State, of converting this air service into a public service. Instead of that, what has happened? I looked at the files of the London "Times" to-day, beginning with 3rd September, 1935, when the shares of Imperial Airways, Limited, stood at 46s. At the end of last week they stood at 59s. 9d. per £1 shares. The increase, before this Bill has become an Act of Parliament, is already 13s. 9d. for every £1 share. As there are 624,000 shares issued, there is already a surreptitious dividend of £360,000 upon the shares of Imperial Airways, Limited. It is true that the Government hold 25,000 of the shares, but the Government got them in a rather curious way. The Government got those shares as the price of foregoing their legal claim to subsidies which had previously been given to Imperial Airways and which were returnable to the State. As the price, so far as I know the only price, of abandoning their claim to hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money, the Government received those 25,000 deferred shares in Imperial Airways, Limited. That concern were paying a 6 per cent. dividend in 1933 and 1934. I understand they are now paying 7 per cent. The concern, which is prosperous, is being given a great monopoly, and the shares are jumping week by week steadily on the London market. To-night, at the instigation of His Majesty's Government, they are being given further advantages.
  There have been three great jumping-off grounds in our industrial history in the last 100 years. In the first place, there was steam power. Steam power, 100 years ago, floated in one year 624 companies, with a capital of £379,000,000. In two years' time the £379,000,000 had all disappeared, with the exception of £48,000,000, 70 banks had broken, and hundreds of thousands of homes in this country had been ruined, because no control whatever had been taken by this House over the operations of the financial manipulators of a great new invention. A hundred years ago this year in 1836, there was the railway boom, in which £78,000,000 was lost. Railway shares became unsaleable. After the promoters, the landlords and the Parliamentary
  1762
  lawyers had had their kill, the financiers stepped in, and by their manipulations ruined hundreds of thousands of poor and middle-class families, and spread devastation and ruin all over the land. Here is the third great jumping-off point—the air. What steps are the Government taking to control the flotation of the new financial corporations that are already in being and developing. Are the right hon. Gentleman and the Government prepared to take any steps whatever to prevent the great financial ramps which are already in operation?
  The vultures are gathering round this great new service. I can give some of the names. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman of the Whitehall group, Financial Securities, Limited, with £4,000,000 of capital, already operating round dummy companies; and before this House knows where it is and before the public know where they are, millions of pounds will be lost by simple-minded investors unless the Government step in with a national investment board and prevent the ramps which are already beginning in the air, as they began 100 years ago in the case of the railways, and 110 or 120 years ago in the case of steam power. I have been at some pains to find what has happened in other hands on this same matter. I have here a, cutting from the London "Times" of the 20th January, 1934, in which it is reported that the vice-president of the United Aircraft and Transport Company in the United States, the largest of the lot, admitted on the witness stand before the Senate Committee that an investment—I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will take note of these figures—of 253 dollars showed a profit, in two years, of 35½ million dollars on civil aviation. There has been nothing like it in the history of finance in the United States or in this country. It is the admission of the vice-president of the United Aircraft and Transport Company. More than that, he admits that he made a profit of $9,500,000 upon part of his holding. He admits that he took $431,000 as salary, bonuses and director's fees in the two years. The Postmaster-General of the United States declared also in the "Times" of 16th February, 1934, that he did not believe Congress ever intended that the air mail appropriations should be expended for the benefit of a few favoured corporations which could use the funds as the basis of wild Stock Ex-

  1763
  change promotions, resulting in profits of tens of millions of dollars to promoters who invested little or no capital. £70,000,000 disappeared in civil aviation investments in the United States.
  We have seen the phenomenal rise of our Imperial Airways shares. We see it going on now. The Minister takes no steps to safeguard the nation from the financial ramps that are now being organised. I prophesy that before this Government is finished the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will be sorry indeed that they did not take steps to save the nation while yet there was time. We shall vote against the Bill because we know that this is m financial ramp. We want to see the air service developed. We want to see the world brought closer together. We believe this should be done by the State as a State service. If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends delay, we shall have to pay untold millions to get rid of the vested interests that are speedily growing around this service. I beg the Government to withdraw the Bill and let us have by consent a State service under State control, State owned for a State purpose. We are mixed up in this, I know, with military aviation. There are vital State interests hidden in this Measure. The hon. Member for Londonderry has hinted at some of them. The House, on party lines, will go into the Lobby and hand over the future control of the air to selected private groups of speculators and financiers. We will do our best in the Lobby to defeat it.
  11.20 p.m.
  Sir P. SASSOON: I should like, in the first place, to reply to two questions which have been addressed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) who asked me whether Imperial Airways had concluded any arrangement with Pan-American Airways, and, of course, it will be essential—
  Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I put it to you, Captain Bourne, that the right hon. Gentleman has already spoken, and that it ought not to be taken for granted that a Minister or anyone else should speak twice without asking the formal leave of the House to do so.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and
  1764
  Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is quite correct. This being an Order of the Day, the Minister can only reply with the leave of the House, and I assume that when there is no other Minister to reply, the House will grant it.
  Sir P. SASSOON: I apologise to the House. It was a complete oversight. I would like permission, if I may, to be able to speak, and I might add that I do not mind if the House refuses me. I was replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, saying that it was hoped that Imperial Airways would conclude an arrangement with Pan American Airways, because the carriage of American mails will be one of the most important factors in a Trans-Atlantic service. As far as a base in this country is concerned, in the interests of safety we must make the crossing as short as possible, but the terminus will, of course be in the United Kingdom.
  The House will agree that we have had a very wide and interesting Debate, and I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to answer all the many and varied points that have been raised. I think that many of them were points that night suitably be dealt with in Committee. I will reply first to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon). He said in his speech that no one ever listens to him, but that he is always right. I would rather say that everybody listens to him, as I did this evenning with great pleasure and interest, but I might say that he is not always right. He is always very unkind to the Air Ministry, but I also think that he does not really mean to be as unkind as he makes out to be. Unfortunately, he shows on many occasions a complete disregard of facts. He was discussing Imperial Airways this afternoon, as he has done before, and one gathered from his remarks that Imperial Airways have been a dismal failure. Perhaps I might be allowed to quote certain facts and figures which I mentioned in my Estimates speech, and ask, How is it, if Imperial Airways have been such a dismal failure, that they have carried more ton-mileage in one year than their French, or their Italian competitors, with a far less subsidy? How is it if they are such a dismal failure, that their share of cross-Channel passenger traffic last year was

  1765
  more than all their five continental competitors combined?
  Moreover, how is it, if our system is such a dismal failure, that it has been copied by many foreign countries and that more are in process of copying us. It seems to me unthinkable that, ignoring all the lessons of experience, we should go back to a system which we deliberately abandoned because it had broken down, and turn away from a system which other nations are either adopting now or have already adopted. How, if we did so, could we hope effectively to compete with foreign enterprise in a field where our rivals are sparing neither effort nor money to get ahead of us in the race. My hon. and gallant Friend also said that the Air Ministry never produced a good machine until this House compelled it to do so. I doubt whether hon. Members would wish to claim a credit which is not theirs. I would not claim for the Air Ministry the credit for the long series of successful aircraft and engines which this country has produced and as a result of which we see 26 different countries using our aircraft and as many countries using our engines. It is the industry that deserves the greatest credit, but the Ministry is entitled to a share of it. Has my hon. and gallant Friend forgotten the three successive victories that we gained in the Schneider Trophy? We won that trophy outright against the competition of the whole world. Is he really unware that most of the very successful machines which are now coming into production were planned on paper two years ago by the Air Ministry and the industry in co-operation? He alleged, in connection with the transatlantic route, that the Air Ministry's attitude towards the promoters of one of the schemes had changed as soon as Imperial Airways showed interest in the northern route. I say that there is not a shred of truth in this allegation, and I think it is a very great pity that allegations of this kind should be made. I was very sorry, also, to hear the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) say that you have to know the right people to get a hearing at the Air Ministry—
  Mr. MANDER: I said that that was the impression left on the minds of those who had failed to get a hearing.
  Sir P. SASSOON: It is only fair to say that the hon. Member added that he did not take responsibility for the statement, but that it was what he had heard. The suggestion is wholly unwarranted and it should not be made unless his informants are prepared to furnish chapter and verse. Who are these people and what are their names? I should like to know. I hardly think the House needs any reassurance on this matter. As other hon. Members made enquiry about the Fisher Committee which has been set up to look into the whole question of the development of international air communications. I may say it is a standing committee which deals with the major proposals affecting overseas air services and on which at least six different Departments are represented. We could have no more effective safeguard if safeguards be needed.
  Let me turn to the speech of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). To-day, as on previous occasions, he has made a very interesting contribution about the possibility of civil aviation in the future being conducted as an organisation more or less on the lines of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I would not for one moment say that such a future is not possible, but I do not think we can look to the possibility of it yet. I admit that there is force in the argument used by the Gorell Committee, that freedom from Government control rather than the intensification of such control was essential in the interests of civil aviation. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member attack the subsidy system because in connection with these subsidy agreements he it was who sponsored the Air Transport (Subsidy Agreements) Act of 1930. I think he should be glad to see how well his policy is working and take some credit to himself.
  Mr. MONTAGUE.: Those agreements were definite, and were passed by the House with the full knowledge of the amount to be given to Imperial Airways.
  Sir P. SASSOON: This is a continuation of that policy, and a White Paper will be placed in the House in connection with these subsidies and hon. Members will have ample opportunity to discuss it in all its phases before the agreement with Imperial Airways is signed. We are, I hope, going to have the Committee

  1767
  stage on the Floor of the House, which will give hon. Members an opportunity to discuss these points, and I hope that in those circumstances the House will let us have the Second Reading now.
  11.33 p.m.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered several questions, including one which I asked—on what principle is a subsidy given to one company and refused to another? We are asked to vote £25,000,000 over the course of 17 years. That is not a Committee point. A question of principle is involved. Why does not the Under-Secretary tell us why one company is to get a subsidy and others are refused? On what principle is this matter decided? We are entitled to an answer. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to reply to one or two questions put by hon. Friends of his and decline to answer substantial points put by other hon. Members.
  11.34 p.m.
  Mr. GARRO-JONES: I want to add my protest to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has replied to the Debate. I have participated in Air Debates on other occasions and I have previously complained that the right hon. Gentleman takes good care to answer criticisms which are friendly but completely ignores those which are put forward from this side of the House. The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) made grave charges about this financial ramp. The Under-Secretary has not said a single word in reply. If this House valued its honour, that would have been the first question to be answered by the Under-Secretary. All he did was to score a cheap debating point against the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) that he brought forward a Bill which compromised the hon. Member as far as this subsidy principle was concerned. The right hon. Gentleman knows that my hon. Friend could not bring in the Bill which he would have liked because the Labour party had not a majority in the House. The right hon. Gentleman has a majority, and in his innermost heart he knows that this ought to be a State service.
  There is no service in the State about which a stronger case can be made. The
  1768
  State has to give it financial assistance; it could have bought and floated this company for one year's subsidy. That is only one form of assistance The State has to give the company diplomatic assistance. Imperial Airways cannot operate or fly over Europe, or any other part of the world, without calling in the aid of the British Foreign Office, with the vast expenditure which that entails in every part of the world. It has to have meteorological assistance; all the weather reports, and so on, of the Air Ministry are at its service. It receives service in research; all the scientific research departments of the State are at the beck and call of Imperial Airways. If it wishes to build a new type of machine, the Air Ministry pays for it. The subsidy is not the whole tale of the assistance which the State gives to Imperial Airways.
  There is only one reason why Imperial Airways remains under private enterprise, and that is because the Government are trying to bolster up a rotten system, and they know very well that if they acted honestly in this matter, Imperial Airways would be a State service. I venture to say that before very long there will be a Nemesis which will follow the right hon. Baronet on this matter. The country is beginning to realise that these attempts to bolster up, by every form of payments—if it is not a subsidy, it is remission of taxation; if it is not a remission of taxation, it is a guaranteed loan—are carried out for the purpose of maintaining, in the interests of financial ramps, this rotten system which the right hon. Baronet is maintaining.
  I believe the House would give the right hon. Baronet a third hearing if he would tell us what he intends to do to prevent this financial ramp in Imperial Airways shares. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Clack-mannan (Mr. Johnston) did not tell the worst of the story. It is, I believe, only 12 years ago that these shares stood at 1s. Then, I believe, there was a time when they stood at 5s. Now they stand at 42s. or 52s. Every shilling of that capital appreciation has no other basis but the subsidy paid by the State. I did not rise with any intention of detaining the House long, but I hope the right hon. Baronet will not be allowed consistently to get away with this system of his of answering the easy criticisms and over-

  1769
  looking those which go to the root of our complaints.
  11.38 p.m.
  Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Hon. Members on all sides of the House realise, I think, that civil aviation in this country has not yet reached the stage at which it can be expected to continue without some Government support, whether it be nationalised or carried on under private enterprise, with the assistance of a subsidy. That, however, is no reason for nationalising this particular transport service as suggested by the Hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro-Jones). If one looks throughout the Empire, whether it be Australia or Canada, and if one looks at foreign countries—and there comes to one's mind immediately the example of Germany after the War—one finds that the nationalisation of transport has afforded one of the most disastrous and catastrophic examples of Socialism that could be found.
  There is one point I would have wished to put to the right hon. Baronet before he sat down, but I regret to say that I came into the House rather late this evening, and I did not have the good fortune to catch your eye, Sir, before the right hon. Baronet had resumed his seat. There already exist established and regular transport services, other than air services, for the carriage of mails, passengers and freight. These are run on commercial lines and without any Government subsidy, and they are bound to be prejudicially affected by having traffic displaced as a result of the increased subsidy to air transport. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government ought to give some consideration to that problem and endeavour to find an equitable solution of it, in the public interest. The granting of an increased subsidy to this particular form of transport will give rise to a problem, with which the Government must deal if they wish to do justice to all forms of transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not advocating any one of them in particular to-night.
  I suggest as a solution of that problem that those transport agencies which are prejudicially affected as a result of the Measure should be given priority of claim to participation in the operation of these services.[Interruption.] I am
  1770
  anxious that hon. Members opposite should not miss their last trains, but there is one other point to which I wish to make a passing reference. I welcomed the statement made earlier in the Debate by the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that he was desirous of seeing some system of licensing air services in order to avoid uneconomic competition. I think that statement will be welcomed in most parts of the House. My hope is that if such a system of licensing is brought into operation those transport agencies, whatever they may be, which are likely to be most seriously affected as a result of the subsidy, will receive special consideration.
  11.44 p.m.
  Mr. LYONS: I ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I put one or two points to the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary. In a Debate of this nature, a good deal is, necessarily, said about Imperial Airways, but the House ought to recollect that Imperial Airways was formed for the purpose of establishing an effective series of air services. The right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, bear in mind, first of all, the necessity that these agreements should be brought before the House from time to time so that the House may have in mind at all times the different services in respect of which agreements are negotiated. It is idle to say that any national service can fly by itself. [Interruption.] Civil aviation in this country cannot pay for itself, and it is essential, in order to preserve this system of communications within the Empire, that a Government subsidy should be given. I think we can take consolation from the fact that during the short time it has been in existence this national Airways service has achieved substantial results. It is one thing to operate an air service between the frontiers of one country or even in Europe, but it is a very different thing indeed when services have to be operated, as Imperial Airways services are now functioning, over four Continents and something like 30 countries. Criticisms may be made—and most of them have been rather unfair towards Imperial Airways. [Interruption.] We have listened to my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill with that care and consideration which are always given to what he

  1771
  says. He is one whom we honour as one of the pioneers of flying, but I disagree with him in the request which he makes for the divorcement of civil aviation from the Air Ministry. I hope there will be no divorcement between the Air Ministry and civil aviation, and I believe that this new scheme can go forward in a great pioneering spirit and that, by the aid of this increased subsidy, we can link Empire communications in such a way as to provide ourselves with an outstanding air service on these routes.
  Sir P. SASSOON rose—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The Minister has already spoken twice, and except in Committee Members, whether Ministers or not, are only entitled to speak once. If Ministers are to be allowed to speak in this House as many times as they like, we are really making all debates the same as in Committee, and I think the House should consider very carefully before it grants permission to a Minister to do that.
  11.48 p.m.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  I think the only proper course for the House to adopt, in view of the attitude of the Minister, is to adjourn the Debate. I am surprised that someone above the Gangway on the Front Opposition Bench has not taken the opportunity of moving the adjournment of the Debate. The Minister had his opportunity of answering the Debate. He answered a few people on his own side of the House, made a few casual remarks to the former Under-Secretary of State for Air, thinking he was scoring a point, and then left all the other questions unanswered. In these circumstances, I think the House is entitled to art answer to all those questions. As it is obvious that the Under-Secretary of. State has proved himself quite unable to answer them, an opportunity should be given for him to go over the Debate and possibly get some other Member of the Government, on a future occasion, to answer those very pertinent questions. I therefore move the adjournment of the Debate.
  Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 161.

  Division No. 123.]

  AYES.

  [11.50 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

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

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

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

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Riley, B.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Ritson, J.

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

  Hardie, G. D.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Ammon, C. G.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Rowson, G.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Henderson, J, (Ardwick)

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Barr, J.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Bellenger, F.

  Hopkin, D.

  Shinwell, T. E.

  Benson, G.

  Jagger, J.

  Silverman, S. S.

  Broad, F. A.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Bromfield, W.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Brooke, W.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Cape, T.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Campton, J.

  Lathan, G.

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

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Leonard, W.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Daggar, G.

  Leslle, J. R.

  Thurtle, E.

  Dalton, H.

  Logan, D. G.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Vlant, S. P.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  MacLaren, A.

  Walker, J.

  Day, H.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Watson W. McL.

  Dobbie, W.

  Mander, G. le M.

  Westwood, J.

  Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)

  Marklew, E.

  White, H. Graham

  Ede, J. C.

  Mathers, G.

  Whiteley, W.

  Edge, Sir W.

  Messer, F.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Milner, Major J.

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

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

  Montague, F.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Foot, D. M.

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

  Woods, G, S. (Finsbury)

  Frankel, D.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Gallagher, W.

  Paling, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gardner, B. W.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Mr. Stephen and Mr. McGovern.

  Garro-Jones, G. M.

  Potts, J.

  NOES.

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

  Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

  Neven-Spence. Maj. B. H.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Furness, S. N.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Albery, I. J.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

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

  Gledhill, G.

  Patrick, C. M.

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

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Penny, Sir G.

  Apsley, Lord

  Goldie, N. B.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Petherick, M.

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

  Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Picktnorn, K. W. M.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Proctor, Major H. A.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Belt, Sir A. L.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Bllndell, Sir J.

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

  Rankin, R.

  Bossom, A. C.

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

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Harvey, G.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Bracken, B.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

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

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Bull, B. B.

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

  Rowlands, G.

  Butt, Sir A.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Salt, E. W.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Hulbert, N. S.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Hunter, T.

  Scott, Lord William

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Christie, J. A.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Clarry, Sir R. G.

  Kerr, I. G. (Scottish Universities)

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Kirkpatrick, W. M.

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

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

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

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

  Spens, W. P.

  Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Storey, S.

  Crooke, J. S.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Lewis, O.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Cross, R. H.

  Lidoall, W. S.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Lindsay K. M.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Tate, Mavis C.

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

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  De Chair, S S.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  Lumley, Capt. L. R.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Lyons, A. M.

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

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

  Dunne, P. R. R.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  McKle, J. H.

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

  Elmley, Viscount

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

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

  Emery, J. F.

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

  Wise, A. R.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Markham, S. F.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Mayhew Lt.-Col. J.

  Wragg, H.

  Errington, E.

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

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Everard, W. L.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Findlay, Sir E.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fleming, E. L.

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

  Major George Davies and Mr.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Mulrhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  James Stuart.

  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  11.59 p.m.
  Captain F. E. GUEST: I have listened with great attention to this Debate, and I do not think anyone will mind my saying that the immense interest which has been taken in the Bill is perhaps the most important thing that has happened for a long time. There are a certain number of us here who have been working at the development of aviation, both civil and military, for many years in a House of Commons which has turned deaf ears to us. At last we have succeeded in making it the most important topic that the House of Commons can consider.
  1774
  It is important to get the House of Commons air-minded; better to have some opposition in the House than to have a House which pays no attention at all to the subject. It has been the experience of a small committee of Members interested in this subject to which I belong to find an empty House whenever it came under discussion. To-night we have a great House. I came to the House to-night after having studied the Bill very carefully and after having attended several committees at which the details of the Clauses were considered. I was obviously opposed to the Amendment, because I believe in private enterprise, but I have listened to-day to able speeches made in support

  1775
  of the rejection of the Bill and I would submit to the Government that it is a great mistake to ignore expert opinion.
  I do not think many hon. Members have the slightest idea of the value of the advice given to the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon). Having listened to all that he has said to-day and on previous occasions, I feel bound to pause before I vote in favour of the Bill. I have been in this controversy for a good many years and the question has always been how to divorce civil aviation from military control. The problems of the two are different, yet they are interwoven. It is hard to dissociate them in their ultimate possibilities, though each has its fundamental problems. Therefore, it is a great mistake to judge too quickly whether this is a good Bill, a complete Bill or a bad Bill. My honest feeling is that the Bill should be reconsidered. The Government are embarking on a course which has not been sufficiently considered. There is the difficulty that in this House are three hon. Members who were members of the Gorell Committee upon which this Bill was founded, and I do not think that they themselves quite realise the lengths to which this Bill would carry us.
  The recommendations are, in the main, splendid; in details I think they could be improved. If the Government would be tolerant and not steam-roller this Bill through the House of Commons, in the long run the country would be the richer. We should have a better measure. I will not bother the House to-night with suggested alterations and modifications. The alterations in the Bill would improve it to such an extent as would be of international value.
  I am not ready to go into the question of national control or private enterprise, although I could keep that subject going for a long time if hon. Members could bear with me. I never take more than seven minutes. I could discuss the question of monopoly almost indefinitely. I want to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the Committee stage of this Bill must really be faced by them in a lenient and generous spirit. They must realise that there is tremendous feeling in the House, which has at last begun to appreciate what air
  1776
  control means. They must not say: "We will not take any Amendment at all." I am content to support the Second Reading on the definite understanding that reasonable time and opportunity will be given to us. I am sure that we shall get from our charming Under-Secretary for Air a certain amount of understanding that makes the whole difference in carrying the House of Commons with him.
  As has been said before, this is a national, not a party, matter. We have, somehow or other, to control one of the greatest new scientific forces that the world has ever seen. To treat the Bill as a sectional, temporary or party Measure seems unworthy of the dignity, knowledge and experience of this House.
  12.7 a.m.
  Sir P. SASSOON rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken twice.
  Sir P. SASSOON: I only wanted to answer one question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Agreed!"] With the permission of the House, I would like to answer the question put to me, so that I shall not give an impression in any way of having shown discourtesy to hon. Members. In connection with Imperial Airways shares, I would like to say that the Government's deferred shareholding entitles them to half the profits earned over 10 per cent. In this way there is no possibility of excessive profits being made by private capital [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, there is!"] and the Exchequer will get a return if the concern is really prosperous. There is no question of taxation without representation. We have two Government directors on the board.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: It is very important to clear this matter up. Does the Under-Secretary dispute the fact that, since the beginning of September, the share value of Imperial Airways, Limited, has risen by £360,000?
  Mr. GARRO-JONES: [Interruption.] It is useless for the Chief Whip to make those exclamations. I have been asking the Under-Secretary to answer this question ever since I have been a Member of this House, and I have never been given an answer. What is his answer to the

  1777
  point that these shares have appreciated from 1s. to 52s. on the basis of the distribution of subsidies by the State? Does he consider that a satisfactory position? Does he realise that for one year's subsidy he could have bought the whole concern?
  Mr. PERKINS rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow hon. Members to continue asking questions of the Minister.
  12.10 a.m.
  Mr. PERKINS: May I ask the Prime Minister, if the Under-Secretary is not allowed to reply, whether he can clear away the very unpleasant allegations which have been made against the honour and integrity of the Air Ministry during this Debate? It has been alleged by several Members of the House that one firm, British Airways, received a subsidy in preference to British Continental Airways, and the whole thing was wrapped up in a kind of hole-and-corner business. It is either true or untrue, and surely we are entitled to have some information. If it is true, they ought to be ashamed of themselves; if it is untrue, it is only fair to the officials of the Air Ministry that it should be denied.
  Mr. BROAD: Is it not a fact that the Under-Secretary has still the right to address the House and continue his speech?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Under-Secretary has no right to address the House at all; he has spoken twice already.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: May I submit, Sir, that before you came in a Ruling had been given by Mr. Deputy-Speaker warning hon. Members of the serious consequences of allowing the Under-Secretary to make more than one reply? As the right hon. Gentleman was then in possession of the House, would you kindly let him answer that one question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Under-Secretary has answered the question. He cannot make a speech on it.
  12.12 a.m.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): May I most respectfully put this point to you? I think my right hon. Friend was replying to a point put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but gave
  1778
  way when a further question was asked, and he had not finished answering the question when other Members rose and asked more questions. You called hon. Members to order, as the Debate was getting a little out of hand. If I might respectfully ask that my right hon. Friend might be allowed to conclude what he was saying, I think it would be for the convenience of the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not mind his concluding what he was saying in answering one question, but I must keep order in this House. This is not the Committee stage. When the House is sitting as a House, if I were to allow ever so many questions to be asked, the reply which the Under-Secretary would have to make would form itself into a speech, which would be most irregular.
  Sir P. SASSOON: Might I just finish the answer as to the principle on which these external air services were allotted? I was not in the House when the hon. Member spoke, or I should have explained to the best of my ability that these services were decided by what is called the Fisher Committee, upon which five or six Departments are represented, and which examines the whole question of international air communications.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is that the committee that decided the British Airways subsidy
  Sir P. SASSOON: Yes.
  12.14 a.m.
  Mr. GALLACHER: This Debate has been an exposure, not only of the administration of the Air Service, but a terrible and deadly exposure of this Government. The hon. Member who spoke before the Under-Secretary got up, to evade answering, said that aviation was the greatest invention of modern times. This is correct, yet we have one of the pioneers of aviation moving the rejection of the Bill and saying that no one could consider the stage that aviation had reached without feeling something to be ashamed of. There could not possibly be anything so damning to the Government. Instead of advancing aviation, the system of subsidies for a particular group is preventing aviation from developing. An hon. Member said that private enterprise and private competition were wanted to develop

  1779
  the best type of aeroplane. A question was asked the other day whether there was any country that had developed aeroplanes to such an extent that they could carry whole fleets of parachutists and small tanks, and the answer was Yes. That is in a country where there is no subsidy but there is State ownership.
  Why should we pay subsidies to a group such as Imperial Airways? Why should local authorities have the power to purchase land? Why should not they have power to requisition it, not only to make aerodromes but to become responsible for developing aviation? The Glasgow Corporation, which made such a historic success of developing tramways, and is now developing an omnibus service, is not only prepared to acquire land for a landing field but to develop aviation. Why should not these big authorities not develop aviation and carry passengers? There is an enormous field for developing the whole character of aviation if only we had a Government which was interested in aviation instead of being interested in handing out the nation's money to their own friends. An hon. Member accuses someone of receiving a subsidy and there are cries of "Withdraw!" Apparently his character is at stake. It is an offence to receive a subsidy. But, if you look round, there are Members whose friends are receiving subsidies. This Government can never develop aviation and the Bill can never develop it. It can only hinder it. An hon. Lady gave figure after figure to show that we are the one country that is dragging back in aviation. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were all wrong!"] I am certain they were not wrong.
  I am positive that, in type and character of machines and service, other countries are in advance of us. I know that the Soviet Union, which started long after Great Britain, is far ahead of us now, and make no mistake about it. When you have 1,200 parachutes being dropped and aeroplanes carrying armoured cars, motor cars and all the rest of it, it is really a wonderful development. It is not only so, for you can go to many places in the Soviet Union where great towers are put up. There is a platform on each. There parachutists are being trained. They have a rope round their waist, the other end of which is attached to a pulley, and down
  1780
  they come in the parachute. What have you done in this country? Are you training parachutists? Never under this Bill. It is a Bill to maintain aviation within a small corporation which is concerned, as the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) pointed out, not with the jumping up of aeroplanes and pilots, but the jumping up of dividends. That is the one thing that this country has succeeded in achieving far and away in advance of any other country.
  I challenge the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary for Air to show us where in any other country there has been such an advance in the value of shares or where there has been such a failure to advance in air development as there has been in this country? The two things go together, and the more your corporation becomes restricted to a particular clique the more you see it. Therefore, I say that this Debate mono than anything has ever done, has exposed the utter incomepetency of this Government and, if there is to be an understanding and a development of aviation in this country, the absolute necessity of getting rid of this sorry crew—this side show. Nobody can treat it other than a side show, as a mixture of all kinds of incompatibilities, with the one thing in common, that not one of them understands his job, or is prepared to answer intelligently anything that is put to him. Until we get rid of the National Government, who give subsidies to their friends, there will be no development of aviation in this country. Therefore, I ask the House to get rid of this Bill and make it part of the process of getting rid of those responsible for the Government.
  12.24 a.m.
  Mr. EDE: It is evident that, if the House of Commons agrees to pass the Bill with no further information in front of it than that which it has received from the right hon. Baronet who is in charge of it, it will be abrogating its function of examining Government Bills and having them justified to it. The right hon. Gentleman has heard speeches very critical of the Bill made from his own side of the House, but he has not designed to respond, even now, to any of the serious points raised. He did not even mention in his reply the name of the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), whose accusation was that there was

  1781
  favouritism being shown by giving a subsidy to one firm. Not a single word fell from the Minister to repel that particular accusation. It was made with such a wealth of detail and evidence that if, in any court of law, the Minister had wanted to get up and say there was no need to reply because the prosecution had not made out a case, he would have been told at once that there was a case to answer.
  The right hon. and gallant Member after some moments of theatrical wavering, at last announced that he would vote for the Second Reading of the Bill on a tacit understanding. That is, of course, the only kind of understanding one can have with the right hon. Baronet, but he cannot expect, even though supporters of the Government are prepared to take tacit understandings, that His Majesty's Opposition, if it is to discharge its duties properly, will do the same thing. While the right hon. Baronet was out of the House and the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) was speaking, the Attorney-General was in charge on the Front Bench taking notes, and those of us who witnessed what transpired after the right hon. Baronet returned know that the Attorney-General read those notes over to him. If he felt that he could not reply to the hon. Member for South Bradford, surely the learned Attorney-General could have spoken for the Government and have answered the questions put by the hon. Member, which did not require any knowledge of the details to answer properly?
  Here we have a Bill that seems to offend every sort of principle that we have established. The compensation that is to be paid depends on the size of the aeroplane. Apply that to motor cars. The small motor car can just as well end a valuable life as the biggest motor omnibus, and it has never been said in this country that the compensation recoverable was to be on the size or weight of the instrument that caused the damage.
  I think it was the hon. Member for South Bradford who dealt with the point of an aeroplane falling on some big building in Piccadilly. Are we to understand that if a place is set on fire by a very big aeroplane and damage is done, that damage should be paid for by a bigger sum than if it had been caused by a small aeroplane? "How great a fire a little
  1782
  spark may kindle" is and has been for many generations a great principle of truth, and why should this Government, which was elected largely for its orthodoxy, be the first to depart from so sound a principle? I can only imagine, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that but for one thing these shares would rise still higher, because I understood him to say that all the dividend over 10 per cent. is to be shared equally between the company and the Government. That is only saying "You go on and plunder them as much as you like as long as we get half the booty." But there is no compulsion on the company to proceed to distribute dividends after it reaches 10 per cent. It can then increase directors' salaries and spend money in other ways, so that the safeguards that the Minister thinks he has secured for the public may very well be lost sight of.
  Nor did we have a single word in reply to the speech of the hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) when he was dealing with the question of the opportunity this offers to repeat again the financial ramps that were so prevalent in the earlier days of the industrial revolution. He produced plenty of instances in every way similar to the instance in front of us but the Under-Secretary did not deign to give us a word in reply. I do think that the Prime Minister, as he has been here to-night, will realise that, after all, even though he has a big majority behind him, he is the Leader of the House and that the House is entitled to some respect and to have the policy of the Government defended to it. I hope also he will realise that it is not fair to leave the Minister in the position that, in order to reply to the Debate, he has to make an appeal to the House to allow himself to be heard. I suggest that in measures of this importance, dealing with a public service that is now in its infancy but which, obviously, is going to grow until it becomes one of the most important, if not the most important, services for mankind, there should have been at least two Ministers who should have addressed the House on a matter of such importance. Since the House of Commons reassembled last autumn it has not been treated by the Government with the respect which its historic position demands. It is no use the Prime Minister writing pleasant essays about democracy. This House has got to justify democracy if it is to live in

  1783
  Western Europe—[An HON. MEMBER: "Where is the Minister for Thought?"]—The Minister for Thought is no doubt thinking how he is going to block our way on the Education Bill to-morrow.
  I appeal to the Prime Minister to realise that he has himself said quite frequently that this party has endeavoured, since he has occupied his office, to discharge the duties of an Opposition in a constitutional manner, but we have the right in return for that to expect that the case for the Government shall be presented to us in a way consistent with the Constitution and that when hon. Members on this side, as well as others, ask serious questions, challenging not merely the details but the principle of the Government's policy, there should be a Minister of Cabinet rank who should reply to the Debate and attempt to justify to us the principles upon which the Government has acted.
  12.34 a.m.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I thought the Prime Minister would have risen in response to my hon. Friend. I do not know how much of the Debate he has heard—a fair amount, perhaps. The greatest criticism has come from hon. Members on the other side who are considered experts on the question under discussion. Their statements have been very serious ones, and they have not been answered at all. There has been absolutely no answer. I have great sympathy with the Minister, because I think he had a very difficult task at the beginning, and it is usual for some other Minister to wind up. This House ought not to be asked to vote before these questions are answered. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Patronage Secretary to give us another couple of hours one day in order that the Minister, or some other Minister, may go through the Debate and from that Box give a categorical answer to the statements made, because had those statements been made in connection with any local authority in the country they would have caused a great outcry and a great scandal. Not a word has been said in reply to what the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) said or to what other hon. Members said either.
  The House has been quite indulgent to the Minister, who spoke two or three
  1784
  times. Probably he was not in the position to answer fully, but it is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT and it would not take very long one evening, and I am quite sure the Leader of the Opposition would be only too glad to assist the Government to find time to give the answers. You can beat us in the Lobby but you will not beat the feeling in the country which will be aroused because of the statements that have not been answered. I do very earnestly ask the Prime Minister to let the Debate be adourned. There was no discussion on that Question. Then let him arrange so that, in a friendly manner, time can be given, and if there is an answer, let that answer be given not merely to us but to hon. Members on the other side.
  12.37 a.m.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible not to make a reply to the right hon. Gentleman who for so long led the Opposition. I am sure he would certainly not repeat what was alleged by an hon. Member who, if I remember rightly, was not in the last Parliament, for I do not think there has been any lack of courtesy on the part of the Government towards the Opposition during the past four years, nor do I think there has been any in the present Parliament.
  Mr. GARRO-JONES: They do not answer.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am pleased to say a word or two in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, because we have sat opposite for so many years and conducted our business on the whole, I think, to the satisfaction of the House. He has made one or two observations about the course of the Debate to-day. It is a very heavy task which, as not infrequently happens, falls on an Under-Secretary in charge of a difficult and complicated Measure, and when his chief is in another place—and there are always instances of that—all the responsibility rests upon him. I regret I was not in the House when he spoke. As a matter of fact, I have a rather troublesome cough, and am rather sorry for people who have to listen to me; that is why I have been out of the House the last few days. But I cannot agree to the postponement or adjournment of the Bill. We want the Second Reading of the Bill.
  But I will say this: I gather from what has been said in the House that my right

  1785
  hon. Friend had not the time, or perhaps the opportunity, to deal with the many points raised—and the House has seen Mr. Speaker's very proper intervention to the effect that we could not have trespassed on the courtesy of the House any more—but if there be any points on which an answer is demanded—and I will look into that matter myself—I suggest that my right hon. Friend should reply to them on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution which I do not propose to ask the House to pass to-night. I propose to ask the House for the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope hon. Members may now be disposed to take it promptly. It is getting to a very late hour. My right hon. Friend will reply to any points raised on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, and I would remind the House that a Bill of this obvious importance must be discussed with great care when it comes into Committee. Upon the principle of the Bill, as laid down on the Second Reading, we do ask the House to-night to give its decision. I think from what I have said I have met, not unfairly, the point which was raised by the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).
  12.40 a.m.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I certainly had no intention of taking part in the discussions on this Bill, and intended to content myself with registering my vote on behalf of the official Amendment moved by the Opposition. But I want to say that I have listened to a considerable amount of this discussion to-night, and I disagree entirely with the statement made by the Prime Minister that there was no opportunity to answer the questions put by various Members, and that there was no time to discuss or answer the various questions put. I must frankly confess that during the limited time I have been in this House I could never at any time have challenged the Under-Secretary with being, so far as I know, discourteous in any way. I have always heard him speak with a great amount of ability in debate in the House, but to-night there has been a case made by Members of the Opposition, by the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), and by others, which has not been answered. I would say to the Prime Minister that if in a debate in a
  1786
  working class area a speaker standing up for an opposition point of view were to reply in the way in which the Minister has replied to-night, he would be chased by a working class audience in any part of the country. He has not attempted to answer the questions that have been put.
  There is a more difficult and dangerous side for the Government. There have been charges levelled at the Government to-night almost of corruption. Once charges have been levelled against the Government that they have backed a ramp, or that some of their friends have been involved, that demands a serious reply. The Minister has not attempted to answer a single line of argument raised. It may be that he could dispel on behalf of the Government the charges that have been made, and that there was no foundation for them, but we are entitled to assume—as the Government would assume if they were in opposition and another Government were in office—that in the absence of any reply there is no reply to offer to the charges. Therefore, we are entitled to assume in the country and to state that charges of corruption have been made against the Government, and they have failed to answer at that Box to-night and to repel the charges. The Minister has shown contempt for those who have raised serious points in debate. It may be from time to time that there are Members in this House such as myself who offer a frontal attack of some kind of a complete oppositional character which does not demand or expect a reply from the Government. But when points are raised in this House by Members of the various Opposition sides and they expect a reply from that Box to charges that are made, I expect the Minister to answer the charges and the questions.
  For this Debate to terminate to-night without an appropriate reply being made, and for Members to be asked to cast a vote in the Lobby before these charges have been answered or repelled, is to ask people to do that which no Member is entitled to do, Therefore, as a Member of the House I say to the Government that they have failed. The Minister has treated all sections of the House in a contemptuous way by a lack of courtesy and decency in Debate. He has answered one or two questions which, as has been

  1787
  said, are easy questions of a friendly character. Those of a serious oppositional kind he has refused to answer, and the Government to-night stand condemned, from the point of view which is growing in the House, of assuming that they have dictatorial powers with a huge majority, and have no need to answer. They can direct their sheep into the
  Lobby to vote for them, but it will establish in the minds of the people of this country that Hitlerism is not confined to Germany but is rapidly developing in Great Britain.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 85.

  Division No. 124.]

  AYES.

  [12.45 a.m.

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

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Albery, I. J.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Patrick, C. M.

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

  Gledhill, G.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

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

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Petherick, M.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Pickthorn, K W. M.

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

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Beit, Sir A. L.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Rankin, R.

  Bossom, A. C.

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

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

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

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Bracken, B.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

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

  Rowlands, G.

  Bull, B. B.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Russell, A West (Tynemouth)

  Butt, Sir A.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Russell, S H. M. (Darwen)

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Salt, E. W.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Hulbert, N. S.

  Scott, Lord William

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Hunter, T.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)

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

  Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J

  Kirkpatrick, W. M.

  Spens, W. P.

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

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

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

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Crooke, J. S.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Cross, R. H.

  Lewis, O.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Crowder, J, F. E.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

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

  Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Loftus, P. C.

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

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  Lumley, Capt. L. R.

  Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Lyons, A. M.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Dunne, P. R. R.

  McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.

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

  Eastwood, J. F.

  McKie, J. H.

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

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Mannlngham-Buller, Sir M.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Emery, J. F.

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

  Wragg, H.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Markham, S. F.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Errington, E.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Everard, W. L.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Sir George Penny and Sir James

  Fleming, E. L.

  Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

  Blindell.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

  Dalton, H.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hardie, G. D.

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

  Day, H.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Dobbie, W.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

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

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Holdsworth, H.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Ede, J. C.

  Hopkin, D.

  Barr, J.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelity)

  Jagger, J.

  Bellenger, F.

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

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Benson, G.

  Foot, D. M.

  Johnston Rt. Hon. T.

  Broad, F. A.

  Frankel, D.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Bromfield, W.

  Gallacher, W.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Garro-Jones, G. M.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Compton, J.

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Logan, D. G.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

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

  McGhee, H. G.

  Daggar, G.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  McGovern, J.

  MacLaren, A.

  Ritson, J.

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

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Roberts, w. (Cumberland, N.)

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Mander, G. le M.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Marklew, E.

  Rowson, G.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Messer, F.

  Seeiy, Sir H. M.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Milner, Major J.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Westwood, J.

  Montague, F.

  Silverman, S. S.

  White, H. Graham

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

  Simpson, F. B.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Oliver, G. H.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Paling, W.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Potts, J.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Stephen, C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

  Bill read a Second time.

  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Margessom]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Three Minutes before One o'Clock.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LAND SALE).
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LAND SALE).
  KINGSTON-UPON-HULL (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS).
  KINGSTON-UPON-HULL (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS).
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTION.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTION.
  WELSH COAL (FRENCH IMPORTS).
  WELSH COAL (FRENCH IMPORTS).
  ROYAL NAVY (SABOTAGE).
  ROYAL NAVY (SABOTAGE).
  BRITISH ARMY (RECRUITING).
  BRITISH ARMY (RECRUITING).
  TITHE RENTCHARGE.
  TITHE RENTCHARGE.
  PALESTINE (FRANCHISE).
  PALESTINE (FRANCHISE).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (NEW FACTORIES).
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (NEW FACTORIES).
  SLOT SAFETY DEVICE.
  SLOT SAFETY DEVICE.
  HORSES (IMPORTS).
  HORSES (IMPORTS).
  SEA FISH COMMISSION.
  SEA FISH COMMISSION.
  MEXICO (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  MEXICO (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  REFUGEES (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION).
  REFUGEES (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION).
  IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE ACT.
  IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE ACT.
TRANSPORT.
  CLASS I ROADS (FOOTPATHS).
  CLASS I ROADS (FOOTPATHS).
  ADVISORY COUNCIL.
  ADVISORY COUNCIL.
  FARM SERVICE ROADS.
  FARM SERVICE ROADS.
  OMNIBUS FARES, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
  OMNIBUS FARES, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
  CHATHAM AND ROCHESTER (BY-PASS).
  CHATHAM AND ROCHESTER (BY-PASS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion on the Paper which stands in my name.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill over the other Notices and Orders of the Day and for the purpose of passing the Bill through its remaining stages.—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with, Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

Consolidated Fund (No. 2),

Great Orme Tramways,

Imperial Continental Gas Association.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (AGRICULTURE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is the outcome of long deliberation. It has been considered by Departments, by various Committees, and by groups of members in both Houses for the past fifteen years, and I venture to suggest that the Bill is now well due. It carries out a promise given in the gracious Speech last December, and I think it was very exhaustively examined in another place. Perhaps it might be well to say something about the historical side of this Bill. In 1920, when a Committee under Sir Henry Rew considered the question, opinion was against unemployment insurance in agriculture, and it was reported against. In 1926 another Committee, also under the Chairmanship of Sir Henry Rew, made a more favourable Report, but the Government of the day did not think that a real case had been made out, and the Bill was turned down. In 1927 Lord Blanesburgh's Committee on unemployment insurance generally was against the extension of the system to agriculture.
In 1930 there was a Royal Commission on the whole question of unemployment insurance, and that Commission in its Report distinctly laid down that unemployment insurance should be extended to agriculture. About this time also a Motion was introduced in the House of Commons—I am not sure of the date, but it was early in the Labour Government's period of office in 1930—and by a majority of 182 to 85 that Motion was carried, declaring that the time had come for a scheme of unemployment insurance in agriculture to be carried out. Then under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, it was expressly laid down in Section 20 that a Statutory Committee should be set up, and this Committee was asked forthwith to examine the question of whether or not agriculture should be brought within the scope of the Act. Under the able chairmanship of Sir William Beveridge the Committee reported strongly in favour of its inclusion and the present
314
Bill is based very largely on that Committee's Report.
The object of the Bill is therefore to bring into the Act of 1935 a scheme for dealing with the unemployment insurance of agricultural workers. In Clause 1 the necessary powers are taken to bring the scheme within the scope of the overriding Act of 1935. Under Clause 2 and the Second Schedule the rates of contribution are laid down; they are slightly different from those in the Statutory Committee's Report. In the Statutory Committee's Report the contribution for adult men was 4d., but in the Bill it is 4½d. The reason for that is that under the Bill the extra benefit obtained for the extra ½d. is well worth while. In Clause 3 and the Third Schedule of the Bill various rates of benefit are laid down. Your Lordships will notice that the weekly rate of benefit for adults is 14s., for the first child 3s., and for each subsequent child 3s. In the original draft of the Bill it was 3s. for the first child and 2s. 6d. for subsequent children, but that was amended in another place to the present figures. For adult men the Statutory Committee laid down a benefit of 12s., and with the extra halfpenny contribution they get the additional benefit raising the amount to 14s.
Clause 4 lays down the initial qualifying conditions for the benefit. Under the Act of 1935, on the industrial side, thirty contributions are required before an adult man receives benefit. This Bill lays it down that twenty contributions in the last two years will be sufficient in order to entitle an insured person to benefit. Generally speaking, on a claim being made by a man for benefit, he would be entitled to twelve days of benefit for the first ten contributions, and for each additional contribution he would get three days of benefit. Thus, for twenty contributions a man can draw benefit for forty-two days. There is a limit later in the Bill which provides that a man may not draw more than 300 days benefit in a year. Clause 7 lays down the method of accounting. It brings the insurance within the scope of the principal Act and provides that there shall be, in fact, a separate account for the agriculture insurance benefit. This account is not responsible for any deficits which belong to the industrial side.

315
Clause 10 is the next clause of interest in the Bill. It deals with the vexed question of long hires. We in Scotland and in the North of England and part of Wales are to a large extent used to what we call long hiring contracts, for a year or six months, in dealing with employees in agriculture, and in the past, when this Bill has been discussed in the North, it has been represented that it would be unfair to treat these long hirings quite in the same way as the ordinary weekly engagements. The Bill lays it down that where the agricultural labourer is employed by contract for a year, there shall be a rebate at the end of that time of 25 per cent. of the amount contributed both by the employee and by the employer, and in respect of six-monthly hirings the reduction will be at the rate of 12½ per cent. of the contributions made by the employee and the employer. I do not think I need worry your Lordships with the details because they are clearly laid down in the Bill.
Clause 11 gives the Minister power to deal with cases of persons insured under both schemes—the agricultural insurance scheme and the industrial scheme. There has been a good deal of controversy on the question of how to deal with a person insured in industry who wants to go into agriculture, and whether there could not be conversion from one form of insurance to another. After weighing up all the various possibilities it has been decided in this Bill that each scheme must stand on its own feet. Therefore, the two schemes are separate, but that does not prevent any one who completes industrial insurance drawing the industrial benefit for the time he has contracted, just as any one who has completed the number of contributions on the agricultural side can draw the amount of benefit which has accrued. It should be remembered that this scheme is an insurance scheme, and in this Bill we try to give the maximum benefit that the premiums—that is to say, the contributions—can justify.
Clause 13 is a new clause. It is brought in to deal with the question of gardeners. "Gardeners" include various men who work in private gardens. The ordinary worker in a public garden—a garden run for profit—comes under the definition of an ordinary agricultural employee. He is insured according to the Bill, but the private gardener is not now within the
316
scope of the Bill. Under Clause 13, however, powers are given to ask the Statutory Committee to examine the question of whether or not these gardeners ought in fact to come within the Bill. If the Statutory Committee reports that they consider it right and proper that these private gardeners should come within this scheme, then the Minister takes power under Clause 13, by Order, to bring them into the scheme. Such an Order, of course, would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. The next point to which I think I should draw your Lordships' attention is the Fifth Schedule. Under that Schedule various migratory workers not usually living in this country are exempted from the scope of the scheme. This refers particularly to Irish agricultural labourers who come over for the purpose of work. The Bill also excludes those who are working on what is known as the family farm—that is, a farm which is worked by a farmer and his wife and various members of his family; the relationship is laid down in the Schedule.
The general finance of this scheme is interesting. There are various assumptions on which this Bill is based, and the information at the hands of the Minister and his Department when they drafted the Bill is very much better than ever it was before; certainly very much better than when the original Insurance Act was passed. The assumption is that there are 750,000 employees in agriculture, of whom 700,000 are men and 50,000 women. The extent of unemployment which would have to be met is about 7½ per cent., and the extent of long hirings, either for a year or for six months, is reckoned at 15 per cent. These figures have been got from the investigations of the later Committees who have examined this subject, and they confirm the figures obtained in the 1931 Census. In that Census questions were put dealing with the occupations of the various people who were out of work at that time, and these figures very largely confirm the figures that have been worked out by the various Committees of Inquiry. Therefore, the belief is that this Bill, from that point of view, is well founded.
It is estimated that between May and November of this year, if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, £900,000 will come into the Fund and the expenses are

317
estimated at £100,000. Then between November, 1936, and October, 1937—that is, the first complete year—it is estimated that there will be coming in a sum of £1,706,000, that the benefits paid out will amount to £1,470,000, and that the expenses of administration will come to £213,000, leaving a balance of some £23,000. That £23,000, with the original £800,000, collected in the first six months, will give a total of £823,000, which is to cover a period of seventy-eight weeks. The Exchequer grant will be £600,000 a year. Therefore there seems reason to hope that this Bill is so based financially that it will be able to meet what is expected of it. The finances of the scheme will be examined from time to time by the Statutory Committee, and it is hoped, as time goes on, that some amelioration, either in the form of increased benefit or reduced contributions, may take place in the same way as has now happened in the case of industrial insurance. If this Bill becomes law, it is hoped that the first payment of contributions will be made on May 4 of this year, and that benefits will begin to be paid on November 5, 1936. It is a straightforward Bill, and I think it very largely explains itself. I think it is a good Bill, and I am sure many of your Lordships who are interested in agriculture will welcome it, as I do. I had the honour in 1923 of sitting on a Committee on Agriculture which recommended this very scheme, and therefore I am particularly glad to see it in the form of a Bill. I trust that your Lordships will be good enough to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, for a good many years this House has been accustomed to the introduction of Agricultural Bills by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who has always been very clear and lucid in explaining the Bills he has brought before your Lordships. I am quite certain everyone will agree that his mantle, so to speak, has fallen on good shoulders, because we could not have had a clearer or more lucid exposition of this straightforward Bill than was given us by the noble Lord. We on these Benches welcome the Bill. We have always stood for the principle of the extension of unemployment insurance to agricultural workers, and to me it is a matter of considerable regret that my
318
Party was not able to bring in some such measure when we were in Office. The Minister in the other House gave an extremely interesting summary leading up to the present position, and the Labour Opposition gave what they called a restrained welcome to the measure, partly because they considered the benefits were far too low and partly because they were dissatisfied with certain other aspects of the original Bill. Then the Bill had five days in Standing Committee, and, as the Minister says, it was exhaustively examined. I think they had a day more than they expected in Committee in the other place, and certain improvements were made, notably the sixpence extra for children, which was a concession we were very glad to have, and also the concession in Clause 13 dealing with gardeners. Therefore, when it came to Third Reading, the Opposition in the other place supported the Bill notwithstanding the disadvantages which they knew existed in it, and now we have it before this House.
I am not going over the same ground this afternoon as was gone over in another place. If with an effective Opposition of about 160 members in the House of Commons it was not possible to get more concessions than have been extracted from the Government, my Party in this House, three in number I see, cannot expect to do what 160 in another place failed to do. Therefore I have no intention of going over the ground discussed in another place. I only want to put one or two main points of view and make one or two constructive suggestions. It has been suggested that there is a possibility that the effect of applying unemployment insurance to agricultural workers may be an increase in the casualisation of labour. It is suggested that a farmer may stand off men who in the past perhaps he has kept on out of good will and good relationship—that he may tend to stand them off now because he will feel they can go on to unemployment insurance and therefore will not suffer as they would have done had he stood them off in the past. I do not think there is very much reason for that suggestion, because it is a fact that casualisation has been growing in agriculture in recent years. For example, we do know that in East Anglia there has been a considerable amount of standing-off of men owing to changes in some

319
types and aspects of production, and I am hopeful that this Bill will not make that greater but will in fact minimise the effects of such casualisation. Therefore I do not feel that there is a very great deal in that objection.
Our real objection is that when men are stood-off they are going to get a very low scale of benefit. We know that even under the ordinary scale of industrial unemployment insurance men have to get assistance from other sources to supplement the insurance pay. The matter was brought up in Committee in another place and the Minister then pointed out that that was regularly being done. I cannot help thinking that there will be a need for some supplementation of this low scale of benefit in the agricultural areas. I would like the noble Lord to say that the Government realise that that may be necessary and that it will be possible to supplement the benefit in rural districts as has been done in urban districts. I am sure that everybody in this House is agreed that when a man who is a decent worker becomes unemployed through no fault of his own we ought to minimise the shock to him and his family of suddenly dropping to a lower income.
I am going to make a suggestion to deal with that, and I feel rather hopeful, because of the sympathetic manner of the Minister when explaining this Bill, that he may be prepared to ask the Government to consider making a very small alteration in the Bill. If he can give me any hope I shall be glad after consultation to put down an Amendment at the Committee stage. If your Lordships will look at Clause 3 (2) (b) of the Bill, you will see that there is to be a maximum benefit of 30s. a week. That means that if a man is married and has children he will get 3s. for the first child, 3s. for the second and 3s. for the third. He will get nothing for the fourth or fifth or sixth. I do not know that he deserves anything if he has many more. Anyhow, the point I want to make is that, the greater the need, the further this 30s. will have to be made to go. I am wondering whether it might be possible for the Government to propose some modification of the maximum scale. I am rather encouraged to put forward that suggestion by something that was said by the Minister in Committee in another
320
place. On the second day of the Committee stage he is reported, in column 52 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, as saying:
" … the Statutory Committee brought forward a proposal and said they thought that, at any rate at the start, we must place the benefits against a background of 30s. a week. The Government have adopted that, not as an irrevocable limit, because those who are administering Insurance Acts, past or future, have an advantage which their predecessors never had. We have under the Act of 1932 an independent statutory body… and it is in its power to recommend any changes that may be necessary from time to time."
The Minister said this is not irrevocable. When the question of the small surplus which it is calculated may be expected was being discussed, the children's allowance, as the noble Lord will remember, was increased for the second and third child from 2s. 6d. to 3s. I think I am right in saying that that will not absorb the whole of the estimated surplus. If the object is to reduce the shock to a man when becoming unemployed, might it not be possible to put the maximum on what I may call an escalator basis? There are a number of men—cowmen, stockmen and others—who are getting a wage of 34s., 36s. and even 39s. It seems to me a little unreasonable that these men should only get a maximum benefit of 30s. when that maximum is based on the average minimum wage of 32s. paid to other workers. By an escalator basis I mean a rate of unemployment insurance 2s. below the normal rate of pay. Suppose a man has been working as a carter, perhaps for twenty years in one job, getting 39s. a week. I notice that in the discussion in Committee in another place the honourable member for the Forest of Dean, Mr. Price, quoted cases of men in his area getting from 36s. to 39s., and the honourable member for North Cumberland, Mr. Roberts, said the minimum in his constituency was 39s. a week. If we took the escalator basis that I am suggesting, with a maximum 2s. below the normal wage, a man earning 32s. would get a maximum benefit of 30s. and the man whose ordinary wage was 39s. would get a maximum benefit of 37s.
Considering that the percentage of those getting a higher wage is comparatively small, and considering that these first-class workers are those who do not normally become unemployed, I believe that the effect on the finances of the

321
Bill would be very small. I would ask your Lordships to consider the position of a man who for a long time has been earning 39s. He has built up his little home and even arranged his family per haps upon that basis of income, has worked out his expenditure, allotting so much each week for rent, so much for clothing, so much for food. Then, suddenly, he finds his weekly income reduced from 39s. to 30s. because, through no fault of his own, he has become un employed. That 9s. is equivalent to 25 per cent. of his whole income. He has arranged his outgoings for a number of years on the basis of an income of 39s., and he does not know what to do when he suddenly finds himself on the lower rate. If that suggestion could be adopted I believe it would help to soften the effect of unemployment without costing the Fund a great deal, it would benefit those agricultural workers who are the most important, the skilled men, the backbone of the industry. It would make this Bill more acceptable to a large section of the community, agricultural as well as urban, because they would see in that alteration a measure of justice to a very hard tried industry.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, speaking as a member of a landowners' association to which many of your Lordships belong, I should like to add a word of congratulation to the Minister in charge of the Bill for his very clear statement. If I may be allowed to do so with all respect, I should like also to extend my sympathy to noble Lords opposite in view of their very honest admission that they would have liked to have brought before the House a Bill of this character. I should like to say also—possibly because I myself come very near that danger-limit of six children to which Lord Marley referred!—that his proposition meets with my sympathy and I think probably also with the sympathy of a number of your Lordships on this side of the House, were it possible to adopt it consistently with the contribution by the labourer being kept at its low level. I have said that I was impressed by the clearness of the Minister in charge of the Bill. I was not quite so impressed by his sense of its importance; possibly he deliberately minimised that. But to us who live in the
322
country this Bill goes far deeper than a Bill merely to bring into unemployment insurance so many hundreds of thousands of workers. It touches us in our most neighbourly relations. Those of us who live in the country live surrounded by the persons whom this Bill will principally affect, and we cannot but feel that the effect of this Bill may be as to create a rather different general feeling and social relationship in the villages of England, Scotland and Wales.
The first question to be settled was whether or not there was a demand amongst the agricultural labourers to be brought into such a scheme. While I am sure it was true that in the grassland areas that demand was completely insignificant—I believe that there were whole counties in which there was virtually no demand at all—yet in the arable areas there was a distinct and a growing demand, coupled with a certain percentage of unemployment; a percentage, I might add, which a further strengthening of our agricultural policy might reduce if it did not altogether obliterate. We feel also that there is a great deal of force in the contention that the agricultural labourer, being out of insurance, suffered some small slur on his status, and we feel that the younger men in particular were deterred from entering or from staying in the industry through the feeling that the security given was not so good as if they had had work in another industry. For these two reasons we have no quarrel with the general principle of the Bill, and in particular we should like to say that we welcome the separation of the finance of this scheme from the finance of the general scheme. We should also like to congratulate the Government on the lowness of the contribution which the worker has to pay. It is, I venture to say, a remarkable feat so to arrange the scheme that 14s. benefit to an adult male worker—only 3s. less than in the general scheme—is secured for a contribution of 4½d. per week.
As to the scope of the Bill, your Lordships will perhaps permit me to quote the Bill for a moment. The scope is governed by the following words:
" … where manual labour in agriculture is performed… the performance thereof shall be deemed to be insurable employment in agriculture."

323
We find the only general definition of the scope in those words in Clause 1 (2), and we are told in Clause 15 that:
" ' Agriculture ' includes horticulture and forestry."
Further, we are told in the First Schedule that employment in agriculture by various family relations is excepted employment. There was considerable discussion in another place as to the inclusion of private gardeners in the scheme, and I think I am right in saying that the great majority of the Standing Committee in the other place were desirous of seeing private gardeners included. The arrangement which was finally come to was, I thought, somewhat different from that described by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. It is not a very big point, and I dare say that he did not mean anything different. I understood him to say that the Statutory Committee would examine the right and fairness of whether private gardeners should come into the scheme, but I thought that the Government went rather farther than that in another place. I thought the understanding was that, provided there was no actuarial difficulty, private gardeners would come into the scheme. Perhaps the noble Lord when he replies would deal with the point.
Passing on from the scope of the Bill, I am brought to my first doubt, which I think I ought to express: that is, some little doubt as to the financial stability of the scheme. I agree that we have to take risks, and I do not say that I should not have taken the same risks that the Government have taken. But the margin is very narrow. We are down to £19,000 after the children have got their extra allowance, and when one considers that the extension of the practice of long-term hiring may be very great in view of the inducement put out, and that any single trade agreement with Argentina, for instance, or with Denmark may throw some hundreds of workers out of employment, one is bound to feel that the Government have sailed pretty near the wind. My second doubt is whether, as a result of this scheme, the casualisation of the agricultural labourer will be increased. In my youth—and that is not so very long ago—it was the regular practice of tenant farmers in my part of the world to stand off their "day men" during the winter. We call that man a day man in
324
our part of the world who is not a stockman or a carter; he was, as a rule, stood off during the winter. I have always considered it an enormous gain for the agricultural labourer that that practice has fallen into desuetude during my lifetime, and I am rather afraid that it is likely to grow up again.
I am not sure, however, that there is not a counterbalancing gain if some of the agricultural labourers of whom I am speaking are stood off. I think that there will be a certain stratum of labourers who formerly would have eked out an existence in towns but who will earn their right to come under agricultural unemployment insurance and stay in the villages, because in the villages as well as in the towns it will now be possible to receive benefit. On the whole, I think the nation may be a gainer, though I am not sure that the villages will be equally a gainer. If they do stay in the villages they will find unemployment considerably less intolerable than they would have found it if they had gone into the towns. A man in the village can always work on his garden or his allotment; if he is in a woodland country, he can at least gather fuel free of charge. Altogether the fate of the unemployed man in the country is very much better than it is in the town and if we anchor some of the floating population to the country it will be to the general advantage.
My third misgiving or set of misgivings is more definite, more remediable and at the same time more difficult to set out. Your Lordships will have had it brought to your notice that this Bill with certain exceptions incorporates the Act of 1935. That Act has 116 sections against the modest 16 clauses and five Schedules of this Bill, so that really it is not possible fully to understand this Bill without having a pretty good general knowledge of the frame-work of the general scheme, as set out in the principal Act. This Bill must be judged as to its effects upon rural life, not only by what is printed in the particular Bill, but what is also printed in the Act of 1935. Furthermore, under both that Act and this Bill, both Minister and Statutory Committee are left with very considerable powers to deal with matters by regulation. That leaves a further unexplored recess which is not covered by this Bill. That illustrates my point. I do not

325
know whether noble Lords have realised that there is no specific provision in the Bill for any Government contribution whatsoever, except by reference, of course, to the principal Act. In this Bill there is also no mention of how, by whom, or where, the Bill is to be administered, and the administration of this Bill raises some most important considerations which I venture to say have been insufficiently considered, and which I hope will give rise to Amendments in the Committee stage.
Are we to see our unemployed farm labourers tramping five, six, or perhaps ten miles into the towns twice a week, in order to register at the labour exchanges, wasting half a day at least, as well as boot leather, omnibus fares, or bicycle tyres? Do we want to see them join in that rather pitiful queue where the one thing that is to be said is that they will not find possible agricultural employers? Is it altogether to the advantage of the town labourer that a certain proportion of husky agricultural labourers should be brought into that queue, and made available for the town employer? Does the labour exchange, as it is now constituted, make the fullest use of what after all is the most important factor in employment, the employer? Is the labour exchange the place where the farming employer is to be found? Would not the farm labourer's needs be better met by an organisation of persons who understood his needs, and possibly a much more local organisation than that of the labour exchanges? The answers to these questions are not contained in the Bill; yet they are answers which will greatly affect our life in the villages. I venture to hope that Amendments put down to improve the labourer's lot in respect of these questions will meet with sympathy on the Front Bench, and I am sure that your Lordships will realise that the bringing into contact of town and country in this rather gruesome way may have reactions which it is very difficult to foresee.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I wish to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord who introduced the Bill this afternoon upon the Motion for the Second Reading. He has my special sympathy, as he hails from Scotland, although not quite so far north as that
326
part of Scotland to which I wish to refer specially this afternoon. At the present moment there is a Committee sitting to inquire into the position of farm servants in Scotland. No report has been received from them yet, and I should have thought that it would have been much wiser to have awaited that report before bringing in a Bill to include agriculture in industrial insurance, when we do not know quite what that Committee is going to report. This Bill, although it does not definitely refer to many points, such as those which the noble Lord who has just sat down has mentioned, does raise a great many abstract questions, which will have to be dealt with if the scheme outlined in this Bill is to work satisfactorily, and bring content to both the parties concerned.
In the county from which I come we have very little unemployment in agriculture, on account of the system that we have of six months engagements for unmarried men, and twelve months for married men. This system has been so successful that many of these farm servants—they do not like the words "agricultural labourers" in Aberdeenshire, because they are considered an insult to the men concerned; we call them "farm servants "—form the backbone and chief recruiting medium, if I may so call it, for future farmers. In fact, I can include in my own tenants men who have been in the past my first horsemen or foremen. After ten or fifteen years service, they have been able to save sufficient to be able to stock a croft, and as they manage to make the croft pay, so they have been able to move on to larger holdings. I feel that there are some provisions in this Bill which will rather discourage that very desirable movement of men becoming tillers of their own farms after having served an apprenticeship as farm servants. It is that system which has raised agriculture to such a skilled and satisfactory employment as we have it in the North or North-East of Scotland. I am anxious that the very cordial relations which exist between proprietors and farmer-owners or tenants should not be spoiled by legislation which does not fit the actual area to which it is applied.
I would like to emphasize what the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, has just said about the mixing up of town and

327
country employments. I think it will be a thousand pities if the suggestion made in Committee in another place cannot be adopted and the unemployment benefit paid at the Post Office instead of the labour exchange. In certain parts of Scotland—and I think this might also apply to certain parts of Wales and Yorkshire—the agricultural labourer would have to travel many miles to the nearest labour exchange to draw his benefit. Much time would be wasted, and to no good purpose. Then there is the point that you may be encouraging men—and possibly it may also affect the farmer in certain cases—to stop work in order to get benefit. Agriculture is in a depressed state to-day and it is no use saying it is not. I am not blaming the Government for that, but I say that this is the wrong time to impose an extra burden, no matter how small, on an industry in such a condition. I should be the first to agree that the present Government and its immediate predecessor have done more for agriculture than any other Government in modern times, and I am voicing the feelings of Very many who live in the country when I say that we thank the Government most heartily for all that they have done. It is perfectly true that we are not all quite pleased with the way in which things have worked out, but it is for those in the industry to try to make the machine work which is provided by the Government and entrusted to those in the industry. Therefore to a certain extent where there has been failure the Government might perfectly justly say that it is the industry which is responsible for not making the machine work.
There are, of course, exceptions to that statement. For example, what is going to happen if a trade agreement is made with the Argentine or with Denmark which will make the selling of the farmers' produce impossible? It is matters like this which make me feel very doubtful whether the time chosen for launching this scheme is as happy as it might have been if those responsible for it had inquired a little more closely into the nature of the industry. The Statutory Committee had the opportunity of hearing the representatives of agriculture, but I would point out that in all rural matters unless you have rural people to administer a rural scheme you cannot get the best out of it. When a rural scheme
328
is administered by people who live in towns, who do not understand the conditions of the country, it is impossible to make it a real success. That is why we who live in and understand the country sometimes feel disappointed that we are not more freely consulted. It is perfectly true that our societies represent the interests concerned, but very often they are not given much time to consult their constituents before they give their advice to the Government Department. I would plead with the Government—not on this particular question only but on all matters concerning rural occupations—that they should try to get the real rural feeling apart from the opinion of the town administrator before they launch, or even consider, a scheme which is to apply chiefly to the rural areas.
There is another point which arises under this Bill, though it is not mentioned in it, and that is the housing question, because you cannot expect a depressed industry to change the whole tenour of its custom and provide houses for its employees if its employees have large families. The noble Lord opposite referred to a man with a family of six children whom he could not support, but very few farm servants' houses could under last year's Act contain a husband, wife and six children. That is going to make the farmer's choice of competent servants very much more difficult, because if you cannot take a man who is competent because he has a large family you will throw these people on to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, which will make things much worse, both for the Fund and for the industry. I will conclude by making a remark the truth of which is not sufficiently realised. We talk about industry and agriculture, but I suggest that agriculture is an industry entirely by itself, totally different from all other kinds of industry. For that reason it requires entirely different administration from other industries, practically all of which are in urban areas and the great majority of them, unlike the industry of agriculture, not subject to weather. These two facts make an enormous difference in the industry of agriculture, and I hope that when we go into Committee on this Bill some of these difficulties which we have in the rural areas will be realised and that any Amendments put forward to make the administration

329
of this Bill fair to all parties concerned will receive the Government's support.
THE KARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, any measure which seeks to ameliorate the conditions of the agricultural worker is sure of a warm welcome in your Lordships' House, but all your Lordships will agree with me when I suggest to the Government that the justification for this measure must depend to a very large extent upon its success, and its success must in turn depend on the extent to which the Government are willing to modify it if, and when, it is found, as I am sure it will be found, that certain of its provisions are not perfect for the purpose for which they have been intended. The noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, indeed spoke the truth when he alluded to agriculture as an industry entirely different to all other industries. He might have gone a little further and described it not so much as one industry, but as a group of allied industries all suffering under certain disabilities, like the weather, from which no other industry suffers, and with some of its branches acutely competitive among themselves.
As regards the demand which there was in rural areas for this Bill, I can speak only with reference to Scotland in that respect and, indeed, as to all the provisions of this Bill. My own experience of two years ago, when I was still a member of another place, may be of some interest to your Lordships. At that time, wishing to discover what my constituents really thought about the question of unemployment insurance for farm servants, I did what I had done on one or two other controversial matters—that is to say, I inserted in the local Press a request that all interested should write to me personally and express their views. On one or two other subjects, I had a very satisfactory response, especially in regard to the first raspberry marketing scheme which, being of an indifferent nature, did not meet with the approval of the industry; but on this occasion, although the newspapers in which I put this notice circulated not merely in my own constituency and in my own county, but covered the whole of the East of Scotland from Aberdeen down to the Firth of Forth, the fact that I received only ten replies at a time when agricultural
330
depression was intense shows, I think, that it could not have been regarded as a very burning question among the farm workers. Of the ten replies I received, four were in favour of some form of contributory insurance; three were definitely opposed to it; and three paid no attention whatever to that subject but used my request simply as a peg on which to write about grievances of a totally different character. I think that is proof that, as far as the East of Scotland was concerned, the matter was not one in which marked enthusiasm was felt.
It is also worthy of note that the better the farm worker the less is he inclined to regard such a scheme with approval, simply because, even to-day, the best men are almost always able to find jobs. But we have to bear in mind that as the depression became intense a very considerable number of men, some of them first-class, some of them not so good but still tolerably good workers, were unable to find employment, and up to the present day have not been able to find employment. It is to these, I think, that the Bill will be of chief benefit. I should like to reinforce and, if necessary, labour the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, that it will be grossly unfair to expect agricultural workers in distant rural areas to register at employment exchanges which may be anything up to fifteen or twenty miles away. In many parts of the country that is going to be completely impossible, and these men will be subject to a burden of discrimination which will be most unfair, and it is bound to be very deleterious to their interests.
As regards the question of gardeners, there, too, I hope the Government will make up its mind quite definitely that private workers are to be included in the scheme. There is a definition, a very complete definition, in Clause 15 of what a private gardener is:
" ' Private gardener ' means a person employed in horticulture otherwise than in any trade or business carried on for the purposes of gain, not being a person so employed by a public or local authority, or a society, institution, association, club, or company."
As I read that, if one of your Lordships employs a man for the sole purpose of

331
producing vegetables he is not to be included, but if one registers the same man as a market gardener, without any alteration whatever in his conditions of employment, he is going to be eligible. That, I feel, is an incongruity which is rather absurd. Unemployment among gardeners has been of a very serious nature, and I am afraid that for some time to come it is not likely to improve. For this reason I hope that the Government will make up its mind forthwith to include gardeners within the scope of this Bill.
As I have said, the success of this measure must be judged as it goes along, and that success is bound up to a very large extent with long-term agricultural policy. If agriculture receives the continued benefits which it deserves, then it may well be that in a few years the need for such a Bill may have practically disappeared, but until that time comes it is probable that such a measure is not merely justifiable but necessary. At the same time I hope that neither your Lordships nor the Government are going to take it as a fixed principle that for all time it will be in the interest of agriculture to have such a scheme because, if we do once make up our minds in that sense, I am afraid it will be a bad thing for agriculture as a whole. What we want to-day is to get the industry into such a condition that such a scheme will become superfluous for the reason that once again we have 100 per cent. employment in the industry.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, like most of your Lordships I agree with the principle embodied in this Bill, but I should like to emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lord Phillimore—it is important, and it is of very great importance to the agricultural districts particularly—with regard to the possible reaction of this scheme on the relations that now exist between employer and employed. It is almost impossible to say exactly what change it may make, but it needs watching very carefully so as not to cause too much or too violent a change in the present extremely satisfactory arrangements. Although the scheme may be agreed to in principle by your Lordships, as it has been agreed to in principle in another place, I cannot say that it is approved by the majority either of labourers or of farmers. We have heard that said of the farmers and the labourers in Scotland. I come from the other end
332
of the Kingdom, from the South country, and I am pretty certain that in my part of the world the majority of those who will have to pay contributions or derive benefits from this Bill do not want it; and as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, it is the best employer and the best workman who are most opposed to it.
There are numberless men in the South who are on a weekly wage and, therefore, on a weekly notice. They have been in their employment ten, twenty and thirty years. Although nominally on a weekly employment basis, they have always felt as safe as houses, and they feel that there is no need for them to make any contribution to an unemployment insurance fund. I must admit that when one does have an insurance scheme of this kind the good lives have to pay for the bad lives, but I think there is a very much larger proportion, so to speak, of good lives in the agricultural industry than has been realised, and therefore a much larger body of opposition. Although I know of that opposition, and although to the un-instructed it might seem unnecessary to have any scheme of this nature, especially when one is told, as I have been told, that the Minister for Agriculture has been asked to receive a deputation from the National Farmers' Union to consider the question of the lack of agricultural labour in certain districts, and although it may seem, on the face of it, that that is an indication that there is no need for an unemployment insurance scheme, I would point out that the lack of agricultural labour is caused by the flight of labour from the land to the towns, and for the same reason as that mentioned by my noble friend Lord Phillimore—namely, that this Bill will raise the status of the agricultural labourer—I welcome it, and welcome it heartily.
As the noble Lord said, the agricultural labourer is looked down upon; he is the Cinderella amongst employees. He has even got the name of being an unskilled labourer. Why, I do not know, for he is probably far more skilled than most men engaged in modern industry. He has to do a far greater variety of jobs. For all that he is looked down upon, and if this Bill, when it becomes law, raises his status and persuades the best men that we produce in the country to remain in the country rather than go to the towns it will have achieved a great work.

333
Turning to the Bill itself, I would like further to emphasise Lord Phillimore's remarks regarding the place where the unemployment benefit should be paid. It is vitally important that this scheme should be kept separate not only financially from the industrial scheme but also from the actual administrative details of collecting unemployment benefit. I do not know that it is any great hardship to a countryman to walk some distance to draw his unemployment benefit, even if he is unemployed; it may possibly be a break in the monotony; but I do think that he needs to be kept separate from the industrial employment section for the reason mentioned specifically by Lord Phillimore—namely, that if he does go into the town he may not come out again.
There is another point. The noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, in the early part of his speech congratulated the Government on producing a scheme which could give this scale of benefit with such a low contribution. Then, in the latter part of his speech, he questioned the soundness of the scheme actuarially, and that is the thing that I wish to bring forward very strongly. There has been some question of a possible increase in casualisation in the industry. I am not very much afraid of that, because I think that generally speaking the farmers will realise that overmuch casualisation in the industry will drive away their best labourers. When they have got a good man they generally like to keep him. But I would like to mention to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill the question of long hiring. Before he made his speech I had this point very much in mind—namely, that with such a small margin I do not think sufficient allowance has been made for a very probable increase in long hiring.
The noble Lord told us that they had allowed for 15 per cent. of long hiring, and he said that that figure was supported by the figures obtained from the Census. That fills me with considerable anxiety, because it means that what has been arrived at has been arrived at by the actual figures so far as they can be ascertained as being the fact at the moment. But long hiring is not, or was not so very long ago, confined only to certain districts in the country. It was a very common form not very long ago
334
in all kinds of districts, and when you come to the South country you still find that the agricultural labourer goes to a certain sheep fair it may be, or cattle fair, in the autumn, because it is the hiring fair. That is a relic of the old days when a man was engaged by the year, and I think you will find, especially in view of what I have said about men who have been ten, twenty and thirty years on the same farm, that when this Bill comes into operation the farmer, both to save his own pocket and to save the pocket of his labourer, will, with his carman, his shepherd, his head carter, and any man that he has got whom he does not want to lose, make a year's agreement with that man knowing that he will not want to get rid of him in the course of the year. I think that ought to be very carefully considered in its effect on the finances of this Bill, because the margin is not very wide, and 25 per cent. reduction in a large number of contributions may have a disastrous effect on the financial stability of the scheme.
There is one other point which has been already mentioned to which I wish to refer, and that is the question of gardeners. The clause dealing with gardeners is Clause 13, and if the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, is right and the intention of the Government is to bring in gardeners, I do not think that clause does it. Subsection (1) says that the Minister shall refer the question to the Statutory Committee, and subsection (2) says:
" The Minister shall lay the Report of the Committee before Parliament and if, after considering the Report, the Minister is of opinion that it is desirable to amend this Act,"…
and so on. One cannot expect the Minister to go against any Report of the Statutory Committee in those circumstances. I think I am right when I say that the question of gardeners was considered by the Statutory Committee in their Report before this Bill was brought forward, and that this Bill is drawn largely on the Report of the Statutory Committee. I do not know that one can expect the Statutory Committee to change their minds at very short notice. It is an important point, because there are a very large number of gardeners in this country, and curiously enough, to my mind, it impinges on the question of defence. In our gardeners, though they

335
may be purely for ornamental purposes, we have a reserve of men who, in time of national emergency, are capable of growing food. We want the best men for that purpose, and we want to keep them in employment. I hope the Minister will be able to give some indication of the real intention of the Government on that point. I think we shall watch the working of the Bill when it becomes an Act with considerable interest, even if with a certain amount of anxiety, and I hope that its main result will be to stop the flight from the land to the towns.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison, introduced the Bill in such a clear, lucid and able manner, and there have been so many excellent speeches since, that there is little left which can usefully be said. Nevertheless I venture to rise to support the Second Beading of the Bill. Like other speakers I have found some difficulty in ascertaining the extent of the demand for this Bill. In another place I observed that the Bill was met without enthusiasm but that there was no effective opposition. I want to point out to your Lordships that the Bill imposes a very considerable burden upon the industry of agriculture. It will impose a burden of over £1,000,000—probably £1,200,000—on a distressed industry, and I hope that nothing will be done during the passage of the Bill which will tend to increase that burden. It is a matter of great importance that the agricultural worker should achieve the same status and have the same measure of security as are given to the worker in industry, and I share the view that the exclusion of the agricultural worker in the past from the main unemployment insurance scheme has undoubtedly led to the further migration of agricultural workers to the towns in competition for townsmen's jobs. It has increased the drift and has aggravated the difficulties. I hope this Bill will stop that drift. The cure for unemployment in agriculture, however, is not going to be by way of a Statute of this kind. The best possible insurance for the agricultural worker is more employment. What is wanted is a real, live, fruitful agricultural policy which will give full employment.
The scheme in this Bill is necessarily complicated and it is made all the more difficult to understand because of the cross references to another Act. I always
336
wish that a Bill when introduced could be self-contained so that the ordinary individual could understand its provisions without cross references. These cross references, and the fact that it is a carefully built up structure, make it very difficult to criticise the Bill and make it still more dangerous to interfere with that carefully constructed piece of work. I venture to think that it is not only a workers' Bill but that it is a Bill which will be good for the industry as a whole. I believe that it will lead in a small way to encouragement of long-term hirings, and it must be a good thing for the industry that the term of contract should be longer than a week. I often think it is a tremendous hardship to an agricultural worker that he should be in the position of possibly losing his job, and even his home, at a week's notice, although he may have been employed for many years upon one holding. This Bill does seem to deal with that point.
I welcome, too, the fact that it is a special scheme designed to meet the needs of agriculture, although it is in strict accord with the main scheme of industrial insurance. Under the scheme as it is drawn the money will be kept, so to speak, to a large extent inside the family; that is, inside the agricultural industry; and the industry will receive the benefit of its own lower level of unemployment as compared with the average rate under the general scheme of industrial insurance. I hope that very great care will be exercised in the application of the scheme by the various orders and regulations which will be made when the Bill becomes an Act, so that the whole-time agricultural worker will not have an unfair burden placed upon him in contributing towards the unemployment pay of the higher paid casual worker. I believe that the Bill will add to the good feeling which has always existed between farmer and worker and will add to the good feeling which has grown up so conspicuously during the last two years between townsman and countryman. I beg to support the Second Reading.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to reply to one or two points made in the course of the debate. In the first place I would like to thank the noble Lord opposite and noble Lords behind me for their more than generous

337
compliments to myself. It is indeed pleasant to receive them. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, referred to one or two points to which I think I can reply very briefly. One is the question of the casualisation of labour, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillirnore, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. My own view is that the Bill ought to have just the opposite effect. In certain cases we have found—and I know it from my own experience—that labour during certain of the winter months tends to drift into the towns. Once men get into the towns they very often stay there, and there they become really casualised, only going for a short time to work in the country and then going back to the town. I think this Bill will do something to keep the agricultural worker in the village during the time of unemployment, because with his unemployment benefit ho will be able to stay there. From that point of view I think the Bill is all to the good.
The noble Lord, Lord Marley, also asked whether there could be any payment supplementary to the benefit laid down in the Bill. All I can say is that that is not prohibited. What we shall see in the new regulations when the Board is set up and acting I do not know. But under the present arrangements for public assistance there is no objection and there is nothing to prohibit such supplementation. Of course, when the Board is set up that will be a matter for the Board. The point will certainly receive attention. Another point raised by the noble Lord was in reference to the payment made during the time of unemployment to those agricultural workers who have been in receipt of the higher scales of wages. It is quite a novel idea to me, and I am somewhat attracted by it, but I cannot give any opinion on it at the moment for the simple reason that it will have to be carefully examined. I can assure the noble Lord, however, that I will bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend and that it will be examined with the greatest care. I am obliged to him for making the suggestion.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, raised two questions which were also touched upon by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. One question had reference to the relations between the employer and
338
the employee under this scheme. As far as Scotland is concerned I think I can reassure the noble Marquess that it will not alter the splendid relations that have always existed there. Our farm workers there have always been looked upon as part of the family. In England I think there is no reason to fear any alteration because the farm labourer has accepted a scheme of insurance. After all, it is only what I may call common care of the future to have insurance. Because insurance happens to be in a way compulsory for the benefit of the whole is not a reason why it should be regarded differently from any other form of insurance. We all insure against the various risks of life, and I imagine that this insurance ought not to have any evil effect in the direction which the noble Lord suspects. At any rate, I hope it will not.
Might I draw Lord Phillimore's attention for one moment to Clause 13, which deals particularly with the question he raised concerning gardeners? This clause says that the Minister shall refer the question of whether it is desirable and practicable to include gardeners to the Statutory Committee, which shall go into it. Of course it lies in the hands of the Minister whether, having been advised that the inclusion of gardeners is desirable and practical, he shall apply that advice. I have the mind of my right honourable friend, who tells me that if the Committee say that it is desirable and practical, then he will of course go straight ahead and table an Order in both Houses. I am perfectly certain that he is only following the advice which was given by the Statutory Committee when they said, in that very fine Report of theirs, that the matter demanded closer examination before they could recommend it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Thank you.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: Then the noble Lord referred to the question of the finance of the Bill, and said that the margin was very small. I think it is the first time in my experience that I have ever found a Government too generous towards a scheme of this nature, and therefore I cannot help thinking that the opinion held by those who have inquired into the matter is that they are able to give that amount of benefit which is laid down in the Bill. At

339
any rate, it is their affair, and it is our affair, in His Majesty's Government, to deal with it. If noble Lords say that the scheme is unsound financially, all I can reply is that this is the advice which we have received from Committees and from every sort of inquiry; that we have founded the rate of benefit on that advice; and that I hope that our advisers were fully justified. There is just this point. The noble Lord raised the question of long hirings. He thought there would be an inclination to have more and more long hirings in England on the same basis that we have in Scotland and that exists in Northern Ireland. If that be so, then it is all to the benefit of the finance of the Bill, and if we have more long hirings, they will always help us with those who are not so fortunately placed.
Another point was raised by Lord Aberdeen and also by Lord Phillimore: the question of payment through the Post Office instead of making unemployed labourers go a long distance into industrial centres where they might have to stand in queues for a long time and be more or less drawn into the vortex of that type of unemployment. I know that is in the mind of my right honourable friend the Minister. I raised that very point with him, and he is willing to consider anything—he is most sympathetic—in order to see that the administration of the payment gives the least possible trouble and that the benefit shall be paid at a place as near as possible to the homes of the unfortunate people who happen to be unemployed in agriculture. After all, it is laid down in Section 50 of the Act—and this Bill applies the Act to agriculture—that:
" Regulations made by the Minister under this Act may, with the concurrence of the Postmaster-General, provide for the payment of benefit through the Post Office."
When he comes to look with experience into the administration of this Bill after it has become an Act, that provision can doubtless be applied. I am sure that the Minister, who has a very sympathetic mind and who is very progressive, will do all he can in the matter. I am very grateful for the way in which this Bill has been received. If I have not answered all your Lordships' questions, I hope you will forgive me.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ITALO-ABYSSINIAN DISPUTE: METHODS OF WARFARE.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD rose to ask whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to a telegram from the daughter of the Negus of Ethiopia in which she says:—" For seven days without break enemy have been bombing armies and people of my country including women and children with terrible gases. Our soldiers are brave men and know that they must take consequences of war. Against this cruel gas we have no protection, no gas masks—nothing. This suffering and torture is beyond description, hundreds of countrymen screaming and moaning with pain. Many of them are unrecognisable since the skin has been burned off their faces "; whether the Government have any information on these charges of a breach by the Italian Government of yet another of their treaty obligations and what steps the Government propose to take in the matter if the charges are true; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the matter which I desire to bring to your Lordships' attention is stated in the Question which I have put down. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to repeat the actual quotation which I have made in that Question. It is from a telegram sent by the Princess, the daughter of the Negus, to British ladies who have been engaged in trying to provide some assistance for the wounded in this horrible war. This is what the Princess says:
" For seven days without break enemy have been bombing armies and people of my country including women and children with terrible gases. Our soldiers are brave men and know that they must take consequences of war. Against this cruel gas we have no protection, no gas masks—nothing. This suffering and torture is beyond description, hundreds of countrymen screaming and moaning with pain. Many of them are unrecognisable since the skin has been burned off their faces."
That is a horrible allegation, and I think it is right that we should ask the Government whether they have any information which confirms it.
How it must have impressed very large numbers of people, but particularly, perhaps, those who are familiar with conditions in Africa, appears from the very striking letter written by Sir Hesketh Bell in this morning's Times. I may remind your Lordships that Sir Hesketh

341
Bell is, as The Times truly calls him, a veteran administrator, with very considerable experience particularly in African administration. I think it would save your Lordships' time if I were to read some parts of that letter:
" Not only in Great Britain, but in every part of the world in which The Times is read, sentiments of horror and indignation will have been aroused by the account given in to-day's issue by the executive secretary of the Ethiopian Red Cross of the sufferings inflicted on helpless old people, women, and children through the ' poison gas ' which the Italians are using in their unjustifiable war on Abyssinia. Mr. Lambie writes that, through this hellish yperite or so-called mustard gas which is being rained on the little villages of Ethiopia, thousands of peasants will be groping their way down the dark years because of a dictator, whose name they have never heard of, but whose decree of ruthlessness has put out their eyes. Do the people of Italy—the vast majority of whom are of a kindly and compassionate nature—realise the wickedness that is being committed in their name? When considering the advantages of possessing an African dominion do they appreciate the everlasting hatred that will burn in the breasts of the vanquished Ethiopians at the thought of the tortures inflicted on their aged parents, women, and; small children by the white men who came to them brandishing their terrible weapons and promising them the blessings of civilisation and of true Christianity? "
And then, later on, he says:
" Is the voice of collective civilisation going to remain silent in the presence of the horrors that are being perpetrated in Ethiopia? Are the coloured peoples "—
and this is the part of his letter which I think is especially worthy of your Lordships' attention—
" throughout the Continent of Africa to be allowed to believe that the latest war-methods of the white man are all that they may expect whenever a European nation covets the lands that have been the homes of their forebears for countless generations? "
And he finishes by saying that it will bring with it a terrible Nemesis in the days to come.
I shall add nothing to what Sir Hesketh has said in comment on the charge which is now being made, but I want to point out that this is perfectly clearly a breach—if it has been committed—of a very definite undertaking into which the Italian Government have entered. On June 17, 1925, a Protocol was signed. It was signed by the Italian and Ethiopian Governments on that date, and it was ratified by the Italian Government on
342
April 3, 1928. Some of those who ratified this document made certain reservations and conditions. The Italian Government made none, and it was ratified by the Ethiopians at the beginning of the war. I will read to your Lordships the essential clauses of that Protocol, leaving out the immaterial words:
" Whereas the use in war of… poisonous… gases has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world.
Whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared…
Whereas, to the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law binding alike the conscience and practice of nations…
Declare, That the High Contracting Parties… accept this prohibition and agree to be bound as between themselves according to the terms of this Declaration."
I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to two specific points in that clear declaration which the Italian Government ratified in 1928. It is in the first place an agreement which binds them, not only towards Ethiopia but towards all the other nations who signed and ratified that Agreement, including ourselves. It is therefore, supposing it has been committed, a clear breach of a treaty with us.
There is another point which I think your Lordships will desire to have in your consideration—namely, that if this is to be a precedent, as it no doubt will be, for other wars, unless it is repudiated and penalised, it will be evidently a precedent for any war in which this country is engaged, with the consequences which have been described in this House, but which most of us hoped and believed would not afflict the vast masses of non-combatants which would exist in such a country as this. It is of course not the only charge which has been made against the Italian methods of warfare. It has been charged against them also, and I gather that His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the charge is true, that they have dropped bombs on Red Cross units. That they have done so on Swedish units is, I think, beyond question, and I gather that the Government are satisfied that they have done so on British units also. In this morning's newspapers there is a very definite and precise charge that they have also bombed and destroyed the greater part of Harar, declared to be an open and

343
unfortified town, and according, at any rate, to the Abyssinian assertion, quite devoid of any military value.
There is, however, this to be said of the bombing of Red Cross units and open towns, that it is possible it was due to some mistake—one knows how very difficult it is to avoid mistakes under any condition's in warfare—or it may have been due to the exceptional ferocity of some individual officer or individual leader. Why this last charge is so much more formidable, from my point of view, than any which preceded it, is that it must have been directly organised and commanded by the central authorities in Rome. Mustard gas is not of any use at all except for the purpose of bombing, and it is certainly not a product which you are at all likely to find on the coast of East Africa. It must therefore have been manufactured, prepared and sent out in appropriate containers, for the deliberate purpose of being used for the bombing of unprotected—for they are practically unprotected—bodies of the Abyssinian population. I hope it will be possible, though it is difficult to imagine how, for the Italian Government to show that this charge is untrue, but I cannot forget that early in this year there were some very ominous statements made in the Italian Press, I think, and your Lordships are aware that nothing appeal's in the Italian Press which is disapproved of by the Central Government in Italy. On January 3, there was quoted in our paper The Times a statement that had been published in Rome, to the effect that they demanded from the Government and military authorities a harsher and more inexorable conduct of the war, and another writer called for the employment of the most modern and lethal weapons of war. A somewhat similar message was quoted in the Daily Telegraph from another Italian source.
I am afraid that under those circumstances the immense probability is that this charge is perfectly true. If it is, it is horrible and shameless—perhaps as horrible and shameless a thing as has ever been done, even in the bloody annals of warfare—and it has been done by a Government which claims to be carrying to Abyssinia the great benefits of Christianity and liberation. I recognise that, horrible as it is, it probably is not more horrible than many other things which are done in war. That it should
344
be not only horrible but a breach of treaty is a different consideration, and more important; but for mere horror, all warfare is horrible and modern warfare appears to be even more horrible than ancient warfare. The only way out is to insist that peace shall be restored. That can be done by the machinery which we have all agreed to, and which the Government have again, in that admirable and moving speech made by the Foreign Secretary the other day, declared their complete intention of supporting in every way they can. You have there the machinery of the League of Nations, by which, undoubtedly, if used in full, peace can be restored at very short notice. I can only hope that, impressed by these considerations, the Government will not hesitate to recommend to the League such measures as they shall approve with the object of bringing this war to an end, and I am quite certain that if they do so they will receive the overwhelming support of the people of this country. I beg to move.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think we shall all agree that the noble Viscount was entirely justified in bringing before your Lordships the very grave matter with which his Motion deals. I have little to add to what he has so forcibly said. But I cannot remain silent, as this is a matter that concerns not merely the principles of Christianity but the most elementary principles of humanity itself. Like the noble Viscount, I should be immensely relieved if assurance could be given by the Government that these charges are either unfounded or greatly exaggerated, but I find it difficult to believe that the telegram which appeared in The Times of March 25, sent by the Secretary of the Ethiopian Red Cross Society, and the telegram quoted by the noble Viscount are wholly without foundation. If they are not without foundation, this is indeed a most grave matter.
It may be said that we ourselves sanctioned the use for the British Army of gases in the time of the Great War, and many of us will remember the wide concern with which we heard in May, 1915, that the British Army was to be allowed to use asphyxiating gases. I myself very well remember the correspondence and conversations between my revered predecessor, Archbishop

345
Davidson, and the Prime Minister. He was fearful as to the extent to which this policy of reprisals, once begun, might be pressed, and I think it is perhaps pertinent to this subject if I read the final reply which was given at that time by the Prime Minister:
" Leave has been given to Sir John French to make use of gases for urgent military reasons, the French having already taken this decision. It is one which on humanitarian grounds cannot but be regretted, but we cannot deny to our soldiers the use in self-defence of a weapon which has been proved effective in the hands of an enemy. We are ready at the earliest moment to agree to the abandonment by both sides of their use, and steps are now being considered to secure this. More than this cannot for the moment be said, but you may rest assured that no one is more aware than the Prime Minister of the objection to their use, and no one more anxious to bring to an end, or at least to limit, such hideous methods of warfare."
Your Lordships will notice that the whole emphasis was laid on self-defence. There is no conceivable application of that use of gas in time of war to the present use of this poisonous gas apparently by the Italian Army in Abyssinia. In the first place, there if no question there of reprisals. The Ethiopian Army is totally unprovided with these gases, or even with the means of protection against them; and if it be said that reprisals of a gross and barbarous kind can be permitted in retaliation for brutal acts of savagery on the other side, it is yet to be proved that the Abyssinians have been guilty of any such acts of savagery as would justify a civilised Power in making use of these barbarous methods against them. In the second place it is to be noted that since the Great War there have been these protocols and obligations which the noble Viscount has quoted, and to which Italy itself gave unqualified ratification. In the third place—even more serious—this is so far as I know the very first instance in which these gases have been used against non-combatants, innocent men, women and children, wholly unable to defend themselves against them. The matter is the more serious because of the admitted effects of this particular form of poison. I am no chemist, and I do not know how these gases are constructed. I only know that I have heard of what their effects are, and apparently
346
an innocent Abyssinian moving along the ground bare-footed can receive an infection which may spread and ere long result in burning, blinding, sometimes even in death.
I ask consideration in the first place of what the effect of this must be upon the coloured races of Africa to which the noble Viscount has most justly called attention. I hear from every quarter of Africa, from West Africa, East Africa, and South Africa, that the natives are watching with their intense and brooding vigilance the conduct of this war, and they are asking themselves what is to be the way by which in the future the white man is to continue his conquest of Africa. They are deeply interested in the fortunes of the war. Only this morning I received a cheque for £20 collected through a West African newspaper from its native readers for the work of our British Red Cross unit in Abyssinia. Everywhere that vigilance is intense. This is one of the most unfortunate results of this unhappy war which may carry with it consequences which none of us can foretell, and I think that Sir Hesketh Bell, in the letter quoted by the noble Viscount, was entirely justified in asking his question. Let me again remind your Lordships of his words:
" Are the coloured peoples throughout the Continent of Africa to be allowed to believe that the latest war methods of the white man are all that they may expect whenever a European nation covets the lands that have been the homes of their forebears for countless generations? "
But, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, this is not the only matter which we have to take into consideration. There has been this persistent bombing, as I think it can be called now, of the Red Cross units in Abyssinia. I take a special interest in them because your Lordships may remember that I was responsible for taking a leading part in providing funds for and sending out our British Red Cross units. I am happy to think that our people have given more than £50,000 for that purpose. I am in communication with Dr. Molly, the heroic leader appointed for the first British unit, and I hear from other sources of what is happening. I think it is beyond question that this bombing has taken place as a matter of deliberate plan. The excuses offered seem to me to make the matter worse. For example, it was stated in the Italian Press on March

347
12, not without the assent of the authorities I think, that out of the tents of our poor little British Red Cross units emerged 1,000 armed men in khaki. Dr. Melly, of course, has covered that with ridicule, and it is not the only instance in which the Red Cross units, both British, Swedish and others, have been bombed—and this also in disregard of obligations which have been long ago contracted between the nations.
I fully realise the difficulty of raising this matter at the present time when the whole international situation is so tense and delicate, and it may be that the noble Viscount who will be replying for the Government may be obliged to have that in mind in controlling what contribution he is able to make to this discussion. But this is not a matter of international policy: it is a matter of elementary human instincts. Moreover I do not think we can dismiss from our minds the strange callousness that seems to be passing over Europe in these days about such happenings as these which have been called to our attention. I suppose that, somehow or other, our imagination and our conscience were at first dazed and then dulled by the events of the Great War, but certain it is that events which before would have aroused indignation in every part of this country are allowed to pass almost unnoticed. Things are worse if, in order to prevent the use in future of these appalling methods of human destruction, conventions are carefully arranged and solemn signatures are appended and then, whenever it appears to be convenient, they are torn aside by the very nations that entered into these solemn obligations. We all know how mankind at this moment is almost terrified by the thought of the horrors that may attend the outbreak of another general war. This is the first instance in which horrors of that kind have actually occurred, and therefore, however great the difficulties may be, I cannot suppose that in this country we should be indifferent. If these charges are true, if they are well-founded, then I trust for the sake of Africa and, in a wider sense, of the world, and of humanity, His Majesty's Government may be ready to enter a solemn expostulation and protest.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I desire strongly to support the suggestion of the noble
348
Viscount, Lord Cecil. I also had a telegram from the Committee of Assistance to Ethiopian War Victims in which they say that Italy is using on a large scale asphyxiating and other gases, not only against troops, but also against the civil population several hundred kilometres from the zone of operations. That is confirmed by the categorical statement in The Times of to-day to which the noble Viscount refers. The Times stated:
" Fifteen bombs struck the Egyptian Red Crescent Hospital outside the city wall, and that of the Ethiopian Red Cross was hit many times, though even further away from the city. Two … bombs fell between the Swedish Hospital and the British Consulate, a mile outside Harar. … All the hospitals were plainly marked with the Red Cross or Crescent, and as Harar is an open town there was not a single anti-aircraft gun to open fire on the raiders. "
There cannot be any mistake about this. It cannot be by mistake that these hospitals are hit. It is incredible that we can pretend that it is a mistake that such a thing can happen. We are bound to ask ourselves what is being done to stop this breaking of all decent rules. What is being done to stop the war itself for that matter? What is being done to stop bombing from the air, and to stop the use of these poison gases? Are we, as the Lord Archbishop has said, becoming accustomed to it? Does it now mean nothing when we read this sort of thing in the newspapers? Are we becoming hardened? We have no right to become hardened. We have no right to accept this sort of thing in a so-called civilised world. The League has not had a great success so far, but Italy is susceptible more than any other nation to the application of economic sanctions. We had a very striking speech by my noble friend Lord Arnold a few days ago in which he pointed out that, out of twenty-five primary products, Italy has only four in adequate quantities, and of twenty-one she has none at all. Is it not possible somehow to direct world opinion, League opinion, to further pressure in this direction?
It has been said in this House that the Ethiopians are a nation of desperate blackguards. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, claimed that they were cruel slave dealers and that there were at this moment hundreds or even thousands of

349
slaves dying in ships being transported across the Red Sea. That was definitely countered by both the Lord Archbishop and the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, who replied for the Government. It received a direct and authoritative denial. I venture to suggest that the Ethiopians have a civilisation going back 2,500 years and that they have a code of morality which we might do well to follow in many respects. They are not perfect, none of us is perfect, but that is no reason why we should accept that people whom we may criticise should be treated in this way.
I want to make one quotation if your Lordships will permit me, from a letter from a very well-known and prominent retired Indian civil servant who went out to Harar and Addis Ababa to see for himself and judge who were these desperate blackguards to whom reference was made in a debate a few months ago. The writer of this letter has now got out of it. He went to Bombay afterwards, but he was in Harar on February 17, five weeks ago, and this is what he said:
" Certain facts must be clearly understood. Italy will not get the land which Sir Samuel Hoare, would have given her if she goes on fighting for the next ten years. Ethiopia is only a land of milk and honey in patches, and those not too good except in the west, from which there is nowhere to send the stuff. It will only grow coffee, cotton, and teff, none of which is much wanted.
" The Ethiopian may cat raw meat, but otherwise is a very decent sort of fellow, and the general standard is at least as high as in India. He is the world's most courageous fighter, and the Italians the worst."
So says the writer—
" The latter are doing no fighting unless they are well protected inside a tank or with a lot of native troops in front."
Or, he might have added, hundreds of feet up in the air where they cannot be reached by natives having no anti-aircraft guns and no equipment. They are decent people, and this writer points out that the young educated Abyssinian is a superior type, and that the whole country was clearly being rapidly modernised, just as rapidly as it would be under a European Power.
The League must have our support if it can be induced to take further action, and I urge that the appeal of the noble
350
Viscount to the Government should receive sympathetic consideration. The Lord Archbishop said that he received this morning £20 towards the expenses of the Red Cross unit. I should like to say that there is also a fund available for direct aid to the Ethiopian Government by which men and women who resent this type of attack may at least give some assistance. Subscriptions may be sent to the National Bank of Egypt in King William Street, and the money will go to aid in a similar way the type of fund to which the Lord Archbishop referred a moment ago. I hope that the Government will be able to give a sympathetic answer to the noble Viscount.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am not going to detain the House more than a minute or two, but there is one point to which I desire to draw attention. Everybody, I think, will sympathise with the indignation displayed by my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) with regard to this matter. The spectacle of a highly civilised Power carrying out warfare under present conditions must be more than repugnant to everybody, but what I want to point out is this. My noble friend asks the Government what they are going to do. There is one thing which I sincerely hope they will not do, and that is to make an isolated representation to the Italian Government upon this point. We have succeeded in establishing ourselves in the opinion of Italy as their principal enemy and as being largely responsible for the war. Any representation that is made by us alone can only do harm. It will be merely cited as evidence of additional spite, and we shall be told by the Italians that they are only doing what we are in the habit of doing ourselves. We must admit the fact that we have recourse to the bombing of villages which, as far as I know, are frequently not occupied by fighting men at all, and it is just as well to recognise that fact. But if a representation is going to be made it stands to reason that this is a case for collective representation, and I submit to nay noble friend that any isolated representation on our part would be a breach of the so-called collective system. Upon this point I hope my noble friend, when he replies, will be able to reassure us, because I feel convinced in my own mind, whatever other noble Lords may feel, that isolated intervention will only end in failure.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, three questions seem to be before your Lordships' House. First of all, have the Italians—that is to say, the Italian Higher Command—sanctioned, and are they employing, poison gas against their enemy? That is the first point, and under the procedure in your Lordships' House one always has to wait until the end of the debate to get the answer to the question which is vital to the consideration of the matter. The first question then is: Is that true? We have seen so many untruths told by both sides in this war that one almost begins to be certain that whatever is said is a lie, on both sides. But I will come to that point in a moment. Another quite different point is: Have the Italians bombed Red Cross units? The third question is: What are the Government going to do? Let us clear out of the way the Red Cross question, because though it is deplorable—and everybody must have been moved by what the most reverend Primate said—anybody who has taken an active part in war, and I have spent six years in the front line of warfare, knows, of course, that the bombing of Red Cross units must always be a mistake. It must always be done without intention, because however wicked you may be you do not waste a good bomb on a fellow who is already knocked out. I spent some time as a wounded patient in a clearing station, and not one but dozens of shells fell near to where I was. I was supposed to be dead, but I am still alive. It would be ridiculous to think that anybody would waste shells upon the Red Cross.
It is quite a different question from that of poison gas in regard to which I think at least the most reverend Primate and I will be, as I hope we always shall be, on the same side. The bombing of Red Cross units is a subject in respect to which it is proper to say: "You have to be more careful. We know you are not doing it on purpose; you would not be such fools; but you ought not to have done it." That, however, is quite a different thing from the employment of poison gas. Here I part company altogether from the Italian Higher Command and with all those who direct it. Exactly eighteen years ago to-day, it so happens, I swallowed enough phosgene, chlorine and mustard gas (as I was told at the hospital where I ultimately
352
arrived) to have killed a dozen ordinary men. I have not quite recovered yet, and I do not suppose I ever shall, though it is wonderful what science can do. But I do know a good deal about poison gas, not only because I have been so very badly gassed myself and supposed to be the "star turn" of a particular doctor who saved my life, to the great disadvantage, I am sure, of most of my noble friends opposite, but also because, perhaps as a consequence, when I recovered the then Prime Minister appointed me to be what was termed President of the Warfare Section of the Ministry of Munitions. I am the only survivor of the particular band who served at that period, for two of them died of the experiments we conducted.
During that period I got to know, I suppose, more about poison gas than any man now living. I remember a poor man who died, the most brilliant chemist we had, saying to me at the end of October, 1918: "You know, Sir, if this war goes on until 1919 there will be a good many fewer English and French, but there will be very few Germans left at all." He was putting it a bit too high, but it is the fact that if humanity wishes to destroy itself, it can do it not by some new discovery in gas—and I do happen to have knowledge of this matter—but without the necessity of any new discovery. It is possible, if you devote yourself to it, really to destroy on the great scale by means of poison gas, but you cannot do it with our existing arrangements. Armies as we see them now are not designed to destroy human life on the grand scale by means of poison gas. I see the First Lord of the Admiralty present. He has special knowledge of this matter as affecting the Navy, and he will agree with me that if you seek to destroy a whole quantity of people on shore, if you can reach them, you want to make a different kind of Fleet to do it, and in the same way, you want a different kind of Army. And those were the things that we were considering at the end of 1918 before the Armistice came.
I would, therefore, ask the representative of His Majesty's Government, if he can, to say to us that the whole story is untrue, that the Italians have not in fact employed poison gas. All my noble friends here who were in the Great War know how hard it is to tell, until

353
you swallow the stuff yourself, whether it is the result of an imperfect detonation or whether it is the actual poison gas that smells so nasty and hurts. But if the Italians have not employed poison gas I should say, with respect to the noble Viscount, cadit quœstio. But if they have, then I would say that it is really a crime against humanity. It opens the door to the continuance of gas warfare on the grand scale which, by various arrangements come to, some open and some in conversations, I happen to know between the leaders of great States since the War, it was hoped would be brought to an end. I hope, and until I am definitely told the contrary, I shall continue to believe, that the Italian Higher Command have not employed gas. If they have, I would urge the Government—while no doubt observing the wise rule mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that we must act with others—to say that we will use the utmost of our power to put an end to this method of warfare which, if pursued with the same vigour that other methods have been pursued, will mean a holocaust of human beings which may well put an end to civilisation itself.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, what I have to say can be put in a very few sentences, so there is no fear I shall delay you. The matter which is raised in the Question of the noble Viscount is one that no doubt requires very serious consideration, especially in the interests of the Italian people. It has been raised in your Lordships' House and things have been said which go out all over the world. It has been very largely assumed in various speeches that these charges are true. Therefore I should like to insist on one point, to some extent as a corrective against a prejudice which such utterances may arouse. If there has been an abusive employment of that abominable invention called yperite, I should like to say to your Lordships and to a larger audience that no doubt it has been done entirely without the knowledge of the Italian people. The Italian people hear very little, as the Press is managed in their country, except of a series of advances and victories. No details of such a nature as find their way into our Press are ever allowed to penetrate to the minds of the nation. The Italian people, among whom I have lived for many years, are naturally humane and
354
kindly. In their attitude towards children they are so indulgent that very often outside observers think that they carry that indulgence and tenderness to excess. That they could for a moment countenance the use of this instrument of war on inoffensive children and women is, to one who knows the temperament of the Italian people, absolutely inconceivable. Therefore, whatever indignation may have been aroused by what until it is absolutely proved must remain partly in the nature of hypothesis, I should like at any rate one voice in this House to be heard which does not believe that the Italian people share in any guilt which may eventually be brought home to those by whom they are being led there, but that they would be the first to deprecate the use of such methods of warfare.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I welcome the action of the noble Viscount in inviting your Lordships to consider the matter that he has brought before us by his Motion. I think that by doing so he has served, and those who have taken part in the debate have served, a great public purpose, if for no other reason than this—and I will come in a moment to the merits of what he and others have said—that in my judgment, and I doubt not in the judgment also of those of your Lordships who follow these matters closely, it would be unfortunate and worse if the other preoccupations in our minds respecting the international field to-day were to have the effect of distracting public attention from the war that is actually in progress and that has for so long been the subject of collective action by the League of Nations. The debate to which we have listened has been one conducted, so it seems to me, with remarkable restraint, and, on the assumption that these reports were well-founded, with singular unanimity of judgment and of condemnation. I think that it will not escape public notice in this country and elsewhere that that condemnation, on the assumption that the reports were well founded, came not only from those who have been accustomed to be foremost in these discussions on the lines of criticism and condemnation of the Italian Government, but also from other noble Lords who have been accustomed in other debates to take a somewhat different point of view.
I only wish that it were in my power to give the assurance to the noble Lord

355
opposite for which he asked, that there was no foundation for these reports. I at present have no information other than somewhat meagre information which I will communicate to your Lordships, and therefore I can at this stage only associate myself with everything that has been said that, if these reports do in fact turn out to be true, they have a gravity that I think no speech has exaggerated whether in regard to the natural feelings that they must arouse in all our minds and hearts, as the most reverend Primate most truly said, or, as he also said, from the point of view of their inevitable repercussions upon the whole relations now and in the future of white and coloured races. The noble Viscount asked whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the telegram that he quotes in his Motion. My attention has been drawn to it, and moreover the British Minister at Addis Ababa telegraphed to His Majesty's Government on March 21 a protest addressed to them by the Ethiopian Government as a contracting party under the Convention that he referred to, signed at The Hague in 1907, and also a party to the Protocol, signed at Geneva in 1925, for the prohibition of the use in war of poison gases, that protest being directed against" the continuous use by Italy of asphyxiating gas and similar gases." The protest went on to state that these attacks affected not only the troops but also the civilian population and open towns and the like, and reserved the rights of the Ethiopian Government to claim compensation under the relevant article of The Hague Convention. Finally, in the same communication, the Ethiopian Government requested that all measures might be taken to secure a cessation of these alleged violations of the above Conventions.
In forwarding this protest His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa added that he had been informed that protests in similar terms had been forwarded to the League of Nations and to the other Governments represented at Addis Ababa. As I think your Lordships will be aware, the complaint of the Ethiopian Government, which, if I remember rightly, was in amplification of a briefer protest telegraphed to the League of Nations on March 17, was considered by the Committee of Thirteen at their recent session in London on March 23; and, as your
356
Lordships will also have noticed, the Committee decided to refer these complaints to the Italian Government for their comments and in doing so to remind that Government of the provisions of the Gas Protocol of 1925. With those decisions of the Committee of Thirteen, it will not have escaped your Lordships' attention, the representative of His Majesty's Government was, of course, associated.
I would remind you, my Lords, if I may, of what is the position on what I may call the main question which I think it is important to keep in our minds along with this new issue which the noble Viscount raises in his Motion. The present position on the main question, as your Lordships are aware, is that the Committee of Thirteen at their recent session charged themselves with the effort to promote conciliation between Italy and Ethiopia with the object of the restoration of peace, or at least of taking steps to discover whether any basis of conciliation in fact exists. I have no further information at present as to what has been the progress of the action taken by the Chairman of that Committee in pursuance of the duty entrusted to him. But I make this observation that, if these reports are true, it is in my judgment, and, I think, in the judgment of His Majesty's Government, obviously impossible for the Committee of Thirteen and their Chairman to act as though they were a matter of small importance. While His Majesty's Government in this matter, as in all others arising from this unhappy passage of events, can only act collectively with the other Members of the League, it will be for the Committee of Thirteen to consider and to decide upon whatever action they might deem appropriate for them to recommend.
I will incidentally, in passing, draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Newton to one observation that I would ask leave to make in regard to something that fell from him. While he will have observed that I associate myself with the view that action in this matter must be, as it has been throughout, collective, yet I deprecate and feel bound to take exception to the suggestion that he made in his speech that there was very little to choose in this matter between His Majesty's Government, who under certain conditions authorise air bombing—I suppose

357
he meant on the North-West Frontier of India—
LORD NEWTON: Or in Aden, too.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX:—or in Aden, and the action of the Italian Government (on the assumption that these reports are true) in dropping mustard-gas bombs from aeroplanes in Abyssinia. I do not want to labour the point, because I think the noble Lord will recognise that the analogy is not close. I would, however, make this point quite clear: that when such air bombing is resorted to by the Government of India it is only resorted to after twenty-four hours' warning has been given for the villages to be evacuated, and there has never been any question of dropping anything in the nature of gas. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord will realise that his analogy is not relevant. Having said so much, I can assure the noble Lord opposite—and I think some other noble Lord also put the point—that I have no doubt whatever that if these reports are found true it will be both the duty and the desire of His Majesty's Government represented on the Committee of Thirteen, or whatever may be the appropriate body of the League of Nations before which these matters may come, to use their utmost efforts not only to secure practical condemnation of so great an outrage upon civilisation, but also to take whatever steps it may be possible to take to secure the world against recurrence of the action so condemned.
It is profoundly true, as the noble Viscount said, that war, even if conducted within the limitations suggested by humane considerations, is and always will be a cruel thing. It is because of that, of course, that the world has tried to rob it of some of the worst of its horrors. No greater disservice could be rendered to the whole cause of civilisation than that disservice which would be rendered to it by any nation disregarding any of the conventions, all too few and all too painfully achieved, which have been designed to protect humanity even in a limited degree from any part of war's worst consequences. It is, of course, possible for any of us as individuals to make our personal appraisement here and now of the probability of truth or otherwise appertaining to these reports, but it would obviously be quite wrong and quite
358
impossible to prejudge a matter so grave and so vitally affecting the honour of a great country. My noble friend Lord Rennell was most certainly right when he said that, whatever may turn out to be the truth of these reports, it is probable that the great mass of the Italian people have known and know nothing of what on that assumption would turn out to have been done. Therefore it is that the first step in this matter must be to obtain the observations and the comments of the Italian Government. But I shall, I think, have left the House under no misapprehension that, if the reports turn out to be well-founded and if action of this sort has in fact been or is being taken against non-combatants, and even against the military forces of a people utterly defenceless in the face of such attack, the indignation and the moral condemnation which have been implicit in every speech in the debate will be shared by the whole civilised world.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend who has just spoken for what he has been good enough to say and for assuring us of the very serious view that the Government take on this question. I imagine, though I do not think he actually said so, that the Government will inquire from their representative at Addis Ababa whether he has any personal information, or information from trustworthy sources, as to the truth or untruth of this statement.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I rather assumed that this had been done, but I will make sure.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I assume that it has been done. With regard to the rest of the debate I have nothing to say, except that I am very grateful for the unusual support which I received from Lord Mottistone, decorated with those autobiographical details which are always so entertaining to the House. The only other two things which I would like to say is that I would ask my noble friend Lord Rennell to be good enough to look at the extract which I read, and made my own, from the letter of Sir Hesketh Bell, in which he acquits the Italian people of any responsibility in this matter. In reply to Lord Newton I would only say that, although I recognise the desirability of collective action in this and other matters, I hope that

359
the spirit in which my noble friend Lord Halifax spoke is going to be the guiding spirit of the Government. I am quite sure that this country must take the responsibility of leadership in these international matters, and that their motto should be: "Be just, and fear not. "I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENT IN SHANGHAI.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I desire to put the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether any further information has now been received with regard to the alleged use of force against student demonstrators in Shanghai in December, 1935, since the debate on this matter on the 5th February last.]
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Earl Stanhope, who is unable to be here this evening, I can give the noble Lord the information in reply to his Question. A Report has been received from His Majesty's Consul-General in Shanghai regarding the demonstrations there in December, 1935, and copies of this Report have been placed in the Printed Paper Office. As the noble Lord will there see from this Report, the police acted with considerable restraint against the students, in accordance with the orders previously issued to meet such an eventuality.
LORD MARLEY: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for that information.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past seven o'clock.