Sitting of 20 July 1937

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morecambe and Heysham) Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Woodhall Spa Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
North Cotswold Rural District Council Bill [Lords],
Shoreham Harbour Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ABERDEEN CORPORATION (WATER GAS ELECTRICITY AND TRANSPORT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Aberdeen Corporation (Water Gas Electricity and Transport)," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]
ELGIN AND LOSSIEMOUTH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Elgin and Lossiemouth Harbour," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]
PAISLEY CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Paisley Corporation," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]
POOR RELIEF, ENGLAND AND WALES.
Return ordered,
"showing the number of persons in receipt of Poor Relief in England and Wales on the night of the 1st day of January, 1937 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 116, of Session 1935–36).—[Sir K. Wood.]
RESOLUTIONS, ETC., BY EITHER HOUSE.
The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GARRO JONES:
"That there be laid before this House a Return showing those Statutes passed since 1924 under which either House of Parliament (alternatively) is empowered to annul or give legislative force to any measures by Resolution, Order, Humble Address, or otherwise."
Mr. Garro Jones: Am I to understand that the Return for which I ask is not to be granted?
Mr. Speaker: Before a Return of this kind can be ordered by the House, the assent of the Department concerned must be obtained, and I understand that assent has not been given in this case.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    ITALY (CLEARING AGREEMENT).
    Mr. Bellengerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that official statistics have been issued in Rome of the amount of Italy's trade debts which have been redeemed under the clearing agreement of November last; and whether he is now in a position to give the House any information on this matter?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am aware that, according to newspaper reports, certain particulars of the trade debts due to this country from Italy which had been liquidated under the Clearing Agreement of 6th November last were given recently in an official statement made in the Italian Senate, but I am not aware that the Italian Government publish official statistics on this subject. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the monthly statements issued by the Anglo-Italian Clearing Office which are published in the Board of Trade Journal. The total of the payments in respect of arrears of trade debts which had been made to United Kingdom creditors at the close of business on 15th July was £1,755,346.

    IRON ORE, SPAIN.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade whether General Franco's verbal consent to the Oreonora Company continuing to mine and ship ore to England has been or will be committed to writing?
    Mr. Stanley: If the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the informal assurances regarding the supply of iron ore referred to in an answer given to the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) on 22nd June, the answer is in the negative.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Does it matter whether assurances coming from that quarter are verbal or in writing?
    Mr. Stanley: I am prepared to trust these assurances whether they are verbal or otherwise.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about a reported agreement between General Franco and the German Government for a monopoly of these iron ores?
    Mr. Stanley: I have seen a report in this morning's newspapers, but I have no further information.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is this company able to carry on its business unimpeded?
    Mr. Stanley: I should require notice of that question. As a matter of fact, quite recently there has been obstruction in the river, and I do not think that sea communications have been resumed.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have these obstructions come from the local authorities?
    Mr. Stanley: It is not a question of obstruction by any authority. It is a case of physical obstruction in the river which makes navigation impossible.

    INDIA.
    Sir Charles Barrieasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the progress of the negotiations with the Government of India regarding a new trade agreement?
    Mr. Stanley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) on 7th July.
    Sir C. Barrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that due care will be taken to safeguard the jute trade of this country when the agreement comes to be signed?
    Mr. Stanley: That is a matter which, obviously, is in my mind. I can make no statement about the negotiations while they are in progress.

    JUTE CLOTH (IMPORTS).
    Mr. Kennedyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the abnormal increase in recent years in the imports of jute cloth, including hessians, into the United Kingdom and the effect of this increase on production in the home market; and whether the Government will now consider any means of protecting British producers in the jute industry?
    Mr. Stanley: I am aware of the recent increase in imports of jute cloth, and I have the question under active consideration.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he has received representations from members of all political parties asking for protection for the jute industry?

    EGGS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. Turtonasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the increase in imports of eggs in shell from Denmark during the first six months

    1939
    of the present year to 5,099,694 great hundreds compared with a figure of 3,634,510 for the corresponding period last year and 2,968,263 for the corresponding period in 1935, he will make representations to the Danish Government so as to secure that, pending the negotiation of a new trade agreement, the British egg market is not disorganised by a glut of imports of eggs from Denmark;
    (2) whether he is aware that importations of eggs from the Netherlands for the first six months of the year have increased from 476,258 great hundreds in 1933 to 2,159,766 this year; and whether he will notify the Netherlands Government that, unless these imports are materially reduced in the next six months of the year, in the event of compulsory regulation of egg imports being adopted by the Government it will be necessary to regulate drastically the importation of eggs from the Netherlands?
    Mr. Stanley: I am aware of the facts stated by my hon. Friend, but I would point out that total imports of eggs in shell in the first six months of this year were lower than the total imports in the corresponding period of 1936, while the price of eggs has for some weeks been higher than it was at the corresponding date of any of the three previous years. I do not see my way to adopting the suggestions contained in the questions.
    Mr. Turton: In the case of Holland will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that there is no trade agreement with this country, and therefore take steps to secure that the home market is not stolen from British producers by the Dutch?
    Mr. Stanley: I will bear that in mind, but the hon. Member will appreciate that there is no immediate fear of a glut in view of the actual decrease in imports, and the rise in the price of eggs
    Mr. Turton: Have not the imports from Holland increased five times?
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman get away from the Free Trade principles of his predecessor?
    Mr. Leonard: How many efforts have been made to reorganise this industry, to which it has always failed to respond?

    FILM INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of applications made to him during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date by exhibitors for an exemption certificate through their inability to comply with the quota conditions laid down in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927?
    Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Member was informed in answer to a question on 26th January last, details are not available of the number of applications made for certificates of exemption.
    Mr. Day: How many certificates have been granted, and how many proceedings have been taken against people who have not complied with the Act?
    Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will circulate a draft of the proposed Film Quota Bill before the House rises, or during the Recess, in view of the necessity for detailed consideration of its provisions?
    Mr. Rileyasked the President of the Board of Trade when he will be able to make a statement with regard to legislation dealing with the reorganisation of the film industry?
    Mr. Stanley: I hope to be in a position to make a statement of the Government's proposals on films legislation before the Recess, but it will not be possible to introduce a Bill before the House rises.
    Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the contemplated legislation is likely to be somewhat involved and entirely non-party, and in those circumstances, does he not agree that it would be an advantage to Members in all parts of the House to have a draft Bill to consider at leisure during the Recess?
    Mr. Stanley: I am afraid it would be quite impossible to produce anything in the nature of a draft Bill, but I am proposing to issue, for the convenience of hon. Members, a statement in the form of a White Paper, which I will endeavour to make as full as possible.
    Mr. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the desirability of not encouraging British film-producing companies to waste money in order to qualify for protection?
    Mr. Kirkwood: Before the draft Bill is produced, will the Minister see to it that the point of view of Scottish cinematograph operators is considered?
    Mr. Stanley: All points of view of every section of the industry have been given to the Board of Trade over the last few months, and all of them are being considered.

    WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT LICENCES, CHINA).
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade upon what date the last licences were granted for the export of war material from this country to China?
    Mr. Stanley: One export licence for war material for China was issued on 12th July, 1937.
    Mr. Day: Are other Government Departments consulted before these licences are granted?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which Departments are consulted?
    Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

    BELGIUM.
    Mr. Burkeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any reciprocal concessions will be made to Belgium in return for the reliefs in quotas granted by the Belgian Government to Great Britain on the lines of the Oslo Convention?
    Mr. Stanley: As I have previously stated, the Belgian Government have voluntarily extended to this country, in view of the trade relations between the two countries, the benefit of the quota reliefs accorded by them to the other signatories of the recent agreement between the Oslo countries. Accordingly, the question of reciprocal concessions by this country to Belgium does not arise.
    Mr. Burke: Will not mutual agreements have to be made to help international trade?
    Mr. Stanley: That is a different question. This is a case where we have been given a concession without other questions having been raised.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Banfieldasked the President of the Board of Trade whether every effort is being made to see that the re-rollers in the iron and steel industry are provided with a better supply of billets to the rolling mills; and whether he can make any statement to allay the present anxiety among both employers and workmen?
    Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the shortage of billets in the rolling mills of the Midlands is causing unemployment; and whether he will take steps to secure an increase in the available supply?
    Mr. Stanley: I am aware that certain firms of re-rollers have experienced difficulties through the shortage of steel billets, and I can assure the hon. Members that every effort is being made to increase the supply. Assurances have recently been given regarding further supplies from the Continent which, it is expected, will materially improve the position.
    Mr. Henderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the assurances are?
    Mr. Stanley: Assurances have been given by members of the Cartel, especially the French members, of an increased supply in the coming months.

    TEA (PRICES).
    Mr. Leonardasked the President of the Board of Trade the wholesale price of Java tea in 1932 and the price last week for Java tea, together with the figures at the same periods for Ceylon teas?
    Mr. Stanley: According to information published by the Tea Brokers' Association of London, the average wholesale price of Java tea in 1932 was 6.42d. per lb., and in the week ended 15th July, 1937, 13.12d. per lb. The average prices of Ceylon tea in the same periods were 11.17d. and 15.15d. per lb., respectively. The prices are exclusive of duty.
    Mr. Leonard: Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to agree that a great weight has been put on the poorer types of tea, and will he draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the unfair incidence of taxation on these types of tea?
    Mr. Stanley: As a matter of fact I do not think that the figures can be taken entirely on their face value, because I understand that there has been a considerable increase in the quality of Java tea which accounts to some extent for the increase in price.
    Mr. Leonard: Does not that still leave a considerable difference between Ceylon and Java teas; and that the cheaper teas are still consumed by the poorer sections of the community?
    Mr. Stanley: I understand that owing to bad weather the quality of Ceylon tea during the last few years has been lower and that of Java tea higher, so that the difference is not as great as it was.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Do not the Government take matters on their face value just when it suits them?

    CENSUS OF DISTRIBUTION.
    Mr. Leonardasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the various voluntary attempts that have been made to compile a census of distribution; the limitations under which such efforts have laboured; and whether he will take steps to institute a census of distribution capable of presenting to the nation a true picture of this important service?
    Mr. Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on this subject, in the Debate on 29th January last on the Shops (Retail Trading Safeguards) Bill.
    Mr. Leonard: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the voluntary efforts that have been made by other organisations is a measure of the value of such a census to trade in this country in general, and in view of the fact that voluntary efforts have failed, will he not press upon the Government the desirability of a census of distribution being taken which will be complementary to the census of production?
    Mr. Stanley: The Parliamentary Secretary has informed the House, and I have recently given an assurance to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane), that we should be ready to receive on this subject a deputation representing associations which are interested, and if the hon. Member would send in the names of associations of traders which desire this census, it would be of assistance to us.
    Mr. Cartland: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a copy of a census of distribution carried out by certain commercial firms in this country as an indication of what might be done?
    Mr. Stanley: I think a copy has been sent to the Board of Trade officially.

    OSLO AGREEMENT.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Oslo Agreement is working satisfactorily; and whether it is the intenton of the Government to associate itself in some form with those countries who are signatories to the agreement, with a view to a modification of trade barriers?
    Mr. Stanley: As regards the first part of the question, I have no information. As regards the second part, my information is that other States may adhere to the Convention subject to reaching a preliminary agreement with the signatory States. This would appear to involve negotiations with each of the signatory States as to the special concessions which might be made. In these circumstances, I do not think that the question of the participation of the United Kingdom Government in the agreement can usefully be considered apart from the existing bilateral agreements which govern the trade relations between this country and the majority of the "Oslo" countries.
    Mr. Shinwell: May we take it that the Government are in complete sympathy with the principle underlying that agreement, and, if that be so, can the Government indicate what are their views?
    Mr. Stanley: As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, speaking last night, stated quite plainly the agreement of His Majesty's Government with the ideals of the Oslo group. That does not necessarily say they always think the arrangements for reaching those ideals are the best possible.
    Mr. Benn: Does that mean that action must be postponed until the expiry of the trade agreements?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.
    Mr. Bellenger: While appreciating their oft-repeated desire for freer trade, may I ask when we may expect His Majesty's Government to give tangible expression to these desires?
    Mr. Stanley: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
    Mr. A. Reed: Is it not a fact that our agreements with Scandinavian countries actually reduced duties, and therefore set an example for the later Osle Agreement?

    RATIONALISATION OF INDUSTRIES.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recommendations contained in the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee regarding rationalisation in the iron and steel industry, it is intended to ask the Committee to report on the need for rationalisation in other industries which are afforded the advantages of protection?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. The hon. Member will be aware that there were special circumstances leading to the inquiry into the iron and steel industry by the Import Duties Advisory Committee which are not present in the case of other industries.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether, in view of the measure of success attending the efforts of the Import Duties Advisory Committee in regard to the iron and steel industry, it would not be possible to extend those activities in other desirable directions?
    Mr. Stanley: The position was this. It was the Import Duties Advisory Committee which, when considering an application for duties, called attention to the need for reorganisation, and it is possible for them, whenever they are considering an application for duties, to call attention to the need for reorganisation in the industry.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that his predecessor stated definitely in the course of the Debate that he intended, because of the difficulties surrounding the organisation of the iron and steel industry, to make such reference to the Import Duties Advisory Committee? He took the initiative himself.
    Mr. Stanley: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. As far back as 1932, when the question of duties on iron and steel was before the Committee, the Committee called attention to the need for reorganisation in the industry.
    Miss Wilkinson: Does the Minister think that the results of the iron and steel rationalisation have been such a frantic success that he wants to extend it to other industries?
    Mr. Stanley: There have, of course, been difficulties, but, on the whole, I think it is working extremely well.
    Mr. Mander: Is it not part of the duty of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to watch these matters in connection with all industries, and report to the Government?

    FOOD STORAGE.
    Sir Francis Aclandasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the desirability of establishing widely-dispersed centres for food storage on a large scale?
    Mr. Stanley: Suggestions of the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are receiving close consideration.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    WELSH ANTHRACITE (EXPORTS).
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the exports of Welsh anthracite to the United States of America declined from 177,285 tons in 1930 to 60,941 tons in 1936 and that the imports of Russian anthracite into the United States of America increased from 193,131 tons in 1930 to 425,000 tons in 1936; whether he can give reasons for this decline in Welsh exports to the United States of America; and what steps he is taking to deal with the matter?
    The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I am aware that there has been an increase in imports of Russian anthracite into the United States of America, and a decline in imports from South Wales, in spite of the fact that Russian anthracite is subject to an import duty of two dollars per short ton, from which Welsh anthracite is exempt.

    1947
    The cause is presumably a very low price for Russian anthracite, which allows it to compete successfully with the United States product as well as with other imported anthracite. Since United Kingdom anthracite already enjoys a very large tariff preference, I do not see what steps are open to me.
    Viscountess Astor: Could my hon. and gallant Friend tell us whether the reason why the Russian anthracite is cheaper is that women work in the mines in Russia?
    Captain Sir William Brass: Is any of the shipping which carries the anthracite subsidised?
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the exports of Welsh anthracite to France in 1936 showed a reduction of 139,503 tons as compared with 1933, and that the imports of anthracite into France from Russia and Indo-China in the same period showed an increase of 192,000 tons; whether he can give reasons for this decline in Welsh exports; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?
    Captain Crookshank: I am aware of the position described in the first part of the question. I would remind the hon. Member that Indo-Chinese anthracite, being a colonial product, is exempt from quota and import duties in France while the increase in Russian imports appears to be mainly due to the allocation of a quota to that country as from the year 1934. I am glad to be able to inform the House that exports of United Kingdom anthracite to France during the first six months of 1937 show an increase of over 117,000 tons, or over 24 per cent., as compared with the first six months of 1936.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is it not also a fact that the exports of other countries have increased at the same time; and in view of the fact that our exports of coal continue to decline, are the Government really considering any steps in the matter? Is not the time overdue for pressing for a European coal agreement to regulate and fix exports?
    Captain Crookshank: I think that I have answered all those questions separately at different times in the last few weeks. As regards the decrease, I pointed out that, as far as this country
    1948
    is concerned, there has been an increase of 24 per cent. this year.
    Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not think that the time is opportune for an agreement, may I ask him what steps the Government think ought to be taken and are taking in this matter?
    Captain Crookshank: I have already expressed my views on that point.

    OIL EXTRACTION.
    Mr. E. Dunnasked the President of the Board of Trade how many firms of foreign origin have been granted patent rights in this country to extract oil from coal; how many firms have exercised their patent rights by the establishment of works; to what countries patent rights have been granted in the years 1935, 1936 and 1937; and whether any objections have been raised by British firms in the like business and in the same years?
    Mr. Stanley: In reply to the first part of the question, United Kingdom patents relating to the extraction of oil from coal have been granted in the last 24 years to 62 different persons and companies residing or carrying on business in foreign countries; as regards the third part of the question in 1935, 1936 and 1937 90 patents for such inventions were granted in this country to persons in Liechtenstein, 34 to Germany, 12 to France, 7 to Switzerland, 4 to the United States of America, 3 to Australia, and 2 to the United Kingdom. Information on the second and fourth parts of the question is not available.
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in a position to state whether the hydrogenation plant at Billingham is a commercial success or otherwise; and, if he is not in possession of the information, will he approach Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, with a view to obtaining the information?
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a statement on the Government proposals for extracting oil from coal; and when the Falmouth Committee intends to report?
    Sir Philip Dawsonasked the Secretary for Mines whether the plants proposed to be installed in the distressed areas are to be merely low-temperature

    1949
    carbonisation processes which cannot materially increase the demand from coal, or whether other processes such as we are now operating in Germany, and which directly or indirectly convert the whole of coal substance into liquid fuel, will be put down, or whether a combination of low-temperature carbonisation and of some other processes will be installed?
    Captain Crookshank: I cannot make any statement on this subject until the Falmouth Committee has reported, and I cannot yet say when that will be.

    —

    Coal Consumed in

    1934.

    1935.

    1936.

    1937 (estimated).

    Thousand Tons.

    Hydrogenation …

    Nil Plant under construction.

    257(a)

    425(a)

    450

    High Temperature Carbonisation.

    34,787

    35,477

    39,116

    40,000

    Low Temperature Carbonisation.

    284

    327(b)

    384(b)

    530

    RELIEF FUNDS.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will initiate inquiries to ascertain whether in order to support the Brymbo Disaster Relief Fund
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal consumed in Great Britain in 1934, 1935, and 1936, and the estimated consumption for the present year in hydrogenation, in high-temperature carbonisation, and in low-temperature carbonisation, respectively; and the respective quantities of petrol or benzol, and of heavy oils produced?
    Captain Crookshank: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    or the Brymbo Memorial Fund, any of the following funds can be used: Longton Fund, 1889, Talke Fund, 1866, or any other funds raised for the relief of the victims of colliery disasters?
    Captain Crookshank: The Longton Fund, 1889, is exhausted, but I have communicated with the Secretary of the Talke Fund, and I will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.

    SILICOSIS.
    Mr. David Grenfellasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will authorise the collection of the fullest possible information at mines where more than three cases of silicosis have been certified, showing the names and addresses of men who, in the last 20 years, have been engaged in boring with the use of machines either in hard headings or in ripping, with the type of machines used and the yardage of hard headings driven; and whether he would extend an invitation to the workmen's representatives at these mines to collaborate in supplying further information regarding the effect of such employment upon the persons so employed in order that a complete record of the extent of disability ensuing upon this class of work should be ascertained?
    Captain Crookshank: I am in full sympathy with the general object in view, but I do not think an investigation on the lines proposed could prove sufficient or satisfactory. There are, for example, a good many cases of silicosis among coal miners who have never used machine drills and, moreover, the nature and extent of disability in a particular case could not be reliably determined without medical examination. The investigation of these problems on different lines and the co-operation of His Majesty's inspectors and the workers' representatives in those investigations will be the subject of reply to a later question to-day to be given by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Grenfell: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that not a single case of a workman who has to work for a considerable time on boring machines ever survives, and is not that sufficient case for an inquiry into that special kind of work?
    Captain Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the reply which is to be given later.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that the highest incidence of silicosis in mines is among anthracite miners, according to the figures which the Minister has given,
    1952
    and that boring in anthracite mines is in excess of that of any other district? Does not that prove the contention?
    Mr. Grenfell: Will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman accept the suggestion which I made for consultation with the workmen, who have a great deal of local knowledge in this matter which may prove useful?
    Captain Crookshank: I can only say that a similar question has been put down to the Chancellor of the Duchy who will reply to that point.

    BUNKER COAL.
    Mr. Whiteasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received any report from the committee which is considering the possibility of obtaining an increased use of coal for bunkering purposes and other cognate matters?
    Captain Crookshank: No, Sir.
    Mr. White: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when we may expect to receive this report, and what possibility there is of action on it in view of the fact that the existing conditions are very unsatisfactory and a considerable volume of trade is lost?
    Captain Crookshank: I think they are investigating the matter with all possible dispatch. It is a very complicated and technical subject.

    WAGE-EARNERS, YORKSHIRE.
    Mr. G. Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines the number of workers at the mines of Yorkshire on 30th April, 1930, 1933 and 1937, or the nearest day?
    Captain Crookshank: On 1st May, 1937, there were 140,300 wage-earners on colliery books in Yorkshire, as compared with 170,100 and 145,600 respectively at corresponding dates in 1930 and 1933.
    Mr. Griffiths: Not much prosperity for miners in Yorkshire on those figures, is there?
    Captain Crookshank: Prosperity is a relative term.

    BOY WORKERS, YORKSHIRE (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. G. Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines the number of accidents to boys under 16 years of age in the Yorkshire coal mines for 1936, and the number of boys killed for 1936 in the Yorkshire coal mines?
    Captain Crookshank: During the year 1936, six persons under 16 years of age were killed and 1,188 injured (disabled for more than three days) at mines under the Coal Mines Act in Yorkshire.

    PETROL.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines the figures of imported petrol to this country and the figures of home-produced petrol?
    Captain Crookshank: In 1936 the quantity of imported motor spirit retained in this country, including spirit produced from imported crude petroleum was, in round figures, 1,290 million gallons. The quantity of motor spirit produced from coal and other indigenous materials was 92 million gallons.

    SHOT-FIRING.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Secretary for Mines to what extent simultaneous shot-firing is taking place; and whether the inquiry into this method is taking place?
    Captain Crookshank: The investigations into simultaneous shot-firing which by special permission were made in certain safety lamp pits were brought to an end in July, 1936. Like investigations are still proceeding in certain naked light mines and stone drifts; for these no special permission is required.

    AGREEMENTS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary for Mines whether any action is contemplated to extend the principle embodied in the Anglo-Polish coal agreement to other coal-producing countries?
    Captain Crookshank: I would refer the hon. Member to the second part of the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) on 15th June last.

    EXPORTS.
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the fact that since 1929 Germany's share of the export coal trade of Germany and this country has increased from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent.; that this is mainly due to heavy subsidisation of German coal, and that the possibility of a satisfactory European coal cartel is unlikely; and, in view of the serious situation of the British coal export trade and of early consideration by the Government,
    1954
    will he consult with the Miners' Federation and the Mining Association with regard to it?
    Captain Crookshank: I am continuously in consultation on all these important matters with these and other organisations representing the different interests in the coal industry.
    Mr. Jenkins: Has the Minister discussed lately with the Coalowners' Association or the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain this very substantial decrease in the percentage of export coal from Great Britain as compared with the percentage of export coal from Germany?
    Captain Crookshank: I have just said that I am always in touch with the people concerned with this matter.

    SUPPLIES, NEWTON-IN-MAKERFIELD.
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the inability of the urban district council of Newton-in-Makerfield to purchase coal in Lancashire; that as a result the council's gas undertaking is seriously handicapped and the supply of gas threatened, and that the Lancashire Associated Collieries refuse to quote prices for the supply of coal on the ground that they have no coal to offer; and whether he can explain the reason for this state of things in relation to an adequate coal supply and take steps to remove the causes of complaint without delay?
    Captain Crookshank: I am informed that while in 1935 this council purchased a proportion of its gas coal from Lancashire, in 1936 it purchased its supplies almost entirely from North Staffordshire and Yorkshire, the only exception being 800 tons which was bought from Lancashire, and the contract for which has been renewed this year. The council has now asked Lancashire Associated Collieries to quote for the same qualities of Lancashire coal as it purchased in 1935, but when its custom was transferred to other districts this coal was sold to other consumers and is not now available. Other qualities of Lancashire gas coal have been offered to the council, as well as a renewal of its contracts with North Staffordshire and Yorkshire. There is no question in this case either of a shortage of supplies of coal or of a threat to the supply of gas.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State let the pits in South Yorkshire know? We are still finding some coal there, and it would provide work for some men.

    REPATRIATION OF SEAMEN (CONVENTION).
    Viscountess Astorasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the international Convention on the repatriation of seamen has now been ratified by 17 countries, including the maritime Powers, France, Belgium, Italy, China, Spain, and Germany, it is contemplated that this country will ratify in the near future?
    Mr. Stanley: I would refer the Noble Lady to the reply given by my predecessor to her question of 16th March last. The position of His Majesty's Government in regard to ratification of the Convention remains unchanged.
    Viscountess Astor: Does not my right hon. Friend think it deplorable that the British Government have to be led by other Governments in ratifying this Convention which deals only with the question of repatriating seamen who have been wrecked?
    Mr. Stanley: It has been clearly laid down by His Majesty's Government that they will reconsider the matter as soon as six of the principal maritime nations are prepared to do so. Only two of the six leading countries have done so.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT UNITS (TERRITORIAL INFANTRY).
    Mr. Wattasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an assurance, in view of the shortage of infantry in the Territorial Army, that no further infantry will be converted into anti-aircraft units, but that such units will be recruited separately?
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The balance between one arm and another in the Regular and Territorial Armies depends upon strategic considerations, and in accordance with these is liable to change from time to time.
    Mr. Watt: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that men who enlist for service in the infantry in the Territorial Army will not be transferred to other branches of the Service against their wishes?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer which I have given probably covers that point, but I cannot say any more without notice.
    Mr. Davidson: Is it not a breach of contract in the real sense of the word that when a man joins a particular regiment because he desires to do so, he shall be transferred against his will to some other unit?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: One can adopt the attitude of trying to smooth difficulties, or of adding to them.
    Mr. Petherick: Are we to understand that my right hon. Friend can give no such assurance as is suggested in the question?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have said that the considerations which govern this matter are strategic, and the Government must have liberty to propose what is in the national interest.
    Mr. Petherickasked the Secretary of State for War whether the policy of manning anti-aircraft units with Territorials is to be continued; and within what time they could reach their posts in sufficient numbers to fight as efficient units in the event of war?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, I hope my hon. Friend will realise that it would be inadvisable to state publicly the exact period within which these units will be required to deploy, but I anticipate that when the arrangements are fully developed, they will be able to deploy as quickly as regular soldiers.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Will the Minister encourage the maintenance of tradition and esprit de corps in these units, and will he also mantain close touch between these units and the regular units with which they are affiliated?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.

    TERRITORIAL UNITS (LONDON).
    27. Mr. Grant-Ferrisasked the Secretary of State for War what changes are under consideration in connection with London Territorial units?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend has in mind. If he will let we know, I will communicate further with him.
    Mr. Petherick: Are any changes contemplated which would entail the conversion of infantry units of the Territorial Army, in London or elsewhere, into anti-aircraft units, or units of any other branch?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would require notice of that question.

    MILK SUPPLY (FORT TREGANTLE, PLYMOUTH).
    Mr. Lambertasked the Secretary of State for War whether fresh liquid milk is issued to all the troops at Fort Tregantle, Plymouth, or only to the officers' and sergeants' messes.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The troops at Fort Tregantle are in a weapon training camp open only from April to September—the average strength being 280. The men stay there a week to a month, and more than one unit may be represented. The practice with regard to purchasing fresh or tinned milk, therefore, varies according to the arrangements made by the particular messing officer, whose duty it is to consult the wishes of the troops. I am informed that fresh milk is being purchased by the officers' and sergeants' messes at Fort Tregantle, and that the men's mess formerly purchased fresh milk but have since expressed a preference for tinned milk.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the Minister take a ballot on it among the men?

    BARRACK ROOMS (CHAIRS).
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Secretary of State for War whether any estimate has been made of the cost of replacing forms in barrack rooms with chairs.
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir; the conditions vary so much.
    Mr. White: Will my right hon. Friend look into this matter further, and see whether it would not be possible to remove considerable discomfort at comparatively little expense?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir; we are making progress in the matter.

    GUNNER'S DEATH, TAMWORTH.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Gunner W. Swinley, of the fourth A.A.M.C. battery, Royal Artillery, stationed at Whittingdon Barracks, Lichfield, Staffs, was killed on the railway near Tamworth station on the morning of 13th February last; that the man was run over by an express train on part of a short cut commonly followed by late entrants to the barracks; and whether he is now able to say, out of ascertained knowledge of the man's movements on the date in question, that his death was purely accidental?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have read of this unfortunate occurrence. The place where Gunner Swinley met his death is five miles from Lichfield Barracks, and is not a short cut commonly used by troops returning to the barracks at night. I am, of course, unable to add anything to the coroner's verdict, of the nature of which the right hon. Gentleman will be aware.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is there any evidence to show that this man's death was other than purely accidental?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have said that the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to add to the evidence which was given before the coroner. The verdict was "Suicide, but insufficient evidence to show the state of the man's mind." I cannot add to that.

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for War the number of persons who have been granted pensions during the previous three years on account of tuberculosis attributable to the conditions of service; and how these figures compare with those for the corresponding 12 months?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Of the soldiers invalided from the Army for tuberculosis during the last three years, the following numbers were awarded attributable disability pensions:—

    1934

    …

    …

    …

    58

    1935

    …

    …

    …

    58

    1936

    …

    …

    …

    83

    Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what manner the authorities have removed cases which are attributable to this disease?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not follow the hon. Member's question.

    GOVERNMENT FACTORIES (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. Markhamasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make a statement concerning the employment of men over 45 years of age in Government factories; and whether he will press for the abolition of any restrictive regulations concerning their recruitment?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: There has been no change of policy since the hon. Member was informed in reply to a question on 13th April last, that discretion is already given to heads of establishments to engage men over 45 years of age.
    Mr. Markham: Do I understand from that answer that the Minister will not press for a modification of the Superannuation Acts which do limit the employment of men over 45 in these factories; and can he say whether that veto has been dispensed with or not?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: A man must have 15 years' service before he gets a gratuity, and I do not understand in what respect the hon. Gentleman would desire that to be modified.
    Mr. Paling: Is it not very difficult for men over 45 to get jobs, because employers will not employ them over that age, and should not the Government set a better example?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think I have shown that they are setting a better example.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman's discretion being exercised in this matter in the case of the Special Areas, where many men over 45 are being debarred from employment in this way, including a large number of ex-service men?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the hon. Gentleman has any facts which he desires to bring to my attention I shall examine them with the utmost sympathy, but I
    1960
    am not aware of any cases such as he appears to have in mind.
    Mr. Markham: Is it not a fact that in the Nottingham gun factory where this regulation is supposed to have been suspended, only one man in ten taken on has been over 45; and seeing that the present Superannuation Acts are definitely antipathetic to ex-service men in this respect, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter further?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring any particular case to my notice, I shall look into it, but those responsible for this work must have regard for efficiency, and there is nothing in the regulations which prevents a man over 45 being employed.
    Mr. Markham: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first opportunity.

  SCOTLAND.

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, LINLITHGOW.
    34. Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is taking steps to make progress with the installation of electric current into housing schemes in the County of Linlithgow, where great delay is taking place on account of the dilatoriness of the Scottish Central Electric Power Company and its associated company, the Scottish Midlands Electricity Supply, Limited, in carrying out the instructions of the county council?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I understand that there has been some delay in connection with the provision of electric current for certain housing schemes in the County of West Lothian, but this has not retarded the erection of houses which are in some cases already occupied. I have communicated with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport who is causing inquiries to be made into the matter by the Electricity Commissioners.

    HERRING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the failure of the Herring Industry Board to achieve any adequate expansion of foreign markets for herring, His Majesty's

    1961
    Government will enter into direct negotiations with the Governments of Germany, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Poland, and the Baltic States for the sale of this season's cure?
    Mr. Elliot: I am informed that practically all the herring cured this season have already been sold, and that the curers are satisfied that they can find markets for their further production. Direct negotiation by the Government for sales appears to be undesirable.
    Sir Edmund Findlay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what price this arrangement has been made?
    Mr. Elliot: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that question down.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister's reply mean that we are not to have a recurrence of the state of affairs in which fishermen brought in herring and had to empty them back into the sea because there was no market?
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the failure of the Herring Fishery Board to effect any substantial improvements in the conduct of the industry, he will consider calling for the resignation of the present members and introducing emergency legislation to set up a new board with adequate powers?
    Mr. Elliot: The board's performance of their very difficult duties does not, in my opinion, warrant the suggestion made in the question. The question of extension of the board's existing powers is at present receiving consideration.
    Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the present board has lost the confidence of the herring industry; and in view of the desperate plight of the industry does he not think drastic steps should be taken?
    Mr. Elliot: I do not think that is by any means a universal opinion.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the report of the Herring Fishery Board; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take with regard to it?
    Mr. Elliot: I have received and am considering the report referred to. As regards the second part of the question, I
    1962
    think the matter would be more suitable for discussion in Thursday's Debate on the estimates for the Herring Industry Board.
    Mr. T. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the report of the Herring Industry Board that there is scope for increased consumption of herring in the home market, what steps, if any, are being taken to ensure that the needy populations in the distressed areas will be specially considered?
    Mr. Elliot: As the recent report of the Herring Industry Board shows, efforts are being made to increase the consumption of herring in the home market, and it is hoped that utimately there will be an increased sale of this cheap and palatable food in all sections of the community, including the distressed areas.
    Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question? What steps, if any, apart from hope, are being taken to ensure that the needy population get these herring?
    Mr. Elliot: I think it would be undesirable to go into this matter at Question Time, when there will be a full Debate on Thursday.
    Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the largest trading organisation in Scotland, the Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Society, is willing to place its great organisation at his disposal if he will wake up in this matter?
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not a sad fact that even people in distressed areas will not eat food if they do not like it?
    Mr. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Herring Industry Board for the period March, 1936, to March, 1937, with the disclosure that the average gross earnings of Scots herring boats are £1,495 per annum, while English boats earn £2,487; whether the Herring Industry Board can suggest any feasible explanation of this wide disparity beyond the greater poverty of the Scots fishermen whereby they are less able to provide repairs and maintenance for their vessels; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. Elliot: The report of the Herring Industry Board, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, suggests several reasons for the difference between the earnings of the Scottish and English boats. As I have already indicated in reply to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), the discussion of matters arising out of the report can, I think, more suitably be undertaken in Thursday's Debate than in the course of question and answer.
    Mr. Johnston: Do we understand that the Secretary of State will be prepared to answer specifically the last part of the question on Thursday, namely, what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. Elliot: The specific answer to the question what steps, if any, I propose to take includes the answer that there might be no steps. I prefer not to add to what I have said.
    Mr. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that during the year 1935 Russia purchased 105,500 barrels of herring from this country, and that this purchase dropped to 20,000 barrels in 1936; what results have accrued from the contact established by the Herring Board with the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the coming season; and whether he will take urgent steps to aid the Herring Board's efforts to extend their Russian market?
    Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am informed that the Herring Industry Board have been unable to come to terms for the sale of this season's catch to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for reasons of price. With regard to the last part, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer which I have to-day given on a similar point to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby).
    Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that up till noon to-day neither he nor his Office had taken any steps to induce the Russian buying organisation to participate in a larger proportion of the herring catch?
    Mr. Elliot: I pointed out in answer to the previous question that surely it is desirable that the Herring Board should
    1964
    take such steps, having been set up by the House for that purpose.
    Mr. Johnston: When the Herring Board has failed, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman do anything?
    Mr. Elliot: I do not want to be responsible for accepting the price of 10s. a cran.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: If it is a fact that the contract with Russia has broken down, how can it be that the curers are satisfied, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that there will be a full sale of the catch to Germany?
    Mr. Elliot: Because they are selling so many in Germany.
    Mr. Boothby: Does my right hon. Friend really mean to say that he is satisfied, and that the curers are satisfied, that they can dispose of the whole of the Scottish cure this year, to Germany alone?
    Mr. Elliot: No, I did not say that.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. Stephenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that 18 tenants of houses at 155, Orr Street, Glasgow, have received notice to look for other housing accommodation; whether he has now made inquiry as to whether the houses in question are controlled; and, if so, will he take steps to assist the people concerned with the necessary legal assistance to retain them in possession of their houses or provide them with alternative accommodation, as provided for by the Rent Restrictions Acts?
    Mr. Elliot: I have no information regarding the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I have no power to intervene in a matter of this kind. Any dispute regarding the right of the owner of a house, whether controlled or decontrolled, to obtain possession thereof can be determined only by the courts. As regards the last part, if the tenants are poor persons who require legal assistance they should apply to the sheriff clerk.
    Mr. Stephen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some factors are sending out notices as if they were official court notices, and will he make it clear that in the case of these controlled houses an order of the court is necessary?
    Mr. Elliot: I hope the hon. Gentleman's question and the answer to it will call attention to the matter.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the complaints about serious delay in payment of grants for reconstruction of houses under the Rural Workers Housing Acts in the Western Isles; that, even after repairs are completed, grants are often delayed and suppliers of building material hesitate to grant supplies at long credit; and what action he will take to remedy these difficulties?
    Mr. Elliot: I have received no complaint regarding delay in the payment of grants in respect of the reconstruction of houses under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in the Western Isles. If, however, the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any cases which have come to his notice I shall be glad to look into them.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state what progress has been made with the building industry for supplementing or increasing the available labour for housing construction?
    Mr. Elliot: A further meeting was held on 17th July of the Official Joint Sub-Committee of the Scottish National Joint Council for the Building Industry. I am glad to say that the committee unanimously agreed to regard the question of the acceleration of housing progress as a matter demanding urgent attention. It was agreed, therefore:
    1. That a Joint Consultative Committee constituted of representatives of employers' and operatives' organisations and of Government departments shall be appointed. The general objective of this committee shall be to assist in attaining and ensuring the most expeditious and efficient means of completing the Government building programme and the housing programmes of local authorities in Scotland, while, at the same time, avoiding or minimising any disturbing effects upon the efficient organisation of the building industry and/or upon the normal industrial and commercial development on which its permanent welfare depends.
    2. To recommend to the appropriate committees under the Scottish National Joint Council for the Building Industry to give sympathetic consideration to applications for overtime where necessity is proved;
    1966
    3. That where it is proved in any district that there is a shortage of labour, the matter should be dealt with by the appropriate Apprenticeship Committee under the Scottish National Joint Council for the Building Industry, in consultation with the Joint Consultative Committee if necessary, and the augmentation, if any, should be governed by a general quota of one apprentice to three journeymen in respect of each craft.
    It was further agreed to proceed at once with the setting up of the Joint Consultative Committee and to hold the first meeting at an early date.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many housing authorities have standardised rents under Section 47, Sub-section (5), of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935; how many have adopted a scheme of rebates for which discretionary power is given by the same Section; and the names of the authorities?
    Mr. Elliot: Eleven local authorities have intimated that they have standardised rents and adopted schemes of rebates, namely, the county councils of East Lothian, Roxburgh and Stirling, and the town councils of Aberdeen, Denny, Duns, Grangemouth, Hawick, Kirkcaldy, Leslie and St. Andrews. In addition, Midlothian County Council have standardised rents but have not adopted a general scheme of rebates. Other authorities may have standardised rents and /or adopted schemes of rebates though they have not informed me of the fact.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of housing authorities who have intimated their intention of either ceasing building, or reducing the number of houses to be built, because of rising costs and/or inadequate subsidy, the names of the authorities and the number of houses involved?
    Mr. Elliot: In addition to the 10 authorities mentioned in the answer given to the hon. Member's question on this subject on 23rd June, five authorities have intimated that they are either postponing further housing developments or reducing the number of houses to be built. These authorities are the town councils of Auchtermuchty, Culross, Inverurie and Pittenweem, and the

    1967
    county council of Peebles. I regret that it is impossible to give the number of houses involved as the decisions in some of these cases do not refer to specific housing schemes but to further housing operations as a whole.
    Mr. Westwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the 15 he has mentioned is the total number of the authorities in Scotland who have decided not to proceed with housing unless there is an increase in subsidy or a reduction in costs?
    Mr. Elliot: These are the only ones that have intimated so to me.
    Mr. Mathers: Does not the fact that there are even 15 which have indicated that they must stop house building in present conditions point to the necessity for more energy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Elliot: Yes, but the energy should be applied to completing the 25,000 under construction and the 13,000 which are not yet begun, rather than to new schemes.

    MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (ADMISSIONS).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many male and female persons, respectively, were received into mental institutions during each of the years 1930 to 1936, inclusive; how many of these persons so admitted were under 50 years of age, 50 and under 60, 60 and under 70, and over 70 years of age, respectively; and how many in each class were in receipt of widows' pensions and old age pensions, respectively, at the time of admission?
    Mr. Elliot: The information desired in the first and second parts of the question will be communicated to the hon. and learned Member as soon as returns have been received from all the mental institutions regarding the age groups of persons admitted. The information desired in the last part of the question could only be obtained by examination of the records of the Department of Health, and this would involve an expenditure of time and trouble which does not seem justifiable.
    Mr. Gibson: In addition to letting me have the information asked for in the first two parts of the question, will the right hon. Gentleman please circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as the matters are of public interest?
    Mr. Elliot: I am afraid the hon. and learned Member had better put another question on the Paper.

    DUNFERMLINE COLLEGE OF HYGIENE.
    Miss Horsbrughasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students are attending the Dunfermline College of Hygiene arid Physical Education; how many of them are completing this year the three-years course and the one-year course, respectively; and what distinction in recognition by the Scottish Education Department is made between the students who have completed a three-years course and obtained the Chapter VI recognition and those who have completed the one-year course?
    Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is 105. Of this number 25 have just completed the three-year course and 25 the one-year course. Both types receive the same recognition under the regulations, but it is a condition of admission to the shorter course that the student already holds a qualification under the regulations.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Does the qualifying certificate state the extent of education in physical training that has been completed? If not, why are the same qualifications given to those who are taking a three-year course as to those who are taking a one-year course of instruction?
    Mr. Elliot: Not only physical education, but capability to teach is in question.
    Miss Horsbrughasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications were received this year for admission as students to the Dunfermline College of Hygiene and Physical Education for a three-years course; and how many were admitted?
    Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is 80, and of this number 35 will be admitted at the beginning of the ensuing session.

    SPANISH REFUGEE CHILDREN.
    Miss Horsbrughasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Department of Health has been consulted concerning suitable accommodation in Scotland for Basque children; and whether, if refugees from any foreign country are to be accommodated in Scotland, suitable arrangements will be made for them in country districts rather than

    1969
    in congested parts of the towns where the ratio of population to the acre is already considerably greater than accords with modern standards of health?
    Mr. Elliot: The Department of Health has not been consulted on the question of finding accommodation in Scotland for Basque children, and the second part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement as to the overcrowding in certain parts of the towns of Scotland that he knows to exist, in order that people who are arranging accommodation for these Basque children may arrange for them to go into the more depopulated areas of Scotland?
    Mr. Elliot: I do not think that question arises.
    Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these children are going in small numbers, ranging from 25 to 1,000, and that many of them are being accommodated in homes and institutions all over the country, and therefore the addition to the population in any one of these overcrowded towns would not be serious?

    POULTRY INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the consideration of remedies for the plight of Scottish poultry farmers; and when he will announce what the Government intend to do in this connection?
    Mr. Elliot: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries?
    Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate how his own reputation and that of the Government are suffering because of the delay in this matter?
    Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) persuade his friends not to oppose the Poultry Bill?

    SPIKED RAILINGS.
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in addition to the particular steps being taken by the Clydebank Town Council to prohibit spiked railings adjacent to dwelling houses, he will take up the matter with
    1970
    all local authorities in Scotland to prevent the fitting of any more such railings and also to have existing ones removed wherever possible in view of their ugliness and the danger which they cause to life and limb?
    Mr. Elliot: It is not the practice of local authorities generally to erect spiked railings in connection with housing schemes. With regard to specifications for such schemes I am prepared to withhold approval of any proposal for the erection of dangerous spiked railings. I am not satisfied on the information before me that general legislation is required on this subject.

    IRISH LAMBS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. McKieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that an appreciable number of lambs are being imported from Northern Ireland to Scotland, where they are killed and the carcases marketed in Smithfield and, being of markedly inferior quality to Scottish lamb, are prejudicial to the Scottish trade; and whether he can take any action in this matter?
    Mr. Elliot: I am aware that for several years Irish lambs have been brought from Ireland to the south of Scotland from May to October for slaughter and consignment to London, but I am not aware that they are of inferior quality or that they affect prejudicially the Scottish export trade in lambs. If my hon. Friend has any information on that point, perhaps he could let me have it.

    PALESTINE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether the Royal Commission on Palestine consulted the Government before presenting a report which went outside their terms of reference?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The Royal Commission did not consult His Majesty's Government before presenting their report. Having regard to the last part of the terms of reference, I do not accept the suggestion that the Royal Commission went beyond their reference.
    Mr. Mander: Is not the Prime Minister aware that Lord Peel himself admitted that they went outside their terms of

    1971
    reference, and is there any precedent for a Royal Commission presenting a report without hearing any evidence on a matter which is outside their terms of reference and without referring to the Government?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

    RESOLUTIONS, ETC., BY EITHER HOUSE.
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Prime Minister whether he will accept the Motion for a Return, entitled "Resolutions, etc., by either House," standing in the name of the hon. Member for the North Division of Aberdeen?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The information required is contained, with other information of a similar character, in the "Index to the Statutory Rules and Orders in Force," of which the latest edition relates to 31st July, 1936. The return for which the hon. Member asks would involve a very large amount of labour, and I am satisfied that no useful object would be secured by it sufficient to justify the time and labour involved.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the powers of another place have been greatly strengthened by means of powers exercisable in the form of Resolutions given to them under Statutes, and would it not, therefore, serve a very useful purpose for the right hon. Gentleman to acquiesce in this Motion which stands on the Order Paper in the names of Members of the three parties in this House?
    The Prime Minister: I think the information can be obtained by hon. Members in the document to which I have referred.
    Mr. Attlee: Is there any real reason why a return of this sort, asked for by Members of the different parties in this House, should not be given? Is there any really great labour involved in getting it out?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I am advised that there is.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is it because such a return would serve no useful purpose, in the Prime Minister's view, or that it
    1972
    would involve too much labour to prepare? Which is the actual reason?
    The Prime Minister: The information can be obtained from the document to which I have referred the hon. Member, but I think the labour involved in getting it out would not serve a useful purpose.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is there any truth in the statement that the liberties and freedom of this House have been imperilled within the last six months owing to certain enactments that have taken place?
    The Prime Minister: I have no knowledge of it.

    INDUSTRIAL POPULATION DISTRI BUTION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Mr. Caryasked the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider the appointment of Sir Arthur Robinson as a member of the Royal Commission to inquire into the question of the geographical distribution of the industrial population in order that he may be left free to devote his entire energies to the Supply Board, of which he has been Chairman since 1935?
    The Prime Minister: No. Sir. I invited Sir Arthur Robinson to serve on this Commission because in his present post he is obtaining experience of some of the Defence aspects of the problem remitted to the Commission, having already acquired much experience in other aspects during long service at the Ministry of Health. I made it clear to Sir Arthur that the invitation was on the condition that the work must not involve undue strain inconsistent with the proper performance of his functions as Chairman of the Supply Board, and the appointment has been made on this understanding.

    CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS (EX- SERVICE MEN).
    Mr. Kirbyasked the Chancellor of of the Exchequer whether when he is considering the matter of an inquiry into the pension claims of ex-service Civil Servants employed in a clerical capacity, he will also consider the similar claims of ex-service Civil Servants employed on technical duties, such as laboratory assistants, etc.?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Kirby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the men concerned in clerical, administrative, and technical duties now have to their credit four years' war service and 18 years' service as Civil Servants, making a total of 22 years' service, and that many of them are anxious as to their future as they will have to retire shortly?
    Sir J. Simon: All relevant factors will he borne in mind.

    IN-SHORE FISHERMEN (FUEL OIL).
    Viscountess Astorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the plight of the in-shore fishermen, due, among other things, to the rise in the price of their fuel oil, he will consider granting a further rebate of 1d. per gallon in the tax they pay on that oil?
    Sir J. Simon: By Section 2 (8) of the Finance Act, 1928, relief from the whole of the duty is already allowable in respect of oil used by owners of registered fishing boats; my Noble Friend will, therefore, be glad to appreciate that no further rebate remains to be given in these cases.
    Viscountess Astor: If that is so, could my right hon. Friend consider some other means of saving this very important section of the population, especially in these days, when we are going to need all the seamen possible? Could he provide some other way of helping them?
    Sir J. Simon: That is another question.
    Mr. Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many instances this rebate is not obtainable by the men because of the wording of the regulations as they stand at present; is he further aware that representations to this effect have been made both to the Treasury and to the Board of Trade; and will he see whether perhaps something could not be done to make this rebate, which is supposedly allowed to fishermen, actually available to them?
    Sir J. Simon: The words of the Act of Parliament governing this arrangement are contained in Section 2, Subsection (8) of the Finance Act, 1928, and there is no doubt as to what they say.
    1974
    If the matter was to go farther, it would require new legislation.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Will my right hon. Friend inquire into the matter, as there is a real grievance and see whether the Act is being administered fairly according to the Act itself?
    Sir J. Simon: Yes, certainly.

    MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES (VISITORS).
    Mr. Markhamasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any information is available as to the proportion of visitors to national museums and art galleries who come from the Dominions or foreign countries?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I regret that no information is available.

    IRISH FREE STATE.
    Mr. Lambertasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the number of passengers into Great Britain from the Irish Free State during the past five years exceeded the outflow of passengers by over 70,000; whether he has information how many propose to settle in Great Britain; and what will be the status of citizens of the Irish Free State when the proposed revision of the Constitution approved by the recent plebiscite is enacted in the Irish Free State?
    The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No information is available regarding the intentions of the persons concerned as to settling in this country, but judging from experience it would appear that many of them intend after a period in this country to return to the Irish Free State. As regards the last part of the question, the proposed revision of the Constitution had a majority at the recent plebiscite, but it has not yet come into force. In the present circumstances it would be premature for me to make any statement, but I may observe that the Constitution does not contain any new provision affecting the status of citizens of the Irish Free State.
    Mr. Lambert: As Ireland is gradually getting poorer and the influx of Irishmen from the Irish Free State into this country is greater, should not steps be taken in order to ascertain the situation?
    Mr. MacDonald: I think the House knows that a departmental inquiry into immigration from the Irish Free State is taking place now. Until that inquiry is completed I can make no further statement on the matter.
    Mr. Lambert: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect the report of that inquiry?
    Mr. MacDonald: I am not sure whether the committee will present a formal report. They will report to me the result of their inquiry, and as soon as I have heard what the committee or the officials have got to say, I shall consider the matter and shall be perfectly prepared to answer questions in the House on it. I cannot say when that inquiry will have been completed.

    CHINA AND JAPAN.
    Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make on the situation in China?
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): There is at the moment little that I can add to the information which I gave the House last night. I have not yet received the terms of the reply made yesterday by the Chinese Government to the representations which, as I informed the House last night, were made on 17th July by the Japanese representative in Nanking. In the meanwhile I have received confirmation of the issue by General Chiang Kai-shek at Kuling of a declaration in terms which have already been published here. His
    Majesty's Government are continuing to keep in close touch at every stage with the other Governments principally concerned.
    Mr. Thorne: Is there any truth in the statement which appears in the papers this morning to the effect that the Japanese have bombarded one of the Chinese towns?
    Mr. Eden: I have no information about that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take if the Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended, and also what business it is proposed to take on Friday?
The Prime Minister: The Eleven o'Clock Rule is being suspended in order to obtain the first four Orders on the Paper. I hope that this business will be obtained without asking the House to sit very late.
On Friday, in addition to the Report and Third Reading of the Coal (Registration of Ownership) Bill, [Lords], which has already been announced for that day, we shall further consider the Milk (Amendment) Bill, and take the Motion to approve the Amendments of the Milk Marketing Scheme. The remainder of the sitting will be available for the Lords Amendments to the Marriage Bill, the Summary Procedure (Domestic Proceedings) Bill, and the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Bill, all of which are Private Members' Bills.
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, 255; Noes, 117.

Division No. 297.]

AYES.

[3.48 p.m.

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

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

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

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Albery, Sir Irving

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

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

Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

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

Bull, B. B.

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

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

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

Bernays, R. H.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Carver, Major W. H.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Blair, Sir R.

Cary, R. A.

Assheton, R.

Bossom, A. C.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Boulton, W. W.

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

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

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

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

Atholl, Duchess of

Brass, Sir W.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

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

Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Channon, H.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Christie, J. A.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Porritt, R. W.

Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

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

Hepworth, J.

Radford, E. A.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Ramsbotham, H.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

Ramsden, Sir E.

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

Higgs, W. F.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

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

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

Holmes, J. S.

Rayner, Major R. H.

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

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

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

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Cox, H. B. T.

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

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Cranborne, Viscount

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Craven-Ellis, W.

Hulbert, N. J.

Rosbotham, Sir T.

Critchley, A.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Crooke, J. S.

Hunter, T.

Rowlands, G.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Royds, Admiral P. M. R.

Cross, R. H.

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

Russell, Sir Alexander

Crossley, A. C.

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Crowder, J. F. E.

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Culverwell, C. T.

Joel, D. J. B.

Salt, E. W.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Dawson, Sir P.

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Savery, Sir Servington

De Chair, S. S.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Shakespeare, G. H.

De la Bère, R.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Denville, Alfred

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Doland, G. F.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Donner, P. W.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Dower, Major A. V. G.

Lees-Jones, J.

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Drewe, C.

Leigh, Sir J.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Levy, T.

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

Duggan, H. J.

Liddall, W. S.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Dunglass, Lord

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Eckersley, P. T.

Lloyd, G. W.

Storey, S.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

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

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Loftus, P. C.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Ellis, Sir G.

Lyons, A. M.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Elliston, Capt. G. S

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Elmley, Viscount

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Tate, Mavis C.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

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

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

McKie, J. H.

Thomas, J. P. L.

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

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

Magnay, T.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Everard, W. L.

Maitland, A.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Fildes, Sir H.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Turton, R. H.

Findlay, Sir E.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Wakefield, W. W.

Fleming, E. L.

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

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Markham, S. F.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Furness, S. N.

Marsden, Commander A.

Warrender, Sir V.

Ganzoni, Sir J.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

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

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

Wayland, Sir W. A

Gluckstein, L. H.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Goodman, Col. A. W.

Moreing, A. C.

Wells, S. R.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

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

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Grant-Ferris, R.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

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

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Munro, P.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.

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

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Grimston, R. V.

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

Wise, A. R.

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Withers, Sir J. J.

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Peake, O.

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Guy, J. C. M.

Peat, C. U.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

Perkins, W. R. D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Petherick, M.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Ward and Major Sir Georǵe Davies.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Pilkington, R.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Batey, J. Cove, W. G.

Cove, W. G.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Ballenger, F. J.

Daggar, G.

Adamson, W. M.

Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

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

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Day, H.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Buchanan, G.

Dobbie, W.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Burke, W. A.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Banfield, J. W.

Charleton, H. C.

Ede, J. C.

Barnes, A. J.

Chater, D.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Barr, J.

Cluse, W. S.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

1978

1979

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Leonard, W.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Leslie, J. R.

Sexton. T. M.

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

Logan, D. G.

Shinwell, E.

Frankel, D.

Lunn, W.

Short, A.

Gallacher, W.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Silverman, S. S.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

McEntee, V. La T.

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

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

McGhee, H. G.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Maclean, N.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Grenfell, D. R.

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

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

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Mander, G. le M.

Sorensen, R. W.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Mathers, G.

Stephen, C.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Maxton, J.

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

Harris, Sir P. A.

Messer, F.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Montague, F.

Thorne, W.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

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

Thurtle, E.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Nathan, Colonel H. L.

Tinker, J. J.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Naylor, T. E.

Viant, S. P.

Hollins, A.

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Walker, J.

Jagger, J.

Owen, Major G.

Watson, W. McL.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Paling, W.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Parker, J.

Westwood, J.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

White, H. Graham

Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)

Pritt, D. N.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Kirby, B. V.

Riley, B.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Kirkwood, D.

Ritson, J.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

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

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Lathan, G.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Lawson, J. J.

Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Lee, F.

Sanders, W. S.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BRIDLINGTON) BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third Time To-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (GUILDFORD) BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third Time To-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (RHYMNEY VALLEY SEWERAGE DISTRICT AND WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SELBY) BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SOUTH EAST ESSEX JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (TYNEMOUTH) BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Coatbridge Burgh Extension, Etc., Order Confirmation Bill,
Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Motherwell and Wishaw Burgh Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Whitehaven Harbour Bill [Lords],
Woodhall Spa Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 relating to the Ferguson Bequest Fund." [Ferguson Bequest Fund Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 relating to the Royal Samaritan

1981
Hospital for Women Glasgow." [Royal Samaritan Hospital for Women, Glasgow Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 relating to the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company." [Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
FERGUSON BEQUEST FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]
ROYAL SAMARITAN HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN, GLASGOW ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]
CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LONDON NAVAL TREATY BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.58 p.m.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I do not think the House will require a long explanation of the simple Bill which I bring before it this afternoon. The Bill is rendered necessary by the London Naval Treaty, 1936, and is similar to previous Bills which have been passed in connection with treaties such as the Washington Treaty of 1922 and the London Naval Treaty of 1930. Perhaps it would be well that I should refer to the terms of the Treaty, although hon. Members may be familiar with them. It was concluded more than a year ago, and was set forth in a White Paper at the time. In the first place, I had better say something of the genesis of the Treaty. The previous Treaty, of 1930, concluded by the Labour Government, automatically came to an end on 31st December, 1936, and steps have been taken to supplement it by another Treaty.
  The Powers assembled, and one of the first demands that were made was that of the Japanese Government, who wished their rights to be recognised to have a Navy with a total tonnage equal to that of the Navy of the United Kingdom and that of the United States. Those two Powers were unable to meet Japan on that point, and to the universal regret Japan thereupon withdrew from the Conference. The Powers naturally realised how very much the withdrawal of Japan would weaken the efficacy of any agreement subsequently come to, but nevertheless they decided to go on with the Conference to conclude the Treaty which was eventually completed. The provisions contained in that Treaty are three: first, the qualitative limitation of armaments; second, exchange of information with regard to construction programmes; third, clauses safeguarding the interests of Powers who subsequently might find themselves in a position in which they could no longer, having regard to national security, be bound by the terms of the Treaty.
  2002
  First of all, I will deal with the Clauses which limit the quality of the various ships of the various fleets. The first and most important apply to capital ships, which are limited to 35,000 tons and guns of 16 inches. It was originally hoped, as will be seen by the terms of the treaty, to secure a limitation of big guns to the extent of 14 inches, but it was provided that if any of the Washington Powers gave notice before April of the present year that they were unable to accept the 14-inch limit, the 16-inch limit would be the one generally accepted. In March of this year Japan announced that she could not be bound by that 14-inch provision, and more recently the United States has announced her intention reluctantly of building ships with 16-inch guns. There is a further important limitation with regard to capital ships, and that is that none shall be built of less than 17,500 tons. That provision was put in in order to secure that there should be a zone of non-construction from 8,000 tons upwards to 17,500 tons, to guard against the possibility of some Power building super cruisers in the guise of small capital ships.
  That brings me to the next limitation which affects cruisers. By the terms of the treaty no category "A" cruisers, that is to say, cruisers carrying 8-inch guns, shall be built during the operation of the treaty; further, no cruisers of sub-category "B," carrying 6-inch guns or less, above 8,000 tons, will be constructed during that year. Further limitations apply to aircraft carriers, the size of which is reduced from 27,000 to 23,000 tons, and the size of guns reduced from 8 inches to 6 inches. Submarines remain limited to 2,000 tons. His Majesty's Government renewed their efforts at this conference to secure the general abolition of submarines, but they were unable to obtain the consent of other Powers to their proposal.
  With regard to the provision which ensures the advance notification and exchange of information, advance notification is a new feature in a naval treaty and very great importance is attached to it. It may be suggested that Powers when they undertake to give this full information will not be bound by the provision and may hold back some of their plans, but we must assume in this Treaty that nations will behave honourably and

  2003
  observe it; otherwise it becomes a waste of time to conclude treaties at all. The whole of social intercourse becomes impossible unless we assume that people mean what they say and intend to abide by the promises which they make. The actual terms of the exchange of information are that every nation at the beginning of each year shall announce its programme for the year ensuing. The initiation of that programme shall not commence until four months after the announcement has been made. They shall abide by the programme for the remainder of the year, and they shall give full information with regard to the dimensions, speed and guns of every ship that is laid down.
  The importance of this provision is that it seeks to strike at two of the greatest dangers in international affairs—the dangers which come from suspicion and from surprise. If we could eliminate suspicion in international affairs, we should have gone far to eliminate war, and in so far as we can even diminish it we are proceeding in the right direction. Many events, many steps taken by nations, simply because they are taken without warning, without any previous announcement, sometimes even during periods of comparative quiet and even during a week-end—such events cause far greater consternation and far greater alarm among the nations than if exactly the same thing were done after a preliminary announcement, after calm discussion and after full explanation was given.
  This Treaty applies only to certain Powers; so far it only spreads to a certain extent the area over which we shall in future have information; but in so far as any of that vast area of unknown territory can be mapped and charted, so far a definite advance has been made against that miasma of suspicion out of which emerge so many disasters of the modern world.
  The third provision of this Clause refers to the possibility which may arise in which a nation will find itself unable, for perfectly sound and justifiable reasons, to abide by the terms of the Treaty. It is obviously a good thing to make such a provision in the Treaty. If circumstances arise which make it really impossible for Powers to abide by an undertaking, it is much better than that they should make an excuse and break the Treaty that pro-
  2004
  vision should be made in the Treaty itself for any circumstance arising which will make it inevitable for them no longer to be bound by the terms. The first of these circumstances is that a nation finds itself at war. One can hardly expect a nation fighting for its life to be bound by the terms of a treaty entered into in days of peace, when the horizon seems fraught with no imminent danger. Secondly, if a Power that is no party to this Treaty builds armaments which are not in conformity with its terms, then those Powers which have signed the Treaty shall, again after announcement and delay, have the right to depart from the provisions of the Treaty. Thirdly, if new circumstances arise which any Power considers endanger its national security, that Power again may, after consultation with the other signatories, after announcement and delay, consider itself no longer bound by all the terms of the Treaty.
  The Treaty has now been ratified by the United States and by France, and it is high time that this country, which took the lead in bringing the Treaty about, should also ratify it. I will explain the reasons for the delay. Since the Treaty was signed it was considered desirable, if possible, to obtain the adherence to it of two other naval Powers, Russia and Germany (which has once again emerged as a naval Power in Europe). When those countries were approached they both declared their willingness to enter into negotiations. Negotiations have been carried on bilaterally between this country and Germany, and between this country and the Soviet Republic, and have at last reached their conclusion, and treaties both with the Soviet Government and with Germany were signed at the Foreign Office last Saturday morning. There are certain conditions in the terms of those treaties, now in the hands of hon. Members, which do not follow word for word the terms of the London Naval Treaty. I had better explain the reasons for the slight differences. The Soviet Government, for instance, pointed out that they have peculiar responsibilities which do not apply to other Powers in the same degree in the Far East, and as Japan is no party to the Treaty and is under no obligation to give information with regard to her naval preparations, it was considered only just by the other Powers that the Soviet Government, in so far as her fleet in the Far East was concerned,

  2005
  should be absolved from delivering information of its size and construction to other Powers.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: Does that apply only to shipbuilding in Far Eastern ports?
  Mr. Cooper: It is limited to those ships which they keep in the East. Anything they build in Europe they notify in the usual way. It applies to ships built and kept for use in the Far East.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can they not send ships from European waters to the Far East?
  Mr. Cooper: About ships that are built in European waters we shall have full information. The Soviet Government further made a stipulation with regard to the construction of guns in her cruisers. She decided some time ago to equip these cruisers with 7·1.-inch guns, and she is not in a position now to switch over to the construction of 6-inch guns; she has not the necessary plant and apparatus. Therefore, it has been agreed that she shall have the right to construct a limited number of these cruisers with 7·1-inch guns. The maximum number of such cruisers which it is contemplated they will build is seven, but it is hoped that Russia will not find it necessary to build the entire number.
  So far as the German Government are concerned, the signing of this treaty was accompanied by an exchange of Notes in order to make it perfectly plain that the right of the German Government to build five 10,000-ton cruisers, which is granted to her by the quantitative Article in the Anglo-German Treaty, is not in any way affected by this treaty. Germany has, in fact, laid down only three of those cruisers and intended to observe a cruiser holiday by abstaining from building the remaining two cruisers. So far as we are aware it is not her intention to lay down those additional 10,000-ton cruisers. But she has a right to do so, which is acknowledged by the terms of the exchange of Notes. Finally, there is the Anglo-German declaration, which is annexed to the new treaty, and in which the opportunity of the negotiations with Germany is taken to settle certain small matters arising out of the 1935 Treaty.
  So much for the terms of the various Treaties. I think a very few words are necessary about the Bill which gives effect
  2006
  to the new Treaty. Its only object is to give His Majesty's Government the powers required to carry out the terms of the Treaty, and it provides that, before the construction or adaptation of any ships for the purposes of war, the Admiralty shall be supplied with full particulars of the work contemplated. Power is also taken to enter any shipyard for the purpose of obtaining information where such construction is in progress. It would be easy to exaggerate the importance of these Treaties, and I have no intention of doing so; but when we reflect upon how disappointing and barren have been the results of the long repeated and sincere negotiations which have been from time to time entered into with a view to obtaining some agreed measure of disarmament, and when we reflect upon the atmosphere of pessimism which has gradually been created as to the possibility of international agreement, whether at Geneva or elsewhere, it is something, I think, upon which we may congratulate ourselves that five of the great Powers of the world are able to come to an agreement upon such an important subject as naval construction.
  Hon. Members will, of course, be very conscious of the weakness of the present position. The strength of a chain is its weakest link, and the weak link in this case is the fact that two great naval Powers are not signatories of the Treaty. I will say a word or two about each of them. During the negotiations for the Treaty, the representative of Italy took part from beginning to end, and there was no participator in the negotiations who was more helpful or did more towards the conclusion of the agreement than the Italian representative. Unfortunately, when the time came for signature, the Italian Government were unable to sign. At that time Great Britain and France were actively employed with the policy of sanctions against Italy. We need not revive that old controversy now, but we can hardly be surprised and can hardly criticise the Italian Government for refraining from concluding a treaty with France and Great Britain at that particular period. But we do at least know that, when the Treaty was concluded, the Italian Government had no substantial objection to it, and we can at least hope that, when it has been ratified by the Powers concerned, the Italian Government will see their way to adhere to it or to

  2007
  form a separate agreement with us as Germany and Soviet Russia have done.
  With regard to Japan, the position is admittedly more difficult, but there is no reason to suppose that Japan will do anything to make it impossible for the other Powers to keep to the pledges which they have given under the Treaty. After all, Japan left the Conference on the question of quantity, and not on the question of quality. The question of total tonnage, upon which the negotiations with Japan were abandoned, and other quantitative questions, are not dealt with in any way in the present Treaty, and Japan has given, through her responsible statesmen, repeated assurances that she has no intention of starting a competition in naval armaments. I think we really can rely to some extent upon the sound sense of a highly intelligent people not to initiate wilfully another competition and race in armaments, with all the vast and ruinous expenditure which it must impose upon all the parties to it—
  Mr. Alexander: While the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the quantitative issue, could he say a word or two at this stage about the 16-inch guns which have been adopted?
  Mr. Churchill: Eighteen-inch.
  Mr. Cooper: We have no information with regard to anything larger than the 16-inch gun.
  Mr. Churchill: In Japan?
  Mr. Cooper: So far as we have gone at the present time, Japan has said that she cannot be bound by any undertaking not to construct ships with 16-inch guns. Exactly what she is constructing at the present time I have no information to give to the House, but, as I say, I cannot think that she will wilfully start such a ruinous competition in armaments, which cannot be to her advantage any more than to that of any other Power.
  Mr. Churchill: Is it or is it not a fact that the United States have decided to adopt 16-inch guns in consequence of the prospect of the Japanese advancing to that or to a higher figure?
  Mr. Cooper: Yes. I have already stated that the United States Government have announced that they reluctantly consider themselves compelled to adopt the 16-inch gun.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is not that evidence that the United States are convinced that Japan is constructing 16-inch guns?
  Mr. Cooper: I think we may be fairly satisfied that Japan is constructing 16-inch guns, but we have no information that they are constructing anything larger. That is all I said. I might perhaps refer to the fact, which I consider a fortunate augury, that there is now going to Japan as our Ambassador Sir Robert Craigie, a member of the Foreign Office, who has done more than anyone else to bring these Treaties to a successful conclusion.
  I do not wish to make any exaggerated claims for the importance of the agreements which this Bill seeks to implement, but they do represent something solid and practicable. If it is not the end towards which we are all striving, it is at any rate something in the nature of a beginning, a starting point, a foundation. It keeps alive in the world the spirit of co-operation and of communication between nations on the question of armaments. Although many of us would desire something better and more complete, something farther-reaching, I submit that this certainty is very much better than nothing at all. It has proved the possibility, even in these days, of great Powers finding themselves able to agree upon a matter so vital to national security as naval armaments, and it does provide a fund of encouragement which is sorely needed now, and a basis of hope.
  4.26 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander: I think it is incumbent upon me to say, in the first place, that we hope the First Lord will be happy and will be successful from the departmental point of view in the new Ministry for which this afternoon he speaks, I think, for the first time in an important sense. He is making his bow, if I may so say, in the important department of naval affairs, in circumstances which perhaps are not very favourable for him. He has to introduce a Bill to amend the Washington Treaty provisions, in order to ratify the London Naval Treaty of 1936, for which he was in no sense responsible, and which he partly damped down, towards the end of his speech, by saying that perhaps it would be possible to exaggerate the importance of the

  2009
  Treaty. I can well imagine that he does not find it easy to have to make his bow in a Debate which has to be opened in that sense.
  I cannot help feeling that perhaps the only good thing that can be said about the Treaty we are discussing this afternoon is that it does show, on the part of those more directly in charge of naval policy and international negotiations, a desire to keep as far as possible in touch and in continuous negotiation with other Powers with a view to limiting the mischief that may be done by an armaments race. But when one comes to contemplate the actual details of the Treaty which the First Lord has dispassionately and coldly laid before the House in his very fair summary, one cannot help feeling that it is mostly paper, and that it means very little.
  It would be wrong for us to oppose the ratification of the Treaty, if only for the reason that the good faith of the British Government in this matter may be demonstrated to other Powers, but, when one has said that, it would be a great mistake to allow this Treaty to go through without pointing out that it is in vast contrast to what was accomplished, in the previous period since the War, in the direct and effective limitation of naval armaments, to the great advantage of saving money to all the States concerned, and thereby improving the social conditions of the peoples within those States and very definitely preventing that atmosphere of almost immediate fear of the outbreak of war into which we have been launched in the last year or two. I think we are entitled, therefore, to say to the Government that, whatever there may be to be commended in the re-opening and continuing of negotiations with regard to the limitation of naval armaments, we can hardly compliment them upon the success they have secured in this particular connection. I think we are entitled to call attention to the fact that their own weak and inept foreign policy in the last few years is as much responsible as any other single cause for the position in which we find ourselves to-day.
  Let me remind the House that, if you can get effective armaments limitation of the kind that was secured in the Washington Treaty of 1922 and in the London Treaty of 1930, there is a very substan-
  2010
  tial advantage in a financial sense. In the years from 1923 to 1934, the average naval expenditure—sometimes it was a little more, sometimes a little less—was round about £55,000,000 a year. It was done for that sum, although in the meantime we built the two largest and most expensive battleships we had ever built, the "Nelson" and the "Rodney"; although in that period we built 15 "County" class cruisers, averaging nearly 10,000 tons and armed with 8-inch guns; although in the same period we spent vast sums on modernising and remodelling our capital ships, and also started very effectively the replacement of our 6-inch gun cruisers as a result of the 1930 Treaty. I look at the situation today, bearing in mind what was done in those years, and I see that we are spending, not £55,000,000, but £105,000,000 this year, with the prospect of spending much more in the next three or four years, on the Navy alone. I think that is the measure of the melancholy position at which we have arrived by the failure to maintain that recognition of the effectiveness of quantitative limitation of naval armaments.
  If one could be sure that the expenditure of that increased sum on armaments would actually provide the British Commonwealth and those with whom we have covenant commitments under the League with perfect security, I do not believe any of us would wish to withhold the money, but that is not what is happening with this Treaty. Mark what is happening. If you take the ratio of expense of ourselves and the other Powers in the last few years, you will see how steadily our expenditure has moved with theirs. At this moment we are spending £105,000,000 a year on naval armaments. The total expenditure of ourselves plus the United States, Japan, France, Germany and Italy is £354,000,000 this year. In other words, we are spending just about a third of what the other six Powers are spending. If we go three years back, those Powers were spending £191,000,000 and our share was £55,000,000—roughly a third. Twenty-five years ago, a period about which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) will know a good deal, the six Powers were spending £127,000,000, of which our share was £44,000,000—about a third. We have heard so much in the past, whenever there has been an effective reduction of British armaments by international agreement,

  2011
  about sacrificing our position, that it is very interesting to note, as we go back over history, that all the way through we have very steadily spent just about a third of the naval expenditure of the six principal Powers, never very much more and never very much less.
  Look again at the first figure I mentioned, £354,000,000, of which we are spending nearly a third. How much more security does that give us? I hope the gallant Admiral the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) may be able to explain it. All the other naval Powers are building at the same rate and, if you look at the provisions of this Treaty, it is not worth very much more than the paper it is written on. I am obliged to the First Lord for the fair way in which he dealt with this. He stressed, I think, four separate points of escape by the Powers from the obligations that they entered into under the Treaty. They can escape in respect of any position of war in which they find themselves, and I think they can escape also under Articles 6, 25 and 26. Article 26 is so wide as to render it quite clear that, if a Power is bent upon doing what it likes in the matter, there is nothing to hold it whatever.
  "If the requirements of the national security of either Contracting Government should, in the opinion of that Government, be materially affected by any change of circumstances, other than those provided for in Articles 24 and 25 of the present Agreement, such Contracting Government shall have the right to depart for the current year from its Annual Programmes of construction and declarations of acquisition. The amount of construction by either Contracting Government, within the limitations and restrictions thereof, shall not, however, constitute a change of circumstances for the purposes of the present Article."
  Having regard to the other parts of the Treaty, all you have to do is to notify that in your view the circumstances are so changed that you feel bound to make use of the escape. Therefore, every one of the principal naval Powers now can, subject to the exchange of this gentlemanly class of information, do almost what it likes. Indeed, I am rather interested to think of the value that has been placed in some quarters upon this provision in the Treaties. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs last night, when he was being pressed in all parts of the House for certain information with regard to armaments in Spain,
  2012
  some of them supposed to be a threat to Gibraltar, said it was not in the public interest to let us know in the House either what was the calibre or type of guns set up by the enemy or what were the actual detailed measures we were taking in order to counteract the threat. The main feature upon which we are asked to commend this Treaty is that it is in the public interest to exchange information as to how much you are going to exceed your naval programme this year over what it was last year. I commend to the Noble Lord to study the contrast between what he said last night—I do not know whether he "mugged" it up—to use his classic language—or not—and the commended principle given to us in the exchange of information in this Treaty. I, therefore, see no very substantial value in the Treaty at all.
  I want to ask one or two questions, and possibly to make one or two suggestions. The First Lord said a word or two at our request about what is happening over the 16-inch gun. From time to time lately questions have been asked as to whether it would be the intention of the British Admiralty to follow the Japanese in their policy of mounting 16-inch guns in capital ships. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping has already drawn attention to the fact that the United States is following suit. I am well aware that some naval authorities in the House think it would not be wise to follow in this programme. It may be argued that, if you get the right content in your gun charge, you will have no difference in your range, and there will be no difference in your angle of fire if you maintain the 14-inch instead of the 16-inch gun.
  Speaking for myself, if the other Powers follow each other in mounting guns capable of firing these 16-inch shells there is something even more to consider than either the actual range or the actual angle of hitting, and that is the morale of your personnel. I am not confining that by any means to the lower deck. It applies to all ranks. There is a vast difference, it seems to me, in the feeling of the men who are likely to serve guns of that kind if they are to fight with weapons of equal calibre and hitting power to those that are massed against them. Certainly it is no part of any policy that I have ever wished to support that the men whom we send to sea should

  2013
  be less well equipped to do their service to their country than may be the position with those with whom they may be brought into conflict. I think we ought to have something more from the Admiralty as to their actual policy in this connection. I deprecate entirely, with the First Lord, that any one of the Powers who are, or ought to be, signatories to this Treaty should begin to pursue a qualitative expansion, but, if that happens, I think we ought to see that our men, at any rate, are equipped with equally potent weapons of defence to those that are brought against them.
  That leads me to another point in regard to capital ships. Although I have been very quiet about the general problem of the bomb versus the battleship, I have not been at all satisfied that the whole thing has been exhaustively pursued. I have felt in my bones that any fleet must have something upon which its fighting units may retire for protection and for maintaining the control of the seas by the fleet. What I feel is that just now, in view of the situation which arouses so much of the pessimism referred to by the First Lord, we ought not to rest content with saying, "If you build a 35,000 ton battleship and arm it with 16-inch guns, we will just follow it ton for ton and gun for gun." That is not the only policy to adopt. We have a very great reserve in this country of ours in sea experience, in engineering and in technical training and in research experience as well, and I should have thought that probably a more effective answer to the situation which seems likely to arise in this qualitative sphere of naval armaments would be for us to concentrate upon matching for ourselves the threat that will arise of a big growth in capital ships.
  It is not sufficient merely to put capital ship against capital ship. We hear a great deal about the new danger from the air to the battleship. We have seen that the Admiralty has at least spent a great deal of time and money, and spent it with some success, in the last nine or ten years in providing expanded means of defence of the capital ship against the air, and I willingly pay tribute to what has been accomplished for the British Fleet from that point of view. But there are other ways in which research might be effective, to see what the antidote to this enormous growth of the capital ship and the large gun should be. I suggest
  2014
  that if you find other means, not merely from the tir but from beneath the water, of counteracting the effect of the capital ship, and if you tell the world that you have the antidote, you will do far more to stop this suicidal growth and this race in armaments than merely by saying, "We propose to follow you. We shall build ton for ton and mount gun for gun." I am not suggesting that we should not give our own men adequate protection in the meantime, but we should have a great deal more research in that connection.
  I should also like to ask about the German and the Russian agreements which have just been arrived at. I entirely share the feelings that have been expressed from our benches that some special provision had to be made for the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics in view of their exceedingly difficult position in the Far East, as Japan is not a party to the Treaty, but it is a curious situation that arises in which you have a Power, however friendly, brought into an agreement with a twofold naval position, that is to say, it has one programme which is under the Treaty to be open to the light of day, and another to be entirely secret. I am quite willing to concede that some special allowance ought to be made for the Russian position in relation to Japan. I hope it is not then going to be argued, say, next year on the Naval Estimates, or perhaps the year after, that Japan says that because of the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1937, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics building expands their navy in the Far East, and Japan decides to increase her fleet; and that, therefore, because Japan is increasing, Great Britain and the United States also should decide to increase theirs. There you have just the same old race all over again.
  I should like to have from the First Lord a little more information as to the programme, as far as it is known up to date, of the Russian building in the Far East. It is difficult enough, but the technical position of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics places her in a somewhat different position from somebody else. I think that it is always a pity in this armament question when you have new categories of ships being introduced. Probably we never made a greater mistake—I do not know what the right

  2015
  hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping would say about it—when we seemed to introduce a new ship before the War which led to the pre-war race. And to have sandwiched in between the 6-inch "B" category class cruiser and the 8-inch " A" class cruiser, a new series of 7-inch gun cruisers is exceedingly difficult, because whoever has to match the 7-inch gun cruiser of the Soviet system will have to have a superior gun under the Treaty than that. Of course, I recognise that, as far as the written word goes, Germany has been reasonable in saying that she will not for the present lay down the two additional category "A" cruisers that she would have been entitled to do under what I am reminded was not a public agreement, but a secret agreement apparently between this country and the German Admiralty in July, 1935. At the same time, I shall be glad to know whether it is proposed to submit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that there should be, as soon as may be—and I recognise their technical difficulties—a reversion from the special category of 7-inch gun ships to the actual qualitative limitations which are applied by the Treaty to all other Powers, to light surface vessels, category "A," "B" and "C" cruisers. It would then be very much more easy to arrange our relative strength.
  I do not think that it is worth delaying the House very much longer on this matter from our side. As I say, we shall not oppose the ratification of the Treaty, because there is so very little in it. I think that it is true to say that at the moment the naval race is on, and that the naval race is likely to continue for all the words which are written in this agreement, unless this country, and certain other countries as well, will quickly change their foreign policy. I do beg of the Government that on this somewhat meancholy occasion of attending what are really the funeral rites of the limitation treaties, the effective limitation treaties of Washington and of London, and having nothing to put in their places but this string of words of the exchange of opinion, that they will see that what is really needed is to change their attitude to the whole foreign situation. Go all out for rehabilitating the League and the support of the Covenant, of Article 16, and whatever you do in the way of armament,
  2016
  have it on the collective basis to implement the real obligations of the nation under these Articles of the League. If you want to make it plain to the world that you and other important Powers in the world are united in such a League policy as that, then, I believe, you may once more get back to the basis upon which we found ourselves a few years ago in which we were not only able to negotiate but actually to enter into treaties which were effective in limiting armaments.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: I too join with the right hon. Gentleman in offering my congratulations to my right hon. Friend upon his appointment to one of the four or five great key offices of the State, and to express to him—I have known him for so many years—not only my good wishes for his success, but my confidence that his abilities will be found of distinguished service to the country in his new office. The matter which we have to discuss tonight has been thrust upon us at rather short notice. It is quite true that we are familiar with the 1935 Treaty, but the important Russian and German papers, which are very bulky and very technical, were only in the Vote Office at seven o'clock last night, and it is rather severe that Members whose duty it is to follow and take an interest in these matters should not have a little longer notice of the fact. However, as the Session is drawing to its close some of this telescoping probably is necessary, but these are very large and complex matters, and it is much better that publication of matters of interest to the British Government should be in the Vote Office at least a week, if it is possible, before the House is asked to adopt them. But I bring that forward in no captious spirit, because on the whole I have very little to say against this arrangement, as we now see it, and, having regard to all that has gone before, something to say in its favour.
  I have always been an opponent of these naval treaties, except the Treaty of Washington after the Great War which was a Treaty for which I was partly responsible. But I have always been the opponent of the subsequent naval arrangements, particularly the Treaty of London, which inflicts an immense amount of inconvenience and injury upon the whole naval structure of our country, although I

  2017
  must in fairness say that it has, in the course of its working, ended the feeling of rivalry and friction which formerly existed with the United States. But judged from the point of view of the structure and formation of the British Navy, all these agreements have been very much to our disadvantage. I did not like the Anglo-German Treaty of 1935 and thought that it was a very unfortunate moment to bring it forward. It seemed to me that we then prematurely conceded a number of points which might well have been the subject of broader discussions than those into which any one Power should enter. However, that Treaty has become the law between the two great countries, and these agreements which we now have are supplementary to it, and explanatory of it.
  I feel less critical of them for the very reason which has been opened to the House by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I admire their elasticity. I welcome the multiplicity of bolt-holes, of emergency exits, escalators and parachutes which are provided at every quarter and in every direction, because, when all is said and done, in these matters of such technique and complexity, it is very dangerous to be bound too tightly. It is far better to trust to general agreement on principles and to good faith and a friendly desire to give honourable effect to these agreements. But, broadly speaking, my view is that the injury done to the Royal Navy by these many arrangements, all at the expense of our naval freedom and initiative, is less in the set of papers now before us than in any before, and the final arrangements in respect of the Anglo-German agreements are a very definite improvement upon the original agreement.
  I should like to remind the House that I repeatedly pointed out the great flaw in the Anglo-German agreement of 1935, namely, that it made no provision for our retaining our old vessels, and all our old ships were amalgamated for the purposes of the percentage with our newer ships, against which the German navy would be entitled to build entirely new vessels. I pointed out how much that harmed us. My hon. Friend and other Members will remember, in the first place, that we being the leading naval Power in Europe and the equal naval Power with the United States in the whole world, have a very large reserve
  2018
  which we can accumulate. We had a very great reserve before the War in material, which proved of very high value. In the second place we have reserves of technicians and of seafaring population and of sea experience in this country, which enable us to bring that material reserve into some reality perhaps more reality than some other nations could do who have rather recently started navies, and it is not right that we should be asked to give that all up.
  Up to the present moment we have been in a difficult situation, when a ship has come to the end of its prime activity, of deciding whether we will cast it away and lose it for ever or whether, by keeping it on the list, we will open to the other party to this arrangement the right to build 35 per cent. of its tonnage. I am very glad indeed that that oversight in the Treaty of 1935 has been remedied, and let me say that I consider that the Germans, in meeting us upon the point, have shown their very sincere desire to work in naval matters with us upon a fair and square basis. It is a matter of great importance that we should be able to keep our old ships and not be clogged by that danger.
  Then there is another aspect in which also, I think, we have no reason to complain of the attitude which the German Government have taken. I am talking now of what are called sub-category "A" cruisers. Sub-category "A" cruisers are 10,000 ton, 8-inch gun cruisers. That is the type which arose at the Washington Conference 18 years ago. We built a great many of these in the early days, three, four and five a year, and the Americans gradually became concerned and raised the question. There was a considerable controversy, as the result of which we have given up building any more of these cruisers, and now as the result of another agreement entered into after the last General Election, we have undertaken not to build any more of these 8-inch gun 10,000 ton cruisers until 1943. These are the most powerful cruisers which exist or which are contemplated at the present time, apart from the capital ships.
  I should like to point out how very much we have suffered by the course which has been followed. In the first place, all these early cruisers that we built are very inferior in protection and

  2019
  in other qualities to the type of 10,000 ton cruiser which can be built now. The gallant Admiral the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sir R. Keyes) will bear me out in that. We have a considerable number of what are called subcategory "A" cruisers but they in no way compare with the latest construction of sub-category "A" cruisers in the United States—not that we have any anxiety about what the United States build, but rather the contrary—and they will not compare with the sub-category "A" cruisers which will be built and are building now by Germany.
  Germany has the right to build five of these cruisers, while we are forbidden by the arrangements we have made to build any until 1943. Therefore, if Germany exercises her right to build the whole of the five cruisers under the Agreement, she will have five cruisers which will be superior to any cruisers we have in existence and which will be capable of meeting in a single ship action and fighting at great advantage any cruisers which the British Navy possesses or will be allowed to construct until 1943. Five cruisers is a great many. There were only five German cruisers loose at the beginning of the Great War, and every one of them not only raided commerce but destroyed an allied warship before it was finally brought to its fate. All these five cruisers are sub-category A cruisers, which if they are to be built by Germany will be in the water long before we are allowed to begin building a single one. Every one of those five ships will be eminently superior. They will be fighting ships of the highest class, ships of enormous capacity as commerce raiders and capable of resisting any vessel except a battle cruiser, by which they might eventually be brought to action. Therefore, I thought that that was a very serious and needless complication of our naval strategy and our naval position.
  I am very glad that the Germans have assured us that it is their desire—it is not an absolute bargain or agreement—not to use their right to construct the whole of the five cruisers but to construct only three of them. Certainly, nothing could illustrate more the foolish tangle into which we have got ourselves than that we should have to sit down till 1943 and see these enormously powerful,
  2020
  potential commerce destroyers brought into being. It is very remarkable that the Germans should have agreed to that, having regard to the new complication in their own household in the Baltic, owing to the decision of Russia to build a surface Fleet. I am often thought to be a critic of Germany, and therefore I wish to make full recognition of what she has done. In spite of this Russian pre-occupation, which nautrally concerns Germany, because the Baltic is a vital strategic matter for German defence, they have been willing to give us an assurance that they will try their best to meet us. We hope they will take pity on the forlorn and foolish situation in which we have allowed ourselves to be entangled by our good-natured agreements, and will agree to reduce their construction of these cruisers from five to three.
  I must congratulate the Government upon having obtained an agreement to bar out the intermediate type of cruiser, that is, the cruiser above the sub-category "A" cruiser, the cruiser between the subcategory "A" ship and the capital ship. There is a gap from the 17,500-ton ship down to the 10,000-ton ship. Considering that the United States and Great Britain have a considerable number of 8-inch gun 10,000-ton cruisers, it is very much to their interest that no class of vessels of 15,000 tons, mounting 9-inch or 10-inch guns, should come into existence and render their whole stock-in-trade obsolete. Therefore, it has become a matter of enormous importance to the unfortunate Admirals and naval authorities who have been entangled and trammelled in the provisions of the Treaties, to bar out this intermediate gap which would render their Treaty-constructed cruisers extremely out-of-date instruments of war. The proper way to throw them out of gear is the construction of 15,000-ton vessels, with 9-inch or 10-inch guns, but there is an agreement that that shall not be done. That is a very great advantage and I think we have been met in a considerate way on that point.
  It is also highly advantageous that there should be an agreement in regard to the interchange of information. Nothing could be better than that. I am all for the fullest information being given on all occasions. Half the suspicions that arise between countries is removed when the full facts are laid

  2021
  before the world. I remember well before the War the scare there was that the Germans were building additional battleships in the boat-houses on the Elbe, and that concealed and secret Dreadnoughts were going to spring into existence. I pleaded then that we should have the fullest interchange of information. Certainly, the words that were spoken by Admiral von Tirpitz and the assurances he gave were in every respect true. I welcome the interchange of information. The more we know about these matters, the more we are able to say openly about them, the less harmful and dangerous will become the situation in which we live.
  The subject that has caused me most anxiety in regard to these documents is the fact that we have definitely recognised that the other Powers concerned will build 16-inch gun battleships. They are entitled to do so. That would not have been stipulated for in the agreement unless they were determined to do it. Otherwise, there would be no difficulty in deferring to our wish to build 14-inch gun battleships. The position is that there will be 16-inch gun battleships built. Japan is doing it. The First Lord professes not to know, but the United States know enough about it to have taken their decision and to have announced the building of 16-inch gun ships, and they are pretty well informed of the intentions of Japan. If Germany, and Italy also, do it, there will be two of the principal European naval Powers with 16-inch guns.
  We have already committed ourselves to the construction of five 14-inch gun battleships. These great weapons of war, each costing £8,000,000 or £9,000,000, which are to be the symbol of our right and our power to preserve our freedom and to intervene in world affairs, are definitely to be equipped with 14-inch guns. It is a highly technical discussion as to whether you should have 16-inch guns or 14-inch guns. All the Powers apparently are agreed upon the 35,000-ton limit, except Japan, and the question which naval constructors have to face and on which this argument turns is whether you can put 16-inch guns satisfactorily into a 35,000-ton ship. I have seen some statements about it which apepar to me to be by no means exhaustive of the topic. We are told that you must save the weights in order to
  2022
  protect your new construction against the new dangers from the air and so forth.
  Anyone who looks at the well known and easily accessible figures can see what a very serious short-fall there is in the 14-inch gun as from the 16-inch gun. I elicited certain figures last year in reply to a question in debate, and therefore the figures which I am about to give are public property. Nine 16-inch guns in three triple turrets would fire nearly a 50 per cent. heavier broadside than the same number of 14-inch guns, and the additional cost would be only a few hundred thousand pounds. A 50 per cent. or even a 40 per cent. addition to a broadside is an enormous difference. But it does not stop with the amalgamated weight of the salvo and broadside. Not only has it got a greater crushing power, but the cubic content of the explosive is again lifted on a geometrical rather than an arithmetical scale.
  Therefore, there is a great deal to be said for the heavy gun. The heavy gun has always been the traditional weapon upon which Great Britain has relied. It was the heavy gun which defeated the Armada. Our smaller ships had far heavier guns. In the construction of the Queen Elizabeth we went in for the heaviest guns in Europe, and I have no prickings of conscience in regard to it. These ships are among the most successful constructed for the Royal Navy. Observe, then, that nine 16-inch guns in three turrets would cost very little more and would weigh no more than nine, ten or eleven 14-inch guns in four turrets, because of the great weight of the turret in the gun-house. Therefore, it seems to me that we must not regard the problem of placing 16-inch guns successfully and satisfactorily in the 35,000-ton ship as beyond the skill of competent designers in the United States, or Japan, or Germany, or Italy. If they do solve the problem satisfactorily and make thoroughly seaworthy ships, ships which are in every respect well balanced and which can carry these much heavier guns, then in future years it will be something of a reproach in the Royal Navy that the first five great new battleships we built—in deference to setting an example to other countries and with an earnest and honourable desire to try to retard the pace of naval armaments—battleships costing £40,000,000, and being for 25 years the governing

  2023
  factor in the Battle Fleet of the Royal Navy, were constructed upon a basis and with a gun power which renders them definitely inferior to the contemporary vessels they will have to meet.
  It is not only a question of material force—after all when you are building a battleship you are thinking of the supreme expression of material force—there is a great moral value also. We regard British battleships as symbols of naval power, but they are also the means by which we gain credit in the world for working towards a peaceful solution of many difficulties, and British prestige will not be advanced if it is found in possession of a large number of these extremely costly vessels which, however excellent they may be—and I do not for a moment doubt their excellence—will be considered as not the strongest vessels in the world, that is assuming that German, American and Japanese designers are able to solve a problem which we are assured by the Admiralty is insoluble.
  I apologise to the House for dealing at length with these matters, but they are important and ought to be considered by the House. What I would say to the Government is this: The past is past, what is done is done, whether right or wrong. We are going to have five magnificent ships. I have no doubt that they will be magnificent ships, but suppose that the Japanese, the Germans, the Americans and the Italians solve the problem of mounting these big guns inside a 35,000 ton ship in a satisfactory manner—
  Mr. Alexander: They have done it.
  Mr. Churchill: I am talking about the new programme. Suppose they solve the problem in a satisfactory manner, as they may do, then we must be ready to make a change. Do not let us be told that we are to lose another three years because we have not made our preparations. That is the point upon which I want to make an appeal. Will the First Lord now make sure that he begins the preparations for all the alterations to gun plant which will be required in the event of an advance to the 16-inch gun being considered necessary, and will he have constructed an experimental 16-inch gun mounting in order that everything may be
  2024
  in readiness? Then, it we find that other countries have solved this problem, which we have not, and we are forced to go forward with the higher guns, there will be no further delay. I make a strong appeal that this preliminary work should be set in train at once. In this matter, as in others, you can see how naval agreements and treaties hamper and cripple British initiative. It is true that if other people take steps which we hoped they would not take we have freedom to take fresh steps, but we have always waited for a year or two and then when an advance has been made upon us in cruisers and battleships by other countries invoke the escalator clause and take the next step.
  We used to lead the whole world in naval construction. Other nations held back their programme to see what designs the British Admiralty brought out year after year. We have given this great advantage away, not for any unworthy motive but for most sincere and goodhearted motives. Nevertheless, I deplore the very great and marked cost to the strength of the Royal Navy and to the proper and economic realisation of British naval resources. I did not get up to make any attack or criticism upon the actual business which is before the House. On the contrary, I consider that this agreement greatly improves the existing Anglo-German Treaty. It is the least crippling and hampering of all the naval agreements into which we have entered in later years, and I welcome the clear practical understanding and co-operation which must have been forthcoming from British and German naval officers and experts before this highly technical instrument could have been brought to completion.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: I want to make only one comment on the interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He has always been looked upon in recent years as one of the foremost champions of the collective system of massing overwhelming forces against an aggressor, but I entirely fail to see how that system is going to he worked effectively if there must never be the slightest interference in any way with the British Navy. You must be willing to co-operate and work with other people, and it is no good saying that what the British say goes and that it does not matter what

  2025
  anybody else may say. May I associate myself with the congratulations to the First Lord on his attaining his present position? I hope he will make a great success, and that on the next occasion he will come to the House with a Measure of much greater importance than the one he has brought forward to-day. He does not himself pretend that it is a Bill which means very much. I think he feels it to be rather a poor little thing, but perhaps its smallness is the measure of the complete failure of the foreign policy of the National Government during the last five years. In my judgment the situation in which we find ourselves to-day is due to the weakness and folly of the British Government since the National Government came into office.
  But working within the narrow limits of the world situation, the Bill has certain merits and it is one which we shall support, as we desire to see it passed into law. May I point out some of its merits which have not actually been mentioned? It means some advance, and it is better to have some advance than none at all. Further, throughout the whole of the negotiations I understand that there were the happiest relations between representatives of the British and American Governments. They understood each other, their views were similar, and at the close of the negotiations a letter was exchanged in which it was made clear that we regarded the American Government's idea of partiy as a fundamental part of British policy. Personally it seems to me that this is of enormous importance, and that we should always press that position. In parity with the American Government you have a potential doubling of the British Navy. I cannot conceive any situation in which they would come in against us, and if they are properly handled, and we pursue a foreign policy which will command their respect, they will come in with us on every occasion. In that way any increase in the American Navy is an increase of the British Navy.
  The third merit of the Bill is that the Government have succeeded in producing an international instrument to which Germany and Soviet Russia are parties. That is a thing which nobody else has been able to do. It is true they have done it by rather indirect methods, but however much Germany may dislike it they are parties to an agreement to which
  2026
  Soviet Russia and other nations are a party also. I hope this will encourage them to go on and be willing to enter into agreements on a very much wider scale with all the important countries of the world. I feel that one of the most important minor merits of the Bill is the great advance in notification. That is a real improvement. A much more complete list of basic information is to be given and a more complete covering of ships' categories than ever before. I imagine that a provision of that kind, far in advance of anything in any previous naval treaty, will prevent such surprises as have occurred in the past by the sudden introduction of the Dreadnought and the Deutschland. In this connection it is interesting to see what are our actual obligations as to the exchange of information under the Covenant of the League. Under Article 8, Section 6:
  "Members of the League undertake to exchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval and air programmes and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to warlike purposes."
  We are a long way from doing that, but in this Measure there are some steps taken towards carrying out these obligations. I regret that there are no arrangements for mutual inspection of each other's ships and dockyards to see whether promises are being kept. The First Lord gave us a lecture on the solemnity of international obligations, how we must trust each other and assume that people meant what they said. That is all very nice, but we know that there are some Powers in the world, nothing will induce me to mention them by name, whose word is not quite as reliable as that of other Powers. Under the disarmament proposals the National Government were prepared to go a long way to have mutual inspection by representatives of the Disarmament Commission to see what was going on in our establishments here, and I think it would have been another useful step forward and would have led to a great deal of mutual confidence if some arrangement of that kind could have been carried out. No doubt we shall all have our unofficial inspectors, our spies, to see whether these obligations are being carried out or not. Why not do it openly by arrangement rather than by the very much less attractive way of

  2027
  having spies to do the work? The fifth point of merit in the Bill is that there are arrangements for a new Naval Conference to take place in 1941, with a preliminary discussion a few months previously. It is something to have had that definitely fixed so as not to have the conference spreading over several years.
  I have alluded to the fact that the Measure is on a very limited scale. The limited situation with which the Government have had to deal was produced by their foreign policy. It arises from the disastrous events which took place in Manchuria in 1931. The naval and military authorities in Japan were wondering how far they would be allowed by other Powers to take forcible action, the civil authorities in Japan were still in control, and there was an internal struggle going on. If Great Britain had acted firmly, according to her obligations, the civil authorities in Japan would have triumphed, the policy of force would have been nipped in the bud, and the whole world situation, from the point, of view of a naval agreement, would have been changed for the better. We might then have gone forward on the basis of the Washington and London Treaties, and have made a great advance on them.
  If we had seized the opportunities of the Disarmament Conference in the realm of Naval affairs, almost unthinkable progress could have been made. There is reference in this Agreement to battleships of 35,000 tons, but I believe there was a moment in the discussions at the Disarmament Conference when firm leadership would have produced agreement on the basis of 10,000 ton battleships, and we could have accepted for the world limits which were thought good enough for Germany in the Treaty of Versailles. Owing to the way in which the situation was handled, that is something which is almost inconceivable at the present time. It is the measure of the change in the situation to see the difference between battleships of 35,000 tons—and there is no certainty about that limit—and the definite limitation to 10,000 tons which was at one time within sight.
  The whole of our troubles in Naval affairs are due to the fact that there is in power in Japan a government which relies on force as an instrument of national policy, and which is unwilling
  2028
  to co-operate with other countries in order to come to a general agreement for disarmament and conciliation on the lines of the League of Nations. But as that is the case, I entirely agree that there is no alternative but to face it. If they are going to use force, it is necessary for others, the United States and ourselves, who stand by the new order, to possess forces which will make it entirely impossible for their views to prevail. We are obliged to take up that attitude, but it is due to the attitude of Japan, and that in turn is due to the foreign policy of the present Government. We are in a very dangerous situation as regards the race in armaments. I would like here to quote some words which appeared in the Memorandum on the London Naval Conference, published on 25th March, 1936:
  "Furthermore, the agreement should go far to put into effect the hopes expressed by the Prime Minister at the opening of the Conference, that the public mind will be relieved of the threat of a general race in Naval armaments."
  How untrue those words are to-day. The Naval race is going on at the present time. That statement bears no relation to facts as they now are. There has been a good deal of reference in this Debate to the question of 16-inch guns on battleships. The only comment I wish to make on that is to stress the fact that there is there a very great possibility of a race in armaments on a colossal scale, involving enormous expense. It has been made clear to-day that the United States and Japan are going to put in 16-inch guns. I understand that Great Britain and France take the view that the most efficient way is to have 14-inch guns, because one cannot put in guns of a higher calibre without sacrificing speed and protective power. I understand the British view is that with 16-inch guns, it would be necessary to have a vessel of something like 40,000 tons or 45,000 tons. If there are 18-inch guns, which is by no means impossible, if Japan cares to build them in due course, it will be necessary to have battleships of approximately 57,000 tons. There we have some indication of the road to ruin on which the whole world is travelling at the present time.
  I wish to refer to one matter that has not been spoken of in the Debate, namely, the lapse of Article 19 of the Washington Treaty, which deals with the fortification of insular bases. That is another

  2029
  very great potential danger in the future. There is danger of the race in the construction of fortifications and Naval bases in the islands in the Far East. This is again due to the policy of the Japanese Government, which refuses to come to any agreement on these matters with the other Powers. I understand that it is the desire of the Japanese Government at any rate to have available for purposes of fortification the Islands of Bonin, Amami-O Shima, and Loochoo, which they regard as vital in the chain of their national defence. Certain of the islands in which Japan is interested are held on mandate from the League of Nations, and the Japanese Government will not permit anyone to go to those islands to see what is taking place. I think some information ought to be given as to the attitude of the British Government on that matter, for it is not solely a matter for Japan, but is one for the League of Nations. We ought to take the necessary steps, through the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League, to find out what is going on in those islands, where any fortification is wholly prohibited. There is every reason to suppose that fortification is going on.
  If there is fortification of those Japanese Islands, will the United States take no action? There are available the Aleutian Islands, the fortification of which is no longer excluded. I presume that the United States also will have to act. Have the Government any information on this matter? If Japan and the United States take action of that sort, what will be the position of the British Government with regard to Hong Kong, which was previously excluded, but which is now available? Will the Government be good enough to inform the House whether they now contemplate any action with regard to Hong Kong, or whether, in the event of the two other Powers concerned fortifying their islands, they will feel called upon to do something of the kind? There would then be a race in those fortifications.
  I am afraid the prospect is very gloomy; but with regard to this Measure, I do not see that we can do anything except pass it as a useful and very minute remainder of what might have been and what should have been. It is only by resolute, consistent and wholehearted backing of the collective system of the League of Nations, above all by the
  2030
  British Government, that we can produce conditions which will make real Naval disarmament possible and bring peace and security to the world.
  5.39 p.m.
  Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that a vast effort to restore our Defences is necessary and that the expense will be enormous. There-for, any arrangments that may be made to cut down expenditure on our armaments, provided they do not interfere with our security, will be welcomed by all. I was at the Board of Admiralty at the time the Washington Conference took place, and when the Treaty was being worked out. Although I do not like Naval Treaties and think that the British Navy should be left alone to work out its own salvation, I recognise that the Washington Treaty was a statesmanlike measure and very necessary in order to put a stop to the race in the building of capital ships in the interests of economy. After all, at that time war was remote. We had a vast Navy, and the great thing about that Treaty was that it provided security in that we were allowed to build such cruisers and small craft as were necessary to protect our trade routes.
  Ever since I entered the House, I have done my best to take the question of rearmament outside party politics, and even the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) will not provoke me into saying anything about the London Treaty of 1930. Since we are apparently bound to have Naval Treaties, I welcomed the Treaty that followed it, since it dealt with the quality of armaments, rather than their quantity, but I cannot help looking upon the Anglo-German Treaty, which is of a quantitative nature, with a good deal of suspicion. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) pointed out, there will be a time when the German Navy will possess 8-inch cruisers which are bound to be far superior to the 8-inch cruisers which we built some time ago and cannot replace for several years.
  The right lion. Gentleman the Member for Epping covered a great deal of ground and I am generally in agreement with what he said. I would like to remind the House of the construction which was carried out when the right hon. Gentle-

  2031
  man was First Lord of the Admiralty. I remember that before the "Queen Elizabeth" was laid down, he talked to me about the battle cruisers that had been built by Lord Fisher. He pointed out to me that it was not good enough to put great guns on a ship without armour and to trust to speed to keep you out of trouble. An action might have to be fought, owing to visibility, at much closer range, and ships carrying great guns but lacking protection would be destroyed. The right hon. Gentleman drew an outline of a ship which he thought was the type to build. That ship was not contemplated then, but it was the "Queen Elizabeth," for which he was entirely responsible. There was a great deal of opposition at the time, on the ground that it cost a great deal more than the "Royal Sovereign," which was the type favoured by the Admiralty.
  The right hon. Gentleman was right. Those battle cruisers were built by Lord Fisher to destroy cruisers, and the action at the Falkland Islands proved that they could do so. Admiral von Tirpitz saw further and decided to protect his battle cruisers with armour, and the result of that was shown at the Battle of Jutland. Three of our ill-protected battle cruisers blew up, the German battle cruisers took any amount of punishment and remained afloat. The "Seydlitz" was reduced to a wreck, but remained afloat and got home. The "Lutzow" was terribly damaged, but the Germans sank her with torpedoes to prevent her from falling into our hands.
  The building of a warship is a matter of compromise in the relative allocation of weight to speed, armament, armour and under-water protection which have all to be balanced. The Sea Lords of the present Board of Admiralty have, of course, weighed all those conflicting considerations. If they consider that a 14-inch gun battleship is the best compromise in relation to armament and protection for a 35,000-ton ship, then I think the Navy generally will trust them. If Japan finds that she has to increase the tonnage of her ships considerably in order to give adequate protection to a ship carrying 16-inch guns, it will give rise to very serious considerations and the Admiralty may have to build ships of far greater tonnage than 35,000 tons to get a well-balanced ship carrying 16-inch
  2032
  guns. Therefore I would support the recommendation made by my right hon. Friend that this matter should be closely gone into. However, I have not the slightest doubt that it is being closely gone into by the Board of Admiralty and the technicians. I recently attended a discussion on this subject at the Institute of Naval Architects. This question of compromise is a very serious one. You cannot sink ships with armour plate, and therefore you have to balance your protection against your hitting power, but if the projectiles of our 14-inch guns will penetrate any armour that another Power can put on 35,000-ton ships carrying 16-inch guns and at the same time you can carry armour to keep out the 16-inch projectiles, that is all to the good, but it is really a matter for experts, and it is better to leave it to them. It is a question which requires day-to-day study. I cannot pretend to be up to date upon it now, although I was 10 or 12 years ago.
  I have not followed the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) in his excursion into foreign policy. He asked that there should be official inspection of the building programmes of other nations. After all, naval attachés exist for that purpose. I was a naval attaché in four different countries and I found that naval attachés had no difficulty in knowing what was going on in the countries in which they were serving. It is easy to say that this country or that country cannot be trusted, but I think everybody recognises that the Treaties dealt with in this Bill represent an honest and definite effort to cut down expenditure on armaments. I think no one should welcome this fact more than hon. Members opposite.
  May I, in conclusion, add my welcome and good wishes to those which have already been extended to the First Lord of the Admiralty on his assumption of his new office? He has wonderful opportunities in that office to-day because we are now, just as we were in 1889, on the threshhold of the restoration of our sea-power and, in such circumstances, what greater office could there be than that of being in charge of the Admiralty? The right hon. Gentleman may be certain that the Navy will judge his tenure of office by the success of his efforts towards the real restoration of our sea-power which does not only lie in the building of ships.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Benn: It is rather rash on the part of one who is not in any sense an expert in these matters to speak in a Debate of this kind, especially when we have had the privilege of listening to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, North (Sir R. Keyes), who speaks with the highest authority on these technical subjects. While I think most Members of the House were under the impression that we were to have had a Debate on the limitation of armaments on this occasion, we have actually had a discussion on naval rearmament by leading exponents of that policy all of whom desire to get rid of limitations on armaments and to increase our expenditure under that head. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has been one of the protagonists on this occasion. Instead of speaking on the limitation of armaments, the whole theme of his eloquent speech was "Away with all agreements of all kinds." He wants complete freedom, and the hon. and gallant Admiral who spoke last desires simply that Britannia should rule the waves. That is his simple doctrine. It is a sentiment which warms all our hearts, but it is not exactly consistent with the election manifestoes of the Government, nor with the commonly expressed hope that we should get some form of agreement regulating these heavy armaments with the financial and moral responsibilities which they entail. I wish it were in order on this occasion to speak of the use of the Navy and the degradaton of naval power which we have seen recently on the North coast of Spain, but I am aware that that would be going outside the limits of this Debate.
  I would remind the House of the vast change that has come over the face of this problem since this Government has been in office. It would be wrong and unfair—and I have never sought to do so—to blame this Government wholly for what has occurred. But it is obvious that since 1932 and the end of the Disarmament Conference, the prospects of disarmament have steadily receded. The conduct of Government spokesmen in 1932 at Geneva, when Mr. Hoover made his great offer of disarmament which was received with such chilly evasion by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the beginning of the march back. At that time, there was no German problem and no Italian problem, and it is appropriate
  2034
  to remark, on such an occasion as this, that the Government has to carry a heavy responsibility, perhaps the heaviest, with all the other nations of the world, for the fact that instead of discussing a Bill for disarmament or the limitation of armaments to-day, we are engaged in making suggestions to the First Lord as to how our strength can be improved and our charges increased. When the Labour Government went out of office the naval charges were £52,000,000 a year. Now they stand at £105,000,000. I do not base my argument, however, mainly upon cost but upon much more serious grounds.
  As far as this Bill is concerned, I have just two things to say. After what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping has said, we expect a definite statement from the Government on what they are going to do about these 16-inch guns. We know that Japan and the United States have determined to adopt these guns. It would not be fair to the House to ask it to pass a Bill including that item, without being told exactly what are the Government's intentions. While that is being done, it would be useful if the First Lord were also to tell us what will be the cost of altering the design of the five new ships and re-equipping them. In the Bill itself there is hardly anything worth comment. It is an agreement to agree. Of course it would be good to have an exchange of information. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it was the absence of knowledge and the presence of suspicion which made the situation so difficult before the War. I think he and I are the only people taking part in this Debate who remember the famous Debate in 1909 across this Table when Mr. Balfour, as he then was, demanded from Mr. McKenna a programme of eight ships. Then we had all sorts of calculations and a sort of auction going on as to how many ships we were prepared to have and how many other Powers had. If that kind of thing could be avoided by a frank exchange of information, it would be all to the good, but to ask us to believe that in these documents which we are now considering any hope is held out to the world of naval limitation is asking too much. To do the First Lord credit, he did not ask that.
  One other point is that a light is thrown here upon the relations between Germany and Japan. We have heard a great deal about the anti-Communist pact,

  2035
  but it does not seem to have stood the strain in this instance, because the Germans appear to have agreed that the Russians should be allowed to build up to whatever they think necessary to meet the situation in the Far East. That, certainly, is a welcome feature for what it is worth. But as far as these documents generally are concerned, no one would think of opposing them, and I do not suppose anyone would mind supporting them, because there is little in them. As for the general situation, since this Government came into office there has been a steady retrogression, and the hope of international limitation of armaments has almost disappeared.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. W. Astor: I am sincerely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) has temporarily pulled out of the line of battle, because I wanted, not to send a salvo into him, but to offer him thanks for his wonderful justification of the amount which is being spent by His Majesty's Government on naval armaments. He pointed out that our expenditure at the moment is about one-third of the world total. It was in that same proportion at the time when he was responsible for the Navy, and it was in the same proportion before the War. Surely none of his supporters would suggest that the increase in the amount spent by the world on naval armaments has been due in any way to any lead given by His Majesty's Government either now or in the past. Surely, also, if we were spending less, in proportion to the other countries to-day than the proportion which we were spending when the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the Navy, we would have a lower standard of security now than that which the Labour Government thought necessary at a time when there was, comparatively speaking, a lack of international anxiety. I think we can thank the right hon. Gentleman for having pointed out an argument which had not previously occurred to some of us. Of course, some of the increased expenditure has been necessary because capital ships were getting out of date owing to sheer old age and new developments in anti-aircraft warfare. This has necessitated a great deal of expenditure.
  2036
  The Treaties which are now before the House may be criticised, but I do not think it can be denied that they are largely solving the difficulties of the European naval situation. It is true that they do not touch the Far East, but if we add to them the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, it can be seen that the naval problem in European waters is immensely simplified and improved by them. One shudders to think of what the situation would have been if His Majesty's Government had not had the independence and courage to negotiate and sign the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. It is almost frightening to think of what the position might be without that agreement. There are many bolt-holes and loop-holes in these documents, but the qualitative relations between the German and the British Navy are absolute. There are no escalator clauses in them. Of course the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is afraid of people breaking their word, but at least we can say that in Europe since 1922 no nation has broken any of the naval treaties of disarmament, and if every nation including Germany has observed these Treaties, there is at least warrant for going on with them in the future, and for refusing to give up in despair while we have this good example.
  The gap in Europe is, of course, Italy. We sincerely hope that nothing will be done which will discourage Italy from coming in and that with the liquidation of the present Spanish situation we shall see Italy signing a Treaty, in the drawing up of which she took a great part and left, not for technical reasons, but for political reasons which had nothing to do with naval limitations. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough referred to this Treaty merely as a scrap of paper, hardly worth the paper on which it is written. If that be so, is it really conceivable that foreign countries, including Soviet Russia, should have taken such immense pains to be quite sure of what was written on this scrap of paper? It was a long and laborious negotiation, in every comma of which they took a deep interest, and surely that shows that some value attaches to these naval Treaties. Of course, it is easy to imagine a much better naval Treaty. Everybody would like a quantitative limitation as well, and His Majesty's Government sincerely tried to

  2037
  get it, but, viewing facts as they are and viewing the fact that these Treaties are negotiated and not dictated Treaties, I think our Government are to be congratulated on the results.
  The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, speaking of the Far Eastern situation, seemed, as is his wont to lay the entire blame for it on His Majesty's Government. Anybody who has studied the Far East at all will know that the causes of the Manchurian dispute and of Japan leaving a collective system, leaving the League, and leaving the naval limitations agreement date very much farther back than that. They are due to internal economic and social problems, buried deep in the economic and social structure of Japan. The political results followed, and there is very little which was done in the Manchurian dispute or afterwards that affected those internal Japanese problems which produced the sad result.
  If one were going to make party points over it one might point out that in 1932 we had a Labour Government which had got its finances into so obscure a condition that we had to have all these reductions, which led to the trouble in the Navy, and it is not perhaps entirely a coincidence that the troubles in Mukden followed very shortly after the troubles at Invergordon. The troubles at Invergordon were due to the economic crisis, which at least His Majesty's present advisers did nothing to bring on. Secondly, one might also point out that during the time when the Labour party were in office they retarded work on the Singapore base, and that if that work had been pressed on we might have been in a far different position vis-à-vis Japan, but without the Singapore base the British Navy was absolutely helpless. The hon. Member took much too superficial a view of the Far Eastern problem and of its causes, economic and social, which have got to be dealt with internationally. We certainly hope that the present trouble will increase the desire of His Majesty's Government to try and ease the troubles in the Far East.
  As regards the Russian fleet in the Far East, which seemed to give the right hon. Member for Hillsborough such worry, I think he can he reassured. In the first place, the Russian fleet's record throughout history is not such as to inspire the Japanese Government with terror, and,
  2038
  secondly, it is very unlikely that Japan is going to sit and watch Russia building a formidable fleet under her very nose or that Russia will attempt any such hazardous experiment. The sovereign remedy has been given to us. It is said that the way to improve these naval Treaties is to strengthen the League in the Far East. But the Far East is one of the few places where any amount of strengthening of the League is likely to have extraordinarily little effect. It is much more likely to be done by paralleling our policy with that of the United States of America and getting the two navies working so closely together as to produce the same beneficent results in the Far East as our parallelism with France produces in Europe.
  I think the attacks on His Majesty's Government in connection with these Treaties have extraordinarily little weight, and really these Treaties savour of the miraculous. To have been able in 1937, in view of what is happening in every other sphere of foreign policy, to have secured these highly useful and important Treaties is a thing on which the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, and those who have had to do the detail work deserve the greatest congratulation. It shows that the less ambitious methods of bilateral negotiation in the sphere of disarmament have had great success, and we only hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to follow up this success by similar methods in other spheres.
  6.7 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: It was an extremely touching sight to watch the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor), who has just sat down, speaking under a fond parental eye. Surely, it was what is known as the Oedipus complex which led him to request that that gaze should be directed upon him from the rear. I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) to deal with the extremely inaccurate remarks of the hon. Member about the events at Invergordon, but I thought he spoke very airily indeed about the liquidation of the present situation in Spain, which was to be followed by Italy doing everything that is sweet and proper. May I remind him that we have already, quite recently, signed a Treaty with Italy, under which Italy undertakes to preserve the status quo in the Mediterranean, and that

  2039
  if Italy would honour that Treaty in good faith, then indeed the situation in Spain would be liquidated very easily and very quickly?
  If the First Lord of the Admiralty will allow me to say so, I think he opened this Debate very fairly indeed, making no extravagant claims whatsoever for these Treaties, but speaking very moderately indeed about their value. In fact, the only enthusiasm that I thought he showed in the course of his remarks was when he referred to the admirable work done by Sir R. Craigie in connection with these Treaties, remarks which I am certain will be endorsed by anyone who knows anything about the work which has been done. All that I can say is that I hope that in the future the First Lord will find happier opportunities for the display of his talents than these particular Treaties are able to afford him. There is one question that I would like to ask him. Do we know everything about these Treaties? It is only quite recently that we found out that the Anglo-German Treaty, signed in 1935, had a secret agreement attached to it. Are there any secret agreements attached to these Treaties which have not been mentioned to-day?
  Obviously, the Powers which have not signed these treaties dictate the situation, so that the treaties are of very doubtful value indeed. Naval treaties which leave Italy and Japan outside are of very little use, but it may fairly be said that nothing else was open to us. There was nothing more that we could get, and at any rate, if these treaties do not do much good, they do not do very much harm, unless possibly they engender a completely false sense of security and of limitation of armaments. There are so many escape Clauses to these treaties that they are hardly worth anything at all. Any country which is a signatory can escape from any of their provisions at will, and practically without formality, thanks to these escape Clauses, and, as a matter of fact, Japan, which is not a signatory, has it in her power to give any country which is a signatory the opportunity of escaping from the provisions of the treaties through these escape Clauses.
  Is Germany entitled to divide her 35 per cent of light craft between the three categories of "A" and "B" cruisers
  2040
  and destroyers in each category, or is she entitled to 35 per cent. of our total tonnage in light craft? Is the 35 per cent. to which she is entitled to be divided beween each of those three categories, or is she, for instance, entitled to have more than the five "A"-class cruisers to which our 15 "A"-class cruisers would entitle her under the 35 per cent. clause, if she chooses to have more "A"-class cruisers by diminishing her tonnage in either of the other two categories? Then again, on exactly what basis is the tonnage of our Fleet calculated for the purposes of assessing the 35 per cent. to which Germany is entitled? The Treaty speaks of 35 per cent. as defined by treaty, but defence vessels and torpedo boats are not defined by treaty and, therefore, I think it is of importance to know exactly upon what basis our tonnage is calculated in order to arrive at the 35 per cent. to which Germany is entitled. Further, on what basis is the ratio between over-age and under-age tonnage calculated? The German Navy being of rather modern construction, it seems to me that Germany must be short of what we call over-age tonnage, and, therefore, how is that ratio calculated? Those are two or three specific points which I think it would assist the House to have cleared up.
  To turn to more general considerations, a certain amount of stress has been laid upon the provision for exchange of information. I feel that it is a very pious hope that any benefit will be derived from this exchange of information. We know quite well that the Intelligence services of all naval countries have long ago found out that it is quite impossible to keep the main facts about naval construction secret. It simply cannot be done. You can keep secret certain details of naval construction, but the fact that you are building certain ships of a certain tonnage and with certain armament is, in a very short time, common property all over the world. What we are doing by this provision about exchange of information is to recognise the fact that you cannot keep those secrets. We are, therefore, agreeing to the exchange of information which the countries concerned would get hold of anyhow.
  When it comes to exchanging information about details which it is possible to keep secret, I do not believe that any country concerned, our own included, will

  2041
  be bound by this provision. Will the information about our naval construction which is to be given to other Powers be given to them before it is given to this House, or will it be in excess of the information given to this House? I have an idea that we shall arrive at the farcical situation that under these treaties we shall be giving to other Powers information which is withheld from Members of the House. I notice that Russia not only need give no information about her Far Eastern construction, but, if she chooses to say that she feels threatened by Japan, she can cut out all the processes of consultation and delay which attach to the escape clauses. She is to be the sole judge. She need not explain her reasons for feeling threatened; she merely has to say that she believes Japan is exceeding the London Treaty limits, and then she can go ahead without consultation with the other signatory Powers.
  I would like to turn to what I think is the main feature of this Debate, that is, the "A"-class cruisers, the 10,000-ton 8-inch gun cruisers. We have 15 of them and we have bound ourselves to build no more until 1942. The Anglo-German Agreement in 1935 entitled Germany to build five of these large "A"-class cruisers, of which three are already laid down. Under this Treaty Russia may build up to seven such cruisers, but, in accordance with the timorous and genteel decency which prevails in the phraseology of these treaties, she hopes not to do so. The real fact, stripped of all pretence and all these worthless and fictitious provisos, is that any country may build "A"-class cruisers if she feels threatened. Therefore, to use a phrase employed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), the race is on from this moment in these "A"-class cruisers. The escape clauses permit it. Germany may build "A"-class cruisers if Russia builds "B"-class cruisers which outclass German "B"-class cruisers. That is an excuse to Germany to build these "A"-class cruisers.
  Germany and Italy may build crusers above the limits of the London Treaty. Germany and Russia will certainly build them, and the result is there may be five German 10,000-ton cruisers against which we have no comparable ships to set. The First Lord knows that it is not merely a question of building three more of these five "A"-class cruisers which are pro-
  2042
  vided for by the Anglo-German Naval Treaty. Germany has reserved her right to increase beyond these five. The situation is simply that at the present moment our 15 "A"-class cruisers are already outclassed by "A"-class cruisers of other navies, and we have bound ourselves to build no more of them until 1942 although other countries can invoke and profit by every conceivable form of escape clause in order to go on building that class of ship. I hope that the result of this will not be a repetition of the melancholy story we learned at Coronel when the "Good Hope" and "Monmouth" found themselves out-gunned and outclassed by the "Scharnhorst" and the "Gneisenau."
  We ought to get the position clear about the 16-inch guns. As I understand it, Japan has reserved her right to instal 16-inch guns, but has not so far categorically announced that she is mounting them in any of her new construction. On the other hand, I understand that we have a categorical declaration by America that she is proposing to instal guns of that calibre in her new construction. If that is the position, it would be a good thing if it could be confirmed so that the House would know what the position is with regard to 16-inch guns. The moment one country puts 16-inch guns into a ship, other major naval Powers will inevitably follow the example. Here again, just as the race is on in the "A"-class cruisers, so the race is on in the 16-inch gun capital ship. I do not know whether we shall get any declaration. We have had a statement by the former First Lord of the Admiralty in answer to a question by myself that even if America or Japan announced an intention to instal 16-inch guns, the design of our new capital ships which are now laid down would not be altered and that we would stick to the 14-inch guns. Does the First Lord repeat that undertaking in regard to the three further capital ships which are to be laid down? I do not believe that he can.
  The general conclusions I am led to are that these treaties give no real limitation whatever. It is all quite illusory, and there is no prospect of any real limitation to be found within the contents of the treaties. This country in regard to its future naval construction has to be guided by its own interests and by nothing else, because there is no real naval limitation in existence. If that be so, let me remind the First Lord that this

  2043
  country has very little to gain, curiously enough, from leading the van in new naval construction. What was said this afternoon about the construction of the "Dreadnought" is true. By building that ship we wiped out the great superiority that we had and we put other naval Powers on an equal footing with ourselves. We gave them an equal start with ourselves in that particular form of "Dreadnought" construction. If the 16-inch gun 35,000-ton battleships are to be built, do not let us feel necessarily that our security is built up in that direction. Do not let us necessarily say that we are going to lead the way in that particular class of ship. Let us concentrate instead upon finding the counter to ships of that enormous size and gun power. Do not let us sit down and say that that is the last word in capital ship strategy or technique or naval construction. The more we see other countries going in for these mammoth ships and guns, the more the brains of our staff and our constructors should be devoted to finding the counter to them. Of all forms of armament competition, big gun and big ship competition is the most futile and wasteful. These treaties do nothing to secure
  limitations of big ship building. They illustrate and underline the failure of the Government to bring about an international situation in which limitation is possible. The race is on in naval competition and construction, and expenditure is bound to increase, with a corresponding reduction in the standard of living. By their failure to support efforts for disarmament and efforts for limitation, the Government have brought about a situation which this country will yet bitterly rue.
  6.26 p.m.
  Viscountess Astor: When I hear speeches like that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), I am not surprised that the National Government win every by-election. I have listened to the speeches of hon. Members opposite with deep interest, and what strikes me most is that, although they are a Socialist party based on internationalism, they are suspicious of everybody. They are even suspicious of Russia now. We have heard their criticisms, but they have not put forward one constructive idea. They talk
  2044
  about the 1922 Naval Agreement and ask why that cannot go on. The reason is obvious. In 1922 Great Britain was strong and the United States of America was strong. Russia was just beginning her revolution, and we had not Hitler or Mussolini. The world was quite easy in those days for reasonable democracies. Now we are faced with a totally different situation. I cannot understand how hon. Gentlemen opposite, who want some day to lead this country, can make the futile speeches which they have made. When I hear hon. Gentlemen opposite speaking, I thank God that in the country we have good old strong trade union leaders who have common sense. When I hear the party fireworks and know that they are not based on anything that is fundamental, I sometimes despair.
  We ought to be deeply grateful for these Treaties. It is true that England has not succeeded in bringing about disarmament, but every child knows that she has led the way. At one moment the party opposite complain that we do not enter every war in Europe, and do their best to put us into it, and the next moment they complain that we have led the rearmament of the world. The right hon. Gentleman who is now facing me knows very well that it was one of the great tragedies that we could not get the other countries to follow us.
  Mr. Benn: Since the Noble Lady is so kind as to refer to me personally I should like to ask whether she has heard of the offer which President Hoover made, and it may be that she read the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he practically rejected the offer.
  Viscountess Astor: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it was only a gesture, that it was not a firm offer from President Hoover. If it had been a firm offer, of course the Government would have had to take it. He knows how difficult it is for a President of the United States—but I do not want to go into that. It was not a firm offer, and there is nobody in the United States who knows both political parties who would say that it was. But what I want to deal with is the way the Opposition talk to-day. They do not trust other countries. They do not trust a soul. They do not even trust their own country. There is not a single person in the world whom they trust.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I would trust you.
  Viscountess Astor: You can trust me to tell the truth. I think it is absolutely miraculous that our Government have done as well as they have done, in a world like this. What have the Opposition to put in place of this Treaty? Before the evening is out will they tell us what they propose to do? We cannot make other countries disarm. We cannot even make people behave well about Spain. What more could England do? That is what I should like to hear. I am a person who, as a believer in the League of Nations, fought five elections on it, and in a place like Plymouth. Proud as I am of the British Navy, I told them I would rather see no navies, if we could get universal peace in that way. Now I say, "Thank God for the Navy," and hon. Members opposite are in exactly the same position. Although they come to this House and criticise the Navy there is not one of them who does not say in his heart "Thank God we have got a National Government." [Interruption.] Of course they do, and, as I have said, if they go on making speeches like those we have heard to-day we shall have a National Government for ever.
  6.33 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I wish to say a word or two about the Treaty which is before the House, a little matter which the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) completely forgot. The Treaty is of such a character that it actually binds no one to anything, and it seems to me that we should be helping towards a better understanding in international affairs if we opposed its ratification and threw it out. That is how I feel about it. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench drew attention to its limitations and said, in effect, that it was only so many words on a piece of paper. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) accepted the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman on this side, but asked us to accept the Treaty because it means nothing. That is the sort of Treaty it is. We shall never get anywhere in international affairs by playing with important questions, and that is the position here. We can only get international treaties which are of any value if they are based on a
  2046
  correct estimation of the forces which are operating, and giving to the forces which are making for peace the opportunity of laying a basis for peace. What is the use of bringing a group of householders and a group of robbers together and getting them to come to an understanding that they will be nice and civil to one another as the days go by. You can get an understanding among householders to defend themselves against robbers, or an understanding among robbers on the best way of relieving householders of their goods, but you will not get an understanding between robbers and householders which will be of any value.
  If we are to make agreements, it is necessary to understand the forces which are operating. The Minister told us that he is hopeful that Japan will see the error of her ways and come in with the rest of the nations. He expresses such sentiments just when Japan has opened fire in China. Is it possible to talk about Japan in such a way, when there has been invasion after invasion of China by Japan? How is it possible to talk in such easy language about the European nations when time and again the word of those nations has been broken without the slightest consideration? If the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) does not want to mention names, I have no hesitation in mentioning them. Everybody knows that Germany and Italy have broken their word time and time again in international affairs. The leaders in those countries have said over and over again that it is a desirable policy to trick and deceive other nations. So where is there any value in such a Treaty as this?
  The Minister said that we must get rid of suspicion, and that if nothing else were achieved the fact that information was going to be exchanged would help us to get rid of suspicion. An hon. Member who spoke from these benches said that information on matters of naval construction has always been obtained, and therefore the giving of this information is the giving of information which the nations already have. The right hon. Member for Epping said that before the War he made an appeal to the Germans, and that Admiral von Tirpitz responded to that appeal, and that the information given by Admiral von Tirpitz proved to be correct in every way. Did

  2047
  the giving of information remove suspicions or ease the situation which existed between Germany and Great Britain, or did it prevent the War? All this is so much nonsense, this giving of obvious information. If we are to have treaties, the thing to do is to find out if there are nations which for any particular reason have a desire or a necessity for peace.
  Are there nations in Europe which desire peace more than anything else? Are there nations which pursue a policy of aggression? What is the use of talking as though all the nations are the same, when we know such wide divergences exist? What is the use of talking of Japan as though she were as peaceful and as unaggressive as Switzerland? Everybody knows that Japan is aggressive; everybody knows that Germany is aggressive, both on the east and on the west, and must pursue a policy of aggression. Last night the Foreign Secretary spoke about the Japanese problems, and when I interjected a question, said he was referring to economic problems. What is Japan's economic problem? The search for markets for her goods. Let the Japanese feed and supply their own people and they will not have to go out into other markets. Why should all countries be so anxious to get their goods into other countries at the expense of their own people?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting very wide of the Treaty.
  Mr. Gallacher: I will come back to the Naval Treaty. I wanted to point out that if treaties are to be made there must be a solid foundation for them and this Treaty has no foundation at all. It is just a feather blowing about in international affairs. Even the Minister was apologetic for it, because it represents nothing of vital importance to the peoples of any country. The thing that is urgent is to have a rapid cutting down of expenditure on armaments and the most widespread expenditure on the building up of home life and human well-being. Therefore, I say that we should throw out this Treaty and seek for an effective one. There should be an endeavour to get together the nations which are for peace. If they were prepared to pool their forces and their resources they could make a
  2048
  real peace treaty, with real naval and other limitations. An hon. Member told us that he wanted Britannia to rule the waves, and there were general cheers, only the fact is that she does not rule the waves. There is no question of Britannia ruling the waves now.
  Mr. Leslie Boyce: The words are, "Britannia rule the waves." It is not "rules the waves."
  Mr. Gallacher: It is obvious that any hope of Britannia ruling the waves is ruined and destroyed by the policy of the National Government. Britannia takes a second, or third, or fourth position as far as the waves are concerned. It is obvious that not only have Germany and Italy taken precedence of Britannia, but that even Franco is able to step in ahead so far as the sea is concerned. Time and again we have heard it said that other nations are building up huge armies. What about our big Navy? Germany may have a huge army. France may have a huge army. Why? Because they say their borders are connected with potential enemy countries. We hear statesmen talk about the madness of building up big armies. What about the madness of building up big navies? It is the same thing as the big armies of other countries. There is talk about 16-inch guns. I have information from one whom I consider to be an outstanding authority on the manufacture and the making of guns, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), that at the present time 17-inch guns are being built in this country—not 16-inch. Is that not correct?
  Mr. Kirkwood: Yes, it is correct.
  Mr. Gallacher: They are naval guns. The Minister is anxious to give other countries information of what we are doing; will he tell us why and for what purpose these 17-inch guns are being built? Information will be given, under this Bill, to other countries, but information asked for in this House will be unobtainable as not in the public interest.
  I insist that the Bill is of no value. It is one of the Bills that create an illusion of something being done when nothing is being done. It will not stop the race in naval armaments or reduce expenditure upon them, and it will not bring about a better understanding among the

  2049
  nations, or take into account those nations who are for peace, and those who are pursuing deliberately an aggressive policy. For those reasons, and because it is of no real value to the people of the world, the Bill should not be supported.
  6.48 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member in his pessimistic outlook on the Bill except to remind him, with regard to the remark he made about aggressive nations, that the most aggressive nation in the world to-day is that nation which stands for world-wide revolution; I mean Soviet Russia. Italy and Germany are not alone to be put into the category of aggressive nations. I have always been opposed to naval treaties because of their hampering and restrictive power over the initiative and the freedom of action of this country to build ships of the size which we require, to the number which we require, and of the calibre which we consider best. That was done away with immediately we signed the Washington Treaty, and later with greater intensity, under the London Treaty of 1930. I realise the necessity for the Washington Treaty, but there was a serious aspect of that Treaty which does not pertain to the present Bill. That was the high limit of 10,000 tons and 8-inch guns for cruisers. The immediate result was, that all nations started to build cruisers of 10,000 tons carrying 8-inch guns. We did not desire to build 10,000-ton cruisers because those cruisers were not satisfactory and were not what we required. They have been a complete failure, but we were only bound to build them as a direct result of the Washington Treaty.
  As regards this Bill, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) said it was of little or no use because of the paucity of the signatories, and that there were so many nations outside it that it would be of no use. I would remind him that the London Treaty of 1930 was originally to be a treaty signed by five powers, France, Italy, Japan, the United States and this country, that is to say, all those sea powers who had particular interests in European waters, and in Far Eastern waters. We had a particular interest in both European and Far Eastern waters. We were, as a fact, the only European nation which signed that London Treaty. France and Italy did
  2050
  not sign it. We were bound hand and foot by it, the only European nation which was so bound. That was a very serious position for us to be placed in.
  We must be strong in European waters; we ought to be strong both in European and Far Eastern waters; but by our signing of the London Naval Treaty we threw away any possibility of being so Not only were we limited with regard to the qualitative side but on the quantitative, which was of greater importance. We were restricted in the number of cruisers we could build. I am glad that that is not the case in the Bill. There is qualitative restriction, and in that respect a fundamental difference from the other treaties which I have mentioned. The result of the Washington and the London Treaties, particularly the latter, has been that we have lost our security at sea, and we have had to pursue a weak foreign policy. The Socialist party are continually condemning the Government for our present foreign policy, but it is due to their action that our foreign policy has had to be as weak as it has been these late years. In the past behind the word of the Foreign Secretary has always been the power of this country, but unfortunately we have lost it.
  The Government have always been found fault with by the Liberal party as well as by the Socialist party. There is only one Member of the Liberal party here. The Government are blamed for the position in which we find ourselves. They are blamed for not discussing the reduction of armaments rather than introducing this Bill, but the Socialist party must know that we endeavoured to bring about a measure of disarmament in the world by setting an example in that direction. We were told by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton that the race was on, and that is perfectly true, but the race started years ago. We have only just entered the race; we did not start it. We have been compelled to do so for our own security and to increase our naval forces. The Bill and these agreements must be all to the good to the extent that the more we can consult with other nations about what is proposed, the more information we can receive from Government sources, the more trust we shall be able to put in each other. The more we are brought into contact with each other the better it must be.

  2051
  I welcome the Bill on that account. There is the question of the Germans being able to construct 10,000-ton cruisers. It is a very real point, and will undoubtedly give them an advantage. The question of 14-inch or 16-inch guns is of the utmost importance. Prior to the signing of the Washington and London Treaties, this country had for a long period set an example to the remainder of the world. If you like to put it this way, we gave a lead. We built ships, of the size we considered necessary for the duties they had to perform and the calibre of guns which we desired. Other nations of the world followed our example. We have lost that position, since we signed the Washington and the London Treaties. There has been a good deal of discussion whether 35,000 tons is larger than is required for a capital ship; undoubtedly it is. I very much regret that the limit is 35,000 tons. I understand that Japan is mounting 16-inch guns in her capital ships and that we are going to mount 14-inch guns. America is about to follow the example of Japan. I hope that the First Lord will very seriously consider this matter of 14-inch guns before following the example of Japan and America. It is not only a question of a size of guns but of the size and number of the ships. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) pointed out that if 14-inch guns could be made to pierce the armount of a ship carrying 16-inch guns, it would be better to have 14-inch rather than 16-inch. There are other considerations in this matter such as draught of water, size of docks, expense, etc., which I would have liked to touch upon, but time does not permit me. I hope that the Government will be in no hurry to abandon their decision to mount 14-inch guns. I would be only too glad if we could revert to the ancient policy of building such ships, in such numbers, and mounting such guns as we considered necessary.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Ammon: I wish to join in the good wishes which have been paid to the First Lord in this, his first essay in his new office. It has been unfortunate that it should be a matter upon which he has not yet got his sea legs. The Bill before us cannot be described as not very important; it is one of the most important
  2052
  Bills that we have had in this House with regard to our naval affairs since the Washington Naval Treaty. It will have an effect upon our naval strength, and certainly upon the naval strength of the rest of the world. The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) always puts into his speeches the breezy atmosphere which we associate with the Service now under discussion. I would point out to him that it is as well to take the trouble to be accurate in the definition of the Naval Treaties to which he has referred. It is not true to say that this country has been placed at a disadvantage with regard to other countries, and I challenge any hon. Member to point out where we have been inferior in naval strength to any other nation.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: The point is that by the London Treaty we were limited to 50 cruisers. In accordance with the opinion of the highest naval experts—Lord Jellicoe, Lord Beatty and every single Board of Admiralty—the lowest number of cruisers which we should have to give security to our trade routes was 70. That is the vital point.
  Mr. Ammon: That is no answer, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now going on from inaccuracy to inaccuracy. There was no question of whether the Navy could do this, that or the other. What he stated was that we were placed in a position of naval inferiority as compared with other nations, and I say without any fear of contradiction that that has not been the case. We have been largely superior to any other European nation and that I say, knowing that a Government speaker is to follow, cannot possibly be challenged. Whether or not we want larger naval forces is a totally different question. I resent very much the suggestion made with regard to a Socialist Foreign Secretary. The late Mr. Arthur Henderson did more to promote peace between the nations, and to make a better understanding and a better atmosphere than has been done ever since, and any suggestion to the contrary is unwarranted and untrue.
  There is a humorous touch to this Debate because in every one of the documents which have been supplied to us we see the words, "Limitation of naval armaments." If there is anything this does not do, it is that. There is no sug-

  2053
  gestion of limitation. There is o restriction, quantitatively, on the size of the Navy. I see that the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington agrees, and if I wanted any further authority I have only to remind the House that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) congratulated the Government, himself, and everybody else concerned on this Treaty which was so full of loopholes, bolt-holes, escapes, escalators and everything else. One has only to look at the proposals to see that that is the situation. It was amusing to hear the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) chide this side on being distrustful of every other nation. If there is anything which is based on distrust it is this particular Naval Agreement. None of them is prepared to trust the other. They can come to firm agreements on nothing, and they are going to leave loopholes, bolt-holes and everything else in order that they may be able to escape from the Agreement.

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

  1. Livestock Industry Act, 1937.

  2. Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1937.

  3. Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners, Etc. (Tenure of Office) Act, 1937.

  4. Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Act, 1937.

  5. Motherwell and Wishaw Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1937.

  6. Coatbridge Burgh Extension, Etc., Order Confirmation Act, 1937.

  7. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1937.

  8. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Halifax) Act, 1937.

  9. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hornsea) Act, 1937.

  10. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Tonbridge Water) Act, 1937.

  11. Banbury Waterworks Act, 1937.

  2054

  12. Hertfordshire County Council (Colne Valley Sewerage, Etc.) Act, 1937.

  13. London Passenger Transport Board Act, 1937.

  14. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937.

  15. Wadebridge Rural District Council Act, 1937.

  16. Torquay Corporation Act, 1937.

  17. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Act, 1937.

  18. Bucks Water Act, 1937.

  19. Whitehaven Harbour Act, 1937.

  20. Woodhall Spa Urban District Council Act, 1937.

  21. Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council Act, 1937.

  LONDON NAVAL TREATY BILL.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. Ammon: Before the interruption I was commenting on the fact that to call these proposed Treaties treaties of limitation shows either an exaggerated sense of humour or a complete lack of it, because that is the very last thing that they are. As has been said already, owing to the various escape Clauses and so on the only limitations are those imposed by the financial resources of the nations or by the wide limits of the ocean. We on this side have a right to remind the House that, but for the action of the present Government in sabotaging the Disarmament Conference at Geneva in 1932 and 1933, it would not have been necessary for us to discuss these Treaties in the House to-night. At any rate, the action of the Government did not encourage the overtures which were made by Mr. Hoover and by Mr. Roosevelt, and which would have gone a very long way to bring down our capital ships to 10,000 tons and to bring about the limitation of armaments in other directions, such as submarines and aircraft carriers. Undoubtedly the present proposals, stripped of verbiage, are proposals once more to commit the nations to a race in armaments.
  The First Lord said that the Treaties gave us something solid and practical, but it seems to me that that is just what they do not do. There is nothing solid in something which allows so many opportunities for escapes and evasions on one excuse

  2055
  or another, and there certainly does not seem to be anything practical when we do not know what our objective is, what are to be the limitations, or with exactly what Powers we are to come to definite agreement. I would press for a little further information with regard to some of the proposals in the Treaty itself, but I want to safeguard myself to a certain extent, and in doing so I take courage from a statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, who evidently found himself in the same position as some others of us. These very important Treaties were thrust upon us late last night, so that, speaking for myself, the only opportunity I had of reading them was in the small hours of the morning after the House had risen for the day, and it may well be that one has not thoroughly assimilated all the points in the Treaty, and that, to some of the questions which have been put by my hon. Friends and others, the answers may be found within the Treaty itself.
  We are discussing, not only the London Naval Treaty, but also the agreements with Germany and Russia, and it is worth noting that Russia is to have the right to preserve complete secrecy concerning her ships under construction and in commission in Far Eastern waters. That, surely, is a very important point. One can imagine, though we hope it will never happen, that a very serious position might arise when a navy of unknown dimensions and strength has been built with regard to which there is no obligation on the party building it to make any communication to its fellow-signatories. Another thing that is worth noting is that, if Japan should build any ships exceeding the London limits, Russia may follow suit in Far Eastern waters after a simple notification to Britain. To call a Treaty of this nature solid and practical is playing with words.
  I want also to ask a question which I think was raised in the first instance by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, and which I know was touched upon by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher). I want to know whether Germany is entitled to apportion her 35 per cent. of the British tonnage of light surface vessels as she likes among the three sub-categories, "A"-class cruisers, small cruisers, and destroyers,
  2056
  or whether she is bound to have 35 per cent. of the British tonnage in each sub-category. To put the question in simpler terms, is she bound not to have more than five "A"-class cruisers to Britain's 15, or may she exceed this number by transferring tonnage from other categories? As far as I can see, the Treaty does not contain any provision on that point. If it does, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will point out the place where it is to be found.
  Human nature being what it is, it is not to be expected that the opportunity would be missed when one so highly qualified and with such great knowledge of naval affairs as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping slips up with regard both to the equipment and the tonnage of some of our capital ships. It will be within the recollection of the House that he postulated that probably Japan would be able to work out whether or not 35,000-ton battleships would be capable of carrying 16-inch guns. But that has already been solved; we have done it ourselves. The "Rodney" and the "Nelson" are carrying 16-inch guns, and be it noted that the "Nelson," even allowing for the heavier armament, is 1,500 tons under the 35,000, and the "Rodney" about 1,100 tons under. Therefore, I, for one, find myself in the happy position of being able to correct and give information to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping with regard to this very important naval fact. There is another point which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton, and on which the House ought to have a direct reply. Will it be communicated to the House when there is to be any departure from the agreement by the notification of one party or another that owing to certain differences, as they see it, in the forces that may be antagonistic to them, they wish to depart from the Treaty? The House ought to be kept fully acquainted with any such occurrences. Otherwise we might, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, be giving all the information abroad and getting none ourselves, and that is a position in which I feel sure we have no desire to be.
  While it is true that, having regard to the state of world affairs, we cannot divide, and should not think of dividing, against these Treaties, nevertheless they commit us once more to an unlimited

  2057
  race in armaments. There will be no limit to the possibilities of naval expansion in the years that lie immediately ahead of us. It was said a little while ago by an hon. Member on the other side that we have made no alternative suggestion. But we have not been responsible for getting the world into the muddle in which it is at the present time, and which, as I have already indicated, was largely caused by the sabotaging of the Disarmament Conference. We have never departed, however, and we do not at this moment depart, from the policy of collective security, which we say is the only alternative. The Treaties that are before us to-night give us no greater measure of security than we had formerly, or than we should have if we were able to come to agreement with other nations through some such body as the League of Nations itself.
  While this Bill will go through the House without opposition to-night, at the same time it will go through on the clear understanding that we shall be committed to a very large race in naval armaments. Moreover, under the escape Clause, if any nation has reason to think it is placed in a position of inferiority as compared with a nation with which it is in not quite cordial relations, it can, by giving notice to the other countries, depart from the Treaty and increase its armaments. That does not secure you any assurance of peace. If Italy starts building a very big navy, France will indicate to us that she feels that vis-a-vis Italy she is in a possible state of inferiority, and, therefore, finds reason once more to go forward with a very much increased armament programme, and almost, of necessity, this country will be bound to follow in her train. Like squirrels in a cage we shall go round and round, not finding a stepping-off place, because we have missed opportunities when they presented themselves to enter into bonds which would have bound the nations in some sort of trust and showed that we meant what we said when we went into the League of Nations, that we were prepared to honour our bond and back it on every occasion when there was a challenge to it. Had we done that, we should not be discussing this situation to-night which, difficult as it is, we have to accept because we are faced with circumstances in the world in the main
  2058
  brought about by the policy of His Majesty's Government.
  7.32 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): While I extend my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman for having a naval holiday in the middle of his speech, perhaps he and the House will extend the same sympathy to me in making my maiden voyage in my present office. When I look round and see experts and naval officers, I feel that I have embarked on a very frail vessel. I also apologise to the House for the inconvenience occasioned by the fact that the Anglo-German and Anglo-Soviet Agreements were published only yesterday. I am sure the House will understand that that is not all our fault. We hoped that the Agreements would be signed a week earlier, but there was delay on some technical point, and we got them out at the first opportunity. I have never taken part in a naval Debate before, but I heard the Washington Debate, I think in 1923, and I also heard the Debate in 1930. I have never heard a Debate on a naval Treaty where so many bouquets have been thrown at the Government. My right hon. Friend must feel very proud. Indeed the real attack against the Government came, strangely enough, from the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I could not help feeling that everything he said applied equally to Russia. It is the first time I have heard him make an attack on Russia. I hope it will be reported in the right quarter.
  The hon. Gentleman who spoke last asked me how Germany is to apportion her 35 per cent. in respect of surface vessels. The German Agreement was based on categories laid down in the 1930 Naval Treaty. In our view, the 35 per cent. should cover each sub-category separately, that is, "A" big cruisers and "B" lighter cruisers and destroyers.
  Mr. Ammon: The point is whether they can all be in category "A" or whether they are to be distributed over a variety of craft?
  Mr. Shakespeare: Sub-category "A" was laid down in the 1930 London Treaty. The definition of light surface vessel is something that has been agreed to since, and did not relate to the particular circumstances of the Anglo-German Agreement.
  Mr. Mander: Is that the German view, too?
  Mr. Shakespeare: I am speaking of the British view. Many hon. Members have raised the question of the 16-inch gun. I think the House will agree that, if there is a departure from the limitation of 14 inches, it is not our fault. Whether we have 14 or 16 inches is not now really germane to this Treaty. It is a question of naval policy which will have to be considered by my right hon. Friend and the Board. I can assure the House that the experts ale fully seized of the problem. It is a matter of great complexity and one for experts, but preparations are well advanced and the matter is in hand.
  The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) raised the question of the uncertainty of the reservation in the Russian Agreement as regards declaration, notification, and exchange of information in the Far East. The position there is not worsened by the Treaty. If there were no Treaty, the same lack of information would still exist. This is a reservation to which Germany agrees. I understand that Russia in the past has constructed only a limited number of smaller vessels in the Far East. In the Anglo-Russian Agreement it is specifically laid down that Russia will not start a naval race in the Far East unless she is forced to build against outside threats.
  Mr. Ammon: The point I raised was that we have nothing to guide us. Russia herself will determine whether or not there has been a violation without our having any further information.
  Mr. Shakespeare: If she builds against the bigger vessels built by Japan, presumably she will have to build in Europe and, if she does that, she will notify us in the ordinary way.
  Mr. Alexander: I made a particular point when the First Lord was speaking of asking him whether the Treaty referred on the secret side of the Russian position only to building in the Far East. Now the hon. Gentleman talks about building in Europe cruisers for the Far Eastern fleet. I understand, therefore, that the answer that the First Lord gave is not the correct one, and that, in fact, there will be building in Europe for the Russian fleet in the Far East which will not be revealed.
  Mr. Shakespeare: What I have said exactly corresponds with what my right hon. Friend said. If Russia builds in Europe for the Far East, she is bound to notify the contracting Powers.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: If machinery is built in Europe and sent across Russia and put together in the Far East, does the same thing apply?
  Mr. Shakespeare: That is a new situation. What is built in the Far East is a matter for her own concern, and she is not bound to notify us. What is built in Europe for the Far East—the hon. and gallant Gentleman will draw his own conclusion—is a matter for notification and exchange of information.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) raised the question of cruisers in sub-category "A". I think most of the principal naval Powers have agreed that this particular type of cruiser is an undesirable type of vessel, and it is in this class that we have secured a naval holiday. That is one of the big features of the Treaty. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that modern big cruisers are more up-to-date than some of our 15 cruisers of this type which were built earlier; but, of course, it is the concern of the Admiralty always to see that those of older construction are brought tip to date. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) raised a number of points about the percentages to which Germany has bound herself, and to what classes they apply. Far be it from me to try to instruct a naval officer. It is all plainly set forth in the declaration between ourselves and Germany, and put much more plainly than I can explain it to him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) asked what do we all get in the way of security for all this money that has been expended. That is a hypothetical question which it is very difficult to answer. If you asked a mother in Bilbao what she gets in the way of security for her children she would say that the millions spent on the British Navy were worth every penny of it, and if the mothers at Bilbao thank God for the British Navy every night, why should not the mothers of England?
  The right hon. Gentleman preferred the old method of the Washington Treaty and the method of the Treaty of 1930. I

  2061
  prefer the 1936 Treaty. May I mention one aspect in which I think it is wiser and safer? In the 1930 Naval Treaty there was no provision for an escape for any of the high contracting Powers even in the event of war: this is put right in the 1936 Treaty. But I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his skill a s a negotiator, could have done better in the circumstances in which we found ourselves. I do not want to argue the merits of quantitative limitation. It has merits and demerits. But whatever its merits it was not practicable seeing that Japan, even if she wanted to have quantitative limitation, would accept no arrangement except on terms to which no other Power would agree, and that France and Italy both found it quite impracticable to have any limitation at all. Indeed the right hon. Gentleman will remember that even under the Treaty of 1930 with which he was concerned, neither France nor Italy agreed to that part of it which limited cruisers. He knows as well as I do that with a large number of Powers participating it is now impossible to get agreement on the question of ratios. Indeed, the introduction of this question itself is, I think, fraught with disadvantages because it cuts right across national prestige.
  His next argument and that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell was that there is hardly anything in it. They say that it is negative, and is really not worth much. My right hon. Friend started by saying that he did not wish to exaggerate the benefit of the Treaty, but, at the same time, do not let us minimise it. I will state briefly what benefit the contracting Powers get. The history of races in naval armaments shows that they occur generally in the form of a qualitative race; that competition has always taken place more in the qualitative than in the quantitative sense. In so far, therefore, as we have qualitative agreement, that is a real gain. We have got it in respect of the capital ship, and the aircraft carrier with the displacement reduced from 27,000 to 23,000 tons. We have got the "A" class cruiser held up altogether; we have the large gap of no construction, and we have got, what even the right hon. Gentleman could not secure in the Naval Treaty of 1930—a limitation in the "B" class cruiser, that is, the cruiser under 8,000 tons with a
  2062
  gun under 6.1 inches. That is a very good thing for ourselves at this moment. We need these cruisers with this calibre of gun to defend our trade routes and our Empire responsibilities. As regards submarines, again qualitative agreement is obtained. Therefore, do not let us minimise the advantages that we get from the Treaty.
  As my right hon. Friend said, however, the most valuable effect of this Treaty is the advance notification. The contracting Powers notify their programmes within the first four months of the year. That is new; that provision has never been made in a treaty before, and it is a very great advantage. The House will notice that that notification in itself, coupled with the pledge not to increase the programme until next year, is a form of quantitative limitation for the current year. That, as my right hon. Friend said, will do a great deal towards doing away with suspicion, rumour, gossip and panic building, which are some of the worst features of naval races. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that one of the most valuable arrangements that we have got from Germany under the Anglo-German Agreement the 35 per cent. ratio. It was hoped that they would agree to try to adjust it so as to refer both to under-age and 10 over-age tonnage. That is the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. Germany has now conceded this point, and I should like here officially to pay a tribute to the reasonable spirit in which Germany has entered upon these negotiations. Indeed, at the present moment there is only one kind of armament limitation as regards air, land or sea in the world as far as I know, until the 1936 Treaty is ratified, and that is the Anglo-German Agreement. This Agreement has been scrupulously observed on both sides, and it has been a model. Difficulties have arisen out of it, but they have always been resolved by friendly exchanges, and, indeed, I think, that it is not too much to say that this Anglo-German Agreement has been the pivot round which subsequent negotiations have revolved. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping paid a tribute to the accommodating spirit of the German Government. I can say the same about Russia. Russia has peculiar difficulties,

  2063
  perhaps, of her own, but she has shown a great spirit of accommodation.
  Several speakers, and, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman, think that Article 26 is too loosely framed. Article 26 is the quantitative escape clause. It is framed on the Washington Treaty, not in identically the same words but, more or less, the whole thing has been taken out of the Washington Treaty and put into this one. There is the escape in case of war in Clause 24, and you have under Clause 25 the qualitative escape in the case of non-treaty Powers building ships not within the treaty limits.
  Let me express my own view as one who has given some study to this Treaty during the last few weeks. You can either try the method of the straight jacket or the method of the officer who is released on parole. I believe that the method of the officer on parole is preferable to the method of the straight jacket. The very elasticity of this Treaty is one of its main benefits, and I much prefer elasticity to rigidity. I believe that the very liberty enjoyed by the contracting parties will itself develop a sense of responsibility, and, with adequate escape clauses in case their national security is threatened, it will be a long time before any one Power takes the terrible responsibility of starting a naval race. In view of the world situation, I venture to hope that it will be a long time before any Power outside the ring will start a naval race.
  Let me make this point, because it is a fair point. Although there are these escape Clauses, it does not mean that the whole naval Treaty falls. It means that in respect of a particular threat by a particular Power in respect of a particular category of ship, the contracting Powers pledge themselves to consult each other. You will have all the machinery of delay and consultation before any action is taken, and then, if necessary, they are free. The delay of consultation and notification comes first. That is a great gain and applies to all the escape clauses, except the war clause. If there is a breach of the Treaty, if there is excessive building either by a contracting Power or a non-contracting Power, it does not mean that the whole garment is lost. It simply means that the stitches are let out in one particular part. That is putting the
  2064
  safeguard in a fairer and rather a different light from that in which it was put by some hon. Gentlemen.
  Finally, I should like to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) in his very excellent speech. He expressed the opinion that this might be the prelude to bigger things. That is the hope, I am sure, of all parties, and it is certainly the hope of the Admiralty and of the Government. It may interest the House to know that in our view this may be the framework of a general treaty. Indeed, negotiations have already been entered into with Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Poland and Turkey, and all these Powers have accepted, with a few minor modifications in respect of certain of them, the general principle of the London Naval Treaty which we are asking the House to ratify to-night. Discussions are also being initiated with Greece and Yugoslavia.
  Therefore, this modest little Treaty which we are now asking the House to ratify, in view of these negotiations, may well be the prelude to a general treaty, and I believe the fact that there is a measure of elasticity in the general treaty will be an inducement for Powers to come in and to stop in when they get in. As the benefits accrue and we get the exchange of information and the mitigation of suspicion, and the advance programmes notified in the first four months of the year, one can only express the hope that two of the seven naval Powers now outside the Treaty may come into the ring in order to get the benefit of this advance notification and this full information. That is a matter for the future, and one can only express the hope. But I am quite sure that, apart from the merits of this Treaty—and they are many—this method really does promote good will between the contracting Powers. The Anglo-German Treaty is an example of the great change in the relations between the German Admiralty and the British Admiralty, and, as someone pointed out to-day, the position between America and ourselves has completely changed. If America and France have ratified, and Germany and Russia have also given their assent: I see no reason why the British House of Commons, which is responsible for the British Navy, and which has as much to gain as any other Power from this Treaty, should not give a hand in the ratification to-night.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question, as I think it will help to get the question of what Germany may or may not build in surface craft under the 1935 Treaty. If we divide these light surface craft into three categories, "A" cruisers, "B" cruisers and destroyers, and assume, for the purposes of argument, that we have 100 ships in each category, is Germany then allowed to build 105 ships, to divide them up as she likes between the three categories, or is she restricted to building 35 ships in each category?
  Mr. Shakespeare: I thought I had explained that matter.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: You did not.
  Mr. Shakespeare: I am sorry. The "A," "B" and "C" sub-categories, under the heading of light surface vessels in the London Naval Treaty were subsequent to the Anglo-German Agreement; and the 35 per cent. could therefore relate only to the classification existing at the time of the German Agreement, that is, that of the Treaty of 1930. In our view the 35 per cent. agreement applies separately in respect of sub-category "A" cruisers on the one hand, and sub-category "B" cruisers and destroyers on the other.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Dugdale.]

  MILK (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of periods for Exchequer payments under SS. 1, 2 and 3 of principal Act.).
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  7.59 P.m.
  Mr. T. Johnston: Since the last General Election on at least 10 occasions in this House the Opposition has protested in the usual Parliamentary form against the continuance of the subsidy to manufac-
  2066
  turers at a time when the less well-fed sections of our population are unable to get milk at all. We have not been able to get from the Government any reason whatever why they should persist in a policy which is denounced by every educationist without exception, a policy which is denounced by the leading Press organs, including the London "Times," a policy which has been denounced by members of their own Government on public platforms, and a policy which they have never pretended to defend in this Chamber. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in dealing with agriculture have many and very intricate problems to deal with, and repeatedly my hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has offered to regard large sections of the agricultural problem as non-controversial and to treat those matters as they would be treated by a Council of State, if the right hon. Gentleman and his friends would undertake that the poor and needy sections of our population would at the very beginning receive the minimum physical standard of foodstuffs laid down by the British Medical Association. We have not got that.
  The right hon. Gentleman says: "Give me another year and I will produce a long-term milk programme," but in those 12 months thousands of our people will die because of this policy.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman disputes that. Let me prove it. How does he justify a mortality rate of 118 per thousand among the children of Blaenau compared with an average of 59 for England and Wales? That difference is due to poverty. It is not due to the ignorance or lack of sympathy of the mothers of Blaenau for their children, but it is due to their inability to feed them properly. Does he dispute that? If so, we shall be delighted to hear what defence he has. I have here the report of an investigation which has taken place recently in rural Sussex. The Cuckfield Rural District Council made a survey, through their medical officer of health who, with the county medical officer of health, examined 304 children and found that 99 of the children were suffering from subnormal nutrition.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman cannot raise the whole question of nutrition on this Clause. If he directs himself strictly to the question of milk he will be in order.
  Mr. Johnston: That is what I propose to do. I have talked about nothing but milk and I do not propose to extend my remarks beyond milk. Milk is the necessary sustenance of babies. I am talking about infantile mortality and sickness, and when I talk about infantile mortality and sickness due to poverty I am talking about milk.
  The Deputy-Chairman: So long as the right hon. Gentleman decides to keep to milk he is in order.
  Mr. Johnston: That is what in my humble submission I have been doing for the last five minutes and what I propose, with your permission, to continue to do. There are thousands of children who will die because during the next 12 months they cannot get sufficient milk at present prices. On the average the price is about 2s. a gallon for domestic consumption and 1s. per gallon for school children. I have repeatedly drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that a child of five years of age gets milk at 1s. a gallon in school. The Government say that that is necessary and desirable and the Milk Marketing Board say the same thing. I and my hon. Friends want to know why it should be necessary to charge 2s. per gallon for milk for a child at the age of four, 2s. when it is aged three, 2s. when it is a baby and 2s. when it is a toddler, and only 1s. a gallon when it is aged five. It is a simple question and we are entitled to an answer.
  I have listened to eight ingenious defences. We have been told that, at any rate, we get cheap chocolate from the milk. I am not saying whether that is desirable or undesirable, but I insist that before we get cheap chocolate it is absolutely necessary that we should have cheap liquid milk in sufficient quantities for the babies and toddlers. We are told that we want milk for export and that we sell 12,000,000 gallons of tinned milk abroad. I know that Czechoslovakia gets a lot of that, but before Czechoslovakia gets tinned milk from this country our babies and toddlers must get the necessary quantities for human consumption. Then we are told that we get cheap cheese and
  2068
  butter. There are those in this House who are prepared to challenge that argument and who say that the effect of the subsidy on milk for cheese and butter is not so great in the cheapening of price as the right hon. Gentleman has said. The influence of large quantities of cheese and butter from the Dominions has had a considerable effect upon the home price.
  It is highly desirable that we should have cheap butter and I rejoice that margarine is disappearing. While it is highly desirable that everybody should have butter, cheap butter, the postponement of a cheap milk supply, particularly to babies and nursing mothers, is indefensible, and we should be failing in our duty if we did not on every possible occasion criticise the Government's milk policy in this respect, and ask the House of Commons to express their abhorrence and detestation of the policy. Let the Minister abstain for once from saying that when a Labour Government were in office in 1931 we had the opportunity of doing these things. I only got £5,000 with which to initiate the milk-in-schools scheme. That was all the money I could get, and I did not get it from the Treasury. It was an experiment. It was the start, and it was on the basis of that experiment that our milk-in-schools scheme has been built up and has justified itself. The milk-in-schools scheme has reached its zenith. There is no increased demand now for milk in schools. It might be that by offering a biscuit with the milk, or by giving hot milk at one period of the year and cold milk at other times, or by flavouring the milk, we might be able to get the children in schools to drink more milk—I hope that we shall—but the fundamental necessity is to deal with children under five and with sick and expectant mothers.
  If we can reduce the price of milk to children under five to the price charged to schoolchildren, we can save on the average, to a mother with three children, about 4s. a week. We are told that a child ought to drink at least one pint of milk per day. If there are three children in a home that means three pints a day, or 21 pints a week. We are also told that the nursing mother ought to drink two pints of milk a day, which means another 14 pints per week. If we could supply the milk at the present price charged to schoolchildren, we could increase the purchasing power of many

  2069
  people in this country by not less than 4s. a week. How can that be done? If the right hon. Gentleman will get his Cabinet colleagues to agree that if a mother is prepared to go or to send to a recognised milk distributive centre, she can get milk at the milk-in-schools price, he could save the cost of distribution, and the thing could be done and done very cheaply.
  There is no social reform that it is within the power of His Majesty's Government and this House to bring about that would do more for the health, wellbeing and happiness of the poorer section of our people. It means no revolution, no bloodshed, no economic disturbance It would benefit the farming community, it would increase the steady demand for milk, it would save the taxpayer, who pays £300,000,000 a year in attempts to eradicate disease after disease has accumulated, it would benefit the ratepayers and benefit the community generally. I suggest that if we cannot get a satisfactory assurance from the Minister we ought to divide against the Clause standing part of the Bill.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Macquisten: There is something in what the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has said. The way to get cheap milk is to allow the people to get access to the milk supplies without the intervention of any Milk Marketing Board.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That question does not arise on this Clause.
  Mr. Macquisten: In that case I will not pursue it, but I would ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland to apply to Mr. Gardom of Vancouver, who will tell them all about the mess they are getting into. They had them all over there. It is getting worse and worse. Of course, milk is far too dear: that is what is wrong. People cannot buy it, and I do not believe that you can get them to go and fetch it. I have had experience of that. I know one farmer at Maidstone who when milk was infinitely cheaper than it is now, was prepared to give an allowance of one halfpenny per pint if people would fetch the milk. They would not take the trouble. They preferred Swiss milk because there was sugar in it. This is probably because people nowadays do not
  2070
  know what good fresh milk is, that they are not keen on drinking what is sold as milk. The milk they get is half-boiled and called pasteurised.
  The Deputy-Chairman: This does not arise on the Clause. The sole point is whether there is to be an extension of the payments for milk or not. The argument of the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) was that the money would be better spent on something else. We cannot go into questions of policy.
  Mr. Macquisten: I have no intention of doing that. I am saying that one of the reasons why milk is not being used is that there is no flavour in it, that the milk is spoilt by the treatment it receives. If you gave that milk away free the people would not fetch it. I know what it is to drink fresh milk, and I know what it is to refuse to drink pasteurised milk. I know the difference. That is what is really wrong. It is a question of whether you can get milk cheap enough and fresh enough. People have lost the taste for good fresh milk, and you will not get them to drink milk until you give them a fresh milk supply. The Minister said recently that without a milk scheme there would be chaos, but it is in more or less chaos just now. The Bill may do a little good, but it is not going to solve the difficulty of getting people to drink more milk. There is only one way in which that can be done and that is by giving them fresh milk and making it accessible at a cheap price. Cut out the distributor. Why not give away the surplus milk? I would rather it should go to the children in the schools if it is fresh. Why should you pay more than the farmer is getting? He is getting I believe 10½d. per gallon and the charge of 2s. is made to the consumer. Where is the 1s. 1½d. going? In London you used to get fresh milk in Hyde Park from cows milked there and the demand was great.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is nowhere near Clause I now.
  Mr. Macquisten: I am very sorry. I was following the right hon. Member for West Stirling.
  Mr. Gallacher: He was never in Hyde Park.
  Mr. Macquisten: He has been very often in Hyde Park. He was speaking about milk being supplied to children at chocolate prices. It would be much better if children were supplied with fresh milk rather than with chocolate: for that is very indigestible. I support strongly the proposal to get fresh milk supplied to the children as cheaply as we can but that is not going to be assisted by this proposal. All Governments, Labour and National, have got into a quandary over this business, and this is to help them to carry on for a bit. I feel satisfied that the whole matter will have to be reconsidered from top to bottom and I would ask the Minister to go out to Canada and find out how these schemes failed there to work. Then I am sure we should get a revision which would be satisfactory and do justice to all parties.
  8.22 p.m.
  Sir Francis Acland: I suppose it is rather an open question whether the Committee should treat this Bill as an interim continuation of the present policy hoping that we shall have a development of policy and machinery in the autumn, or as a peg on which we can hang our particular point of view as to how the subsidy on milk should be distributed. I have not had tea or supper, and that perhaps inclines me to the former course in which it would be wrong to develop the Debate. The right hon. Member who introduced the discussion was quite certain about infants and toddlers, apparently to the exclusion of an all-round free distribution of milk in schools. He said that he was thinking of the infants and the toddlers. I am thinking about them, too, but also about an all-round distribution in schools, treating milk just as you would treat arithmetic, as a thing which children ought to have because it is good for them.
  Mr. Johnston: If you have free distribution in schools for all, that does not get a milk supply to the babies.
  Sir F. Acland: No, but it is much easier to continue something you are already doing than to set up a new organisation. I think, in the circumstances, although it is eight months since the report was produced, the Minister on the whole is justified in asking that the subsidy should be continued and that certain matters in it should be corrected, with the hope that his final scheme will be all the better for
  2072
  the delay to which we have agreed, and which makes the continuance of the subsidy ad interim a necessity.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. Cove: I should like to say a word or two on the plea put forward by the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). We have heard many times of the great importance of a free distribution of milk in schools, and I should be the last person to decry any efforts which are made to get milk to the children through the medium of the schools. A great deal of beneficent work has been done through the agency of the schools, but I should like to point out from my own experience and from the discussions which I have had with many people, that the distribution of free milk in schools will not create that permanent appetite for milk which is desired. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) made a great mistake when, referring to the creation of a taste for milk, he suggested that the children should get milk as they get arithmetic and other subjects in the schools. The real problem is not to get milk added as a supplementary item in the diet, merely to make up for a deficiency, but to make it an integral part of every meal at which liquid is consumed in the homes of our people. In my own home, the children never want tea; they have been brought up to drink milk and at the age of 10 and 14 years, they prefer milk to any other drink. With the distribution of milk in schools only, the children are being allowed to develop a taste for other liquids at home, cheap liquids, such as the cheapest of teas, that the poor people can get.
  The problem before the Minister and the Government is to provide milk at such a cheap rate that the people of the country can have it as a natural thing and the children can look forward to drinking it. The problem cannot be solved in the schools alone. This short-term policy gives us no confidence that the Government are looking at the problem as a whole. It seems to me to be a scrappy policy, dictated not by the problem of nutrition, but by the problem of selling milk for the farmers. The Government have never dealt with the problem of milk from a nutritional point of view. All that they have done has been to say that the farmers are in difficulties and to try, in a

  2073
  higgledy-piggledy, empirical way, to get them out of those difficulties. If the Government were looking at the problem of nutrition as a whole, and if they were seriously convinced that this was a first-class social issue, it is clear that they would tackle the matter in the way suggested by my right hon. Friend and make proposals for providing milk at a sufficiently cheap rate for the parents to get it in their homes.
  I hope that when the Minister of Agriculture is considering his long-term policy, he will not merely be satisfied with the distribution of milk in schools, but will have regard for the necessity of getting rid of the idea of liquid milk as a supplementary item in the diet, and the idea that the consumption of milk is to make up for the deficiency of poverty in general, as far as the feeding of our children is concerned. Milk must be made an integral part of an all-round diet. If the right hon. Gentleman is to deal with the problem as a whole, there is only one way in which he can do it, and that is to put milk within the range of the purchasing power of our people. I have read every pamphlet that I have been able to obtain about the problem of nutrition, and I resent the imputation that our people are not capable of providing decent meals for their children.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Order!
  Mr. Cove: I do not intend to pursue that.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must not pursue it.
  Mr. Cove: I was taking advantage of the opportunity to protest against that, and to say that the problem here is part of the general problem of the capacity of our people to buy milk.
  Mr. Macquisten: The milk must be cheaper.
  Mr. Cove: The hon. and learned Member supports us, and I welcome his support. It is not often that we find him on our side. We join with him in demanding that the Government, in their permanent policy, should have regard for the fact that cheapness of milk is essential, and that milk should be considered as part of the whole diet necessary for the proper nutrition of our people.
  8.31 p.m.
  Miss Wilkinson: It seems to me rather a pity that we should now be faced with a Bill which carries on, apparently as an experiment for one year, arrangements that have already been tested up to the hilt. I think there is probably no section of school life, and certainly no question of nutrition, which has been so fully tested by the Government as the question of milk, particularly for schoolchildren. From the days when the first Lanark experiment was started until the present time, there have been ample figures to show the effect of the consumption of milk on schoolchildren and the need for this milk scheme. We are now asked to pass this Bill, which again continues the present arrangements for one year. It is always said, of course, that whatever one gives people, they ask for more, but in this case, hon. Members on this side of the House are simply expressing the views of thousands of social workers who are dealing particularly with young children. There is no doubt that the milk-in-schools scheme has added to the health of schoolchildren, but surely at a time when the Government are preaching "keep fit" campaigns and urging us to get everybody really fit for the next war, it is important that we should begin early enough.
  Let me first take the question of schoolchildren. I will deal with one section of my constituency; it is not the town of Jarrow, but it is a very poor area. Milk is supplied to schoolchildren there at ½d. a pint. One woman told me that she had three children at school, and that it cost her 2½d. a day for milk, which means 1s. 0½d. a week. Her husband was not under the public assistance committee, as he happened to be at work, receiving a wage 2s. a week less than he would have got if he had been under the public assistance committee. The woman had two children under school age. She told me it was impossible for her to provide 1s. 0½d. a week for milk, but as her husband was not unemployed, the children did not come under the free milk scheme. I saw for myself that the two children who were not at school needed milk even more than the children who were at school, but for milk for them she had to pay at the rate of 2s. a gallon. The chocolate factories can
  get milk at the rate of 9d. a gallon, and

  2075
  cheese factories can get it at 5½d. a gallon. That does not seem to me to be fair.
  Hon. Members who take this side of their work seriously—I do not mean hon. Gentlemen on the other side who enjoy 10,000 majorities and turn up at an annual meeting and perhaps at a garden party—and who are continuously in touch with the working life of their constituency and visit infant welfare centres, find that while children are attending those centres and are getting subsidised "Glaxo" or "Virol," whatever it may be, plus either free milk or milk at a very low price, they do very well. But as soon as a child leaves the welfare centre its health shows a downward curve. That curve continues until it goes to school. The children get the milk when it is too late. I would remind the Minister—and this is also an important point for the Secretary of State for War—that it is in those years that the seeds of ill-health are sown in these small children which affects them in later life. I need only mention caries in the teeth.
  In that connection, I agree with every word said by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) about fresh milk. I think a frightful lot of nonsense is talked about the dangers of fresh milk, and although I know I shall antagonise all sorts of people when I say so, I believe that pasteurisation has been brought in largely as a convenience to big distributors. My own doctor whom I have consulted on this matter is a woman with a big practice in a poor area, and she says that on the whole, children suffer less ill-health if they get fresh milk, even if they do swallow a few extra germs, than if they never get fresh milk at all. I admit the danger of milk that has "gone off" and the difficulty is that in these poorer homes they have not any means of refrigeration, but the point I wish to make about this Bill is that it leaves a gap between the child attending the infant welfare centre and the child going to school. Milk is badly needed by those children because they are just at the period when their bones are beginning to set and their muscles are tightening and yet the milk which they ought to get is being given to cheese factories and to manufacturers of bric-a-brac at a low price.
  2076
  The Minister seems to be more and more obsessed with the idea that while there is a large amount of milk to be disposed of, there is something wicked about drinking cheap milk unless under the most carefully controlled conditions. The Government make elaborate arrangements to prevent a man who is on public assistance from getting 6d. more than he is entitled to. In all the Employment Exchanges there are fearsome notices telling people what will happen to them if they do not declare every cent they have. But is any hon. Member going to say that if a child under five gets a pint of milk cheaply, somebody should be sent to prison?
  Mr. Macquisten: They are sent to prison.
  Miss Wilkinson: I know, and it seems perfectly. idiotic. The friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the farmers, may be fined even yet if they sell milk for human consumption at a cheaper rate than that at which they sell it to the manufacturers and the fine may be £50. Before this administration becomes set in its own way, we have a right to ask the Minister for some guarantee that he will use that powerful mind—which the newspapers of his own Party assure him is the most powerful mind on the Front Bench—to evolve some way of getting this milk cheaply for these younger children. I do not believe that it is in anybody's interest that milk for these very young children should be 2s. a gallon. It is not only a question of the poorest children. The position is bad enough in very poor areas such as I represent, but there are also such people as the clerk who has to keep up appearances on £200 a year and has perhaps two or three children. His wife is at her wit's end to get enough milk for her family. Surely she ought to be able to buy milk as cheaply as Messrs. Cadbury or Messrs. Rowntree. But no, it is said, if you provided this milk for all children you might be giving it to somebody who could afford to pay more. I say, "Why not?" Rather than allow one child under five to go without sufficient milk, give it to Princess Margaret Rose at less than 2s. per gallon. So long as the children have it, what does it matter if some people get it whose incomes are above a certain limit?
  Whoever else needs subsidised milk, the balance-sheets of Messrs. Cadbury,

  2077
  Messrs. Rowntree, Messrs. Nestlé and all the other great milk-using firms, show clearly that they do not need it. I do not mind paying more for my chocolate if necessary, and I am fonder of my chocolate than I ought to be. I would gladly give 6d. a quarter instead of 4½d. if necessary, for my chocolate to enable this milk to be sold for these children instead of being sold to the chocolate manufacturers. But the price of chocolate is falling, although there is no reason why those who are fond of chocolate should not pay a little more for it, while there is every reason why these younger children should have the supplies of milk which are necessary, if they are to lay the foundations of decent health in these most important years of their lives.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. Ritson: I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) as to the necessity for creating a taste for milk among the children. I was brought up in an area where the children were given milk from their earliest years and where the children acquired the taste for milk. But how can we expect that taste to be created under the present system? To create that taste you must begin at the beginning. In the mornings I frequently pass by the houses of people like those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson)—the people who have about £200 or £250 a year. Outside each door I see a little milk bottle, more like an egg-cup than a bottle, and that is the milk supply of the family. It makes one despair of getting people to realise that milk is the greatest food which this or any country can have. I agree too with what has been said about pasteurised milk. There are two kinds of milk of which I am horrified: one is Swiss tinned milk and the other is pasteurised milk.
  The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go into the merits of those on the question now before the Committee.
  Mr. Ritson: As we had already got on to chocolate I thought I might have got in a word about Swiss milk, but I pass from it. I was brought up in a mining area where every miner owned a cow. He attended to that cow as if it had been a human being, he fed it well and it gave results, and every child got milk as soon
  2078
  as it was able to take milk at all. The man who went down to the pit had his pint of new milk starting for work and another pint of new milk when he finished.
  Mr. Macquisten: Does the hon. Member know that if they tried to do that now they would be fined by the Milk Board £5 for each cow?
  Mr. Ritson: Well, some of the cows I have seen would hardly be worth £5. I can assure the Minister that there were no ricketty children in that area. I am anxious to get that milk taste, that is so desirable in our large towns, developed. It is pitiful, as the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) says, to find even men in decent positions who have neither the desire for milk nor the desire to pay for it, but if we begin to acquire that milk taste—[An HON. MEMBER: "Instead of the whisky taste."] Having drunk a good deal of it at one time, I acquired the taste and had a difficulty in giving it up, but I did give it up, and I am anxious that, instead of the whisky taste, we should develop a taste for something that is solid and good and that will build up a child from its very foundations.
  8.47 P.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: I cannot follow my hon. Friend on the question of whisky. I understood that it was not an acquired taste, but a gift—a Scottish gift, not a Welsh one. I want to supplement the appeal made by the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). I understand that the question which we are to decide is whether we will pay, from State funds, a subsidy so that those who purchase milk for manufacturing purposes may get it cheaper. The question therefore arises, Is there some better way, from the standpoint of the people of this nation, in which this money could be spent? My right hon. Friend has urged that a better way to spend the money would be to utilise it as a fund from which cheap milk could be provided for toddlers under five years of age and for mothers. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) made a remark, to which I objected at the time, to the effect, I believe, that one of the difficulties—he thought it was a major difficulty—was that in these days it was very difficult to get people to drink fresh milk, and that they preferred—
  Mr. Macquisten: No. The people do not get fresh milk, and so they do not develop the taste for it. They get sophisticated, pasteurised milk, which is half boiled and which has not got a decent taste, and that is how they lose the habit.
  Mr. Griffiths: The Minister knows very well that this problem of increasing the consumption of milk among children and mothers is a matter of price, at least among the working classes. The other day I called his attention to a report recently issued by the Milk Marketing Board on a scheme that had been adopted and applied to the Rhondda. They decided in the Rhondda that it was desirable to provide cheap milk for children and expectant mothers, and they worked the scheme for a full year, I believe. Now the report has been issued, and it shows that the consumption of fresh milk among the recipients under this Rhondda scheme has increased by 43 per cent. A reduction in the price has meant an increase in consumption of 43 per cent., and who will deny that those toddlers and mothers are infinitely better off for having consumed 43 per cent. more milk in that year than they did before? If the mothers and the children in the Rhondda consume 43 per cent. more milk because the price is reduced, would not that be general for Jarrow, Durham, and all other areas?
  I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture whether there was any process by which such a scheme could be applied to other areas, and he replied that there were difficulties. One of the difficulties was that the subsidy for the Rhondda scheme was provided by the Commissioner. Why cannot this subsidy be transferred? Then there was the difficulty of the distributors, but I would urge this question: Are any distributors or any other people to stand between this nation and this job of providing our people with the milk that is required? I share with the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) the representation of what we think is the most important county in Wales. It is the largest county geographically, and we think it is the most important in other respects as well. He, who represents the rural side of that county, tells me that our county, which has always been famed for its milk and has now a very high
  2080
  standard and repute in the milk world, produces 20,000,000 gallons of milk a year. I live on the industrial side of the county, between Carmarthen and the rest of Wales, depressed Wales, Rhondda, Aberdare, Merthyr, Monmouthshire; and some of that great quantity of 20,000,000 gallons of milk produced in Carmarthen is taken to the towns. Carmarthen and Llandilo, where it is manufactured and sold at a cheap price, made cheap because it is subsidised for the manufacture of "Cow and Gate" and other manufactured products, while in my own village 60 per cent. of the people are unemployed. There are poverty, malnutrition, and suffering among the children, and yet we cannot get the subsidy to provide cheap fresh milk for the children living in Burry Port, while the manufacturers in Llanelly, 10 miles away, can get it from the Government.
  That is a completely indefensible policy. If we have money by which we can subsidise the supply of cheap milk for manufacturers, surely our children ought to come first. Surely we ought to subsidise human life and not profits, first of all. I have said before that in a report recently issued attention is called to this matter by the committee set up by the Minister of Health to investigate maternal mortality in Wales. Maternal mortality is graver in Wales than in any other part of the country, and it is as grave in the county of Carmarthen as in any other parts of Wales. This county, that is so rich in milk, that produces 20,000,000 gallons of milk a year, that sends its trainloads of milk to London, sends away all the best milk and retains the skimmed milk at home, and I say that the Government ought to bring forward a scheme, not to subsidise milk for the manufacturers, but to subsidise the provision of cheap milk for the mothers and the children of this nation.
  I say that the Rhondda scheme is abundant justification for the plea that has been made to-night. It is a matter of price. The mothers and the children will drink fresh milk if they get the chance. I believe it is a taste that can be acquired, and for these reasons I join in the appeal that this nation could spend this money in a far better way, by using it to subsidise the provision of cheap milk, by which we can produce a race of healthy mothers and healthy children,

  2081
  than by using the money to subsidise manufactures and their profits.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: Clause I of this short Bill has provoked a very valuable discussion and an abundant crop of long-term considerations, which will require to be kept in mind when measures of a more permanent character are being framed, but at the present time this Bill, which has now received a Second Reading and Clause I of which we are considering, deals with a very limited subject matter and one indeed on which perhaps little need be said. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who has just spoken, the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), and others have referred to Clause I as if it were giving a subsidy to manufacturers of milk, but, of course, it does not do anything of the kind. What it gives in the first place is not a subsidy, but a guarantee that if the price obtainable for milk for manufacturing falls below a certain figure, Exchequer payments will be available. The money is not payable unless the price of manufacturing milk falls by its own weight below the standard price. This is not a subsidy to the manufacturers of milk. In so far as it is a subsidy, when this guarantee comes into operation, the money is paid to the funds of the Milk Board and forms part of the revenue of the producers of milk.
  The hon. Lady may ask how it comes about that the Milk Board themselves are not able to secure remunerative prices for the milk used for manufacture, and why is it necessary that the Government should assist this particular method of disposing of any of the milk? The reason is that there is an immense importation of cheap butter and cheese, greatly to the advantage of the consumer, and it is that importation which fixes inexorably the price that the seller of milk for manufacture can obtain. Our people have cheaper butter than almost anyone else in the world; it is very cheap compared to its price in some of the countries which produce it. It is that cheapness which determines the low price obtainable by the farmer for manufacturing milk. I hope the Committee will understand that this is not a subsidy which you can switch off from one object to another. It is a guarantee of price in certain circumstances to the producer of milk. It
  2082
  may be asked why it is necessary to guarantee a price to the producers. The fact is that this large amount of milk is available for manufacture, and unless there can be a decent price—
  Miss Wilkinson: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to guarantee the price of manufacturing milk, why cannot he guarantee the price of liquid milk for children under five?
  Mr. Morrison: That is an entirely different matter from the subject-matter of this Clause. The hon. Lady wants us to depart from the present policy and to introduce a large subsidy in aid of the liquid milk price. That is an entirely different affair and would not be a fit subject for a Bill which is merely a continuation Measure. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said there was nothing about nutrition in the Bill. There are two references to it. One is in the reference to the scheme for providing milk for school children and the additional assistance for that; and the second is in Clause 7 permitting the Milk Board to continue experiments in the distressed areas.
  Other hon. Members have spoken as if the fact that we were putting this peg to the price of manufacturing milk meant that we were, as part of our policy, encouraging the diversion of milk from the liquid market to the manufacturing market. There is nothing of the kind. If that had been our policy we have been remarkably unsuccessful in carrying it out. Comparing the first eight months of the contract periods 1935–36 and 1936–37, there was an increase in the liquid milk sales of nearly 11,000,000 gallons, and a decrease in the amount of milk that went for manufacture of 28,000,000 gallons. The increase in liquid sales was 2·9 per cent., and the decrease in manufacturing sales was 13·3 per cent. The object of the Government, as indeed it must be of any Government which works for the prosperity of the country, is to increase the consumption of liquid milk. I hope that I have said enough to show that it is necessary for the economics of the industry that this stop should be placed against the price of manufacturing milk to prevent it falling below a certain level.
  There is one point that should be borne in mind when considering schemes of nutrition for the future. The basis of any nutrition policy is an ample supply of

  2083
  good milk, and in order to get it we must not permit conditions to obtain in the industry that will drive producers out of production. I can conceive that if some policies and views which I have heard discussed and hinted at were carried out, we might easily find a decline in the production of liquid milk which would render nugatory the most ideal plans for increased nutrition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) asked us why it was necessary to have this policy with regard to manufacturing milk. The right hon. Gentleman himself said on 30th October, 1930:
  "If the milk pool is broken and the liquid surplus allowed to flow, the market price comes right down at once to 10d. a gallon—an unremunerative price."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1930; col. 315, Vol. 244.]
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the necessity of preventing the surplus milk being flung on to the liquid milk market with consequences of economic ruin to the industry. That is the same object we are pursuing. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) has a definite phobia about marketing boards. I will not discuss the marketing board with which he is acquainted, but I will simply say that the fact that the producers have been able to organise themselves for the better conduct of their industry has resulted in an organisation which is not contrary to the public interest. We should find it more difficult to organise experiments in nutrition, as we have in the past, had we not got these Boards to assist us. No one can say that the Milk Board have not fulfilled their duty with regard to these schemes, both in the schools and in the distressed areas—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is now getting away from the Clause.
  Mr. Morrison: I apologise. I was carried away into the wider regions of debate which have characterised our discussions. I would commend the proposal to the House as a necessary provision to give us time to consider those greater matters which have been referred to.
  Mr. Johnston: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down will he oblige us by answering the very simple question which we must have put to him 40 times in this House? Why is it that he subsidises milk in schools for children from 5 to 14 and
  2084
  will not subsidise it for children from one day old to five years?
  Mr. Morrison: I approach the answer to that question with some trepidation, but on the assumption that the question has been ruled to be in order I hope I shall be in order in answering it. The milk-in-schools scheme is a very valuable experiment, but the fact that there is one scheme which is working does not necessarily show that every other scheme can work.
  Miss Wilkinson: Why not try?
  Mr. Morrison: This is a matter for another policy altogether. It is a question for a long-term milk policy and for consideration in connection with general nutritional questions, and not at all a subject for inclusion in a Bill which merely carries on for 12 months the financial arrangements which have been found to be necessary for existing schemes.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the reasons why this subsidy—he said "If you can call it a subsidy"—should be granted. He said it would support the production of cheese and butter in order to avoid too great competition from outside or from the Dominions. Will he tell us what are the other forms of manufacture which receive the same benefits under this Clause?
  Mr. Morrison: Manufactured milk consists of a number of products, but butter and cheese are by far the biggest manufactures. Then there are condensed milk, milk powder and various things like that. A good deal has been said about chocolate, a subject which is naturally an attractive one, but if one looks at the list of products of manufactured milk, if my memory is accurate, chocolate is found listed with a whole lot of other goods made from milk which together do not account for more than .84 per cent. of the milk used for manufacturing purposes.
  Mr. Sexton: How many gallons?
  Mr. Morrison: 2,720,000 gallons per annum.
  Miss Wilkinson: An awful lot.
  Mr. Morrison: It is a very small proportion of the total. I can give the figures. This is an estimate of the utilisation of manufacturing milk in England and Wales for the period April, 1936, to March, 1937. Perhaps if I give the percentages it will indicate the position

  2085
  as shortly as possible. There is used for butter 34·24 per cent., for hard cheese, 25·29, for condensed milk for home consumption 17·86, condensed milk for export 3·25, milk powder 3·41, fresh cream 11·93, bottled cream .12, tinned cream 2·50, ice cream .23, soft cheese .33; and other goods, including chocolate, .84. If we take out butter, hard cheese, condensed milk for home consumption and fresh cream, the other milk products represent a practically negligible proportion of the total milk used for manufacturing purposes.
  Mr. A. Jenkins: What is the quantity of milk used for manufacturing purposes other than butter, cheese, etc.?
  Mr. Morrison: Roughly it is about one-third of the total. There are 111,000,000 gallons for butter, 82,000,000 gallons for cheese, 57,000,000 gallons for condensed milk for home consumption and 38,000,000 gallons for fresh cream. If the hon. Member is interested in the actual gallonage of manufacturing milk I can look it out, but it was recently about one-third of the total gallonage. Our experience of the last eight months shows that the use of milk in factories has decreased.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 114.

  Division No. 298.]

  AYES.

  [9.11 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F.

  Dyke Dawson, Sir P.

  Hunter, T.

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

  De Chair, S. S.

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

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

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

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

  Denville, Alfred

  Jarvis, Sir J. J.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Dodd, J. S.

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Apsley, Lord

  Doland, G. F.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Assheton, R.

  Drewe, C.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

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

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

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

  Dunglass, Lord

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Kimball, L.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Balniel, Lord

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Elmley, Viscount

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

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Emery, J. F.

  Lees-Jones, J.

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

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Bernays, R. H.

  Errington, E.

  Lewis, O.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Everard, W. L.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Fleming, E. L.

  Little, Sir E. Graham-

  Brass, Sir W.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Furness, S. N.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Ganzoni, Sir J.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

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

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Bull, B. B.

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

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Burghley, Lord

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cary, R. A.

  Granville, E. L.

  Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Magnay, T.

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

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Maitland, A.

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

  Grimston, R. V.

  Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

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

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

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

  Channon, H.

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Markham, S. F.

  Christie, J. A.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

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

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

  Hepworth, J.

  Mareing, A. C.

  Cox, H. B. T.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

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

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Critchley, A.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

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

  Nall, Sir J.

  Crooke, J. S.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Hopkin, D.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Cross, R. H.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Crossley, A. C.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Crowder, J. F. E.

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

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

  Peake, O.

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Peat, C. U.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Petherick, M.

  Salt, E. W.

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

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Plugge, Capt. L. F.

  Scott, Lord William

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Selley, H. R.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Porritt, R. W.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Radford, E. A.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Turton, R. H.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

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

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

  Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

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

  Ramer, J. R.

  Spens, W. P.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

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

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Storey, S.

  Wragg, H.

  Rosbotham, Sir T.

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

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Rowlands, G.

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

  Royds, Admiral P. M. R.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Captain Waterhouse and Mr. Munro.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

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

  Muff, G.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

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

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Groves, T. E.

  Paling, W.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Parker, J

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Price, M. P.

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Pritt, D. N,

  Batey, J.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Riley, B.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Ritson, J.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Holdsworth, H.

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

  Broad, F. A.

  Hollins, A.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Jagger, J.

  Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

  Buchanan, G.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Burke, W. A.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Sexton. T. M.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Shinwell, E.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Silkin, L.

  Cove, W. G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Silverman, S. S.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Daggar, G.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Dalton, H.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

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

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Lawson, J. J.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lee, F.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Day, H.

  Leonard, W.

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

  Dobbie, W.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Logan, D. G.

  Thurtle, E.

  Ede, J. C.

  Lunn, W.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Viant, S. P.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Evans, D. 0. (Cardigan)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Watson, W McL.

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

  MacLaren, A.

  Westwood, J.

  Frankel, D.

  Maclean, N.

  White, H. Graham

  Gallacher, W.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Gardner, B. W.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Messer, F.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Montague, F.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

  Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill, Schedule agreed to.

  Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of definition of cheese-milk price and provision for butter-milk price.)
  9.21 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, to leave out "September," and to insert "July."
  I apologise for the necessity of introducing a manuscript Amendment. I need
  2088
  not trouble the Committee with the whole of the tangled story of the cheese-milk price, but I would remind hon. Members that Parliament attempted in 1934 to fix a standard price for milk sold for manufacture. Parliament proceeded to arrange for the payment out of public funds of assistance to the producers of milk, used for manufacture, which was sold at a very low price. The form of the financial arrangement is important. Parliament took the formula contained in the

  2089
  current milk contract, as an indication of what the Milk Board might expect to get for its milk sold for manufacture, and arranged for payments to fill the gap between what I call the formula price and the standard price.
  The Milk Board is governed, like other producers' organisations, by the Agricultural Marketing Acts, which contain a number of provisions for safeguarding the interests of the consumer. This machinery was invoked by the manufacturers who complained that the prices determined by the formula in the contract and in the Act for cheese-milk was so high that they could not afford to pay it if they were to compete with the imported article. The Committee, after long investigation, found that the price was too high, not on the grounds that the producers were getting too much, but on the simple ground that the ruling prices of milk products imported from the Dominions and overseas were such that manufacturers could not be expected to pay the price laid down in the formula. By this time, the last piece of legislation extending the Milk Act had been passed, in March, 1936. The result has been that since the new price which the Board are receiving is less than the formula price defined in the Act, the Milk Board are not getting, with the Exchequer assistance, the standard price. The assistance which can be paid to them is still limited to the difference between the formula price and the standard price, but that formula has no longer any bearing on what the Board actually receive for manufactured milk.
  The Government have taken the present opportunity of attempting to cure this anomaly at the earliest possible moment. The Bill proposes to introduce a new cheese-milk and butter-milk price from 1st October, that is to say from the commencement of this Measure and the expiry of the Act now in force. Upon consideration of the whole matter it seems to me, as I have told the Committee, that we should put the matter right at the earliest possible moment, which is not, strictly speaking, 1st October, but when this Bill becomes law, and that is about 1st August. Certain hon. Friends of mine have upon the Paper Amendments which, if they were carried, would antedate the new formula to 1st April last, but I cannot accept that proposal, of course. That sort of way of dealing with the matter means going back and im-
  2090
  posing a liability on the Exchequer which did not exist before this Measure passes. The earliest possible moment after the Bill is passed on which the new formula can be brought into operation is 1st August, and I suggest that that is a just way of settling the matter. The effect of ante-dating this by two months will be as follows: The boards—the producers of milk—instead of having to repay £80,000 during August and September will receive £50,000 for the two months. That is a sensible arrangement from the point of view of all concerned and I commend the Amendment to the Committee.
  9.26 p.m.
  Mr. T. Williams: Since this Amendment is strictly in accordance with the promise made to one of my hon. Friends on Second Reading we see no reason why we should oppose it. It is correcting an anomaly or misunderstanding and, while we have just voted against any subsidy for manufacturing milk while there are so many women and children unable to buy liquid milk, we feel that as the Act has been passed it is right for the right hon. Gentleman to correct at the earliest moment a misapprehension.
  9.27 p.m.
  Sir F. Acland: From one point of view this is an extra subsidy and it might be expected that those who sit here, who have generally taken a line against subsidies, would vote against it. If the Government were proposing to put in a new principle or to extend some principle in the original Bill we should probably have to do that, as we voted against the extra wheat subsidy the other day because we did not think that there was a justification for that. But this is to get back for a couple of months earlier than would otherwise have been to the idea which was in all our minds when the original Bill was passed—namely, roughly, that the producer's price should be made up to fivepence or sixpence as the case might be. That being so, as this only restores rather earlier than otherwise would have been the system of paying to the principle we all thought was being adopted, it seems to me that that is a perfectly reasonable arrangement of which to approve.
  9.29 p.m.
  Major Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith: I and my hon. Friends were going to move an Amendment and plead that the House

  2091
  should go a little further in trying to carry out the original intention of the first Act, and I had hoped to be able to produce a case which would have wrung the hearts of those who are inclined to be a little unbending towards the farmers, but whether it would have done more than wring the hearts I do not quite know. But after listening to my right hon. Friend I am forced to the conclusion that a little concession granted is worth more to the milk producers than even the forlorn hope of trying to go through the Division Lobbies. I hope that the Committee will accept this Amendment, because there is equity behind it and the Minister is doing the right thing, as far as lies in his power, to give effect to the original intention of the 1934 Act. If the Committee will accept this Amendment it will relieve me of a great responsibility because I will not feel that I have to propose the two Amendmentc which stand in my name.
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. Price: I am very glad that the Government have made this offer and I am very glad that so far it seems to be satisfactory to those Members concerned on the producers' side. I feel that there is this aspect too which ought to be considered. There is no doubt that many of those who are manufacturing cheese and butter have for the last six months been getting their raw material exceedingly cheaply. It may be that they have foreign competition to meet, as the Minister said, but I would like to call his attention to this fact. I know it is the case that the Milk Marketing Board have had difficulties on certain occasions in supplying sufficient liquid milk for the milk-in-schools scheme, schemes for the supply of milk in factories and other welfare schemes because so much milk has been monopolised by the manufacturers. At the time when milk production goes down, at the back-end of the winter, there has been a definite shortage. The result has been that the Milk Marketing Board have had to go cap in hand for their own milk to some of the manufacturers, who have been ready to release the milk only at a premium. That is a situation which ought not to be allowed to continue and if this proposal does something towards that end it will be a good thing.
  The Bill by setting up a new basis for the calculation of the manufacturing
  2092
  price of milk is right, but the Government are proposing to do something to put right the injustice which producers have suffered from for the last six months, amounting to more than the Government have agreed to give.
  9.33 P.m.
  Mr. Macquisten: I support this, too, because the Government have laid heavy burdens on the backs of the milk producers. They have to bear all the vast cost of these officials. We have experience of them in Scotland. On fine days they can be seen coming down in crowds; on wet days they stay in. It is only right that the Government, who have subjected the producers to this system, should contribute as much as possible. The Minister has spoken about marketing boards and marketing schemes. If he would pay a visit to Canada with the Secretary of State for Scotland and get information there about marketing boards—
  The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss that.
  9.34 P.m.
  Sir Joseph Lamb: As my name appears on the other Amendments I would like to say that agriculture still maintains and believes in the justice of the claim put forward in the other Amendments. It believed that it was the real intention of the House that that claim should be met. The Minister has told us that we cannot have retrospective legislation in this case. He gave a pledge on the last occasion that he would put this right. He is doing so.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am troubled about the general unanimity on this question of an aded grant to the farmers. I am not opposing, but I want every Member to take note of the general unanimity and to ask that when Members are discussing other questions, such as old age pensions and unemployment relief, the same spirit of big-heartedness which has been expressed to-night will be shown to the poor, who are in actual need.
  9.35 P.m.
  Miss Wilkinson: Could I ask the Minister a question? In his speech moving this Amendment he referred continually to the formula price and he said that the price really depended on the low price of dairy products in this country. The

  2093
  Minister has repeatedly stated, during the discussions on the Bill, that the low price is practically due to what it used to be the fashion to call dumping, namely, the fact that producing countries put their dairy products on the market at a price lower than that at which they are selling them in their own country. Is not that true as regards Italy, Denmark—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I hardly think that that question arises on this Amendment.
  Miss Wilkinson: With all respect, I want to get at the question of the formula price. In this Amendment we are being asked to alter the date of the formula price because of certain calculations, but may I suggest, with very great respect, that it is important that we should know, before we alter the date, how this formula price is arrived at, in order that we may see whether this particular date is correct? I should like to ask the Minister also whether he is doing anything at all to improve the efficiency of dairying and milk production in this country, so that we are not actually penalising profits which are really the result of organisation, and bolstering up by the Bill a price which is in fact only so high because of the inefficient and wasteful competitive production of milk that we have in this country. It seems to me to be on that point that the whole of the Bill really rests, and, beyond vague compliments, which are always paid to the farmers of this country, we have never heard from the Minister whether in fact he is satisfied that the method of producing milk in this country is really as efficient as it ought to be if it is to compete fairly with much more efficient dairy producing countries like Denmark and Sweden.
  9.38 p.m.
  Mr. Morrison: I have explained the formula price in previous discussions, and the hon. Lady will find it accurately described in Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Milk Act, 1934, which shows how it is linked up with the prices of New Zealand and Canadian cheese. With regard to the general question of efficiency, we are certainly doing what we can to improve our own agricultural industry, but I would point out that on the manufacturing side there exists a very valuable check as to the efficiency of milk
  2094
  manufacturers in the possession by the board of their own factories. They are able, by operating themselves, to check costs and improve efficiency in the manufacture of milk. The improvement of efficiency in any industry is a continuous process, and, although I admire the way in which many of our producers are meeting their difficulties in producing their milk and other dairy products, I still think we should never rest quite content, but should seek after ever higher standards of efficiency in this matter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 24, leave out "September," and insert "July."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  MILK (AMENDMENT) BILL.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Payments by boards to registered producers in respect of milk sold at a reduced price.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    9.41 p.m.
    Miss Wilkinson: Again I desire to ask the Minister for information. It seems to me that under Clause 7 it is possible for the Minister to extend the scheme with regard to registered producers at a reduced price in such a way that it would be possible to sell milk at a reduced price to nursing mothers and mothers of children under five. I rather gathered, from what the Minister said on Clause 1, that that would not be possible under this scheme. He rather suggested that we were bringing in extraneous matter on what was merely a continuation Bill. It seems to me, however, that if under Clause 7 there are to be arrangements
    "for the sale by registered producers, at a reduced price, of any quantity of milk produced in the area to which the scheme applies,"
    it would be quite possible to say that any scheme applies, and that, if the Minister desired to extend the milk scheme so as to include children under five, it would be possible under Clause 7 of the Bill. Have we not, therefore, a right now to ask the Minister whether he suggests that it would be possible to make such an extension? If so, why did he say that this was merely a continuation

    2095
    Bill, and that therefore it could not be done? It seems to me that we have here all the machinery that is necessary to undertake what we asked should be undertaken when we used Clause 1 as the peg on which to make that request.
    9.43 P.m.
    Mr. Morrison: Clause 7 deals with the machinery by which the Milk Board is enabled to participate in schemes such as those which are in operation in Jarrow, and other parts of the special or distressed areas. These schemes have been in operation for some time, but doubts have been expressed as to the legal position of the Board in relation to these payments, and advantage is being taken of the present opportunity to put that matter beyond doubt, so that the Board will be able to continue these schemes and, if possible, to increase them.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does that mean that no further scheme of that kind could be undertaken without fresh legislation?
    Mr. Morrison: It does not mean that at all. It means that the present schemes have their legal validity put beyond all doubt so far as regards the payments to them by the Milk Board. As regards the larger question of nutrition policy, as I tried to indicate earlier in the Debate, this would involve a decision as to what form the policy should take and it would have to be dealt with as a separate matter involving far more than agricultural considerations. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the principal Act lays down a limit of money. It states that not more than £1,000,000 in the aggregate shall be expended under the Sub-section, and that provision ties the expenditure down in the meantime to certain schemes.
    9.44 P.m.
    Miss Wilkinson: Since the only limit is the financial limit, would it not be open to the Government, if sufficient pressure were applied, to extend the operation of Clause 7 by bringing in a Supplementary Estimate?
    Mr. Morrison: It would not be done by a Supplementary Estimate. The limit which exists in Section 11 of the principal Act could not be got rid of without fresh legislation, amending that Section of the Milk Act, 1934. The question whether this would be the proper and best machinery, if schemes of the
    2096
    character to which the hon. Lady has referred were entered into is, of course, another question.
    Mr. Jenkins: Has the whole of the £1,000,000 allowed for this purpose been exhausted or, if not, how much of it?
    Mr. Morrison: There are contributions made to these special schemes by the Board and by distributors and so on. I could not say how much money is left.
    Mr. Jenkins: The £1,000,000 is provided from Government funds.
    Mr. Morrison: I could not give an accurate figure. This Clause is merely to continue the power of the Milk Board to contribute to these schemes.
    Miss Wilkinson: The right hon. Gentleman said it is not possible to give us what is the vital thing under these schemes when he has a whole collection of experts there. If under that box they have not the exact figure, someone ought to be sacked. Before we can possibly pass this Clause, to which I have no objection whatever, and which I am most anxious to see passed, we ought to have this information. The Minister has done nothing but evade questions. He has done it in the most charming possible way, but he has evaded them. Will he send his Parliamentary Private Secretary to that box and ask how much of that £1,000,000 has actually been spent?
    9.47 p.m.
    Mr. Jenkins: I am very surprised that the Minister cannot give us this information. Someone in that box ought to be able to tell him how much has been spent. It is most amazing that we cannot get accurate information. The Minister has suggested that I should put down a question, but that would he much too late. It is of very considerable importance that we should get the information before the Clause is passed. I hope the House will express its dissatisfaction, perhaps not with the Minister but with those who are here and who cannot supply us with the information.
    9.49 P.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: At the end of the second year following the operation of the 1934 Act was not some statement made as to the exact proportion of the £1,000,000 actually spent upon cheap milk for

    2097
    elementary school children and the amount devoted to advertisements and expenses and experiments? Some such statement must have been made at the end of the two-yearly period. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have it at his disposal when we are extending the same scheme, so that we should know whether or not the total sum has been called for or whether a less sum would have been necessary.
    9.50 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) as the Noble Lady. It is evident from the discussion of the last few moments that
    "Kind hearts are more than coronets,
    And simple faith than Norman blood,"
    because my hon. Friend has shown a touching belief and a simple faith in the capacity of the Government to answer simple arithmetical questions which only a person of the class referred to by Tennyson could possibly have achieved. It is really astounding that this quite simple question, which one imagines the Minister had to take into consideration before he decided to put the Clause into the Bill, should have caused such consternation. I do not call for the dismissal of the Civil Service. They are in the box while the Minister is in the cart. I imagine that two or three of them wish they were in his place, so that they could give us the one figure for which my hon. Friend asks. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is himself endeavouring to secure the figure. I can only hope that we shall now receive it. He is not treating the Committee with respect in declining to give us the very simple information for which he has been asked.
    9.52 p.m.
    Mr. Morrison: A little confusion has arisen because of the reference in the Clause to Section 11 of the principal Act, which permitted contributions from the Exchequer towards the expenses of the Milk Marketing Board. The figure of £1,000,000 was inserted as a maximum which must not be exceeded—a contribution for the milk-in-schools and other schemes at the rate of £500,000 a year. The money that has been voted for that purpose in the past will have been spent by the end of the present year, and we are providing in the Bill for £500,000 to
    2098
    carry on that assistance at the same rate for the 12 months ahead of us. With regard to the other schemes of assistance for cheap milk for Jarrow and Rhondda, that is a matter that lies to some extent outside my purview, except in so far as the Milk Board has contributed towards the expenses. In these cases there is no Government money properly so called at all. The funds for these schemes are made up from three sources, the Milk Board, the distributors, who accept a lower margin of cost for distribution and, thirdly, assistance from the Commissioner for Special Areas. It is Government money indirectly, but it has nothing to do with the £1,000,000 in Section 11 of the 1934 Act. That refers to the expenditure for milk in schools, etc., at the rate of £500,000 a year for the two years over which it was to run originally.
    9.54 p.m.
    Miss Wilkinson: Surely the Minister has now made things worse. He referred earlier to the rigid limit of £1,000,000 and, when we asked him how far we could possibly extend the scheme and the arrangements that were being made, he said the limit was the £1,000,000 granted under Section 11 of the original Act. Now he says that will all be spent by the end of the year. That is connected with the school scheme, and there is some unspecified amount, which he says he does not know, which deals with the Jarrow and Rhondda schemes. When he says that the Government have nothing to do with that, and they are not Government schemes, I would ask, have not the Government everything on earth to do with the Milk Marketing Board? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Really, this Government spend their time in pumping life into the Milk Marketing Board and in providing subsidies for them, and what on earth is the object of this Bill, if it is not to give more life to the Milk Marketing Board? Does the Minister say, in respect of the Commissioner for the Special Areas, that the money upon which he operates is not actually Government money? To whom has the Commissioner to look for money but the Government, except to a few charitable arrangements like the Nuffield Trust?
    This is not good enough. This House is the custodian of the public purse and has a right to know how much money is being spent from Government sources on

    2099
    the Rhondda and the Jarrow schemes, and to what extent it is possible to extend the scheme under Clause 7. I would like the Minister to reconcile his previous statement that the £1,000,000 for two years was a rigid limit, with his statement now, that there is an unspecified amount. What we are anxious to get at is to what extent it is possible to extend Clause 7 to other areas than Jarrow and the Rhondda. Even in my own constituency Jarrow is not the only area. There are pockets of poverty, even worse than Jarrow, and I am determined that the House shall know something about them. We want to know to what extent the Clause can be extended. May I for the third time to-night, as the Minister has been across to that Box and obtained one alteration of the original statement that he made, suggest that he should ask his Parliamentary Private Secretary to go and find out the further information?
    The Minister shakes his head, but I must appeal to him. We really have a right to know, and the Minister knows perfectly well that the figures can be obtained. The Minister says that if we put down a question, he will give the answer, and that means that the figures are available in his Department. I have been a Parliamentary Private Secretary myself and I know that every figure that can conceivably be asked for in this Debate is in the hands of the civil servant. I was not really suggesting that one of them should be sacked, but that the sacking should come nearer home than that. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures of these schemes so that we may know to what extent they can be extended? Surely that is a most reasonable request.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope that the Committee will not think that I am unreasonable. As I explained, the schemes in which the hon. Lady is particularly interested are the schemes in the Special Areas, and it is to these areas that she is directing the attention of the Committee. I told her that Clause 11 contained the limit of the £1,000,000 provided in the original Act, and that that is for assistance for milk for schoolchildren. As I have already explained to the Committee, the moneys for the Special Areas schemes are derived from three sources.
    2100
    I am not responsible for the Commissioner for the Special Areas. I do not carry his expenditure in my head, nor is it in my Department, and if information is desired from the Commissioner for the Special Areas, the hon. Lady should address her question to the proper source.
    Mr. Jenkins: Can the Minister tell us what amount of the £1,000,000 for milk in schools has been spent?
    Mr. Morrison: I told the hon. Member that the money that was voted last year for this scheme will be spent by the end of this year. It is being spent at the rate of £500,000 per annum, and that is the reason why we are asking for authority to spend another £500,000 during the time ahead of us. The actual state of the fund must vary from day to day, and I do not know what the hon. Member wishes more than that. The funds of the Milk Board are their own concern. The funds of the Milk Board are of the value of £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 a year, and the milk they handle comes from the producers for whom they are administering this matter. As regards any other source, the distributors contribute towards it in their own particular areas. If the hon. Lady wishes for information concerning the funds at the disposal of the Special Commissioner she should ask my colleague, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. Jagger: Who audits the accounts of the Board?
    Mr. Morrison: A firm of auditors.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  COAL (REGISTRATION OF OWNER SHIP) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE I.—(Registration of particulars of ownership.)
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. Batey: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "therewith," to insert:

  2101
  "including particulars of wayleaves surface and underground."
  We are anxious to secure that the register should not only contain the particulars of ownership of coal, but also particulars of ownership in regard to wayleaves both on the surface and underground. When the Bill was before the House for Second Reading, it appeared as though it was directed only to the registration of owners of coal. On the front page of the Bill which contains the Financial Memorandum it says:
  "The object of this Bill is to enable the Board of Trade to register particulars of the present ownership of coal."
  I believe that there must have been a mistake in the drafting of the Bill in limiting it merely to the registration of the ownership of coal because for many years miners have not only had a grievance against royalty rents and have argued and agitated for the abolition of royalty rents, but they have also coupled with royalty rents wayleaves. We believe that wayleaves ought to be abolished just as royalty rents ought to be abolished. Therefore, seeing that the Bill merely provides for a register of the owners of coal, we want it to be provided that the register shall also include the owners of wayleaves, on the surface and underground. I should like to give a typical case so that the Committee will see how urgent is this matter. Two years ago in the county of Durham a coal company went before the Railway and Canal Commission with a view to getting relief from wayleave rents. The coal trade was not doing as well then as now, and the coal company found the pressure of the high rents for the wayleaves which they had to pay so severe that they decided to go before the Railway and Canal Commission to seek relief from those rents. I cannot do better than read a statement sent out by the company after the case had ended:
  "Application by the Consett Iron Company, Limited, before the Railway and Canal Commission for relief in the matter of rents for wayleaves for use of surface lands used as a railway between (a) the Iron Company's collieries and its loading place on the River Tyne, (b) between its collieries and its coke ovens and bye-product plant at Derwenthaugh, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and (c) between its collieries and access to the North Eastern Railway.
  The short facts set out in the application show that:
  2102

  (1) The railway was made by the Iron Company and is maintained and worked by it.

  (2) There is no other way to get the coal from its collieries except by means of way-leave lands.

  (3) The lands belonging to the lessors are about 27 acres, and are worth at a full letting value, plus allowances for disturbance, less than £5 per acre per annum.

  (4) The Iron Company endeavoured to buy the lands and offered a high price, but the lessors refused to sell.

  (5) The company paid during the period from 1st January, 1890, to 31st December, 1931, to one lessor a total of £97,872, and to the other lessor for the same period, £66,601, making together a total of £164,473. This, divided by 27 acres"

  which was the amount of land they were using—
  "was a total of £6,092 per acre, without interest."
  Although the letting value of the land was about £5 an acre it cost the coal company £6,092 per acre. The company went on to say:
  "So long as the collieries continue working these payments, at the present time about £6,000 per annum, would have to be paid unless the relief sought for could be obtained."
  The company went before the Railway and Canal Commission and the Commissioners granted relief, ordering that the rent to be paid in future should be £10 per acre per annum, amounting for the 27 acres to £270 per annum, and an order to that effect was issued. The lessors appealed to the Court of Appeal and by a majority the Court of Appeal was against the Railway and Canal Commissioners, with the result that the coal company has been doomed to continue to pay at the higher rate.
  Miners are affected by a question like this because these rents have to come out of miners' wages. Before there is any opportunity of the miners getting any wages these rents for wayleaves have to be paid. This is a typical case of many others that could be quoted, and we contend that these excessive rents for way-leaves whether on the surface or underground should be done away with. The company is in the hands of the lessors and they must pay the rent or close the colliery. With regard to wayleaves underground a colliery may be working one piece of coal and they may have to bring it over somebody else's coal in order to get it to the surface. In doing so those who own the second parcel of coal insist

  2103
  upon a wayleave being paid for the carrying of the coal from where it is being worked to the pit shaft.
  Miners have conducted a long agitation for the abolition of royalties, believing that royalties were wrong and that they did an injury to the miners, and just as we have conducted that campaign for the abolition of royalty rents we think that wayleaves also should be abolished. Therefore, I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment so that it can be provided in the Bill that the register when completed should be a register not only of the owners of coal but also the owners of way-leaves, so that we may have the way-leaves abolished along with the royalty rents.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I desire to support the Amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept it. This is a machinery Bill designed to acquire information in order to make easier later on the passage of another Bill, which we cannot anticipate and discuss to-night. I want to support what has been said by my hon. Friend. Those of us who have spent our lives in this industry know, speaking for both sides, that the rents and wayleaves are often even more onerous and aggravating than the problem of the royalty owners. It is rather difficult to find out what the wayleaves and rents represent. I have been making a calculation. In a statement to the tribunal, which was accepted on both sides, it transpired that the average annual rents paid in royalties in this country was £4,430,000. I assume that that figure excludes the amount paid in wayleaves and rents. Therefore, I have calculated that the average amount paid in the total for royalties and way-leaves in the last 15 years is not less than £5,655,000. If we deduct from that the £4,430,000 paid in royalties it leaves £1,225,000 which is the amount paid in wayleaves and rents in the coal industry. We who are interested in the men's side of the industry have asked for a measure of this kind for a long time. All these items go on production costs against the wages of the men, and it is not a matter of theoretical nationalisation but of daily bread for the people we represent. Therefore, we want this information to be collected. My own view is that any attempt to put in force any scheme for
  2104
  the nationalisation of royalties, if it leads to changes in the industry, may be rendered nugatory by these very way-leaves. Unless power is taken now it will be impossible to deal with this problem. Merely to make coal itself national property and to leave alone all these things which surround coal, the wayleaves underground and the wayleaves on the surface, is merely to deal with one half of the problem. For these reasons I support the Amendment and hope it will be accepted by the Minister.
  10.18 p.m.
  Mr. Spens: I do not rise to speak as to the desirability or not of putting in wayleaves either on the surface or underground, but to ask whether or not that question is not already adequately covered by the provisions of the Bill. The Bill says that in addition to the proprietory interests in coal there shall also be registered:
  "the property and rights which are held in association with such coal and mines or any of them and in which the holding subsists."
  A wayleave is a right of way, either above ground or under ground, and it is obviously a property or right which is held in association with coal where that right of way is enjoyed and is attached to the ownership of coal. Secondly, hon. Members will also see that the register will include
  "the servitudes, restrictive covenants and other matters subject to which the coal hereditaments in which the holding subsists or any of them are or is held."
  Therefore, whether they hold coal subject to a right of way belonging to some other coalowner they will have to register that adverse right of way. I suggest that the one exception to rights of way which are enjoyed not in respect of holdings of coal but rights of way which are enjoyed in respect of some surface rights which do not come into this Bill, is the only exception to the rights of way which hon. Members opposite suggest ought to be registered. Therefore, I suggest that the Amendment is not really required, and if we add to the register every single right of way enjoyed by the owners of coal in respect of coal property you are going to acid a great number of details which delay registration in many cases, and I doubt whether they would be of any great value for the purposes of the next Bill.
  10.19 p.m.
  The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I am fortified in what I was going to say by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), because he has made the position much clearer than I can. The purpose of the Amendment is already covered by the requirements of the register now and it is therefore redundant. It is not a desirable thing in a general drafting sense to put them in because if you make a specific reference to one example you give the appearance of limiting the scope of the Clause. On these grounds the Amendment is unnecessary, and I hope the Committee will not accept it.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. Pritt: I wonder whether the Minister, before giving his reply, considered the possible danger in cases such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). The words:
  "The property and rights which are held in association with such coal and mines"
  give one the easy impression of embracing these things, but in different parts of the country, where the distances are rather long, a wayleave may be operated as an easement or other right of way over land a considerable distance from the pit. I am not sure whether that is satisfactorily covered by the Bill as it stands.
  10.21 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Seely: I am not entirely satisfied by the Minister's statement. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) said that the drawback of putting in the words of the Amendment is that it would take time and would add to the difficulties of registration. Speaking as a royalty owner and a coalowner, I consider that this is a very serious matter. If this registration is to be of any value, it must cover all the points. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford gave as a reason for not accepting the Amendment the fact that it would complicate the registration and take time, but surely that is not a sufficient reason. Anybody who knows anything about this registration knows that the question of wayleaves is most important. It is not clear from the Bill that the wayleaves are included. If the Amendment were accepted, it would be far more clear that the question of wayleaves was being fully dealt with.
  10.22 p.m.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: May I put a concrete case to the Minister with a view to finding out whether what we have in mind is dealt with? In the area from which I come, where anthracite is very largely the coal that is worked, there are cases where a slant is driven into barren ground right into the mountain until eventually coal is reached. The owner of the land at the mouth of the slant is not the same person as the owner of the coal. There is a lease by which the owner has the right to work the coal and pay a royalty, and there is also a wayleave paid for the adit or level. Would that adit or level come under the term:
  "Certain property and rights held in association therewith"?
  There is also the case referred to by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). I would like to have an assurance from the Minister as to whether two cases of that sort are covered.
  10.24 p.m.
  Sir Stafford Cripps: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has really dealt with this matter quite satisfactorily. He seemed to be in danger of doing what I am afraid the House often does, that is to say, accepting an assurance that something will be interpreted as we wish it to be interpreted, which assurance leads afterwards to endless litigation. The courts might eventually find that the assurance was not accurately given, not because the hon. and gallant Gentleman or his Department wanted to give an inaccurate assurance, but because the courts happened to take a different view. Every hon. and learned Member knows that that sort of thing has constantly happened. Surely this is a case where it is desirable—and apparently everybody is agreed upon that—that these things should be included, and it cannot possibly pass the wit of the draftsmen to make it abundantly and indisputably clear that they are included. It is that for which I understand my hon. Friends are asking. It is clear from what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) said that, in his view, the addition of these words would add further obligations as regards registration. Then his argument that this will only delay the registration is a very poor one—
  Mr. Spens: A right of way is an easement and it is therefore attached to the dominant tenement and if the dominant tenement is the coal or the mine then every way-leave enjoyed as a right in connection with that coal, will be on the register. Similarly if the coal mine is subject to an adverse right of way then that would be on the register. But it is just conceivable that there might be a right of way, attached not to the coal which is being worked but to a piece of the surface. If those odd rights-of-way were required to be put on the register in every case it would, in my respectful submission, seriously delay registration. I do not believe that they have any substantial importance especially when you have the words already in the Bill.
  Sir S. Cripps: I was just about to explain, though less lucidly than the hon. and learned Gentleman has done, what this Clause means. I agree with him that it deals with cases where you have associated with the ownership of coal a right to pass over other land in the same lease. But the mere fact that the lessee may be the same person in two cases, with two different lessors, does not necessarily associate the right with the coal or with the mine. It is in those cases, and there are many of them, where there is some intervening owner of land who has no interest in the coal but through whose land it is necessary to pass either underground or overground, in order to market the coal or bring it to the surface, that you will not get registration under this Measure, and those are the cases about which my hon. Friends are speaking.
  Mr. Spens: You can attach to the ownership of coal and the right of working coal any right-of-way which is convenient in connection with the working of the coal. It is entirely a question of conveyancing and as regards the intermediate land if the owner of the coal acquires a right-of-way and attaches it so as to associate it with the coal which he owns and is working, then that will be a wayleave which is enjoyed as a right in connection with the coal.
  Sir S. Cripps: I am not suggesting that you cannot so associate it. What I am suggesting is that there are many cases where it is not associated.
  Mr. Spens: Very few.
  Sir S. Cripps: Then I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman only disagrees with me in regard to the number of cases?
  Mr. Spens: Owing to bad conveyancing there may be exceptional cases.
  Sir S. Cripps: If there is only an occasional case it will not delay the registration. On the other hand, there may be cases of great importance, although they are exceptions. I do not agree that they are exceptions. I think there are probably many of such cases but that would be discovered if we put in such an Amendment as this. I ask the Government to consider this Amendment. Everybody is agreed that it is desirable that these things should be recorded and clearly there is some doubt here. We are not making difficulties for the sake of making difficulties but because we believe there is a doubt and we do not want to have the courts hereafter saying that this is the sort of sloppy legislation which goes through Parliament nowadays. Let us be certain about it and if we mean it, let us say it without doubt or hesitation. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman in these circumstances at least to tell us that these words or some words will be inserted to put this matter beyond all doubt.
  10.30 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): As this discussion has shown, there are difficult questions involved, and I need not say that my right hon. Friend and my hon. and gallant Friend welcome any assistance they can get. It is to be noted that this Amendment seeks merely to include certain specific matters as matters to be covered by the general words "held in association with." In our view at present, though, of course, we will consider what has been said, those general words, "held in association with," are the best words at any rate that we have so far been able to think of, and I do not think they are restricted as a matter of construction in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just suggested. I would ask him to look at Subsection (4, e) , which gives a certain elasticity in allowing or empowering the Board of Trade, when asking for particulars, to get particulars of

  2109
  "such other matters, if any, relating to the coal hereditaments in which the holding subsists, or to the title thereto, as appears to the Board to be material for the purpose of rendering the information as to proprietary interests recorded in the register complete."
  I have not the slightest doubt at the moment, though I will, of course, consider what has been said, that wayleaves are covered in so far as they are held in association with the property in the coal, and I think that the paragraph to which I have referred is relevant, in that it gives the Board of Trade a certain elasticity in saying what are the particulars necessary in order to complete what is required for the register, namely, coal and the rights held in association with it. The objection which I feel to this Amendment, or to enumerating specific rights as included under the general words, "held in association with," is that, if you enumerate specific sorts of rights, you tend to raise the implication that other rights, just as important, may be excluded. We think that the words which we have in the Clause, coupled with the power which the Board of Trade has to specify the particulars which they require, are sufficient for making the register complete in the sense in which everyone desires that it should be complete. For the reasons which I have given, we could not agree to accept an Amendment on these lines, which picks out certain specific rights and makes specific reference to them, but, as I said, this is a difficult matter. On this Amendment, at any rate, we all have the same aim, and we will consider carefully what has been said.
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. Pritt: As often happens, the doubts which one legitimately holds are very often only increased by the sincere efforts of the Government Front Bench to point out why they should not exist, and I would like to say three things in answer to what the learned Attorney-General has just said. First, with regard to Clause 1, Sub-section (4, e), surely that is quite useless and almost misleading on this point. What the hon. Members for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) want is not that way-leaves should appear as material information to put in the register about some other proprietary interests. What they want is that these wayleaves shall be registered proprietary interests. As I understand paragraph (e), it cannot
  2110
  enable the Board of Trade to add one jot of ownership to the register. Another thing that the Attorney-General said was that it is dangerous to enumerate specific rights lest by using specific words you narrow down the whole thing. I agree, but it is the duty of the Government and their draftsmen to see that the Bill covers the specific rights which it is intended to cover, and they must use proper language to cover them. If it does not, the Government ought before the Report stage to see that it does.
  It struck me when my hon. and learned Friends were discussing the matter across the Floor of the House that there is a simple illustration of the thing which would be rightly called a wayleave, but which would not be called a wayleave by the Bill as it stands. Take a colliery company which has a lease of its coal seams from the Duke of X. The land of the Marquess of Y lies between two of the seams rented from the Duke of X, and they have to lease from the Marquess of Y at an exorbitant rent the right to pass their coal from one of the seams to the shaft. That wayleave is only associated with the coal in the very loose sense that if you were not getting coal you would not want it. The Marquess of Y quite likely owns no more coal than I do, and perhaps less if his cellar happens to be smaller than mine. Here we have something that clearly ought to be covered by this Bill.
  10.38 p.m.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: We want this included because when the major Bill comes forward we want to discuss wayleaves. I gather that the figure submitted to the tribunal as the annual sum payable was £4,430,000, but the actual sum that has been paid is £5,655,000. Am I to understand that it is not proposed in the major Bill, and, therefore, it is not proposed in the register, to deal with the question of wayleaves and rent? There have been, I gather, some formal consultations with the people employed in the industry. Am I right in stating that both sides have urged on the Government that if the job is to be done, it should be done as one job completely?
  10.39 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: A statement was made in the House on the whole question on 9th March. The figure which the hon.

  2111
  Gentleman quoted was taken out of the Treasury Minute when the tribunal was established. It was agreed between the representatives of the royalty owners and the Government as the average net annual income derived from such property during the seven years 1928–34. That was the basis of the discussion. Being an average figure, it is not the figure for any one year. What the tribunal was asked to determine does include underground way-leaves.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: The £4,430,000 includes all the money paid from royalties for coal, rents and wayleaves, underground and on the surface?
  Captain Crookshank: I understand that the figure covered all underground rights connected with the working of coal.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 244

  Division No. 299.]

  AYES.

  [10.40 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Groves, T. E.

  Paling, W.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Parker, J.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

  Price, M. P.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Henderson,. J. (Ardwick)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Riley, B.

  Batey, J.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Ritson, J.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Holdsworth, H.

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

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Hollins, A.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Broad, F. A.

  Hopkin, D.

  Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Jagger, J.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Burke, W. A.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Shinwell, E.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Silkin, L.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Cove, W. G.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Daggar, G.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Dalton, H.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Day, H.

  Lathan, G.

  Stephen, C.

  Dobbie, W.

  Lawson, J. J.

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

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Lee, F.

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

  Ede, J. C.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Logan, D. G.

  Thurtle, E.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Lunn, W.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Viant, S. P.

  Foot, D. M.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Frankel, D.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Gallacher, W.

  MacLaren, A.

  Westwood, J.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Maclean, N.

  White, H. Graham

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Maxton, J.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Messer, F.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Muff, G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Naylor, T. E.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  NOES.

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

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

  Cary, R. A.

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

  Bernays, R. H.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Bird, Sir R. B.

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

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

  Bossom, A. C.

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

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Apsley, Lord

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

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

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Channon, H.

  Assheton, R.

  Brass, Sir W.

  Christie, J. A.

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

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

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

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

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

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

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

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

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Bull, B. B.

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

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Burghley, Lord

  Courthope, Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Cox, H. B. T.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Critchley, A.

  Crooke, J. S.

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

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Cross, R. H.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Remer, J. R.

  Crossley, A. C.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  De Chair, S. S.

  Kimball, L.

  Rowlands, G.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lamb,Sir J. Q.

  Royds, Admiral P. M. R.

  Denville, Alfred

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Dodd, J. S.

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Doland, G. F.

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

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Salt, E. W.

  Drewe, C.

  Lewis, O.

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Scott, Lord William

  Durglass, Lord

  Lipson, D. L.

  Selley, H. R.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Little, Sir E. Graham-

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Elmley, Viscount

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Emery, J. F.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Errington, E.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Everard, W. L.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Spens, W. P.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Magnay, T.

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

  Fleming, E. L.

  Maitland, A.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, )

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

  Storey, S.

  Furness, S. N.

  Manningham-Butler, Sir M

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

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

  Ganzoni, Sir J.

  Markham, S. F.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

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

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

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

  Grant-Ferris, R.

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

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Granville, E. L.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M

  Moreing, A. C.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Grimston, R. V.

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

  Turton, R. H.

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Wakefield, W. W.

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

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

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

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnnam)

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Peake, O.

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

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Peat, C. U.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hepworth, J.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

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

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Petherick, M.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Plugge, Capt. L. F.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Wragg, H.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L

  Radford, E. A.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

  Ramsbotham, H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Major Sir George Davies and Mr.

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Munro.

  Hunter, T.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  10.49 p.m.
  Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, at the beginning, to insert:
  "Every person having, or claiming to have, a proprietary interest which constitutes or is comprised in a holding shall make application to the Board for the registration in the register of particulars in respect of such holding within the period of six months beginning as to England on the date on which notice is first published in the London Gazette, and as to Scotland on the date on which notice is first published in the Edinburgh Gazette, of rules having been made by the Board with respect to the procedure for the making of applications, and."
  2114
  The three Amendments which follow upon the Order Paper, and which I understand are to be called, are all part of the same proposal. Two are purely consequential. If I may, I will speak on all four Amendments at this stage. They are designed simply to make the operation of registration possible, and for that purpose I think they are reasonably fit and apt words. They look a little clumsy, but they have been taken almost textually from the provisions in Schedule 2 of the Bill relating to putting forward applications for the registration of particulars.

  2115
  Whereas the Schedule in effect says that persons who are going to make applications shall make them like this, the words which I propose shall be inserted are that people having any such claims or interests shall as a matter of compulsion put them. All that I want to say is—not interrupting hon. Members opposite too much—that the matter should be made compulsory.
  If anyone wants a precedent—and naturally a conservative lawyer like myself looks for a precedent—it is to be found absolutely in the Land Registration Act, 1925. It is amusing to discover that in the long tangled history of land registration in this country it was supported at an early date by those persons, sometimes called reactionary, the landowners, and opposed by the lawyers. It is now the law that every person owning land in this country can, if he happens to be in the right area, be compelled to register his own title to his own land. As far as precedent goes there is the precedent. So far as argument for the application of the precedent in this particular instance goes, surely every argument is in its favour. I attribute good faith to the Government in this matter.
  I feel sure that they are really anxious that this Bill shall provide them with the maximum of machinery to assist in the carrying through of their subsequent Bill, and I am certain of two things: First, that if this Bill remains voluntary the more people who join in it the better the Government will be pleased, and, second, that if registration is not made compulsory under this Bill something very similar to registration will be made compulsory in the next Bill, save in respect of all those persons who do not want to be compensated in respect of their property. If the Government want as many people as possible to register under this Bill, why not tell them all to register? It is not much of a hardship to say to a man, "If you are deriving something out of the activities of other men by sitting still (which is the social function to be dealt with in the final Bill) you must bring it before the country and put it in a register," which register for the moment, although we have Amendments down about that, is a register which inquisitive people will not be allowed to go and read. I ask the Committee to say that it is eminently reasonable and the only sensible
  2116
  thing to make this compulsory instead of voluntary.
  The only other part of my Amendments which I think requires some mention beyond what I have already said is the Amendment to Clause 1, page 1, line 17, at the end, to insert:
  "No application for registration shall be received by the Board after the expiration of the said period of six months unless for special reasons in ens particular case the Board decides or the High Court direct that this should be done"—
  six months being a period of six months running from the date when notice of the rules is first published in the respective Gazettes and that being taken from the Government's own provisions in the Schedules. The Government's idea is this: After the rules have been published—you cannot expect anyone to do very much in the way of seeking registration before the rules are there—the Government give six months to everyone in which to register, and provide the modest sanction that, if they do not register, they will not get the costs of registration. We who want to make it compulsory seek to give them the same period of six months. At the end of the six months we cannot bar them from compensation, even conditionally, because this Bill has nothing to do with compensation, but we seek to say that at the end of the six months the opportunity for fulfilling the duty of registration will lapse, and that, if anyone comes along after that and wants to register, he must show the board that there is some special reason in his particular case, or, if the board do not think that there is, he must show the High Court. The suspicion will not have escaped hon. Members that if that were carried we should like to think that in the final Bill there would be a provision that the compensation pool should be divided only between those who have put themselvees on the register, but I only mention that in passing; it cannot be done by this Bill, or properly discussed upon it. In substance the four Amendments simply ask that the provision should be made compulsory.
  10.58 p.m.
  Sir H. Seely: Personally I think there is a little difficulty in this Amendment, but I am supporting it on the ground that, if there is to be registration, it is

  2117
  much more likely to be done if it is compulsory than if it is to be voluntary. Of course, compulsion will not bear hardly on any large royalty owner, such as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or anyone like that, but I know that there are many poor and small royalty owners who may find it rather difficult to register compulsorily within the six months. I am not putting that forward as a reason why registration should not be compulsory; I do not quite understand the advantage of its being voluntary, and personally, as there is to be registration, I should be in favour of the Amendment.
  10.59 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: On the Second Reading it was made quite clear that our intention was to try to get as much of the work done on the problem of collecting information about the properties in coal as could possibly be achieved, in anticipation of the introduction and passage of the Bill to which allusion has been made throughout our Debates. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment is to the effect that steps to that end should be compulsory, but the really difficult question that arises is the question: What justification can there possibly be for trying to compel people to do something unless and until the purpose of the register is defined in the next Measure? Compulsory powers would have to be considered in the presence of far more details as to the general plan which Parliament will be discussing. We put it forward as a voluntary proposal in order that as many people as possible should register, and as much as possible of the work which is admitted to be necessary by the royalty owners themselves should be done in anticipation of the general scheme. They are quite prepared to undertake that work. That is one thing. To undertake work for some purpose which cannot be specified in the legislation is really not a practical proposition. After all, this register is not going to close in six months. The Amendment would have that effect. Under our proposal, under which voluntary action will be taken at the start, it will last considerably longer than that.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman says we have only put in a modest sanction that they should only be paid if they register voluntarily. I cannot conceive that being described as a sanction. He admitted that what he would like is that
  2118
  after six months, if anyone had not registered, he must be barred from compensation, but he said the Clause could not do that because the Bill has nothing to do with compensation, and therefore he could not insert a sanction of the kind he would like. Ultimately, of course, I should envisage that Parliament will say that the road to receiving compensation will be the road of the register, because whoever is going to deal with the matter will obviously have to have accurate information about the property so that in the end it will be a complete register of the properties which will be paid for. When he tries to make it compulsory that every person claiming to have a proprietary interest shall make application to be registered, he is inviting a tremendous and unnecessary number of persons to register, because "every person claiming to have a proprietary interest" admits a whole variety of people who have some sort of interest in a particular property—wives, brothers, sisters, trustees and everyone else—and, as I read the Amendment, they will all have to register. The work will not merely be duplicated but multiplied to an enormous degree. Under the proposal of the Bill it is sufficient for one person who has a proprietary right to register the property. The rights of the others are dealt with otherwise, and only one lot of costs will be paid.
  Mr. Pritt: I am willing to withdraw the words "claiming to have."
  Captain Crookshank: That is a very handsome offer but not one that I am prepared to accept, because I do not concede that it is desirable at this stage to make registration in any way compulsory. Our whole object is to try to get on with the work now, and we feel sure that the best way of getting on with it, in anticipation of another Bill, is to do it on voluntary lines. You cannot expect people to do compulsorily something for a purpose which is undefined and it cannot be done without raising a great many issues far wider than it is reasonable to discuss in a machinery Bill of this kind and I am afraid, in spite of the pleasant way in which it was proposed, we cannot accept the Amendment.
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made confusion worse confounded by the statement he has

  2119
  made to the Committee. I should like to apply not the legal interpretation to either the Clause or the Amendment, but the common sense interpretation. What possible objection can the Government have to compulsory registration? I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that you cannot associate compulsory registration with an indefinite purpose. Although there is no Bill before the Committee at this stage which defines the ultimate purpose of the Government, it is clear that this Bill is a preparatory Measure designed to be dovetailed into another Measure which will appear at a subsequent stage. If we divorce the ultimate purpose of the Government from this Measure it will have no purpose at all, and I cannot understand why the Government should produce it. If there is no compulsory legislation, what is the purpose of registration? I understand that the Government desire, for purposes which, in the opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, are for the moment indefinite—they certainly are not clear to us, although we have a vague idea of the ultimate intentions of the Government—at least to obtain in this Measure all relative information in relation to coal royalties, way leaves and the like in order to prepare themselves for some future event. If the registration is incomplete, the information will be incomplete, and how can incomplete information on a matter of this kind be of any value to the Government? That is the essential point, and I cannot understand for the life of me why the hon. and gallant Gentleman refuses to make this provision compulsory.
  This is a complete block, and the Government have no clear conception themselves as to the nature of the Measure which is to follow. I have a suspicion as to the kind of Bill that will be produced. It may be a hotchpotch Measure which is not designed to acquire royalties at one fell swoop, but merely to acquire royalties over a long period of years. It may be that that is in the mind of the Government, and for that reason they are not attempting compulsory registration at this stage. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that compensation will follow registration, and that is to say, that compensation arising from a subsequent Measure is in some way related to
  2120
  the question of registration. Clearly, if that is so, registration must be complete. How will it be possible for any royalty owner or anyone who has any right and interest in wayleaves, surface rights and the like to demand compensation at a later stage unless he is included in existing registration? How can the Government have some knowledge as to their rights unless these rights have been definitely registered?
  It may be true that I am the only one in the Committee in this state of mind, but I am hopelessly confused as to the meaning to be derived from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reference to compensation following registration. How are the two things to be related? I come to what I regard as the most substantial issue of all. If the ultimate Measure is to be of any value, clearly it must be based on a complete knowledge of the facts of the case. There must be full information made available to the Government in order to determine what the royalties are, where they are situated, what their value may be and all cognate information.
  Without that information the Government will not be in a position to determine what form the ultimate Measure is to be. If this scheme is to fit into the main plan, it is far better to have compulsory registration than a partial and incomplete registration based on the voluntary method.
  It may be—I offer this opinion with due reserve—that the voluntary system is suggested because the Government have some doubt whether the royalty owners will be prepared to come into the ultimate scheme. Objections have already been raised. Objections were stated in another place. It may be that these objections will become more pronounced in due course. It may be on account of that fear in the mind of the Government that they have not demanded compulsion. If that be so, what is the use of the Bill that is to follow, if there is to be a Bill? Taking not the legal view but the common sense view, it is far better to insist upon compulsion now than to have this partial and incomplete method, which in the end will have no value.
  11.12 p.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: Every time the Minister talks on this Bill it appears more extra-

  2121
  ordinary and fantastic. Presumably, the purpose of this Bill is in order to get a register of the interests in coal in this country. It so, it must obviously be the desire of the Government to be a complete register because an incomplete register is worse than useless; it is misleading. The Minister says that you cannot compel people to register unless they know what the ultimate purpose is. The Land Register has no ultimate purpose except that people should register their titles in a way which enables other people easily to ascertain what those titles are. In this case the other people are the Government. Even if you have a method of collecting statistics—agricultural statistics, Board of Trade statistics—unless you can compel the answering of these statistics they are perfectly valueless to you, because they are incomplete. I cannot understand if all that is required is that the royalty owners should have an opportunity of getting ready before the next Bill comes, why we should trouble to pass a Bill in order to help the royalty owners to get ready. They can get ready without a Bill of any sort; When one looks at the Bill, it is very extraordinary, because it is quite clear that by its terms the Bill takes up the point of view that it is necessary to register. If the Minister will look at the Schedule on the Order Paper, Clause 3 (a) he will find these words:
  "So, however, that this provision shall not have effect as regards a holding"—
  This is the provision about not paying costs
  "in respect of which application is made after the expiration of the said period in a case in which it appears to the Board that sufficient cause is shown for no application having been made within the said period:"
  What is the "sufficient cause for no application having been made," when registration is voluntary. The sufficient cause is that the man did not want to register. It is in fact laying down a criterion on which the Board of Trade are to judge whether or not a man ought to register. tinder a voluntary system there can be no "ought" about it. In fact, the person who drafted the Clause has applied the sanction that if a person does not register within six months he will not be able to get the costs of his application or the costs of subsequent litigation. He is to be deprived of the benefit of the State paying for the costs of his regis-
  2122
  tration and subsequent litigation, and if he comes late the Board of Trade is to say whether he ought to have registered within six months or not. What criterion is going to be applied by the Board of Trade as to whether a man ought to have registered within six months if registration is not compulsory? If registration is compulsory it is perfectly easy to apply a criterion and to say whether a man has a good cause for not registering. That is what is proposed by the Amendment. There is power to excuse compulsory registration; the man may not have heard about it or may be out of the country; he may have a good excuse; but you cannot wed the idea of voluntary registration and the idea of penalising a man for not registering, which is done by the Bill as it is drafted. It is quite clear that the Committee must take the view, either that they do not care about registration, that it is not going to be of any value and that they do not want it, or the view that registration is essential in view of what we know is the intention as regards the coal mines; and if it is essential, then it must be complete, otherwise it is valueless. If people are going to be asked to register now, there is no reason why one lot should be asked to register now and another lot compelled to register later on. If anything is going to happen there must be compulsory registration at some stage, and I cannot see what benefit it is to anybody to make it voluntary, or what harm there is in making it compulsory. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment. If it is to be satisfactory, it must be made compulsory.
  11.19 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has raised a rather larger issue than that raised by the Amendment. There appears to be still considerable misconception both as to the purpose and as to the utility of the Bill, and I should like to remind the Committee of the circumstances which have given rise to it. I do not disguise from the Committee that, if we were now at the early part of a Session instead of the closing days, it might have been unnecessary to introduce a Bill of this kind, and we might be discussing the major Bill, which would have included provi-

  2123
  visions very much of this nature. As was announced to the House by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, it became clear, after the receipt of the award of the arbitral tribunal, that, owing to the exigencies of Parliamentary time, there would be no possibility of passing the major Bill into law before the end of this Session. I think the whole House recognised the force of that contention. That major Bill is bound to be, when it is introduced, a Measure creating considerable controversy and one which the House not unnaturally would wish to discuss at great length.
  The Government were faced with this dilemma. If it was a fact that no legislation could be introduced until next Session, were all the intervening months to be completely wasted, or was there a way in which those months could be used to provide us with information which would be necessary afterwards, and which, therefore, to some extent, would shorten the time that we finally required? We believe that those intervening months can be usefully filled by compiling a register on the lines set out in this Bill, but at the same time we have to be careful not to do anything in this Bill which will compromise individual Members when it comes to a discussion of the major Bill and which will commit them in advance of full knowledge to particular points. I have made those remarks because I want the Committee to understand what is the balance that we try to maintain in this Bill. The hon. and learned Member asked why this Bill has been made voluntary. I think the answer is really contained in the Amendment which hon. Members opposite have moved. It is, that in this Bill and at this stage, even if the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to make registration compulsory, he would be unable to find any sanction for that compulsion. There is, in fact, no sanction behind it. That is because, until the major Bill is discussed, it is impossible to introduce a sanction of any kind.
  Sir S. Cripps: It has the sanction of the courts behind it.
  Mr. Stanley: I am not talking now of sanctions in the way of authority, but in the sense of penalties. There is no sanction, because the only thing that happens is that a man cannot get on the register,
  2124
  and as far as this Bill is concerned, a man does not suffer if he is not on the register. It is only in the major Bill that you can deal with that position, and it is only in the major Bill that the measure of compulsion will be introduced. What is that measure of compulsion likely to be? It is that anybody who has not registered will not, in fact, share in the compensation. It seems to me that that, when it comes to be proposed. is the effective sanction for this registration. It is not that we want to have a great number of people registering in cases where the particulars that they register are of no interest to us. It is that ultimately only those who do register will be entitled to the compensation.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the Government intend, in the ultimate Measure, that those who fail to register are to be dispossessed of royalties without compensation?
  Mr. Stanley: It is clear that there must be a time-limit somewhere with the registration, otherwise it would be impossible to distribute compensation at all.
  Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer as simply as he can the simple point I put to him? Do I understand him to have said that the ultimate—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): I would point out to the Committee that I had very considerable doubts about accepting the Amendment on the ground that it might be outside
  the scope of the Bill. The discussion is now getting outside the Bill. If the subsequent discussion proceeds on those lines, I may have to withdraw the Amendment from the Committee.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has used as his major argument against the Amendment the suggestion that in the later Measure those who fail to register under this Clause will be deprived of compensation and will be dispossessed of their property. Do I understand him to have said that? What did he say?
  Mr. Stanley: That was not what I said. All I said was that at some time finality would have to be reached, based on the register. I did not go further than that.
  Mr. Pritt: With reference to the suggestion that the Amendment could not be accepted because there is no sanction—which is inconsistent with the reason given by the Secretary for Mines—is it really the view of the right hon. Gentleman that the general body of owners of coal royalties are so disloyal that they will not obey a statute unless there is a penalty for not doing so?
  Mr. Stanley: If we are to go into that, we are entitled to say that if the thing is so unimportant that no penalty attaches to it, then it cannot carry much weight. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that we had already given away the case in the provision with regard to excuses for not registering within six months. That is the only point I have to answer. What we have in mind is the case where a man can prove to us that he was unable to register—that he was abroad or ill, or through some physical disability, or for reasons of time or space, was unable to register in the time. In that case we give him a chance of registering.
  Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the point, though I am sure that is my fault. Why have you to look for a reason, when this is only voluntary? Surely it is a good enough reason to say, "I do not want to register." Yet you have a provision here that it is only in certain cases, where it appears to the Board that sufficient cause is shown, that the owner who fails to register is not to be treated by sanction as if he had done something wrong. The Schedule does make it wrong not to register within the six
  months, because, unless the owner can get his excuse past the Board of Trade, his costs of registration will not be met by the Board. He is penalised as compared with the others who register in the six months. Surely, that is a sanction. If you say to A, "I will pay your costs of registration," and to B, "I will not pay your costs, because you have not applied within six months," is not that a sanction for not having applied within six months? But that is what the Clause says, and it goes on to say that the Board of Trade may excuse B if he can put up a proper excuse. What excuse is required except "I do not want to register"?
  Mr. Stanley: I do not wish to weary the Committee by replying to the speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made in the middle of mine. I do not think his point is a good one. The position is simple. We say to the royalty-owners: "Here is the register in which you may register your holding". In order to encourage owners to register as quickly as possible, we offer an inducement by way of payment of the costs of registration in six months. If for any reasons of their own certain owners prefer to register later than six months there is no reason why we should give them that benefit; but it is absurd to say that because we do offer an inducement for early registration we are thereby imposing a sanction.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted".
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 225.

  Division No. 300.]

  AYES.

  [11.30 p.m.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Dobbie, W.

  Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

  Adamson, W. M.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Ammon, C. G.

  Ede, J. C.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Banfield, J. W.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Holdsworth, H.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Foot, D. M.

  Hollins, A.

  Barr, J.

  Frankel, D.

  Hopkin, D.

  Batey, J.

  Gallacher, W.

  Jagger, J.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Broad, F. A.

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Buchanan, G.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Burke, W. A.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Charleton, H. C.

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

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Daggar, G.

  Groves, T. E.

  Lathan, G.

  Dalton, H.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Lawson, J. J.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Lee, F.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Logan, D. G.

  Price, M. P.

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

  Lunn, W.

  Pritt, D. N.

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

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Ritson, J.

  Thurtle, E.

  McGhee, H. G.

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

  Tinker, J. J.

  MacLaren, A.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Viant, S. P.

  Maclean, N.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Walkden, A. G.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Westwood, J.

  Mander, G. le M.

  Shinwell, E.

  White, H. Graham

  Maxton, J.

  Silkin, L.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Messer, F.

  Silverman, S. S.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Muff, G.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Paling, W.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Stephen, C.

  NOES.

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

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lipson, D. L.

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

  Dodd, J. S.

  Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

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

  Doland, G. F.

  Lloyd, G. W.

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

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Drewe, C.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Apsley, Lord

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Mabans, W. (Huddersfield)

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Duggan, H. J.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Assheton, R.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

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

  Eckersley, P. T.

  MacDonald Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

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

  Ellis, Sir G.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  McKie, J. H.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Emery, J. F.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Balniel, Lord

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Magnay, T.

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Errington, E.

  Maitland, A.

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

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

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Markham, S. F.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Findlay, Sir E.

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

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

  Fleming, E. L.

  Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

  Bernays, R. H.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Furness, S. N.

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

  Bossom, A. C.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Ganzoni, Sir J.

  Moreing, A. C.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

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

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

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Brass, Sir W.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Granville, E. L.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

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

  Grimston, R. V.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon, Sir Hugh

  Bull, B. B.

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L

  Burghley, Lord

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

  Peake, O.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Peat,C. U.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Petherick, M.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Cary, R. A.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Plugge, Capt. L. F.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

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

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Porritt, R. W.

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

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Radford, E. A.

  Channon, H.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Christie, J. A.

  Hepworth, J.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Herbert, Major J.A. (Monmouth)

  Ramsden, Sir E.

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

  Higgs, W. F.

  Rathbone, J. R, (Bodmin)

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Holmes, J. S.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

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

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Reed, A. C.(Exeter)

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

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

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

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

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

  Romer, J. R.

  Cox, H. B. T.

  Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Hunter, T.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Critchley, A.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Crooke, J. S.

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Rowlands, G.

  Croom-Johnson, R.P.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Royds, Admiral P. M. R.

  Cross, R. H.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Crossley, A. C.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Salt, E. W.

  Crowder, J.F. E.

  Kimball, L.

  Scott, Lord William

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Selley, H. R.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

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

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  2128

  2129

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

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

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

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Thomas, J. P. L

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

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

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Spens, W. P.

  Turton, R. H.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

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

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Wragg, H.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Storey, S.

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

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Warrender, Sir V.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.

  11.34 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at the end, to insert:
  "(6) The provisions of Part II of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the payment by the Board of costs incurred in giving effect to the provisions of this Act."
  This Amendment and other amendments in my name, are merely a reprint of the underlined privilege parts of the Bill.
  Mr. Batey: I want to raise the question whether the costs of registration should be borne by the State or by the royalty owner. When will be the best time for me to raise it?
  The Deputy-Chairman: It obviously arises on this Amendment. If it is raised now it cannot be raised again on the Schedule. I think it had better be raised now.
  Mr. Batey: My hon. and learned Friend on the front bench has an Amendment which will raise the question, and I will wait until he moves it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. George Hall: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, to leave out from beginning to "any", in line 36.
  This Amendment and the following Amendment—in page 3, line 1, to leave out from "person" to "may", in line 3—in the names of myself and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) stand together. Their purpose is to allow the public to see the register and take extracts from it. We cannot understand why the register should be kept secret. No subject has been more widely discussed or has given rise to more controversy among the mining population than royalities and wayleaves. We are all interested in who owns the coal, how much there is of it, the terms of any lease or sublease, and the
  2130
  amounts paid in royalties in the various collieries. There is a considerable difference between the amounts paid in royalties by different collieries and there are differences between district and district even in some collieries. I have in mind a colliery not far from where I live where the royalties vary from 6d. to 1s. 9d. a ton. Why this information should not be disclosed I cannot understand. The reasonable royalty owner has nothing to fear; it is only the unreasonable royalty owner who has a dislike to the information being made public.
  The replies given to this request by the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade on Second Reading were not very convincing. The President of the Board of Trade indicated, though he did not pledge himself to it, that there would not be the same objection to the information being disclosed to the public if it were really a State register, a compulsory register, and not a voluntary one. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I have his words before me, but I do not want to take up time by reading them. If he looks at his speech on Second Reading he will see that what I have said is correct. We think it a good thing that the public should have an opportunity of checking what may be unjustifiable claims by examining the register. The more complete the register becomes, whether by compulsion or as a result of a voluntary response, the more confidence will the public have in it. At any rate there is publicity as soon as any litigation takes place between the various owners regarding rights in any property to be put on the register, and if the information is disclosed in those cases we do not see why the whole register should not be available for those who desire to examine it. No one is more interested in royalties than miners and miners' representatives. The cost of royalties absorbs a very substantial part of their production of coal. No less than £4,500,000 is taken out of the pro-

  2131
  duction of the miners every year for royalties. The interest of the miners in this question will therefore be readily understood, and for the life of me I cannot see why the Government should not make the register public, so that anyone desiring to get information should have an opportunity of doing so, instead of the register being confined to those who themselves register and the officials of the Board of Trade.
  11.45 p.m.
  Sir H. Seely: I support the Amendment because I cannot see the advantage of secrecy. There is a feeling that the information might be used for propaganda purposes, but I do not see how that could last very long, while I see great advantage from having the thing public. There may be people who think they have claims to rights and fees. There is also the point, which anybody who owns a colliery knows, that there is a certain amount of coal for which there is no owner, and for which you have to make allowances because some owner may turn up in the future. It is time people knew who is the owner of coal they are working. I cannot see why secrecy should be observed when you are registering coal and not when registering land. If there are not to be complications in the future, the more public the thing is the better, and the more advantage there will be to the coal trade as a whole.
  11.47 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I cannot see that any conceivable public purpose can be served at this stage in making public these details. These properties are still in private hands and it does not seem easy to find justification for making public the details of private properties. The hon. Member who called in aid the registration of land unfortunately did so wrongly; it is the other way round. Only a very small number of persons are authorised to go to the register, under the Act of 1925, and this Clause was drafted from that Act. What is laid down appears to me to be reasonable. Quite different circumstances might arise later, if the properties passed into public ownership, and if that stage is reached everybody ought to be able to go and see the register and inform themselves as to who has the property.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: After it has become public property?
  Captain Crookshank: The House decided that we should proceed to have a voluntary and not a compulsory register. If you made it possible for details of private properties to be available, a great many people would say, "No, I am not prepared to give those details."
  Sir H. Seely: Perhaps the rightful owner.
  Captain Crookshank: The rightful owner can himself register. I cannot see that any public purpose is served by making this information available at this stage. I take my stand on the clauses of the Registration of Land Act, in which there is very great similarity and I would not advise the Committee to accept this amendment. The hon. Gentleman who moved it said that everybody was interested to know how much coal there was, who owned it, the amounts paid in royalties and so on. That may be, but here we are making a register of the coal properties and when he said that it would be very useful to make it public because the public would be able to check unjustifiable claims, although we cannot go into what may be done in a subsequent Bill, I cannot imagine that there will not be machinery to deal with unjustifiable claims without having to call in aid the whole of the general public of this country. It is a matter in which everybody is interested.
  Mr. Pritt: Then let everybody see it.
  Captain Crookshank: There is no justification for allowing the information to be doled out piecemeal.
  11.52 p.m.
  Mr. Pritt: The hon. and gallant Gentlemen says that he can see no public service in making important facts public. I think most people can. But when he particularly appeals to the precedent in the Land Registration Act I would draw his attention to a much more interesting, relevant and cogent question. It appears that in 1872 numbers of wicked persons were making propaganda against landowners. I imagine that they included Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke; if not, their immediate intellectual predecessors. The Government of the day took a wise course. They said, "If people are going to make propaganda

  2133
  against landowners let the facts be known." They published a list of all the landowners and what they were getting out of their land. It would be a good thing if the same were done here.
  11.54 p.m.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: I am afraid the fear that propaganda would be made if these facts were disclosed is becoming an obsession with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He does not appreciate the amount of ammunition which he has in a short speech given to this side of the House, propaganda not merely against this Bill but against the general attitude of the Government and supporters of the Government as to what they still regard, in 1937, as the extreme sacredness of private property. We have had an exhibition of that mentality which harks back for several centuries. Surely it is obviously in the interests of the general public that they shall know that this vast sum of money, if it is to be distributed, shall not be distributed among people who might obviously have no claim at all to the sharing of this vast loot, which is to be taken out of the miners of this country. As one who has spent most of his life in and associated with collieries, may I tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that neither he nor his Department, nor any resources to which he may lay claim, will be able to check the claims that will be made by royalty owners, fictitious and otherwise, in this country? May I give one simple illustration of what I mean? I give it only in order to strengthen, if necessary, the claim that we on this side of the Committee make with respect to this Amendment. A royalty owner registers, and tells the Department that he has claims to royalties from, say, 10,000,000 or 100,000,000 tons of coal which is known to exist in a certain part of, say, the South Wales coalfield. It may be known to us that the coal exists there—perhaps a square mile, or square miles, of coal un-worked. It may be known, incidentally, that the coal is of excellent quality. But, although the coal is there, and although the claim may he made by a royalty owner, it may be known to us, though possibly not to the Department, that that coal, a s it is situated, is absolutely of no use or value to the country. It may be in the heart of a vast waterlogged area, and, although it may be of first-class quality, it may be for practical purposes absolutely useless.
  2134
  Why should not the people who live in the locality—a locality which may have generations of experience in coal working—be assured that no royalty owner has come along and has taken out of this sum of money perhaps tens of thousands of pounds in respect of property that is, and is likely to remain, absolutely useless? Naturally we shall want to ask: Who are the people who are to share this money; what claims have they to a share in it; how have those claims been registered; and have they been proved to be genuine and bona fide claims? But the hon. and gallant Gentleman tells us that, whatever interest we have in this Bill and in the coal that is there, we are not to be permitted to find out whether, on an absolutely fictitious claim, tens of thousands of pounds have been paid out.
  It simply comes back to what we on this side have continually accused the Government of, namely, that the interests of the working class do not matter at all, that the Government have no concern for anyone but the crowd of property owners by the existence of whom, apparently, they justify their own existence I want to assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, unless the people have access to the claims that will be registered, he will provide far more propaganda for those who desire material for it than he will by revealing the contents of these claims. Further, it will be his own fault if suspicion is engendered in the minds of people who are interested, not on the basis of any claim to royalties, but as workers, miners and others who will have to find this money. It will deepen their suspicion; it will bring home to them, perhaps more clearly than ever, that the only spirit that can be embodied in any legislation from this Government will be the spirit that eternally looks after the interests of those to whom, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, this is a gift to which they have no moral and no sound historical claim.
  12 m.
  Mr. MacLaren: In the event of the registration being compulsory will the data recorded in the register be made public? I can quite understand looking at it from the point of view of the Minister that seeing that this is an inducement to voluntary registration they might deem it advisable to make the data public under the voluntary scheme. That is why I am asking if the registration be-

  2135
  comes compulsory would the Minister promise to allow the data to be open to public inspection.
  Captain Crookshank: I cannot take the matter much further than my right hon. Friend did on the Second Reading. If I read what he said it may answer the point:
  "Let it be remembered that the register starts as the register of holdings in the possession of private individuals, but it will end as the register of holdings which are the property of the State. When that happens and the register is simply a description of what the State in one form or another owns, I myself, although I can make no pledge at the moment, can see no objection whatsoever in its being made public."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1937; col. 1135, Vol. 326.]
  Of course the second answer apart from that quotation is the general one that that is one point that must be left for Parliament as a whole to deal with later on.
  Mr. MacLaren: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that to make it public after transfer is of very little avail. It is a sort of historical document which may have propaganda value retrospectively. I have not raised the point of propaganda at all. I think the Minister was most indiscreet to throw that in that there was propaganda behind it because that was making a confession to the world that if the facts were known they were of such a character that if Members of the Labour party were to microphone there would be a revolt against the proposition embodied in the Bill.
  12.4 a.m.
  Mr. Mainwaring: Is this secrecy of the list of ownership being maintained in the interest of private owners or of the public? In whose interest is this House supposed to deal? Are we here to deal with the interests of the general public or of private ownership? That seems to me to be the real purpose here. Many a colliery company itself is a royalty owner. The company's resources are well known to everyone. Anyone can see them at Somerset House as a capitalistic concern. There is no privacy that anyone deems it necessary to safeguard. When you come to deal with the making of this register, there is some mysterious reason why it has to be safeguarded. In whose interest? Obviously, in the interest of the people who can exploit the public.
  2136
  I am particularly interested in a certain transaction in my area—and it is typical of a large number of similar transactions all over the country—in which a certain landowner has sold his landed estate. His ground leases have been sold. No one seems to know what has happened in respect of the royalty underneath that land, but we know that the company who have bought the surface rentals of the land are endeavouring to safeguard themselves against those who may purchase the ground leases and against any claim that may arise from undermining that land. No one seems to know why this particular safeguard is being sought at the moment, but in the interests of the general public, it is very necessary that all the publicity possible must be shed upon the real ownership of the coal resources of this country, otherwise we are laying it open for the general interests to be exploited by certain private individuals in this country. In whose interests are the Government really devising this scheme? Are they deliberately shielding private ownership in order that it may exploit the public? That is the real question in this matter.
  12.7 a.m.
  Mr. Batey: The Minister himself made a statement in which he led the Committee to believe that, when the register was complete, it might be open for inspection. Will he explain the meaning of Sub-section (7), on pages 2 and 3, which says:
  "The person on whose application particulars have been registered in respect of a holding and any person authorised by him or by an order of the High Court or by rules made by the Board, but no other person, may inspect and make copies of and extracts from the entries in the register relating to the holding."
  That seems to suggest that no person may inspect and make copies of and extracts from the register except the person who makes the application or someone he appoints, unless it be by order of the High Court or by rules made by the Board. Why is it proposed to make these rules?
  12.8 a.m.
  Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman will realise that there are several places in the Bill where provision is made for making rules, and this is one of them. In the Bill there is reference to rules being made. They are machinery rules, and we

  2137
  put the provision in here to cover certain cases in respect of which the Board might consider it necessary to make these rules. The House can see exactly where they come in, but it does not mean a general application; it merely means that in certain cases one can conceive that the Board might think it desirable to apply them.
  12.9 a.m.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Suppose the miners' representatives made an application to the Board that their auditor, for ascertainment purposes, should be permitted to see this register, would he not be an interested person? Royalties and all these commitments enter into the costs of production and into the ascertainments, which govern the payment of wages. Supposing the miners of South Wales asked that their auditor should have a look at this register, would he be entitled under this Clause so to do?
  Captain Crookshank: I do not think there would be any purpose in that so far as I can see. No complaint on the part of auditors to whom the hon. Gentleman refers has been brought to my notice.
  Mr. Griffiths: They may want to check the information on the register. It is true that they get information, but they may want to check the actual amount which is paid in royalities. Would they not be entitled to look at the register to check such information?
  Mr. Jenkins: Miners will be deeply interested in this Bill and in the subsequent Measure. Suppose the Miners' Federation decided to ask their officials to examine the register; would they have the right, as being as much interested in this matter as anybody else, to inspect the register, take particulars from it and report what they found there to the members of the Miners' Federation?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Captain Crookshank: I have no objection to rising at once to answer the question. I do not think that anyone would have rights of that kind.
  Mr. Mainwaring: Would anybody who desires to make a claim for compensation for undermining of his house and property be entitled to inspect this register?
  Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, I do not think so. It is possible to bring up all sorts
  2138
  of cases. We must come back to where we started; let us find out what is the object of this register.
  12.14 a.m.
  Mr. Mainwaring: May I put to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the difficulty that I am in? In my district there are 1,700 leaseholders faced with the position that there has been a transfer of ground rents from the original owner to a new one, a finance company in the City of London. Much of the property was safeguarded against undermining; if it became damaged in consequence of undermining they had a right to compensation. Now the finance company is seeking to compel these 1,700 owners to purchase their freeholds compulsorily, with the stipulation that they shall no longer be safeguarded against undermining. Who is the owner of those mining royalties? That is a question of grave importance to those 1,700 individuals. Unless they are entitled to inspect the register against whom are they to make a claim? They will not know. The old owner is gone and it will be very serious for them if the Government, in this new legislation, safeguard the new crowd of financier sharks from London. It is a grave responsibility.
  12.16 a.m.
  Mr. Davidson: Can the Minister let us know exactly what the wording of the Clause means when it refers to a person authorised by the owner or by an order of the High Court? In the event of a national stoppage in the mines, when the miners, led by their leaders, are fighting for certain conditions as they have done in the past, and as they will probably have to do in future, nad should figures be quoted with regard to this dispute, what rights would there be for the men's representatives to ascertain the facts for themselves in regard to the cost of production of coal? That is a very important point and one on which we ought at least to ask for some assurance from the Minister. The Secretary for the Mines Department stated that in regard to this Clause it was not just the sacredness of private property, but it does seem to imply the sacredness of private ownership.
  What is the ulterior motive behind the Clause? I want the Secretary for the Mines Department to try to give us at least a straightforward reply. If he

  2139
  really intends that the public are not to be acquainted with the facts in regard to this Clause, then let him say so, and not hide behind quibbling words that have no meaning at all and talk about propaganda of hon. Members on this side. I am not a representative of mining, but I do say that he has to-night throughout presented the industrial areas at least with a suspicion, that will mature into a definite propaganda, that when he refuses to come into the open and when he definitely shows he has something to hide with regard to mining conditions, there must be some very underhand political work going on by the opposite side.
  12.18 a.m.
  Mr. Ede: I want to allude to the question asked by the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring). On the case he presented to us it seemed to me that his constituents are people who have a right as against the existing coalowners before the finance corporation came in, and therefore such compensation as they are entitled to is one of the other matters set out in Sub-section 4 (c) of Clause I. How are these people to know that the coalowner—or the owner of coal, if you like, because there may be some distinction—or the person who ought to have registered, has registered, and if he has not, he obviously may obtain a substantially larger sum than he would if the nature of this liability were known. It seems to me that at this stage we should have some assurance before the matter assumes its final form that these people will have an opportunity of making quite sure that their position has been protected, and that the owner is not in fact receiving a greater sum of money than the restrictions on his ownership warrant.
  I cannot understand why there is this objection to publicity. There is in my constituency only one royalty owner, a very wealthy one—the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. On any day that I pluck
  up the courage to do so, I can come to this House and ask the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) any question I please about the ownership of coal, the restrictions on it, the amount received in royalties and anything else connected with that matter, and no one has ever raised the slightest objection to my doing so. That may be because the coal belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is specially sacred, and is therefore taken entirely out of the rules. All I know is that my constituents believe the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be the most hard-hearted and conscienceless coal royalty owners in the country. However, it has long been recognised in the House that their transactions in this matter may be questioned. Why they should be put in a class apart as people whose conduct may be inquired into and the other people be put in another class and protected from questioning in the House and elsewhere, I cannot understand.
  While I represent a coal-mining constituency, I do not think it should be thought that the miners are the only people who are interested in this matter. Obviously the general public, who are to be asked in the subsequent Bill to buy these people out at a figure that has been agreed, are also very considerably interested in the matter. After the example given this evening by the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring), an assurance should be given that there will be the greatest amount of publicity, so that all people who think they are in any way remotely connected with this matter and have any financial interest in it, may have an opportunity of making their voices heard before the money is paid and the royalties have become the property of the State.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 91.

  Division No. 301.]

  AYES.

  [12.23 a.m.

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

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

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

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Balniel, Lord

  Boulton, W. W.

  Apsley, Lord

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Aske,Sir R. W.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Assheton, R.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Brass, Sir W.

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

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

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Bernays, R. H.

  Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Plugge, Capt. L. F.

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

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

  Ponsonby, Col, C. E.

  Bull, B. B.

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Burghley, Lord

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Radford, E. A.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Cary, R. A.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.

  Rankin, Sir R.

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

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

  Higgs, W. F.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Holmes, J. S.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Channon, H.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Christie, J. A.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

  Robinson, J. R.(Blackpool)

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

  Hunter, T.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

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

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Rowlands, G.

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

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Royds, Admiral P. M. R.

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Salmon, Sir I.

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

  Keeling, E. H.

  Salt. E. W.

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

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Scott, Lord William

  Cox, H. B. T.

  Kimball, L.

  Selley, H. R.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Critchley, A.

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

  Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

  Crookshank, Capt.

  H. F. C. Liddell, W. S.

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

  Cross, R. H.

  Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Loftus, P. C.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Lyons, A. M.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Spens, W. P.

  Dodd, J. S.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

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

  Doland, G. F.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Drewe, C.

  McKie, J. H.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Duggan, H. J.

  Magnay, T.

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Maitland, A.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Eckersley, P. T.

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

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

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

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

  Turton, R. H.

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Elmley, Viscount

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

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

  Emery, J. F.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Moreing, A. C.

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

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

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

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

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col A. J.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fleming, E. L.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

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

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Furness, S. N.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Wragg, H.

  Ganzoni, Sir J.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Peak., O.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Peat, C. U.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Petherick, M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro

  NOES.

  Adamson, W. M.

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

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  MacLaren, A.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Barr, J.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Batey, J.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Mander, G. le M.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

  Maxton, J.

  Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Messer, F.

  Buchanan, G.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Daggar, G.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Paling, W.

  Dalton, H.

  Hollins, A.

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Hopkin, D.

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jagger, J.

  Price, M. P.

  Debbie, W.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Ritson, J.

  Ede, J. C.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Sexton. T. M.

  Foot, D. M.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Silkin, L.

  Frankel, D.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Silverman, S. S

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Lawson, J. J.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Lee, F.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Logan, D. G.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lunn, W.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  2142

  2143

  Stephen, C.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

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

  Watson, W. McL.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

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

  Westwood, J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  White, H. Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  12.32 a.m.
  Mr. MacLaren: Before we pass this Clause I think it is appropriate that some comment should be made. If I were asked to illustrate this Clause, I would do it by a graphic drawing of a red piece of vegetable and a pair of pants, because the President of the Board of Trade tells us that the inspiring policy behind the Clause is more the carrot than the donkey. That is to say, he was going to induce the owners of the rights in coal to make a voluntary registration. That being so, everything else in the Clause naturally followed. It is hard really to appreciate the position in which the Government now find themselves. It is true we have been told that circumstances will not permit a first-class Measure being launched at this time, and therefore there is something in the nature of—shall I say?—a sign that something is going to be done and here we have it in this Bill.
  I will not detain the Committee for long, but I think it is the duty of the Committee in a very important Clause like this to say something about it before we leave it. I merely repeat the point that we have to have a sign that something is to be done. Therefore this Bill has been launched, at least it is being brought before the House. We have got to induce by every possible device a voluntary confession of ownership by voluntary inducement; no coercion and no public exhibition of the facts when ascertained, and then, let it be observed that the main success of this registration will depend upon the easy passage in the Law Courts of any litigation that may arise out of the registration. There are a number of lawyers in this House, and I do not think they will say I am stretching the facts if I give this illustration. There will be a good number of owners of property in coal who will not wish to be registered either voluntarily or compulsorily, and an unemployed lawyer will go to them and say: "The Government is going to bring in legislation. I am out of a job"—
  Mr. Turton: Would not the lawyer be debarred from or turned out of his profession?
  Mr. MacLaren: Yes, I agree, if he did it the way I was saying. But we are met in private circumstances where we can talk freely without endangering professional etiquette. It would be likely for long processes of litigation to be carried on. The public purse is there to pay the costs, and two things happen—the lawyer is kept busy with a good refresher in fees out of the State funds and there would be prolonged arguments. You are giving employment to the lawyer on the one hand, and suspending a definite entry in the Registry on the other. It is interesting to note that having agreed, or having voted in this House for voluntary registration, we were brought up against the difficulty of sanctions. On this side of the House we proposed that there should be compulsory registration. For reasons of time compulsory registration cannot be contemplated. It must be voluntary. But it was interesting to notice—and I think the Government were quite logical here—that if you have voluntary registration it is quite impossible to have any form of sanction, because it must be assumed that those who are asked to register under this Bill have not in the slightest degree any idea of what is likely to happen when this Bill is passed. That being so, there is no chance of bringing in a sanction unless it is linked to some definite measure well known to those who are called upon to register.
  So if one takes this point in conjunction with a passage in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade in the previous Debate on this Bill one comes to this startling situation: that those who voluntarily enter details in the Register under this Bill, according to what we have been told, may still have a right to have these details revised in the light of new circumstances and the new Bill when it is brought in. What does this mean? It means that when a compulsory registration has been made and completed after a long process of litigation involving the expenditure of public money, legal processes and all the rest will be nullified in view of the major Bill. It means that

  2145
  money spent under this Act will be money thrown away, because all that will be arrived at by registration under the Act will be subject to revision later on.
  There is another thing that seems to be missed out. Take certain towns in the north of England. I see that servitudes, covenants and restrictions are to be taken into account. But all over this country, and more especially in the north, you see rows of cottages lying at all angles. In Wales I have seen them. You ask—"Are these miners' cottages? Has there been an earthquake?"—"Oh, no, we are using the coal seams underneath." There is nothing here to stop that kind of thing. In fact, if I am the owner of coal or any right to exploit coal from underneath the entire town, I will be entered in the register as valid for full compensation for coal under public buildings and people's houses. Then what will happen? The Government will be expected in future, after paying compensation for the rights, not to exploit that coal and not to undermine people's houses. The public will feel, and probably rightly so, that when the State is the owner and controller of the coal seams, the State should not do what the private owner did, namely, proceed to undermine public buildings and people's houses. Then you will have a situation in which the State, having paid compensation to the owners, will not exploit the coal.
  There is nothing in this Bill to protect the public at the moment; the owners will be compensated and then quite probably whole communities in the country will prohibit the Government from exploiting the coal after having paid the previous royalty owner to clear out. There is no restriction on that point. My own feeling about the Bill is that it will accomplish very little. It may be that a number of flies may be brought into the spider's parlour and openly confess to the country what their holdings are, but even if they do, my opinion is, after the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that all that may be confessed here is subject to alteration later on, that it is utterly futile to go on with the Bill.
  Last, but not least, there has been quoted to-night the previous Act under which it was stipulated that all details entered in the register should remain private. I want to say this again, though I have said it before. It has been the characteristic of every Act dealing with
  2146
  land that any details that are given under the Bill shall be kept secret. It was the old trouble with the Finance Act, 1909—an Act which was quoted to-night to support the contention that secrecy should be observed on what was in the register. The Government seem to forget there was a Finance Act of 1931 and that one of the Clause in that Act was that every detail regarding the holding of land and the value to be fixed for the sites, whatever they might be, would have been made public if that Finance Act had been passed into law and not destroyed, and the details so ascertained by the Government would have been open to public inspection in almost every town hall in the country. That was in 1931. Why was not that quoted to-night as a precedent? There is no reason that I know of why this should not be persisted with for the great basis of life and of wealth production, on which we are called upon to spend millions in defending, namely, the land. Why, when we come to deal with that, should no details be made public? I care not for any previous Registration Act—not in the slightest. If it has been the practice in the past, then that practice ought to be broken.
  It will not sound very wise to the country when it is heralded abroad that the reason why the details we have asked for to-night are not to be made public is because there might be something intimidating in them in respect of the vested interests of those who own the holdings. Secrecy with regard to registration in this case must naturally follow voluntary registration, but I put a question to the Minister asking if the details given in the register would become public when the registration becomes obligatory. He quoted the President of the Board of Trade to the effect that the details in the register would be public after the royalties had become the property of the State. Surely there is an interim period between the pronouncement that registration shall be obligatory and the time when there shall be the total transfer of the entire royalties to the State, in which the details can be made public but, apparently, it is not to be so. I conclude by saying that I do really consider, in spite of all the indulgence for which the Government may ask—because the Government have asked for indulgence on the ground that there is

  2147
  not time enough to pass the major Act with all its obligations, and therefore they come forward with this Bill to get the preparatory work done before the major Bill is brought in—in spite of that, we have been wasting our time in discussing this Bill at all. You are not ensuring that the facts you want shall be facts which shall be unalterable and you are putting on the State the cost of getting them, and when you have got them they are to be subject to revision when another Act is brought in. Therefore, this Bill is clearly nothing but window-dressing. We have been promised a Bill dealing with royalties, and we see no attempt to deal with them drastically. All that is being done is to put goods in the window.
  Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Expenses of Board of Trade.)
  All expenses of the Board of Trade under this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, and shall not be taken into account in computing the amount of the expenses of the Department of Mines for the purposes of the limit imposed by Subsection (2) of Section five of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, upon the expenses of that Department.—[Captain Crooks hank.]
  Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  First Schedule agreed to.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.
  12.48 a.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 12, line 35, at the end, to add:
  "5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph the Board shall pay the costs (including costs of or incidental to proceedings on an application made to the Court under Part I of this Schedule) reasonably incurred by the person by whom an application for the registration of particulars in respect of a holding is duly made in giving effect in relation to that holding to the provisions of Part I of this Schedule or of the rules made thereunder relating to the rights and duties of a person by whom an application is made, and for the purposes of this provision costs so incurred by that person as a person notified, under sub-paragraph (2) (b) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, of an application received in respect of another holding shall be deemed to have been incurred in relation to the first-mentioned holding:
  2148
  Provided that, if two or more applications are made in relation to the same holding, the liability of the Board under this sub-paragraph shall be limited to such a sum as would have been payable by them it a single application only had been made so however that the Board may pay costs in excess of that sum in any case in which it appears to them that the making of more than one application was justified having regard to any special circumstances.
  (2) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, where any facts particulars whereof are registered in respect of a holding have been ascertained from information furnished by a person notified, under sub-paragraph (2) (a) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, of an application received in respect thereof, the Board shall pay the costs (including costs of or incidental to proceedings on an application made to the Court under Part I of this Schedule) reasonably incurred by him in giving effect in relation to that holding to the provisions of Part I of this Schedule or of the rules made thereunder relating to the rights and duties of a person so notified.
  (3) The Board shall not he liable to pay any such costs as aforesaid incurred either—
  (a) in relation to a holding in respect of which no application for the registration of particulars is duly made within the period of six months beginning as to England and Scotland respectively on the date on which notice is first published in the London Gazette and in the Edinburgh Gazette respectively of rules having been made by the Board with respect to the procedure for the making of applications, or the date on which the holding comes into existence, whichever is the later, or, in the case of a holding constituted by virtue of rules made under paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to this Act, within such extended period as may be prescribed, so however that this provision shall rot have effect as regards a holding in respect of which application is made after the expiration of the said period in a case in which it appears to the Board that sufficient cause is shown for no application having been made within the said period; or
  (b) in relation to a holding in the case of which it appears to the Board that there is no reasonable ground for believing that any coal hereditaments in which the holding is stated to subsist have any marketable value; or
  (c) by a person who has neglected to comply with any of the requirements of Part I of this Schedule or of the rules made thereunder relating to the information to be given by him, whether on the original making of the application or thereafter.
  The High Court shall have power on the application of a person aggrieved by a denial on the part of the Board by virtue of this sub-paragraph of liability to pay any such costs as aforesaid, to give such directions as to the matter in question as appear to the Court to be just.
  (4) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the Board shall pay the costs of or incidental to proceedings on an application made to the Court under Part I of this

  2149
  Schedule reasonably incurred by a person whom the Court, under sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 2 or under that sub-paragraph as applied by sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 3 of this Schedule, directs to be made a party to the application.
  (5) The Court may direct that the Board shall not be liable to pay any such costs as aforesaid incurred by any party to an application made to the Court under Part I of this Schedule who appears to the Court to have made such an application or prosecuted proceedings thereon unreasonably or to have been guilty of any such unreasonable failure to agree with the Board or with any other party, or of any such negligence or default, as to disentitle him to payment of his costs.
  (6) The Board shall have power to enter into undertakings to pay, and to pay, any costs other than as aforesaid reasonably incurred by any person in furnishing to the Board information for the purposes of this Act.
  (7) Any costs that the Board are liable under or by virtue of this Part of this Schedule to pay shall, if the Board or the person entitled to payment thereof so requires, be taxed and settled by the High Court, and any apportionment required to be made for the purposes of the proviso to subparagraph (1) of this paragraph shall, if any person concerned in the apportionment so requires, be made by the High Court.
  This sub-paragraph shall, in its application to Scotland, have effect as if for references to the High Court there were substituted references to the Auditor of the Court of Session."
  12.49 a.m.
  Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 22, at the end, to insert:
  "Provided also that the Board shall not pay any costs incurred by or attributable to, nor any costs so far as they may have been increased by reason of any question as to who is the owner of any proprietary interest."
  The point that I want to make is with reference to the costs. The Bill provides that persons coming forward to register their proprietary interests shall have the costs of registration paid, including costs involved in their being either taken to the courts by the Board of Trade to have things cleared up or in certain instances of their going to the court themselves to get one matter or another cleared up to their own advantage or getting a decision reversed. A very great deal of objection might be taken to that, but the objection we have is on a relatively narrow point, and we put it on this footing: We assume that the owners of coal royalties have the same moral claim as the owners of other property to have their costs paid when there is compulsory purchase and acquisition. It is a big assumption, because the moral rights of various forms of property
  2150
  owners must vary, and I do not think I ever knew anybody who did not put the right of coal royalties pretty low in the moral scale. Yet the Government actually propose to put them higher in the moral scale in the matter of receiving costs than any other body of owners who have ever been subject to compulsory purchase or acquisition.
  Why I say that is this: It is clear that in fact in one provision or another of this Bill and Schedule the question of which of two persons has a title to a particular unit of ownership is bound to arise in a certain number of cases. It is a uniform rule, which has been applied by all tribunals, that in the case of litigation between two people's claims to a piece of property which is to be acquired, costs are not to be paid by the acquiring party, whether the State, some public utility, or a municipality. There is a quite clear distinction between that and the case of acquisition because the party is having the property taken away for the benefit of the community or someone else. Where the question is which of two parties owns the property to be taken, it has always been the rule, in every form of compensation for compulsory acquisition, that they and no one else shall bear the cost of the litigation. The Bill makes it clear that the intention in the future is that so many cases—and I think there will be a substantial number—of people disputing between themselves the possession of coal royalties shall be put in a more favourable position than any have been put in before. It is utterly indefensible. It could only have emanated from a Government like this. It is almost impossible for a Government like this to defend it, and it is quite impossible for a Government like this to produce any reason for it.
  12.54 a.m.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is exercised by this problem. He envisages a time when there will be a sum of compensation to be distributed, and he envisages the possibility of there being a question of whether "A" or "B" is entitled to that compensation. He is anxious that the dispute between "A" and "B" shall not be fought out at the expense of the State. That is a question which is undoubtedly very important, but it does not arise under this Bill. It has nothing whatever to do with compensation or its destination.
  Mr. Silverman: Neither has the Amendment.
  The Attorney-General: The Amendment has to do with disputes as to right, and the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was related to the subject I have mentioned. This Bill deals, not with the ultimate allotment of compensation, but with the registration of the units of ownership. It is perfectly true that in deciding exactly what these units of ownership are the question of title may arise, although I do not think it will be very likely to arise very often. It is also true that the question of title may arise in identifying the question of ownership. We can, therefore, confine ourselves to that rather limited number of cases in which there is a possibility of dispute. The matter raised by the Amendment is safeguarded in this way: The applicant can only take the matter to the courts under paragraphs (2) and (4) of the Second Schedule if it arises on particulars required by the Board of Trade. Unless the Board of Trade thinks that to make a question of title a necessary particular is necessary, no dispute as to it can be taken to the courts. The Board of Trade itself will only take the matter to the court if it thinks the matter is necessary in order to identify the holdings to be registered. That safeguards the matter. As far as the other matter is concerned, here again the Board of Trade will only require the particulars necessary in order to identify the holdings, and disputes which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind can be left over by the Board of Trade. I doubt whether any of the particulars would be necessary for the purposes of this Bill. The Board of Trade are completely masters of the situation. I think the Committee will agree with us that this Amendment is not necessary.
  12.59 a.m.
  Mr. Pritt: The one thing which makes us absolutely convinced that a matter of doubt raised by this Bill exists in a far more serious form is the Government spokesman's attempt to explain it away. If nonsense is a Parliamentary word, it is utter nonsense for the Attorney-General to get up and pretend that the question of title will not arise. The Financial Memorandum is not part of the Bill, but lines one and two of it state:
  "The object of this Bill is to enable the Board of Trade to register particulars of the present ownership of coal …"
  Clause 1 of the Bill is entitled "Registration of particulars of ownership," and certain matters of title which have to be dealt with are mentioned. Is it really supposed, even by this Committee, that Parliament is to be asked to pass a Bill in which the owner will come and ask for registration and supply the particulars, and that the actual register will not mention the name of the estate owner? This register is to be preserved from the gaze of Labour propaganda. Is it not absolutely futile to say that it will not have some bearing on ultimate compensation? If it has, will not the Board of Trade, even under this Government, have some regard to putting down the right owner, and in the long run, when compensation comes to be paid in a later Bill, if they bring it in, will not somebody be registered as owner, and will not his registration have some bearing on the ownership of that unit? If all these questions are to be answered, the only way in which they can be answered is by the Board of Trade, which has to determine whether the particulars are correct and to decide if they shall be registered. The Board of Trade must try to find out whether is is the right name of the owner or the wrong name, and it may be asked who is or who is not the owner. This Government is determined for the first time in history to say that not merely the cost of registration and acquisition but also the cost of settling these disputes as to who is the owner of the property to receive the compensation shall be paid out of the public pocket instead of the
  pocket of the interested parties. If the Board of Trade cannot decide on this question, the matter must be referred to the courts, and the courts are not cheap, and all that is to be paid out of the public pocket again. And then the Attorney-General gets up and says this Bill has nothing to do with ownership.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 163.

  Division No. 302.]

  AYES.

  [1.3 a.m.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Barr, J.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Batey, J.

  Buchanan, G.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Burke, W. A.

  Daggar, G.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Dalton, H.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Ritson, J.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Hollins, A.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jagger, J.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Dobbie, W.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Ede, J. C.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

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

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Foot, D. M.

  Logan, D. G.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Frankel, D.

  Lunn, W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Stephen, C.

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  MacLaren, A.

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

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Tinker, J. J.

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

  Maxton, J.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Messer, F.

  Westwood, J.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Paling, W.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Price, M. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

  NOES.

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

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Peake, O.

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

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Peat, C. U.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Petherick, M.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Plugge, Capt. L. F.

  Assheton, R.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

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

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Furness, S. N.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Radford, E. A.

  Balniel, Lord

  Ganzoni, Sir J.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Rankin, Sir R.

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

  Grimston, R. V.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Bernays, R. H.

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Rowlands, G.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Royds, Admiral P. M. R.

  Bull, . B.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Burghley, Lord

  Holmes, J. S.

  Salt, E. W.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Scott, Lord William

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Cary, R. A.

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

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunter, T.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

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

  James, Wing-Commands' A. W. H.

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Channon, H.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Spens, W. P.

  Christie, J. A.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

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

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

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

  Sutcliffe, H.

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

  Liddall, W. S.

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

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Thomas, J. P. L.

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

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Cox, H. B. T.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Critchley, A.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Turton, R. H.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  MoCorquodale, M. S.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Cross, R. H.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

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

  Crowder, J F. E.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  McKie, J. H.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Maitland, A.

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

  De Chair, S. S.

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Dodd, J. S.

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

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

  Doland, G. F.

  Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Drewe, C.

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

  Wragg, H.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Moreing, A. C.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Captain Waterhouse and Mr.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Munro.

  Emery, J. F.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Proposed words there added.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1935.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  1. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1936, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for

  SCHEDULE.

  No. of Vote.

  Army Services, 1935, Votes.

  Deficits.

  Surpluses.

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, etc., of the Army …

  —

  7,190

  3

  11

  98,637

  1

  5

  —

  2

  Territorial Army and Reserve Forces.

  —

  —

  55,848

  17

  9

  437

  9

  8

  3

  Medical Services

  —

  —

  4,078

  11

  7

  11,524

  5

  8

  4

  Educational Establishments.

  6,415

  12

  5

  —

  —

  9,940

  19

  5

  5

  Quartering and Movements

  —

  332,035

  8

  6

  365,595

  10

  4

  —

  6

  Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts.

  136,765

  1

  2

  —

  —

  18,514

  5

  5

  7

  Clothing

  16,927

  3

  10

  —

  —

  4,411

  3

  9

  8

  General Stores

  133,841

  18

  8

  —

  —

  35,214

  6

  8

  9

  Warlike Stores

  —

  —

  252,222

  5

  11

  27,583

  15

  11

  10

  Works, Buildings and Lands.

  —

  —

  89,104 9 8

  9

  8

  28,275

  12

  10

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services.

  —

  14,316

  9

  0

  3,999

  12

  8

  —

  12

  War Office

  —

  —

  5,751

  8

  7

  1,002

  0

  11

  13

  Half-Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers.

  —

  486

  9

  7

  12,843

  3

  0

  —

  14

  Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-commissioned Officers,
  Men, and others.

  —

  —

  14,501

  7

  6

  1,476

  17

  8

  15

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities.

  6,857

  6

  0

  —

  —

  230

  7

  4

  —

  Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.

  2,229

  8

  5

  —

  —

  —

  303,036

  10

  6

  354,028

  11

  0

  902,582

  3

  5

  138,611

  5

  3

  Total Deficits

  £657,065

  1

  6

  Total Surpluses

  £1,041,193

  13

  8

  Net Surplus …

  £384,128

  12

  2

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Mr. Benn: Are we to have the compliment of an explanation?
  2156
  those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £384,128 12s. 2d., namely:

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  1,041,193

  13

  8

  Total Deficits

  …

  657,065

  1

  6

  Net Surplus

  …

  £384,128

  12

  2

  1.12 a.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The right hon. Gentleman will know that this is an annual Measure. I have been looking up the records of previous occasions, and I see that it has been quite usual for the House to accept it.
  Mr. Kelly: Not at this hour of the night.
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes. The position is that every Appropriation Act contains a Section, in this instance Section 4 of the Appropriation Act, 1935, and Section 4 of the Act of 1936, authorising the temporary transfer of any surpluses arising on any of the Navy, Army, or Air Votes, to meet a deficiency in the realised appropriation in aid of any other Navy, Army, or Air Votes or expenditure in any such Votes in excess of the Estimate or in defraying expenditure not provided in the Estimates which it may be detrimental to the Service to postpone. The aggregate expenditure on such Services must not, however, exceed the aggregate sums appropriated by the Acts for those Services. Treasury authority is necessary for those, but the Treasury authority in this connection is only temporary, and it has to be confirmed by Parliament. To this end, the Appropriation Acts to which I have referred provided that statements showing the circumstances in which the sanction for the temporary use of surpluses was given should be laid before Parliament, and that was done in January last. The final stage is to obtain Parliamentary sanction for the permanent application of the surpluses, and that is done by the present Resolutions, which lead up to a Clause in the Appropriation Bill, 1937, which will shortly be introduced. The accounts, of course, have been reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor General and have been the subject of examination by the Public Accounts Committee. The report of the Public Accounts Committee
  is now available. That is the explanation of the Resolution.
  1.16 a.m.
  Mr. Benn: I am very much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but we are dealing with serious matters, the transfer of money which is provided for the Defence Services. The first question that I would ask is, Where is the Secretary of State for War? We all respect the Financial Secretary, but he is not competent to explain why one Service was starved and another Service was supplied with money. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if this Debate was a mere formality. This is not a formality at all. It is a very serious proceeding. I remember the first occasion on which I was at one of these Debates—I am ashamed to say it was 31 years ago—when not only was Mr. McKenna present, but Mr. Haldane, the Secretary of State for War, was there to explain. Therefore, Captain Bourne, I would ask you if you would accept a Motion to report Progress in order that we may have the advantage of the attendance of the Secretary of State for War to explain these matters. I have looked these matters up—as the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs would say, I have "mugged" them up—and I move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 135.

  Division No, 303.]

  AYES.

  [1.17 a.m.

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Jagger, J.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Burke, W. A.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Daggar, G.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Dobbie, W.

  Kirkwood, D.

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

  Ede, J. C.

  Logan, D. G.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Lunn, W.

  Tinker, J. J.

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

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Watson, W. McL.

  Frankel, D.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Paling, W.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Price, M. P.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Pritt, D. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Ritson, J.

  Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

  NOES.

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

  Atholl, Duchess of

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

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

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Bernays, R. H.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Balniel, Lord

  Bossom, A. C.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Assheton, R.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Cary, R. A.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Royds, Admiral P. M. R.

  Channon, H.

  Hunter, T.

  Salt, E. W.

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

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Scott, Lord William

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

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Cox, H. B. T.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

  Critchley, A.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Cross, R. H.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

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

  Spens, W. P.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

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

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Dodd, J. S.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Doland, G. F.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

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

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Thomas, J. P. L.

  Elmley, Viscount

  McKie, J. H.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Emery, J. F.

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

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Turton, R. H.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

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

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Moreing, A. C.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

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

  Furness, S. N.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

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

  Ganzoni, Sir J.

  Peake, O.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Petherick, M.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Plugge, Capt. L. F.

  Wragg, H.

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Captain Waterhouse and Mr.

  Munro.

  Question, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned," put, and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  1.24 a.m.
  Mr. Benn: I regret that I cannot comment on the decision of the Committee not to report Progress, or that we have not the advantage of the presence of the Secretary of State for War. I may make no improper comment on the decision of the House when I say it is a shocking thing that the Government should not show the Committee respect by ensuring the presence of the Minister. Perhaps he does not yet know he is Secretary of State for War. But having decided that point, let me now come to the merits of the case. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has explained the machinery with perfect accuracy, but this is not merely a question of machinery but one of substance. I do not want to take up time in criticism until I have heard the explanation which, no doubt, the representative of the War Office will give us as to these surpluses and their distribution in other directions. I would point out that the Financial Secretary cannot possibly have any knowledge, such as the Secretary of State for War would have, of the reasons of policy which make it necessary to divert sums
  2160
  from one purpose to another. Therefore, I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he would give us some explanation of these various deficits and surpluses. and not just to tell us That they have been before the Public Accounts Committee and before the Controller and Auditor-General. That we know perfectly well, and it has already been stated by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. What we want to know from the representative of the War Office, who has the heavy burden of carrying here alone the responsibilities of his great office, is the reason for these things, because we have some criticisms to make about the diversion of sums from one purpose to another. Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the War Office will open the Debate by explaining the details.
  1.27 a.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I am happy to comply with the right hon. Gentleman's wishes, but I must confess I feel some degree of embarrassment since he opened his previous speech by saying he did not think I was capable of giving an explanation. There is no matter of policy concerned here. What the Committee is

  2161
  asked to do is to give Parliamentary authority to a procedure which has already been authorised by the Treasury and the War Office, and to apply surpluses arising on one Vote or one subhead to meet deficits on another subhead. The surpluses and deficits are made up of a hundred and one different items and to give the Committee an explanation of every one of them at this hour of the morning would require a great deal of time. If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends attach so much importance to these points, an easier mode of procedure would have been to let me know beforehand which were the particular points in which they took most interest, and then these could have been proceeded with in a more speedy and businesslike fashion. I would suggest that probably the easiest way to proceed to-night would be to let me know what particular information is required. I would be only too glad to give that information, but as there are 101 items it is rather difficult to give the information without notice.
  Mr. Benn: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman will move to report Progress that the information may be given?
  Mr. Mainwaring: Why should the time of the day or night affect the information to be given? If it is required it should be given independent of the time? If it is valuable in the afternoon, it is equally valuable in the morning. If these things are to be divulged, let the hon. Gentleman do it to-night.
  1.32 a.m.
  Mr. Ede: It is very regrettable that the Financial Secretary should treat the Committee in this way. We are all well aware that his chief went to the 1922 Committee the other day. I had it from a report in the public Press. He listened to what they had to say on matters concerned with the Army. Even the House of Commons is more important than the 1922 Committee and we might have at least as much courtesy. Let us take these 15 items. The first one deals with the pay of Mr. Thomas Atkins which was over-estimated by £98,637 1s. 5d. That may be due to the fact that recruiting was short or that proficiency pay and certain other extras, which are very much beloved by the private soldier and the N.C.O., were not issued to the extent
  2162
  expected. If that is so, the Financial Secretary will realise that that was not very popular with the Army. There was a deficit of £7,190 3s. 11d. under the head of Pay, etc., of the Army. Can the hon. Gentleman explain exactly what was the cause of that, and is it likely that this deficit will continue in the years to come? I notice that the Territorial Forces also showed a surplus of £55,848 17s. 9d. Is there anything more in that than shortage
  of recruiting? Is it partly due to the condition of affairs so graphically described on one occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who found one of the antiaircraft sections carried through its drill in dumb show because they had not the necessary apparatus? Is this the way that that finally appears in the national balance sheet?
  I notice that there is a surplus of estimated over gross expenditure of £365,595 10s. 4d. in quartering and movements. It is true that it is set off by a sum of £332,035 8s. 6d. of deficiencies compared with actual receipts. What receipts do the Government get from moving troops? When I was moved by the Government I was never called upon to pay my fare although I would sometimes have willingly paid my fare in an opposite direction. There is also a surplus of £252,222 5s. 11d. in warlike stores. This is at a time when we understood the Government were engaged in bringing the equipment of the nation up to adequate strength. Does that represent the failure of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence to get an adequate supply of war material?
  I am sure I have indicated enough for the hon. Gentleman to let him understand that these are matters of great concern. It is a great pity that his chief is not here. I see that his Parliamentary Private Secretary is here and I hope he will convey to his chief the great interest the House takes in these matters and the sense of disappointment at his failure to be here to-night. I can only say that it is a very good thing that the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) is not here, or he would extract some amusement from his promotion to War Minister.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I hardly think that arises.
  Mr. Ede: Then I can only express my regret. I notice, also, that the War Office was estimated to cost £5,751 more than was expended. I hope that means that the staff at the War Office has had less chance of rendering the Army inefficient than in the old days. My recollection of the views of the private soldier is that the Army might have won the War in considerably less time but for the War Office. I hope that the reduction of expenditure on that head means that the Army Council has reached the conclusion that there is one item on which the country has sound reasons for rejoicing that there is a surplus.
  1.38 a.m.
  Mr. Davidson: I had intended to come into the House quietly and listen seriously to the explanation of the Secretary of State for War on matters which, to my regret, and that of my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War has not deemed his presence necessary in the Committee. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has been advised not to take part in the discussion.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The Committee has already decided on that. It cannot be raised again.
  Mr. Davidson: If it has been effectively met before I will not do so. There are one or two points which, from my former material interest in the Army, I want to raise. I do hope that it will be realised that our queries are put forward with sincere interest in this subject. We hope we shall get as effective a reply as we possibly can. There are one or two items here which, I think, the hon. Gentleman will recognise as very serious that huge surpluses amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds should be transferred to meet deficits.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is covered by statutory authority and we cannot discuss the merits or demerits.
  Mr. Benn: On the occasion to which I referred earlier Mr. Haldane made an explanation regarding the transfer of sums from one expenditure to another, and I would respectfully submit to you that it is in order to ask why a sum has been expended on a purpose other than that for which it was provided.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The point is that the method of the payments is
  2164
  covered by statutory authority and that this is not the occasion on which to raise it. It is in order to ask why there is a surplus.
  Mr. Davidson: I think some explanation should be made with regard to these surpluses. I would like to ask for some information on the question of medical services. Many Members who have been in His Majesty's Forces know perfectly well with regard to medical services that the old Army doctors used to recommend the very well-known Number 9 for nearly all soldiers' complaints. I would like to know if that is still the practice, and if it is the practice does it account for the amount placed here? On medical services we see that the surpluses of estimated over actual gross expenditure was £4,078 11s. 7d., and that the surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts was £11,524 5s. 8d. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to tell me how many Number 9's this will account for and exactly what medicines have been used. How are these figures arrived at with regard to this service, as it is one of the most important services in the Army? If we have not qualified persons to give the necessary medicine to our soldiers when necessary, we are in danger of being dominated by some oversea Power.
  There is another question in which we are interested on this side of the Committee, and that is in regard to educational establishments. We always consider that this is a very important branch of Army life and that the soldier of today with his keener mentality, or, as I said on a previous occasion, with a higher mentality than his officers, is entitled to receive as efficient an educational system as he can get in civilian life, and probably even a more efficient educational system in order to counteract the effects of Army life. Under the head of Educational Establishments we have excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure of £6,415 12s. 5d., with surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts of nearly £10,000. I would like to know what steps are being taken in regard to educational establishments to see to it that the Government and the Secretary of State for War are recognising the value of educational establishments.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is a matter which the hon. Member must raise on the Estimates. He can ask why there is a surplus but he cannot ask general questions of policy.
  Mr. Davidson: I was wondering if we could have an explanation in regard to this sum of money for warlike stores which is placed No. 9 on the programme. I have seen many things that could be described as warlike stores. I have seen right hon. Gentlemen opposite dressed in a way that could be described as warlike stores. There is a tremendous amount of money, a surplus of over £250,000 over actual gross expenditure as compared with receipts of £27,583 15s. 11d. I hope we will get some information in regard to that and why the Department is so far out in its estimates. There is also the item of balances irrecoverable and claims abandoned amounting to £2,229 8s. 5d., and I would like to know how these figures are arrived at. I think we should have some reassurance on this point in order that we can reassure our constituents as to their future safety. I would like to have information on these matters in order that these points can be put side by side with recruiting posters throughout the country. If that is done, I am certain that recruiting will be worse in the future than it has been in the past.
  Mr. Kelly: I wish to ask a question. There is a statement going around that many of these surpluses deal with Gibraltar. I am told that much that might have been expended there has been saved. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his explanation make it clear how much has been saved with regard to Gibraltar on the No. 9 vote as well as the No. 8 vote in regard to stores? I notice that the Under-Secretary for Air seems to be very comfortable as no questions were asked of him—
  1.51 a.m.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is not covered here.
  Sir V. Warrender: I hope the Committee will not think there was any lack of respect on the part of the Secretary of State in not being here to-night. The Opposition will realise that it has been the practice for many years past that these Resolutions should be taken by the Financial Secretary. If hon. Members
  2166
  opposite had armed themselves previously with a copy of the Army Appropriation Account, 1935, they would have found the answer to a great many of the questions they have asked to-night, and those of them who are so interested as to arm themselves with a copy will be interested to see an extensive explanation given of the reasons why the deficits have been incurred and how the surpluses have arisen. Broadly speaking, most of these surpluses arise, in part out of the number of men in the Army being fewer than was estimated at the time the estimate was made. Some of the items arise out of the fact that the Army was put to a great expense because of the Abyssinian emergency, and some of them arise out of mistakes in estimating. When a Department is charged with estimating for such a huge sum as the Service Departments it is only human nature that occasionally small errors should be made, and where a small error does occur, and we have a surplus on one Vote, it does seem to me to be only common sense that that surplus should be used for making good where a deficit has been incurred. But all these Votes mentioned by the hon. Members opposite, except possibly Vote 9 dealing with warlike stores, which was due mainly to delays, arise out of expenditure which we had to incur in such cases as sending troops out to the Mediterranean to meet the Abyssinian emergency. They naturally upset a great many of our calculations.
  Taking the account as a whole the variations really are not very excessive when you consider the enormous sums of money with which they deal. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked about any possible saving affecting Gibraltar. That hardly arises on these accounts. If he wishes to pursue that subject, I shall be only too glad to give him the information, but there is nothing in this account so far as I know which applies to the question. If he had given me previous notice I should have been able to give it to him. I hope that now the hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed their views upon what seems to them a very curious form of procedure, they will realise that we have nothing to hide at all, and if they look at the Accounts they will see a full and adequate explanation given under the various sub-heads.
  1.56 a.m.
  Mr. Benn: I must congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman very sincerely on tackling a difficult problem with great address and ability, although I still think that his Chief should be here. Unfortunately his figures are all wrong. He has a knowledge of all the documents from which the facts can be obtained. I, of course, have read this appropriation account and I think he does it more than justice if he describes it as giving a full answer to the interesting and important questions raised by my hon. Friends behind me. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) raised a question under works and lands, under Vote 10, subhead C, and the hon. and gallant Baronet said the money had been spent because of the Abyssinian war.
  Sir V. Warrender: I did not say that.
  Mr. Benn: I understood the hon. and gallant Baronet to say that the Abyssinian war caused this expenditure.
  Sir V. Warrender: Not on that particular Vote. In many of these cases the expenditure has been due to the fact that we have been put to expenditure which we did not foresee owing to the Abyssinian dispute, but I was not referring to that particularly on Vote 10.
  Mr. Benn: Of course I accept the explanation. This Vote 10, sub-head C, is really in a way the most interesting of the Votes. Here is a Vote which puts a sum of money equivalent to £3,384,000 at the service of the Secretary of State for War for the construction and maintenance of warlike strong points at home and abroad. The extraordinary thing about it is—this is one of our complaints—that on this Vote they have effected a saving of £91,000 when, as has been shown, they should have been attending to the fortifications of the western entrance to the Mediterranean, and that is why we ask the question about Gibraltar, I was surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that he was always ready to give information about Gibraltar. A dentist has a simple job compared with great experts like the right hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George) and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in obtaining information from the War Office about Gibraltar. Since he is so willing, however, no doubt he is willing to give us the information in the
  2168
  course of this Debate as it proceeds. I will give what information I can from the reports to which the War Office representative refers. The net surplus on this Vote is £384,000. The difference between Civil Service Estimates and the Service Estimates is that the Civil Service Estimates start with a Vote on account which is at the disposition of all the officers of the Civil Service, but the Service Estimates start with a general Vote—
  The Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise on this particular occasion.
  Mr. Benn: Very well. I was trying to explain the underlying arrangements, but I do not want to pursue that. The net surplus shown on the War Office Vote is £384,000. It may be voted for Vote 10, on page 204 of the Estimates. We find that we voted £155,400 for various stations abroad for adapting defence to modern requirements. That was the description. On this Vote, Vote 10, subhead C, we find a saving of £91,000 and we want to know how much of that should have been spent in bringing Gibraltar into a state of defence, and how much was not spent. Now the Financial Secretary to the War Office tells my hon. Friend that he would give him plenty of information about Gibraltar if he would only give him notice, but he could not possibly give it at the present because he had not it ready to hand. As a matter of fact, if the hon. and gallant Baronet had read the report of the Appropriation Account of the Army he will find that in this report we are given a detailed statement about the expenditure at Gibraltar.
  I am sorry to be called upon as a private Member of this House to give all this information. It is all set out in a special table, and ever since the year 1883 it has been ordered that expenditure under various heads for these fortifications abroad should be set out. Perhaps the representative of the Air Ministry, who has had plenty of time to prepare for the questions which may be put during the course of further discussion, may refresh his memory from the report which has so constantly been referred to and give us a little more information. Could he tell us why, under sub-head C, which mentions £155,000 for War Office supplies to date, there is a saving at a time when Members of the party opposite are complaining that the Government have failed to put the Rock of Gibraltar in an effective state?
  Mr. Paling: A very definite question has been asked and the Minister should now have had time to be able to give the information asked for.
  Sir V. Warrender: I make no complaint at all but I suggest if points of detail were to be raised, I should have been given notice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am trying to explain the difficulty I have in giving information at such short notice. There are a hundred and one items, and it is quite impossible for anybody to keep all the details in their heads. We have many defended ports besides Gibraltar.
  Mr. Benn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the definition of General Franco that it is not of much importance?
  Sir V. Warrender: I am not going to be drawn into a discussion on the Spanish situation. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to know why there is a surplus of £91,767 under sub-head C of Vote 10. On page 22 of the accounts he will see it says that the progress of the services undertaken in consequence of the special measures taken in connection with the Italo-Abyssinian dispute was slower than had been anticipated in the Supplementary Estimate. In that Estimate we took £200,000 and as we were unable to expend what we had taken as quickly as we hoped, there remained to us at the end of the Account this surplus of £91,000.
  2.4 a.m.
  Mr. Kelly: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that had I known this Vote
  2170
  was going to be taken to-night I would have given him notice in order that he might have been fully prepared, but I had not expected that the Government would attempt to rush this through at this hour of the morning and give no opportunity for explanations with regard to Gibraltar and other places. I will confine myself to Gibraltar. The hon. Gentleman well knows that one is deeply concerned about the people who are employed there in the service of the War Department. Certain information does come to one and it is because of that and the restive feeling there that I put questions to him as to the savings made, which is believed to be unwarranted.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee proceeded to a Division; Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Grimston were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared the Ayes had it.
  Resolved, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
  11. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1936, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net Expenditure is £80,814 15s. 1d., namely:

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  154,394

  9

  3

  Total Deficits

  …

  73,579

  14

  2

  Net Surplus

  …

  £180,814

  15

  1

  SCHEDULE.

  No. of Vote.

  Air Services, 1935, Votes.

  Deficits.

  Surpluses.

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force.

  —

  —

  39,178

  16

  3

  10,931

  1

  7

  2

  Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transportation.

  5,474

  14

  4

  —

  —

  307

  5

  6

  3

  Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research
  Services).

  50,824

  9

  11

  —

  —

  12,779

  9

  4

  4

  Works, Buildings, and Lands.

  —

  9,292

  14

  8

  44,807

  13

  3

  —

  5

  Medical Services …

  3,079

  9

  9

  —

  —

  1,807

  8

  1

  6

  Technical Training and Educational Services.

  —

  —

  7,551

  3

  4

  146

  17

  9

  7

  Auxiliary and Reserve Forces.

  —

  —

  14,122

  7

  7

  71

  1

  10

  8

  Civil Aviation

  —

  414

  11

  6

  18,115

  7

  2

  —

  9

  Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services.

  —

  —

  527

  18

  6

  1,480

  4

  4

  10

  Air Ministry

  4,022

  0

  2

  —

  —

  1,545

  19

  11

  11

  Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-effective Services.

  —

  —

  890

  4

  6

  131

  10

  4

  —

  Balances irrecoverable and claims abandoned.

  471

  13

  10

  —

  —

  —

  63,872

  8

  0

  9,707

  6

  2

  125,193

  10

  7

  29,200

  18

  8

  Total Deficits

  £73,579

  14

  2

  Total Surpluses

  £154,394

  9

  3

  Net Surplus …

  £80,814

  15

  1

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Mr. Kelly: I should like to put one question. Why is there this saving in regard to experiments and research? I cannot understand it at this time.
  2.10 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): With regard to Vote 3, there was a deficit of £51,000. That was the total deficit. There was an underspending of £320,000 under subhead A of this Vote, due to payments for aeroplanes and engines not maturing as early as had been anticipated. That
  2172
  surplus was more than offset by the total armament and technical equipment generally and, therefore, the Vote to which the hon. Gentleman refers shows not a surplus but a deficit. More was actually spent than was anticipated.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening. Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twelve Minutes after Two o'Clock, a.m.

  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  CHINA.
  CHINA.
  INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.
  INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.
  RURAL HOUSING.
  RURAL HOUSING.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, DURHAM).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, DURHAM).
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS.
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  SILICOSIS.
  SILICOSIS.
  ALIEN IMMIGRANTS.
  ALIEN IMMIGRANTS.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  OIL EXTRACTION.
  OIL EXTRACTION.
  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE MINES (OVERTIME).
  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE MINES (OVERTIME).
  EXPORTS.
  EXPORTS.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  INLAND REVENUE OFFICES, ISLE OF MAN.
  INLAND REVENUE OFFICES, ISLE OF MAN.
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MECHANISED CAVALRY (SOLDIERS' EQUIPMENT).
  MECHANISED CAVALRY (SOLDIERS' EQUIPMENT).
  ALBERT MEDAL.
  ALBERT MEDAL.
  WAR DEPARTMENT VESSELS (CREWS).
  WAR DEPARTMENT VESSELS (CREWS).
  GOVERNMENT FACTORY, CHORLEY.
  GOVERNMENT FACTORY, CHORLEY.
  TEA (PRICES).
  TEA (PRICES).
  MONACH LIGHTHOUSE (KEEPERS' DEATH).
  MONACH LIGHTHOUSE (KEEPERS' DEATH).
  TRANSPORT (HIGHWAY OFFENCES).
  TRANSPORT (HIGHWAY OFFENCES).
AGRICULTURE.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (FARMS).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (FARMS).
  BACON (CONSUMPTION STATISTICS).
  BACON (CONSUMPTION STATISTICS).
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  LAND DRAINAGE.
  LAND DRAINAGE.
  MONMOUTHSHIRE.
  MONMOUTHSHIRE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (JUTE INDUSTRY).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (JUTE INDUSTRY).
  EDUCATION (SCHOOLS BLACK LIST).
  EDUCATION (SCHOOLS BLACK LIST).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (AERODROME CONSTRUCTION).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (AERODROME CONSTRUCTION).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES).
  SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES).
  PALESTINE.
  PALESTINE.
  BARBADOS (INFANT MORTALITY).
  BARBADOS (INFANT MORTALITY).
  RHODESIA.
  RHODESIA.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn—Singly took the Oath.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF WOOD GREEN ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Wood Green:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ORDERS.

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have to convey to the House the following Message from the King:
  "I have received your Addresses praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Supplementary Order, 1937, the Government of India (High Court judges (Amendment) Order, 1937, the Government of India (Federal Court) Order, 1937, and the Government of Burma (Adaptation of Laws) Supplementary Order, 1937, be made in the form of the respective drafts approved by your Lordships' House. I will comply with your request."

  BUCKS WATER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  TORQUAY CORPORATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  WADEBRIDGE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  WOODHALL SPA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting; and that the Motion of the Lord Snell do have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Halifax.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CLEVEDON WATER) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
  COATBRIDGE BURGH EXTENSION, ETC. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  FERGUSON BEQUEST FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  ROYAL SAMARITAN HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN GLASGOW ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  PALESTINE.
  LORD SNELL LORD SNELL rose to call attention to the Palestine Royal Commission Report, and to the statement of the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the same; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name, I feel sure that every member of the House will desire that the first word used in this debate should be one of sincere congratulation to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and his colleagues on the Royal Commission for having placed at the disposal of Parliament a clear, courageous, and brilliantly drafted document. Whatever may be the fate of the proposals that are made in the Report, it will always occupy an honoured place among the great State Papers of our time. Perhaps better than anyone else in your Lordships' House my noble friend Lord Rushcliffe and myself can estimate the difficulties that the Commission had to face. We can understand their anxieties, and, personally, I very heartily congratulate them upon the conclusion of a wearying and thankless task. I congratulate them also on having produced a unanimous Report. It was my misfortune to place a different meaning upon the evidence submitted to the Commission of which I was a member than that of my colleagues, and it is perhaps only an evidence of a pugnacious and stubborn mind that I feel more certain to-day that I was right than I did at the time. That judgment, I venture to
  600
  suggest, is justified by subsequent events and by the Report which we are to consider to-day.
  First of all I should like to express some regret that the Commissioners allowed their spirits to droop under the heavy task they had to complete. Their depression went from one stage to another till gloom settled into despair. They appear to me to have given up their patient before they tried to cure him, and handed him over to a surgical operation which may possibly be more dangerous to the patient than the disease of which they sought to cure him. I do not believe that it is ever any good to give up trying in this world to find a solution to a problem, and I do not believe that any problem is insoluble if we approach it persistently enough and in the right mind. It is possible that partition will succeed better than the method hitherto tried, but it is at least speculative, and the Commissioners seem to have arrived at the conclusion that Palestine will never be united until it is divided. That does not seem to me to be a real approach to the subject. Things are rarely as bad as they seem in this world, and turbulent seas are followed very often by calm weather. Personally, as I say, I do not believe that the problem is insoluble. I do not see that the short cut of partition is more likely to succeed than the experiment which we have tried. There is a more excellent way in my judgment: the right, the eternally sure way of understanding and co-operation between the two races. The reason why the problem has not been solved so far is, in my belief, that there has never been the will to solve it. I believe that the Jews might have done more than they have to promote appeasement. I believe that the Arabs and the Government could not have done less than they have.
  In many ways the Mandate has been a great success, and before accepting this gospel of despair we might compare the situation of Palestine now with the situation as it was when this Mandate began. In those days the Arabs migrated from Palestine, now they smuggle themselves in with delight across the frontier. This Report at a hundred places testifies to the progress that has been made, and judged by every material test—of population, of the standard of life, of the amount of capital invested, of the position of the fellaheen, of the rate of wages, of public

  601
  health conditions—we are justified in believing that the success of the Mandate is a greater witness to what has been done than what has taken place in any other part of the world. In the Minority Report that I issued in 1930 I ventured to say that the achievements of the Jews in Palestine in the previous decade were as significant as anything that had happened in our time, and I am sure that that is the judgment of experienced observers at the present moment. The Mandate has been an enormous economic success. It has failed only in the administrative sphere and the spiritual.
  I ventured to point out some years ago that if the Arabs had not been continuously and systematically inflamed by people in responsible positions in Palestine, the trouble would not have developed. The Arab peasant is a decent-minded, a chivalrous, hospitable, and kindly person, and it is only when he is taken advantage of by other people for their own ends that he develops into hostility against his neighbour. The source of this trouble was known. I ventured to indicate where it was to be found. The Government knew about it, the Colonial Office knew about it, and the Governorate in Jerusalem knew about it, but they took no notice. What they said was, "What we do not know is not knowledge," and the difficulty was allowed to grow unchecked until the present time. I ask your Lordships to remember that the root of disaffection in Palestine is not the Balfour Declaration, it is the Mandate itself. The hostility is not against the Jew ultimately, it is against the British occupation. In my judgment the first clear duty of the Government was to suppress disorder and ensure personal security. What happened was that the Jews were disarmed, forbidden to defend themselves; the Arab side was allowed to develop its passions unchecked. So we come to the point when we have to say that it is not right that the failure of administrative action should be held to be the failure of the Mandate.
  There is another point which I must speak upon with some hesitation and yet I feel it must be said. I do not understand the haste with which His Majesty's Government felt it necessary to accept and endorse this Report. In my judgment it is an affront to Parliament. In a matter which involves the honour of
  602
  our country, which may very possibly have serious international reactions, we find Parliament committed before it has been consulted. That happened not long ago with the mad scheme of a Legislative Council which Parliament, in spite of the Government, had to kill. We are not yet a Fascist State and Parliament ought still to count for something in the story of our land. I should like to know what was the special hurry in this case. Is it possible that, stung by the scathing criticism of the Report, the Government sought to obscure what they could not possibly excuse? Delay, especially in the matter of Palestine, has been a habit with them. Why, then, should they rush with almost indecent haste into these decisions? One wonders whether other nations have been consulted. The United States of America, for instance, have some treaty rights in this matter. I wonder if they have consented to the vivisection of Palestine. I suppose the Government felt that their varied and aimless flock would accept anything without question; but in any case we, to the extent of our power, protest against Parliament being treated as if it were only a sub-committee of a Tory Club.
  That unpleasant part of duty having been got over, let me say a word of astonishment at the excuse that the Government give. They say His Majesty's Government have taken every opportunity to encourage co-operation between Arabs and Jews. It would be interesting to know where and when. They have not fulfilled the elementary function which every Government should perform of keeping order. The Report says:
  "Arab nationalism in Palestine has been artificially puffed up by methods which the Government should never have allowed. Only a little firmness is needed to deflate it."
  Nothing is more clearly established in the minds of informed persons than that the Government have neglected this first of their duties and that either bias or lethargy or indecision or whatever you may choose to call it, has had a great part in the trouble which has developed. The Government have hampered the establishment of the Jewish National Home which it was their special duty to promote, an obligation imposed upon them by the Mandate. The reply may be: "You yourself admit that economic progress has been made," and I do, but the progress that has been made has

  603
  been in great part—almost wholly indeed—by the Jewish people themselves. They have redeemed the desolation of their land. They have made the desert blossom as the rose, they have transformed the deadly swamps, the national home of the hornet and the mosquito, into smiling valleys where a healthy population can live. We do not in our Parliament criticise Government officers who cannot answer for themselves and I shall not do so to-day. I merely content myself with saying that in my judgment nobody connected with the Colonial Office or with the Governorate in Palestine can read this Report with anything like satisfaction.
  Some years ago I came to the conclusion, whether rightly or wrongly, that the Palestine problem would never be solved until it was taken cut of the hands of the Colonial Office altogether. The present position is this; that we have made a complete mess of one of the most honourable and important tasks ever entrusted by the conscience of mankind to a single nation, and we are asked to confess now that we are unable to do what we solemnly engaged to do. We are to return the Mandate, as it were, to the League of Nations under every circumstance of national humiliation. The League of Nations may say: "Well, you knew what you were doing. You were not children in the art of nation building. You knew what was involved. These terms were not imposed upon you. You yourselves approved them, and they were passed in the exact words that you preferred to have." So we cannot make that excuse. That is the situation we have to face to-day.
  I want, for a minute or two, and I will try not to delay your Lordships too long, to look at the question of partition. It seems to me that if it is inevitable the conditions proposed are inequitable and they are highly hazardous. I should like to ask a few questions. If it be true that the Jew and Arab cannot live together in peace under the Mandatory Authority, how is the Arab to live at peace, or the Jew, when one race or the other is in a dominant position? If the Arab is afraid of Jewish domination how will his fears be lessened when the Jews have complete control over him? How are the Jews who are to live in the Arab State to be protected against molestation and other things? I would say also that
  604
  to hand over the Arab worker in an Arab State to the permanent rule of the usurer and the absentee landlord is not right to the Arab worker and not right in itself. The business of the Arab and Jewish workers is to make common cause at all costs. They have to protect themselves against every form of capitalism, whether it is Jewish, Gentile or Arab. I should like the House to believe, and I should like the Arab people to believe, that I have as much concern for their welfare as for that of the Jewish people or any other people in the world. I should like to ask also whether the Jewish State is to be a free and independent Republic. Is it to be thrust outside the British Commonwealth of Nations? It may be replied that the Jews will ask for membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations. But they may not; they have had some experience of what it has meant. Then, again, the League of Nations may say that you have tried your hand at this Mandate, and offer it to someone else.
  Then there is the question of boundaries. I feel that to hand over the southern part of Palestine, as is proposed, is to condemn it to sterility. Therefore, if that division is to take place, I think that Parliament, if it has any right still to offer an opinion, should urge that a line be drawn from Khan Yunis to the Trans-Jordan border and that this southern part should remain under the control of the Mandatory Power, to be developed by the Jews and Arabs to the best of their ability. Speaking for the moment on behalf of the Labour Party, I would say that we cannot support this scheme of partition. It may fail, and, inasmuch as Parliament has not decided that it should be done, the Government must take the responsibility. I should like also, as a personal matter, to say that the new State—this toy kingdom which is to be handed over to the Jewish people—may be just large enough to give them a cultural home, but it will not touch the Jewish problem. That will still be on the conscience of men. If this partition scheme has to go through and the boundaries have to remain as they are, I believe that the Government should consider whether there cannot be some additional outlet for the Jewish peoples in the anti-Semitic areas. But what I specially desire to say is that the Jews feel desperately disappointed about the treat-

  605
  ment of Jerusalem. Somebody has said that the Commissioners propose decapitation before creation. Some method might be devised whereby the old City could be retained under the Mandatory Power and the Jerusalem outside the walls, built by Jewish labour, might continue to be at the disposal of its builders.
  I should like to close by saying this. There should be a period for reflection before this proposal becomes effective. I should like to sat something else. It has been to me a source of very great disappointment that the Jewish people have not done more in the matter of co-operation and developing the spiritual relationship between themselves and their Arab neighbours. I have done my best on a hundred platforms, in this country, in America and elsewhere, to urge that duty upon them. I have pointed out that in the Southern States of America interracial committees operate to the great benefit of both races in the areas concerned, as they do also in the Union of South Africa. Something on those lines might well be explored. In any case I believe that the poison-spots in Palestine should be discovered and ended, and that the aim should be to have co-operation.
  May I express this final appeal? The Jewish people have a great ethical tradition in the world and the Arabs have a fine and chivalrous record. It is their business to find the way to peace and to live at peace one with another. That task should be attempted even once more before it is abandoned. It would be a task worthy of a man's finest powers. I do not believe it could be done now by a Jew or an Arab, or perhaps by anybody belonging to one of the dominant faiths; but perhaps some intelligent heathen could be discovered who, understanding the difficulties and what is required, might devote himself to this task—a social relations officer under the control of a joint committee. That is what I feel. Again let me say that I think this Report is wonderful in its power of analysis, and if its proposals do not meet with my approval, that is the fate which most constitution-makers have to face. The way of the constitution-maker is always hard. Therefore I plead for delay. Let there be given a breathing-time to try again. Co-operation and common love of their native land will surely bring these two peoples together. That and that alone
  606
  would be the brazen serpent which, if it were held aloft and observed by them, would bring to both of them peace and healing. I beg to move.
  EARL PEEL: My Lords, perhaps first of all I may be allowed to thank the noble Lord who has spoken of our Report in such very generous and appreciative terms. Perhaps also, as I am the only member of that Commission in both Houses, I may be allowed to pay my humble tribute to my colleagues. I do not think it would have been possible to have as one's colleagues five men who should devote themselves more loyally, wholeheartedly and assiduously, with such great ability and such great energy, to an attempt to solve the difficult and tangled questions that were laid before them by the Government. I had thought that I had better sit quite silent during this debate and listen respectfully to the criticisms of noble Lords. After all, as Chairman of a Commission of that kind, one sits to some extent in a judicial capacity. One pronounces an opinion after examining the evidence, and really one has little more to say. I am sure that your Lordships would certainly not expect me to go through the Report or to give a general analysis of the whole of it. I do not think there would be any noble Lords left in the House if I did so! I assume, therefore, that your Lordships have all carefully studied and read that Report.
  I differ in one respect from the noble Lord in his very carefully-considered and temperate speech, and that is about the action of the Government. I was immensely impressed—I will not say I was surprised, but I was very much impressed—by the sagacity and the swiftness with which the Government adopted the main lines of our Report. I thought it a great tribute to their wisdom, and I leave it to them to deal with this question of the insult which was offered to Parliament, on which I feel it is not for me to say anything. But the other point on which I think I might comment is this, if I am to make one or two observations on the Report and on the whole situation, that the noble Lord has taken an attitude not altogether unexpected on his side of the House, that is to say, a very Conservative attitude, which of course one always expects. It is that really no great change is wanted, and that if some-

  607
  body with great qualifications—if he had not said he was a heathen I should have been thinking about the noble Lord himself—should go to that country and deal with the situation, bringing a spirit of toleration, he could really settle these troubles and difficulties. I want to say that for my part I believe it is too late for anything of that kind.
  We have passed in our Report, I agree, certain strictures on certain parts of the Administration, but supposing you had had an almost perfect Administration, if you like, and supposing that all the civil servants and officials who had gone there had been able to speak Hebrew and Arabic, and supposing they had been as familiar with every item and every Article in the Mandate as sometimes they were supposed not to be—if they had exhibited, shall I say, an almost inhuman impartiality as between Jews and Arabs, I still believe that the deep-rooted facts of the situation are such that it would not have been possible to carry on the government of that country under the Mandate, or anyhow without very grave and searching alterations in the Mandate itself. Of course many attacks have been passed upon the Government, and I would only observe in passing, because I do not want to dwell on this side of the picture at all, that however supine they may be accused of being, however indifferent to the setting up of the Jews in Palestine, the fact does remain, and it is a great tribute I think to them, that in spite of all these difficulties there are, to-day, some 400,000 Jews in that country, out of a population of only 1,125,000. That fact alone shows that there cannot have been that partiality or hostility which is sometimes attributed to the Government there.
  But the noble Lord adds his name to a very distinguished list of persons, official and otherwise, whom we have quoted in our Report, and who keep on saying, with a steadiness and unanimity that is remarkable, that all will come right in the end if we only persevere. In my view that has been rather well called a spirit of retrospective prophecy that really does not go to the root of the trouble at all. The trouble has been, although we did not see it at the time, that the situation there is such that there really could have been no other result of this Administration in the sixteen or seventeen years. Let us look therefore,
  608
  at one or two points of the situation itself. You have introduced one race into a small country already occupied by another race, and may I remind your Lordships that I am not sure that at the time there was full appreciation of the numbers of Moslems in the country? If there had been, I do not think that in the Mandate you could have had the phrase used "the Jews and the non-Jews inhabitants of the country," because the non-Jews were about ten times as numerous as the Jews themselves.
  You have the further fact that this race, introduced into the country, were determined, in their own words, not to remain in a minority. That is to say, the people of the country knew that those who were being introduced from certain sources into the country were determined not to be in a minority, but to become a majority. I will say, of course, in fairness to the Jews, that they always maintained that, although they had no intention of remaining in a minority, yet they did not want to dominate the Arabs. I have no doubt that what they told us was true, but the Arabs might say that the same attitude was not taken by the Jewish leaders as is taken by the Jews to-day. If, therefore, these emigrants were powerful, tenacious, hard-working, and well equipped with financial and mental resources, able to command the advice of all Jews, whether Zionist or non-Zionist, in all the countries of the Dispersion, must it not have been inevitable that the Arabs would fear that either themselves or their descendants would go down before the forces with which they themselves were unable to cope?
  May I take an instance from recent history, because we are often charged, and I think to some extent rightly, with being rather deficient in a sense of history? Take the Irish case. We, in this country, found it hard to understand that the campaign of Cromwell and the Battle of the Boyne were not to the Irish, as they were to us, far-off distant events, but the actual present and living furniture of their minds. So the Arabs, living under a village and land system long discarded in the countries of the West, with what we should call their primitive habits and customs, did not see themselves as we saw them. They thought and saw themselves as men who had over-run Africa and ruled in Spain, and who for a time

  609
  at least were the world conveyors of culture and science. As regards the Jewish position, I do not think we find the same difficulty in appreciating that. After all, we have all been brought up on the Bible; the Judges and the Prophets and the Kings are as familiar to us as Richard Cœur de Lion and Queen Elizabeth. We know as well as the Jews about the history of the Temple, its building and its rebuilding and its destruction. We can, I think, rather easily enter into the Jewish passion for a return to Zion. But it is the clash of these great rival historical claims which forms the great tragedy of this situation, a tragedy played out, if you like, on a small stage, but with all the dignity of a great historical sweep and whop centuries of ambition behind it.
  Again, I think things might have been different if this Palestine had been an isolated country and the Arabs had been isolated there. But of course that is not so; they were connected, and have been connected, with the great Arab world outside by ever-growing ties. Are they, do you suppose, indifferent to the fortunes and the growth of the other countries of Arabia? Have not they seen Mandate after Mandate melting away around them? The only Mandate that is not reduced is the one under which they are governed. Are they not proud of the great position, for instance, which Ibn Saud of Arabia has attained? Must they, as they say to themselves, be relegated into the position of second-class Arabs, who are not allowed the privileges which are given to other Arabs in the Arab world? Have not they been told, and told on high authority in this country, that the granting of free institutions, which they otherwise might enjoy, must be held back because of the necessity of securing the Jewish Home? All these things are working in their minds. It is not merely a question of how the Mandate is administered; it is a question of what are the historical memories, and what are the feelings, and what are the emotions of the Arabs in that country.
  A good many people have said—a good many people have said to me, and indeed I think it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, himself—"But do not these people see that they profit by the wealth and by the improvements brought about by the Jewish immigrants?" We have paid tribute, certainly not too high,
  610
  to the great changes that have been wrought by the Jews in so many aspects of agriculture and industry in that country, and our judgment was that, anyhow up to the present, the Arabs certainly in social services and the price received for their vegetables and other products, had scored financially by the coming of the Jews. And I think that was true. But they do not live in the present. They are constantly looking into the future, and it is their view and estimate of the future that has so largely governed their minds in these difficulties. They said: "What is going to happen?" They know that their factories, their rather easily run Arab factories, must go down in the keen competition with the better equipped and more scientifically run factories of the Jews. And so in all the different departments of industry. Well, they may be wrong, I dare say, but they have weighed all these things in the balance and have found them wanting compared with the right of governing themselves. In that, I quite agree, they may have made a deplorable mistake.
  One other point on the same subject. We were told of the great services this country had rendered to the freeing of the Arab world from the rule of the Turks, how it had set up self-government in so many countries through the length of Arabia. Why should the Arabs grudge this little notch, as it were, cut out of Arabia? Why should they not allow the Jews to come in freely, and be ready to submit, if necessary, to their rule? But there again, they cannot see why they should be sacrificed to the successes of their relatives in Arabia, and they urge that the price of redemption should not be paid by one part of the country only. These are some of the matters that weigh in their minds and really make it impossible for us, unless we appreciate them, to understand the position, which many think is an unwise one, taken up by the Arabs. I have not said a word, and I do not intend this afternoon to say a word, about that long, historical controversy over the promises that were made on the one hand to the Jews, on the other hand to the Arabs, and that were not, if I may say so, very perfectly conveyed to the other side when they were made to one side. I say nothing about that because I think that the actual differences, divergencies, and discrepancies of this situation are quite enough to

  611
  account for our difficulties, and quite enough on which to base the suggestions that we have made.
  Looking for a moment at the Government itself, that much-criticised Government, I think the least that has been said about it is that it might have governed much better. It is a criticism I have often heard in the course of my life made against a great many Governments. But I ask this: How really can a Government flourish and unite all these deep gulfs of discrepancy? A conciliation policy has been tried: some think it has been pressed too far. I think that was the view of the noble Lord, Lord Snell. But how is it possible to conciliate two parties who do not want to be conciliated and who have rival and contradictory ambitions? Again, the Government is under a Mandate, one of the most difficult forms of government you can possibly have. It makes one very pleased in this country that, with one exception, we have not got a written Constitution to interpret. But it was always the case that the Government, trying to consider what was best as it were for the general interests of the country, had to ask: "But is it against the Mandate? Is it in contradiction of some Article of the Mandate?" So that really the question of congruity with the Mandate came to be more important and to hold a larger place in the public eye than the question of good administration in the country.
  Take another problem with which one is met. You had to establish the Jewish Home, and to establish it without detriment to the rights of the existing inhabitants. Now I cannot think of a more terrible problem to set any Government. Strictly speaking, any action taken on behalf of the Jews might be said to affect the position of the Arabs. If more land was granted to the Jews, why then in the future the small amount of land cultivable or irrigable that there is in Palestine might be diminished, not so much for the Arabs themselves then existing but for their descendants. There is hardly a single action that can be taken by a Government in that country which must not be tried upon that anvil and weighed against the interests of one existing section of the people. I am bound to say I found it extraordinarily difficult to say, merely on
  612
  the basis of government alone—and good government—how that difficult puzzle can be solved.
  Take another instance of it, on which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, commented and which has been the subject of debate in both Houses—the question of self-government. There it is, first of all, in the Articles of the Mandate. First of all the Jews say that it must be subordinate to the interests of the Jewish Home. The Arabs, on the contrary, maintain that it is a separate Article—part of the Articles standing by itself for the introduction of self-governing institutions. I am not going to pronounce on the interpretation of these Articles. It is entirely beyond me. We spent a great many anxious hours in trying to interpret them, and we thought that on the whole it was better to use our common sense in a large way and try to see what the difficulties were, not what the Articles were. But there they are. The Arabs want—and want it at once, as they said—the establishment of these free institutions. Of course the Jews were opposed to it, naturally opposed to it, because the Arabs made no bones about their desires. They said that what they wanted was that not another Jew was to be admitted into the country, that not another dunum, not another quarter of an acre, was to be sold to the Jews. Indeed they gave hints that in their opinion there were a good many more Jews than were wanted in the country already, and if they had the authority their numbers might be slightly reduced. On the other hand, this promised development of self-governing institutions must necessarily be opposed by the Jews.
  Again, as the numbers of the Jews increased, and as they got nearer to a majority themselves, the views of the two parties would change. It would be the Jews who would be keenly anxious for self-government, and the Arabs who would be determinedly against it. It is rather difficult to govern a country where these swaying majorities and minorities are for or against this development of self-government and where their interpretation of the Mandate and its Articles depends upon numbers. There, again, can you defend this Mandate? One of the assumptions that must have been in the minds of the creators of the Mandate was that there should be some sympathy and working together, as was very eloquently

  613
  referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Snell; that there must be, on the part of the people, some attempt at friendliness and conciliation between these two great races in Palestine.
  What do you find? I only give one example of it. They are supposed to be cousins, I believe, but neither side as far as I could see laid any great stress on the relationship. One Arab eloquently compared, not offensively, the Jews to salt, He said: "You like to have a little salt on your plate to flavour your dinner, but you do not want to upset the whole saltcellar on it at the same time." Look at the system of education. Under the Mandate—and it must be followed by any Government there is—the Jews and the Arabs are brought up in their separate schools. They are taught in Hebrew, they are taught in Arabic, they are taught by Jewish teachers, and they are taught by Moslem teachers. They have, speaking generally—there were a few little instances to the contrary—no contact, no bringing together in their early and formative years of the young Jews and the young Arabs. Their loyalties are to Jews or to Moslems, their affiliations are with them. Are you really to expect that these young people, educated and brought up as they have been under the Mandate, are going to work comfortably together when the whole of their training has been to segregate them into opposite camps and with opposite loyalties?
  If the Jewish Home meant that there should be, as it were, a large camp of Jews perpetually in Palestine, separate from the rest of the people, it must surely also mean that somehow or other there should be established between the two races arrangements for conciliation and friendship. But just look at the symbols—and we know how great a part symbols play in the life of a nation. There is the thing called Palestinian citizenship, but I never found anybody who paid the slightest attention or respect to Palestinian citizenship. We asked what flags there were. There was, of course, the Union Jack, and there was the Jewish flag and there was the Arab flag. "But," I said, "where is the Palestinian flag?" Nobody had ever heard of it, and nobody had ever dared to try to invent it. But again we are rather apt—it must be so in the course of general speaking—to talk about the Jews as if they were much the
  614
  same in character, tradition, and culture. Of course that is not so. They have come—and that is part of the question—through the instance of the Jewish Agency, recognised as we know in the Mandate, from all the countries of the world and all the countries of Europe, and they bring with them all sorts of different standards of culture, administration, expectation, knowledge, social services, and so on. It is not easy—it may be possible under this "divine heathen" we heard about—to reconcile these things, but I do say it is a great achievement of government, and a very difficult one, to have legislation and administration for two sets of people so utterly different in culture, tradition, character, expectation, standards, and money as the Jews who have come in under this immigration and Arabs who have been living in the country.
  I am not going to multiply reasons. I have only alluded to some. We set them all out in our Report, but I want to put emphasis on some. It was all these discrepancies and difficulties and divisions which drove us slowly to the conclusion that even a reform of the Mandate was not enough, and that the abolition of the Mandate was essential if we were not to move or to be driven to disaster and discredit. The noble Lord has spoken of a confession of failure. He has said: "You have undertaken the Mandate, and you say you have not succeeded—what a confession to make for a country like Great Britain with its experience of government." I am not ashamed at all of that charge. I agree that we are not tyros in government, but very old hands in the art not only of governing ourselves but of governing other countries. I say boldly that if we fail, if we cannot make, as it were, both ends meet in the art of government, then I think we ourselves and other countries may fairly conclude that the failure lies not in our own incapacity but in the intractable character of the material with which we have got to deal. I myself see no discredit in saying that you have failed in what I believe to be an impossible task. We moved, as I say, slowly to these conclusions, but I want to assure your Lordships that it was not until after the most thorough and tremendous sifting of all the operations of Government, and of all its activities, after endless questioning of witnesses, after trying to assure ourselves what had been

  615
  done during the last fifteen years in that country, that we moved slowly and reluctantly to the assumption that no mere change in the Mandate was enough, but that we must attack the whole system.
  I hope your Lordships will not think that I am dogmatic when I say this. There may be hundreds of opinions about the form of partition, about the kind of State, but I believe, and I believe firmly, that if you had sent out any six men of some competence in public affairs on that point they would have arrived at a similar conclusion to our own. But we did not, I can assure your Lordships, reach the idea of partition without long hesitation and prolonged meditation. We were not in love with partition. After all, we have lived through these years when we have seen the establishment of new and of small States, and we knew very well the difficulties that had to be overcome, the troubles inseparable from the setting up of new States, the relations between them, and all that complex of questions of administration and citizenship which must necessarily obtain if you try to set up new States. But we were driven to it by the force of facts, and when we were driven to it we were determined to put it plainly and frankly before you for your judgment.
  There are difficulties about partition, but there are enormous advantages. First of all it starts both races on a new keel and on a new course. It gives them at once, if you like, that freedom for managing their own affairs and for self-government which they both desire and which neither of them can enjoy at present because they are gathered together in the same country. We are not insensible of this either, that it frees the Jews from the hostility and the rivalries of that great encircling number of Arab States which now watch so jealously and so carefully the relations between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. It abolishes, if you like, Jewish freedom, but it gives them instead something far greater and of far higher status, that is a Jewish State. It does not of course fulfil all the ambitions of Jews and Arabs; no settlement can do that; but it does relieve the Arabs from those anxieties about the future which darken their existence and drive them sometimes, unfortunately, into crime and terrorism.
  616
  Just one word, if I may be allowed, on the scheme of partition. Any scheme of partition—and many other suggestions have been made—must, in our view at least, conform to three principles. First of all, you must have as far as possible the Jews gathered together in their State and the Arabs in theirs. Now, unfortunately, it has not been possible to do that and there are a substantial number of Arabs left in the Jewish State. Then you ask: "Will they suffer?" I do not want to say that there are Jews left in the Arab State. I do not want it to be a matter of hostages, because I firmly believe that when these enmities are relieved there will not be harsh treatment of Arabs by Jews or of Jews by Arabs. Their natural tolerance will be able to exert itself. But I will not go into all these details. I will merely say that I wish it could have been more cleanly arranged. But we tried almost every permutation possible before we arrived at this one, which we thought the least difficult. It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that a large number of Jews are left in the British enclave, the neutral enclave, outside Jerusalem, or in that part of Jerusalem where so many Jews live and where, for instance, all the public buildings of the Jewish Agencies are. We should have liked, if possible, to have put them into the Jewish State, but there were enormous difficulties in the way, and I think your Lordships will agree that to have two enclaves close together so curiously related would have subjected itself to a good deal of criticism. The second point is that we have to try to get a formidable State with the best possible boundaries for a major State. There was another limiting factor. I think your Lordships will agree with this, and neither Jew nor Arab, I think, will really strongly disagree. They feel that the Holy Places sacred to three religions should be placed under the control, as a trust for civilisation, as we call it, of a neutral Power.
  Those are the three conditions which we think have to be fulfilled before you can construct a partition scheme at all. A better scheme could easily be devised no doubt, but, as I say, it must conform to those conditions. It is true that neither side has received our proposals with any enthusiasm. But how could they? Both sides are being asked to abate something

  617
  of those ambitions, those honourable ambitions, which both sides have so long held. On that I will only make this observation, that if either side would look not so much at the sacrifices which they are asked to make as at the sacrifices which the other community are asked to make, then I think they would be rather happier. If freed from this forced companionship, each in separate and independent States, why should not these great communities strike a new trail of friendship? When the tangle of present perplexities is cut away then, my Lords, the field is open for peace and good will.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA): My Lords, I feel that I cannot begin my reply to my noble friend with a greater confidence of securing the unanimous consent of your Lordships than by paying a tribute to the noble Earl who has just spoken and to all his colleagues for the very remarkable way in which they discharged the difficult task which was laid upon them. Their Report, so comprehensive in its survey of the historical background of the problem, so penetrating in its analysis of the complexities of the present situation, so just and impartial in its criticism, has already been described as one of our great historic State documents, and I believe that, when all this difficult matter is subjected to the analysis of history, this verdict will be confirmed by the judgment of posterity.
  I would call attention if I may to the very remarkable fact that a Royal Commission of six members, whose impartiality is above suspicion and whose qualifications for this inquiry are unquestioned, has produced not only a unanimous Report but a Report unanimous on no fewer than four major issues. The Report was unanimous in the first place in its interpretation of the obligations which His Majesty's Government have incurred towards the two peoples the conflict of whose national aspirations forms the main theme of the Report. In the second place the members are unanimous in their judgment—critical at times but always generous—of the methods by which the Mandatory Power and the Government of Palestine have endeavoured, in the face of severe discouragement, to implement those obligations. In the third place they are
  618
  unanimous in their searching and fearless exposition of the root of the problem. Finally, the Commission are unanimous in their conclusion that only by means of what they describe as the "surgical operation" of partition can there be found a solution which is just to both the contending parties and conformable with our obligations, a solution which in their view offers at least the prospect of peace. Therefore I do not think it can have come as a surprise to your Lordships to learn from the Statement of Policy which was published as a Command Paper with the Report, that His Majesty's Government find themselves in general agreement with the arguments and conclusions of the Commission and have decided that a tripartite scheme of partition on the general lines recommended by the Commission represents the best and most hopeful solution of the deadlock.
  But in accepting that decision I cannot on any account accept the imputation of weakness or of lack of determination which has been laid at our door in the Sunday Press and by the noble Lord who spoke first in this debate and who now has the honour to represent what is rapidly becoming the strong-arm Party in the State. It is not weakness but strength to decide to end a situation which has become intolerable for ourselves and a menace to those whose interests we are trying to protect. After the powerful arguments put forward by the Commission have been fully considered, it would in His Majesty's Government's view be not a sign of strength but of futile obstinacy to attempt to prolong the present unhappy situation in Palestine. It is better in our view to admit that our honest endeavours during the past years have not been successful, and to accept boldly the full responsibility for the new course which we now intend to pursue, rather than to attempt by methods which on all sides are admitted to be only palliative to disguise a failure which affects the lives and happiness of so many thousands of Jews and Arabs alike. His Majesty's Government having made that decision, it is unnecessary for me to dwell upon the various detailed recommendations for administrative reforms which are contained in Part II of the Report and which are mainly intended for adoption in the event of a decision to continue administration under the existing Mandate. For the same reason I do

  619
  not propose to take up the time of the House with discussion of the unhappy events of recent months.
  I would only stress the point that the results of the careful investigation which the Commission have carried out into the past policy of His Majesty's Government and the method of administration have dispelled two illusions which have prevailed in certain quarters for many years. The first of these illusions is the belief that what is called the Palestine problem is really no problem at all, and that the existing Mandate could have been made to work if Palestine had been blessed with a strong and efficient Administration with an intelligent and sympathetic appreciation of the specific obligations involved in the Mandate. I do not think anyone who has read the Report of the Royal Commission can hold that view seriously any longer. It is perfectly true that certain features of the administration are criticized, but the unenviable and almost superhuman difficulties of the task are generously recognised. Various complaints against the Administration were preferred by Jews and Arabs. These were carefully sifted by the Commission, who found in most cases that the complaints were unjustified or only justified to a limited degree.
  Of course the main criticism on which many people have already fastened lies in the observation of the Commission that "To-day it is evident that the elementary duty of providing public security has not been discharged." Taken by itself this statement might look like an unqualified condemnation of the Palestine Administration. But a glance at the context and a perusal of the closing words of Chapter VII show that this is not so. While the Commission advocate more drastic action in the event of future disturbances, in fact, that a revolt should be treated as a revolt, the Report most clearly states that the application of the armed might of this country, easy as it would be for us to apply it, could not possibly provide a solution of the problem.
  The second illusion which I think the Report goes far to dispel is illustrated by the contention that Arab nationalism in Palestine is an artificial development fostered by a handful of irreconcilable
  620
  politicians in Jerusalem, and that the Mandate could have been, and even now might be, enforced without difficulty if strong measures had been taken, or were now taken, to deal with the activities of a few highly-placed agitators. I feel that if anything is proved by the history of the recent disturbances and by the enormous amount of evidence adduced before the Commission, it is that the force and the widespread nature of Arab national sentiment are genuine, spontaneous and deep-seated throughout all classes of the community.
  Ever since the outbreak of the trouble in Palestine in April, 1936, His Majesty's Government have carried forbearance to the utmost limit, and once again we have been accused of weakness as a result. Our policy of conciliation was carefully thought out, and was based on the assumption that in the process of time the two races would so adjust their national aspirations as to render possible the establishment of a single commonwealth under a unitary Government. His Majesty's Government were throughout actuated by the conviction, which was shared, indeed, by the Royal Commission, that a policy of forcible repression could have afforded no solution and, in the words of the Report, would only "widen the gulf that separates the Arab from the Jew." But having said that, and having admitted that conciliation was right and wise while we were trying to work the Mandate and while the Royal Commission were investigating the grievances which it was alleged had arisen under the Mandate, it must clearly be understood that the position is now substantially altered. The Commission, after a lengthy investigation of all the relevant facts, have come to a certain conclusion. The Government have accepted that conclusion and will do their utmost to put it into effect.
  With that purpose in view they do not intend to allow the calm consideration of that decision in Palestine to be prevented by terrorism or by threats of violence. Many methods, both of persuasion and of violence, have been used by both sides in the past to put forward, as they thought, their own interests. The Government have been very tolerant, perhaps too tolerant, of those methods—
  LORD STRABOLGI: Why "both sides"?
  THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: Persuasion, and violence.
  LORD STRABOLGI: The Jews have not used terrorism and violence.
  THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: Persuasion. The Jews have tried to persuade—
  LORD STRABOLGI: You said terrorism.
  THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I said, "Many methods, of terrorism and persuasion."
  LORD STRABOLGI: By both sides.
  THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: By both sides. I think that is quite fair.
  LORD STRABOLGI: There has been no terrorism by the Jews.
  LORD SNELL: There has never been a case.
  THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: We have now reached a conclusion, our decision has been taken, and we will tolerate no action by either side which would inflame once again the fires of a controversy which we hope our decision will put out. We have now come to a final end, and should like to make it quite clear that it is our intention that the day of the wrecker, whether he be Arab or whether he be Jew, is done with, and that the hour of the statesman, whether he be Arab or whether he be Jew, has arrived.
  So much for the past. I will, if I may, turn now to the main recommendations of the Commission, which have been accepted by His Majesty's Government, and I will emphasise once again that the Government have decided in favour of a scheme of triple partition on the general lines recommended by the Report. This scheme, as indicated in the sketch map appended to the Report, appears to His Majesty's Government to be equitable and well-conceived in its main outlines. Neither the Commission nor the Government under-estimate the practical difficulties which will have to be faced in giving effect to such a scheme, but I would deprecate, on the other hand, making too much of those difficulties. We believe that in its general lines a scheme
  622
  such as has been proposed is both just and practicable, and we believe that its inherent difficulties can be overcome. Representations have already been received, both from the Arabs and from the Jews, in favour of variations in the proposed boundary line and of other modifications in the Commission's proposals, and these representations will in due course receive consideration.
  I would refer for one moment, for instance, to the claim advanced in certain Jewish quarters for the inclusion of the Nageb in the proposed Jewish State. It has even been suggested that as many as two million Jews might be settled in that area by means of intensive cultivation. I would only point out that this sort of suggestion is based on estimates of the irrigability of that comparatively waterless locality which are not supported by recent technical investigation. I took that only as one example of many, and I would make it perfectly clear that, while His Majesty's Government recognise that various modifications of detail may be found necessary when the time comes to work out a scheme and to appoint the Boundary Commissions and the other Commissions which may be required, yet the Government, as at present advised, are not disposed to entertain proposals for large or substantial variations of the territorial features of the Commission's scheme unless the Arabs and Jews, in joint agreement, put forward proposals which commend themselves to us.
  LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask a question of the noble Marquess? It has been running through my mind, if he will forgive me for saying so, all the time he has been speaking. Suppose the Jews and the Arabs join together in completely repudiating the scheme; do you then go on with it?
  THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I think we will jump our fences when we come to them.
  LORD STRABOLGI: But you are meeting fences already. You are up against this one now.
  THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: Well, I will now come to another, and that is with regard to the régime to be established in the British enclave. I am now laying before your Lordships the proposals of the Government. It is

  623
  quite clear that that régime is going to be a complicated and difficult fence, but I think it would be highly undesirable if we were now to enter into questions of that kind of detail at this moment. Other difficulties are bound to arise as the scheme develops. It has been stated, for instance, that some of the orange groves in the neighbourhood of Jaffa will fall within the proposed Jewish State. But of course it is quite clear that whether this be so or not will largely depend on the lines of the boundary of the British enclave between Jaffa and Jerusalem, and I anticipate that when the Boundary Commissions are appointed their first task will be to delimit the boundaries of the British enclave. And so on, my Lords; the difficulties mount up.
  We have been accused on the ground that this Corridor between Jaffa and Jerusalem will only be a repetition of the Polish Corridor. I would remind your Lordships of one important fact in that connection: that this is not going to be an Arab Corridor running through a Jewish State or a Jewish Corridor running through an Arab State; it will be a British Corridor, and I would like to emphasise at this point that the adoption of this scheme of partition does not mean that Britain is leaving Palestine. The Jerusalem-Jaffa Corridor, containing the most important railway junction, the great new air-port at Lydda, and the Royal Air Force Headquarters at Ramie, will remain under British control. Apart from the Corridor there is the question which was raised by the noble Lord opposite as to the fact that there is bound to be a very large Arab community within the boundaries of the Jewish State. On this matter, all I think that need be said at this moment is that should partition come about the Government accept the recommendation of the Royal Commission as to the extreme desirability of effecting a transfer of population as rapidly as may be feasible, and will use their best endeavours to secure that end.
  I have dealt with a number of points of detail which must arise out of any detailed consideration of any scheme of partition. In spite of the interruption of my noble friend I think it would suit your Lordships best if I now explain the programme we propose to pursue in the immediate future to implement these decisions. The first step in the programme
  624
  of procedure is to obtain the consent in principle of the Council of the League of Nations to the termination of the existing Mandate in respect of the areas in which it is proposed to establish independent Arab and Jewish States, and to the modification of the existing Mandate in respect of the remaining areas containing the Holy Places and the smaller enclaves, so as to provide for permanent British control over certain of them as recommended by the Commission. The normal procedure would have been to submit these proposals in the first instance to the Council of the League, who would doubtless have invited the Permanent Mandates Commission to report upon them. It has, however, already been decided to hold a special meeting of the Permanent Mandates Commission at the end of this month for the purpose of considering outstanding points in the Annual Report on Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1935, the Annual Report for 1936, the Report of the Royal Commission and the Statement of Policy of His Majesty's Government. In the circumstances, it has been suggested by His Majesty's Government to the Chairman of the Council, that in order to expedite a decision the Permanent Mandates Commission should be invited by him to report to the Council on the issues raised in the Report and the Statement of Policy after their coming special session, and it is hoped that if the Chairman of the Council can see his way to meet this request, the need for a later reference back to the Permanent Mandates Commission from the Council may be obviated.
  Furthermore, under the Anglo-American Convention of 1924 the Government of the United States have certain rights in connection with Palestine, and these rights will not, of course, be overlooked. The Government of the United States have been supplied with copies of the Report of the Royal Commission and of the Statement of Policy, and will be kept fully informed of future developments. I need hardly say that any communication from that Government will be taken into consideration. After those fences have been surmounted consideration must be given to the procedure which is to be adopted for obtaining the views of the two communities, and for securing their acceptance of a scheme of partition. If these negotiations meet with success,

  625
  His Majesty's Government will seek to enter into agreements with the Jewish Agency on the one hand and any suitable Arab authority on the other, for the purpose of establishing provisional Governments and formulating the conditions under which His Majesty's Government would in due course recognise the two sovereign independent States, the creation of which the Report envisages.
  These agreements, which would of course require the approval of the Council of the League and of Parliament, would, as recommended in the Report, contain effective safeguards under the guarantee of His Majesty's Government for the protection of minorities, and when the States came into existence would form the basis of Treaties which would be entered into between His Majesty and those States. In addition His Majesty's Government would undertake to support any requests for admission to the League of Nations which the Governments of the Arab and Jewish States might make in accordance with Article 1 of the Covenant. Furthermore, Military Conventions would be attached to the Treaties, dealing with the maintenance of military, naval and air forces, the upkeep and use of ports, roads and railways, the security of the oil pipe line, and other matters affecting the defence and security of Palestine as a whole.
  I am keeping your Lordships rather long, but I think I must now touch on certain decisions which will have to be taken on the policy to be followed in connection with immigration and land during the immediate coming period while steps are being taken to work out the form of a scheme of partition. As regards Jewish immigration, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the criterion of economic absorptive capacity, by which His Majesty's Government and the Administration of Palestine have endeavoured to regulate Jewish immigration for the past fifteen years, is not in itself sufficient, and that in future account must be taken, not only of economic, but of political, social and psychological considerations for the purpose of a just discharge of our dual obligations in Palestine. The equality of our obligations to Jews and Arabs respectively is stressed throughout the Report, which endorses the declaration on this subject which was made by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in the House of Commons as Prime Minister on
  626
  April 3, 1930. That declaration, which was quoted in the statement laid before the Permanent Mandates Commission at Geneva in 1930 by Dr. Drummond Shiels, was as follows:
  "A double undertaking is involved to the Jewish people on the one hand and to the non-Jewish population of Palestine on the other; and it is the firm resolve of His Majesty's Government to give effect in equal measure to both parts of the declaration and to do equal justice to all sections of the population of Palestine."
  The subsequent Report of the Permanent Mandates Commission, which was accepted by the Council of the League, agreed that the obligations laid down by the Mandate in regard to the two sections of the population were of equal weight, and associated itself with the view put forward by His Majesty's Government.
  That being so, His Majesty's Government have therefore decided that, as a provisional measure for the next eight months, after which the matter will be further considered, 8,000 Jewish immigrants of all categories shall be admitted into Palestine, provided that the economic absorptive capacity of the country is not thereby exceeded. The overriding limit of 8,000, which is admittedly arbitrary, conforms with the Commission's "political high level" of 12,000 a year which is recommended for adoption over a period of five years. I should like to dispel, if I may, any misunderstanding that there may be as to the sanctity of the criterion of "economic absorptive capacity." There is not one word about economic absorptive capacity in the Mandate. The relevant Article of the Mandate requires the Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions.
  The decision to take other than economic factors into consideration, I quite admit, involves some departure from the interpretation placed by the MacDonald letter on the policy which was first laid down by Mr. Winston Churchill in 1922. But I feel convinced that that departure is fully justified, and it is equally consistent with the terms of the Mandate. Also it is equally clear that the terms of the Mandate preclude His Majesty's Government from acceding to the demand of Arab witnesses that they should stop Jewish immigration altogether, even if we had the

  627
  mind, which we have not, to do anything of the kind. As regards the land, we think it is essential to ensure in the immediate interim period, pending definite demarcation of the boundaries of the respective States, that no transaction should be permitted which might tend to prejudice the scheme as a whole, and it is therefore proposed that the High Commissioner should be given legal powers to prohibit any such transaction, although the details of those powers will have to be discussed with him.
  I have given as close an account as I may of His Majesty's Government's views, following on the decisions of the Royal Commission, and I do not think that I could add very much to the very eloquent appreciation of the advantages of partition, to the Arabs and to the Jews and to ourselves, which is to be found in the Royal Commission's Report. All I would say is that the alternative which is contemplated, as far as I could see, with such equanimity by the noble Lord who moved this Motion, the alternative of maintaining the present régime, with no prospect of relief from repressive measures, which would earn both for us and for the Jewish people the hostility of the whole Arab world, which would involve a continuous drain on the British Exchequer as well as the Exchequer of Palestine, and which might well vitiate our whole policy in the Middle East—that alternative is not one on which I would care to dwell. The recommendations of the Royal Commission do at least offer a real prospect of peace, and a foundation on which the two great peoples whose destinies are linked in that historic land may one day learn to cooperate for their own mutual benefit.
  It is perfectly clear that obligations and undertakings were entered upon not only by the British but by the Allied Governments to the Jews and to the Arabs and that both must be honoured. In the view of His Majesty's Government these commitments can best be carried out in Palestine by means of a scheme of partition. And although, naturally enough, prominence has been given throughout this debate to the clash between the rival nationalisms of Jew and Arab in Palestine, it must not be forgotten that the Holy Land is not a matter solely for Jews or for Arabs, but one that concerns the whole Christian world and many
  628
  Christians in Palestine who are neither Jew nor Arab by race. It is therefore proposed that we should invite the League of Nations to confirm to Great Britain in perpetuity our responsibilities of government under Mandate for the Holy Cities of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth, together with the necessary areas to make that government practicable and effective. I would not like any of your Lordships to have listened to this debate without realising that in His Majesty's Government's view this third sector of Palestine is as vital to the future well-being and good government of that country as the creation of the Jewish and Arab States within its boundaries. Furthermore, the guarantee of peace between Arab and Jew in the future in Palestine will be assured not merely by specific treaty relations between Great Britain and both States, but also by our continued presence in that land.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I was in Palestine during the years from 1920 to 1925, and since then I have had an opportunity of re-visiting the country and have kept in close touch with what has been happening there, but I have spoken no word during those twelve years with reference to any of the controversies with which the Government have had to deal. There is a wise rule of reticence that those who have presided over Administrations either in parts of the British Empire or in the mandated territories should keep aloof from all controversies; but when the government of a territory is to be reconsidered from the foundations, and when a fresh start is to be made, then, as in recent years in the case of India, those who have held office in those territories are expected to state the views their experience has led them to form, and, if they have the great privilege of being members of this House, to state their views first in this Assembly. I would wish to make it clear that I am speaking here only as an ex-High Commissioner, and not in any way on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, for this is not a matter that arouses any Party issue; nor on behalf of any group or section connected with Palestine, for I have not been, and am not now, a member of any organisation of that kind.
  Let me add my own to the universal tributes that have been paid to the Report, a remarkable document, direct,

  629
  outspoken, incisive written in a human and lively style that is too seldom found in official documents, showing also remarkably sympathetic understanding both of the Zionism of the Jews and of the nationalism of the Arabs. Its preparation has involved much labour and much sacrifice, and I think the first duty of members of either House of Parliament is to express public thanks to the Chairman and his colleagues for the great service they have rendered. The historical survey appears to me admirable, with one exception. There is what I regard as a grave omission. The grievance of the Arabs largely rests on the fact that they claim that before the Arab revolt, before they entered the War, they received assurances from the British Government that if they did so a great Arab domain would be constituted, if the Allies were victorious, of which Palestine would form part, and this they base mainly upon an official letter from Sir Henry McMahon, who represented the British Government in the negotiations with King Hussein, then Sherif of Mecca, which they say gave that promise; and they say the Balfour Declaration, which came two years later, was a breach of that promise, and therefore they were brought into the War under false pretences. That is their main grievance.
  It is true that the McMahon letter does not specifically exclude Palestine west of the Jordan from the territories mentioned in that letter which were to be the Arab dominion, and that was because at that time there was no agreement between the British and the French with regard to territories in that part of the world and it was considered inexpedient specifically to mention Palestine, but that letter declared that districts west of certain districts in the Turkish Empire were to be excluded. The Arabs deny that interpretation, but the British Government adhere to it, and in the White Paper of 1922 the British Government finally and specifically declared that the McMahon letter excluded Palestine from the pledge to the Arabs. Here was a matter which was of vital importance in this controversy, but the Commission said this:
  "We have not considered that our terms of reference require & us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research … needed for a full re-examination of this issue "—
  and to-day the noble Earl, who was Chairman of the Commission, said he did not
  630
  propose to say one word on that question because they had sufficient troubles without it; that was in effect what he said.
  The terms of reference to the Commission were "to ascertain the underlying causes of the disturbances which broke out in Palestine," and surely this is undoubtedly one of the "underlying causes" for the whole Arab world has been vociferating for years that they have been betrayed, and that has been one of the main reasons for their grievance against the Mandate and against the British Government. The Commission say, in their Report:
  "The Arabs understood (before and after the revolt in the Hedjaz) that in the event of an Allied victory Palestine would be included in the sphere of Arab independence."
  That implicitly could be taken to mean that the Arabs have a legitimate grievance in that regard. I can throw some light on this matter. There was a debate in your Lordships' House as long ago as 1923 in which an old colleague and friend of mine, the late Lord Grey of Fallodon, took part, and in the course of his speech he used language which rather implied that, in his view—speaking as an ex-Foreign Secretary his view was of great importance—the Arabs had a legitimate grievance in this regard. I was then in Palestine, and was much disturbed by his speech, and determined to write to him on this point.
  I had working with me at that time Sir Gilbert Clayton as Chief Secretary. Sir Gilbert Clayton was a man who had been closely acquainted with this matter from the beginning, and had been with Sir Henry McMahon during the conduct of these negotiations. He was a man of the highest honour and repute, and was afterwards High Commissioner in Iraq where, unfortunately, he prematurely died. Speaking to him of Lord Grey's speech, I said I wished to write to him on the subject, and he said he could tell me facts that I could communicate to Lord Grey. He gave me, quite unofficially, this note dated April 12, 1923:
  "I was in daily touch with Sir Henry McMahon throughout the negotiations with King Hussein, and made the preliminary drafts of all the letters. I can bear out the statement that it was never the intention that Palestine should be included in the general pledge given to the Sherif. The introductory words of Sir Henry's letter

  631
  were thought at the time, perhaps erroneously, clearly to cover that point. It was, I think, obvious that the peculiar interests involved in Palestine precluded any definite pledges in regard to its future at so early a stage."
  At the time of the Versailles Conference the Arabs were represented in Paris by the Emir Feisal, afterwards King of Iraq, who was head of the Arab Delegation. The Zionists were represented by Dr. Weizmann, then, as now, leader of their movement. I had occasion at that time to have correspondence with Feisal, and in the course of a letter which he wrote to me about another matter into which I need not enter, he used this language. This letter was written for publication, was published at the time, and has been quoted since. It throws a light indirectly on the point to which I have been referring. The letter is headed "Secretariat of the Hedjaz Delegation, Paris, December 10, 1919," and is as follows:
  "The mutual confidence between Dr. Weizmann and myself and the perfect accord in our point of view has permitted a perfect understanding between us, and will maintain that harmony between us which is so necessary for the success of our common cause."
  That was two years after the Balfour Declaration, and four years after the McMahon correspondence. Is it possible that if, at that time, the Arabs were smarting under a sense of grievance that they had been betrayed by the British Government, that they had had promises from us with regard to Palestine which were ruthlessly and unfairly overridden by the subsequent Balfour Declaration, the head of the Arab Delegation should have referred to the perfect understanding between himself and Dr. Weizmann and have referred to the policies of those two parties, as a "common cause"? Therefore, it appears to me that the Commission have failed in that respect to fulfil their duty in merely saying it would involve much research, and that they did not think it necessary to go into this matter, which has been, from the beginning and is now, a fundamental point in the whole controversy.
  But if Palestine west of the Jordan is excluded from the McMahon pledge, I regard it as clear and certain that Palestine east of the Jordan was included, and the Balfour Declaration therefore could not have been made
  632
  to apply; so that those Zionists who criticised me when I was High Commissioner and who criticised the British Government on the ground that we agreed that the Balfour Declaration should not apply to Trans-Jordania, have engaged in criticisms which were totally unwarranted. They declared that the British Government must be bound by their pledge under the Balfour Declaration. That pledge is sacred, but the pledge in the McMahon letter to the Arabs was equally sacred, and on the strength of it the Arabs came into the War and many of them laid down their lives. Years afterwards to say that that paper should be torn up and regarded as of no account appears to me to be a wholly indefensible position to take up.
  I do not propose to dwell on retrospect for more than a few moments, but I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to certain points which are outstanding in the Report of the Commission. They pay tribute to the intensity of the Jewish effort, and they pass a very favourable verdict on the Jewish National Home in itself. They point out that 350,000 Jews have come there, and that they have been supported by an expenditure of £14,000,000 all collected by voluntary contributions throughout the world, and in addition by an investment for agricultural and industrial purposes of not less than £63,000,000. They point out again and again that the Arabs economically have greatly benefited by the Jewish National Home. They point out how taxation on the corn lands of the Arabs has been reduced, and that wages are much higher than in the neighbouring territory. They also point out that while the Jews have increased their population since the Mandate by 350,000, the Arabs have increased their population by a precisely equal number. It is not true that the Arabs have been wiped out in Palestine. Their population has increased, mainly by natural growth and partly by immigration, to exactly the same extent as the Jewish population has increased, mainly by immigration and partly by natural growth.
  The Commission also point out, explicitly or implicitly, that certain defects have marked the British Administration during these years. To my mind there have been three defects. The first, and the greatest, was that in 1926 and the following years the country was entirely

  633
  denuded of all military force. With the exception of a few aeroplanes and armoured cars, which are useless for dealing with the sort of problems that arise in the old cities of Palestine, there was no military force of any sort or kind. When I was High Commissioner, I had the advantage of a body of British Gendarmerie, a force of 700, afterwards reduced to 500, very mobile, with a camel corps and cavalry. They mixed with the people, and often knew Arabic, and were a most excellent force. That force was disbanded—I think that was a grave error—and no regular troops were brought in. When disturbances broke out in Jerusalem in 1929, they, as the Commission quote one of the witnesses as saying, could easily have been stopped at the beginning. But, as we all know, there was nobody to stop them, and an excitable population, eagerly ready to listen to, and equally eager to welcome, any rumours, went up in flames, and there were horrible massacres, much blood shed on one side, and in the suppression of the revolt on the other side; and ever since then things have gone from bad to worse. That was a great mistake.
  The second mistake on the part of the British Government or of the Colonial Office here has been in the appointment of officials to posts in Palestine who had no knowledge of the country no interest in the country, no understanding, some of them, of the special problems and underlying ideas which make that country so difficult to administer, who regarded their sojourn there as merely an incident in a career which might be spent partly in Africa, partly in the West Indies, and partly in the East or wherever it might be, who regarded it just as part of the ordinary routine of Colonial promotion. That, again, was a mistake. The Commission recognise it and say that, for such officials as there are to be in the future, there ought to be a special list from which would be chosen men who understand the problems of these countries and these populations; and, I would suggest above all, people who know the language and are able to speak directly to those persons over whom they have to rule.
  The third error has been with regard to Arab education. The Commission refer to that in emphatic terms in more than one passage. It seems to me in-
  634
  excusable, after seventeen years of British rule, that of 260,000 Arab children of school age only one in five is receiving an education. It is not as though the country had been starved of revenue. There has been an abounding revenue for many years. I do not plead guilty under this head, for when I was there I had the privilege of opening two hundred schools in Arab villages in little over a year, and that action was only stopped by the fact that our revenue declined very rapidly. We lost a third of our revenue owing to economic conditions, we were in a heavy deficit, and we could not proceed with our programme. But I share the view of the Commission that the Arabs cannot really have great faith in British professions of real zeal and eagerness to raise the standards of the Arab population when this question has been left in abeyance for all these years.
  However, we are all of us much less interested in the past than in the present situation and in the plans for the future. Whatever the causes may have been, whoever may have been to blame, I agree in the conclusion of the Commission that we have now reached a deadlock and we cannot go on as we are. I can see no reason why a British Government should engage in a policy of repression and coercion. It seems to me a monstrous thing that we should be required to lock up a whole division of our small Army in Palestine, with the possibility that in any world crisis we might have to lock up even two or three divisions. Meantime, while the British Government are subjected to active and sometimes bitter criticism from the Jewish side, they find that they are alienating the whole of the Arab world, and offending the Moslem world outside the Arab countries. Furthermore, they have been called upon, and at any moment may be called upon again, to sacrifice the lives of British soldiers and British policemen in order to maintain our authority there.
  I agree with what has just been said by the noble Marquess speaking on behalf of the Government, that the British Government are right to say that this cannot continue as it is indefinitely. It is a delusion to think that all that is necessary is to remove the Mufti, and that then all will be well. We used to hear that kind of thing in the old days with regard to Ireland. It was said: "Only let the

  635
  priests and the land agitators be quiet and the Irish people will be entirely contented." We used to hear it with regard to trade disputes and strikes—"Only let the paid agitators be still and the working people will give no trouble." We heard it in regard to India—"Arrest Gandhi"; and with regard to Egypt—"Deport Zaghlul." But movements of this kind cannot be dealt with in that way. As the Commission rightly point out, the Arab national movement is the same in Palestine as it is in Syria, as it is in Egypt, and as it is in Iraq. It is analogous to the movement of Indian nationalism and similar movements in other countries in the world, and it is not to be disposed of easily and lightly simply by using the strong hand and applying methods of coercion.
  So far I agree. When we come to the proposal for partition then I part company. It appears to me a bad proposal and I shall give reasons for my various criticisms. I know that all the time that I am making these criticisms there will be in the minds of noble Lords the thought: "What is the good of criticising this scheme; is there any alternative?" Therefore, beforehand, I will give the assurance to noble Lords that before I sit down, if they will bear with me so long, I will give what appears to me to be the practicable alternative. Meanwhile let us examine this proposal for partition. We are told that we are now to make a clean cut, or as clean a cut as may be, that the Jews are to be on one side and the Arabs on the other, and that if they cannot agree when together they may be able to agree when separated.
  What is this Jewish State to consist of? The number of Jews in Palestine, the Commission say, is 400,000. But these are not all the Jews. The Jews of Jerusalem are to be excluded, and they number 76,000. But also for a period of years the towns of Haifa, Acre, Safad and Tiberias are to be kept under the Mandatory Power. They contain 58,00o Jews. In addition, Jaffa, is to be in the Arab State. There is no figure given by the Commission of the Jewish population of Jaffa, but Jewish sources state that it is 8,000. In any case the precise figure matters little. That means that out of 400,000 Jews one-third or 142,000 will not be in the Jewish State at all. The
  636
  number that is left is 258,000. Two hundred and fifty-eight thousand Jews in the Jewish State, and in the same territory, the Commission tell us, there will be 225,000 Arabs. And that is to be an independent Jewish State, which is to have a seat in the League of Nations, which is to fulfil the aspirations of the Jews. Two hundred and fifty-eight thousand Jews and 225,000 Arabs! But it may be said these four towns of Haifa, Acre, Safad and Tiberias are only temporarily to be removed and will be brought in before long; but when they are brought in it will make the position worse from this point of view, for there are 10,000 more Arabs than Jews in those four towns. There would thus be this position, that the majority of Jews over Arabs would be reduced by 10,000.
  It is now suggested that the Jewish quarter outside Jerusalem, in which almost all the 76,000 Jews live, should be brought into the Jewish State, connected with it as a kind of enclave. The noble Earl, the Chairman of the Commission, rather deprecated that, and thought that there was difficulty about it, but even if it were done—in my view, if partition goes through it certainly ought to be done—still that would make the total only 344,000 Jews, and the proportion of the population of the Jewish State would still be two Arabs to every three Jews. The Commission say there ought to be a removal of population, or what is called, strangely enough, an exchange of population, that the Jews from the Arab State should be brought into the Jewish State and the Arabs in the Jewish State should be transferred. But how can you have an exchange of population where there are 225,000 Arabs in the Jewish State and 1,250 Jews in the other? The Royal Commission say: "Well, after all, a great exchange of population was effected voluntarily in the case of the Greeks and Turks." Quite true. It was admirably done. I have had the opportunity, as no doubt some of your Lordships have had, of seeing something of those settlements in which the Greek population from Anatolia have been settled. But the circumstances are not in the least the same. Then the Greeks who lived in Asia Minor were fleeing from the country. It was immediately after the disastrous Greek campaign there. Their armed forces were heavily defeated and the Turks were sweeping down upon them

  637
  and the whole population fled. They took whatever ships they could secure and fled to Greece where they were afterwards settled.
  There is nothing of that kind Palestine. There is nothing of that sort to induce 225,000 Arabs to leave the land in which they and their fathers have been settled for a thousand years, where they have their mosques and where they have their graveyards. But the Royal Commission say that strenuous efforts should be made to secure agreement for the transfer of population and in the last resort the population of the plains should be removed compulsorily. That is the proposal—that the new Jewish State should be built upon the basis of taking away 100,000 Arabs, or whatever the number may be, from this district, compulsorily dispossessing them, no doubt with compensation, and finding them land elsewhere. Yet in another part of the Report there is reference to the need of guarantees for the protection of minorities in each State. Protection of minorities! Will not these he minorities, and is the form protection is to take that they should be compulsorily uprooted and put elsewhere?
  I very much question whether it would be possible to relieve this extraordinary discrepancy in the population of the so-called Jewish State by securing a transfer of this kind. It is said that the Jewish population will be increased, and that it will be left to the Jews themselves to limit or not to limit immigration. But in this tiny territory, possibly cut off from any hinterland for the sale of produce by an unfriendly Arab State, how can there be any guarantee that the numbers would be increased in a reasonable time to any considerable extent? We have to contemplate a State in which 258,000 Jews will have to govern 225,000 Arabs. The Royal Commission say that you will get rid of the complications due to the mixture of races, that now you have three official languages, the laws published in three languages, officials of three different communities, three separate holidays, one for each religion, and that all that will be ended. Does that mean that this half or nearly half of the population of the Jewish State are to have no Arab officials, that they are to be governed simply by Jews, that they are to have all their public affairs
  638
  conducted in Hebrew, which they do not understand, that cases are to be tried in courts of law in a language foreign to them? You will have exactly the same complications in that regard as before, except that there will be two languages instead of three. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, said that at all events this plan would free the Jews from the watchful hostility of neighbouring Arab States. Will not these Arab States be watching day by day what is happening to their irredenta, the Arabs living in the Jewish State, making grievances of every small point? If there are not a sufficient number of Arab officials, if there are not sufficient Arab schools, you will have exactly the same problems as you have with regard to minorities throughout Europe.
  I would ask your Lordships to look at the map to see what is proposed. You have as part of the Jewish State a strip of land sixty miles long and between ten and twelve miles broad running along the coast with a larger piece away to the north. But that is not the only division. Let me say, in passing, that I have carefully measured the length of this frontier and I find that this tiny State will have a land frontier of almost exactly two hundred miles and a seaboard of eighty miles. Then you are to have the enclave under British administration. That contains Jerusalem and Bethlehem and a Corridor to the sea. That Corridor, may I point out, is not a Corridor merely for the British, it is a Corridor for communication with the Arab States beyond who will have rights to go down the Corridor to the port of Jaffa. There are to be other places all over the country under British Mandate, Nazareth, Acre, Tiberias, Haifa, Safad. But observe what is to happen to the town of Jaffa. Geographically Jaffa will be within the Corridor, but politically it is to be part of the Arab State with Arab law no doubt and Arab officials. There is to be a strip of land between Jaffa and the Jewish port of Tel Aviv, but the two towns are to be provided with a joint harbour to be managed by a joint harbour board. The Commission seem to have gone to the Versailles Treaty and picked out all the most difficult and awkward provisions it contained. They have put a Saar, a Polish Corridor and half a dozen Danzigs and Memels into a country the size of Wales.

  639
  Furthermore, the Arab and Jewish States are each to have their own Customs tariffs. It is true the Commission say it would be a great advantage if as far as possible they were identical, but they do not say they will be identical throughout. Therefore with regard to some articles you will have different duties, and you must have Customs examination because otherwise you cannot enforce the duty. Imagine a Customs system in which you have to have Customs examinations all along this frontier of two hundred miles, besides the sea coast and around all these little enclaves each of which is apparently to be under a separate administration. There is another point. The main railway goes in and out of this boundary, at one moment in the Jewish State, at another moment in the enclave, and at another moment in the Arab State. Is it intended that there shall be a Customs office and passport examination for each train, or is it intended that goods should go through in bond as they go in and out of this extraordinary patchwork?
  Then again, there is road transport. What is proposed with regard to the roads which run across the frontiers at every moment; the village lands, the movements for pasturage of the flocks and herds? How to regulate immigration? It is difficult enough now, with one State, but when you have this map—which is less like a map than a patchwork quilt— how are you to establish and enforce rules with regard to immigration? Much illegal migration goes in and out now, but what will it be in the future? You might as well attempt to hold water in a sieve as attempt to apply any form of regulation to frontiers such as this. Systems of law, national status, passports—is there to be differentiation in all these little odds and ends of territory? Defence: is it intended that the British Army shall guard the frontier? Certainly not; why should it? Well, then, the Jewish State and the Arab State will have to have their armed forces watching each other continually on each side of the frontier—unless they happily arrive at some stable treaty of amity and friendship. They may, or they may not. I wonder whether the Government have received military advice with regard to this plan? I should be very interested if, when the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, replies in this debate, he would
  640
  say whether the Committee of Imperial Defence have advised on it, or whether the military authorities in Palestine regard it as a feasible scheme.
  Are not all these points valid? What about public security and the prevention of crime? I look at this matter from the standpoint of an administrator. Let any noble Lord suppose himself in charge of the administration of a territory such as this. A political terrorist, or any ordinary criminal, could come across from the area of one State to an area with another police authority, commit his crime and depart again half a mile away into another State under another police authority, and have to be dealt with, perhaps, by diplomatic conversations between the two countries. How is it possible to maintain public order in countries such as that, unless, indeed, you have the utmost measure of good will and continuous co-operation between the two authorities? The Report says nothing whatever on this point of public security, not one word; and indeed, in an admirable volume of 397 pages, only 12 pages are given to the merest sketch of this scheme of partition. Finance: what is to be the position of the Jewish State with regard to its finance? It will have to guard its frontier, it will have to maintain order, it will have to care for the Arabs, who are two-fifths of the population; and, in addition to all this, it will have to pay a subsidy to the Arab State. Will it be possible for the Jewish State to establish any adequate system of finance?
  Judged on its merits, this is clearly a bad scheme. I do not think anyone would have invented it if he had not considered himself compelled to do so in default of something better. Therefore the question arises, is there any alternative? The Commission declare that there is an incompatibility which is absolute and that no accommodation can be looked for in the future. They dwell upon every element in the situation which would lead to that conclusion. They rather remind me, if I may say so, of the speaker who said at a meeting: "It is difficult to exaggerate the gravity of this matter, but I will do my best!" They have forgotten that from 1921 to 1929, during my time and the time of my successors, the country was quite peaceful. Not a blow was struck between Arabs and Jews; there were no riots, no disturbances of any kind. It is true that there was an underlying tension

  641
  all the time. It is true that the Arabs missed no opportunity of declaring their opposition to the régime. It is true that they maintained their political position consistently throughput. The fact remains that there was a considerable measure of co-operation and the country was completely peaceful. There were no riots, no troops had to be called out, and, so far as I know, there was nothing involving the use even of a considerable body of police. It is true that now the position has greatly deteriorated and we are faced with a much harder condition of things than we were faced with before 1929. Still, it cannot be said that it is in the nature of things that these two communities cannot dwell together.
  Now the alternative—and I should have been wasting your Lordships' time if I had merely contented myself with negative criticisms and left the matter there. The suggestions that I would make are not improvised. I have considered them long and deeply and have consulted persons representing both points of view, and they have found favour, although I am not entitled to quote the approval or support of anybody. My proposals are these. It appears to me that the Jews must be ready to make a sacrifice. They must reassure the Arabs. We cannot go on without it. Therefore they must consent to a limitation of immigration other than on the principle of economic absorptive capacity. They must accept the principle proposed by the Commission: that political considerations must be brought in. I see no reason why the figure of 12,000 should be the one adopted. The Commission give no reason for the figure of 12,000. The noble Earl said that it is quite arbitrary; apparently it was chosen because it would just keep the present balance of population between the Arabs and the Jews in the future, but they do not say so. The Jews might well be asked to consent to an agreement covering a period of years—it might well be a substantial period—and during that period the Jewish population of Palestine should not exceed a given percentage of the total population, perhaps 40 per cent. or whatever might be agreed upon, but that is the figure I have in mind.
  Secondly, the Jews must consent to recognise the reality of Arab national aspirations, and that those aspirations are
  642
  entitled to respect and to their co-operation. The Arabs are intensely aware of their own history. They know that they began merely as a group of desert tribes, that there were centuries of expansion during which they acquired great territory, built up a remarkable culture and gave to the world one of its greatest civilisations. Then there was a period of standstill, then of recession, and now, after the Great War, there is the beginning of a revival. Arabism is once more in the ascendant; once more Arab kings and princes tread the stage of history. The Arabs of Palestine, the younger generation, regard themselves as an outpost of that movement. They have in their charge one of the three most sacred places of Islam, the Haram esh Shari; they regard themselves as the trustees of a sacred charge, and they would rather die at their posts than surrender that position. The Jews have never been sufficiently aware or sufficiently understanding of this underlying loyalty.
  Now let them frankly recognise that there is this Arab movement, and that it is a great movement, entitled to respect and, indeed, to admiration. Let them co-operate with the Arabs as they did in the great days of Arab civilisation, when Jewish statesmen, philosophers and scientists helped the Arabs to keep alight the torch of knowledge. And let Britain also help in this movement. Indeed, the Commissioners say that "British public opinion is wholly sympathetic with Arab aspirations towards a new age of unity and prosperty in the Arab world." Therefore, the first point being the limitation of immigration, my second point is that Britain, with the assent of France and with the full co-operation of the Zionist movement, should assist in every way the formation of a great Arab Confederation—not to be built up in a day or a year, but gradually, perhaps, built up, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine as well. In that great Confederation Palestine would bring wealth. It would be the wealthiest member of it. And that Confederation would bring to the industries of Palestine a hinterland and a market that would make them far more prosperous than they otherwise would be.
  Thirdly, I suggest that, in consideration of these points, the Arabs should consent to the opening of Trans-Jordan to de-

  643
  velopment and settlement both by Arabs and by Jews, with funds provided for that purpose. I see no reason for the recommendation by the Commission that the British taxpayer should make a gift of£2,000,000, either to Trans-Jordan or to any other country in that part of the world. I think that the British Government might guarantee a loan to Trans-Jordan, and that the interest and sinking fund should begin after a period, as soon as it appeared to be justified by the development of the country. I suggest, fourthly, that the Holy places of Islam in Palestine should be guaranteed solemnly by the League of Nations, in perpetuity; and fifthly, that within Palestine there ought to be two communal organisations, Jewish and Arab. The Jewish one already exists, and an Arab one should be created. Those organisations should have large powers, should be representative bodies, and should have the control of the education of their children, public health, agricultural development, and local government, with considerable revenues drawn from the public revenues of the country under their own control, to expend upon those purposes. Further, the Arab organisation, if they so desired, should have power to prohibit land sales within their own territory, and there should be a Central Council in Palestine, not elected by the people and not based on numbers, but representing the two communities; that is, a kind of Federal Council, with British officials present there to help and advise. Will that be agreed to? Is it practicable?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON): Who would govern? There is to be a Parliament elected by two communal organisations. With whom will rest the function of government? With that Parliament, or with the British mandatory?
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: In my view each communal authority would manage its own communal affairs throughout the country. The Council should be an advisory body, and the British Government should continue the Mandate. This would be a kind of Federal Council, representing Arabs and Jews, with the help of British officials. It should have an advisory character at the outset, at any rate. If the two bodies came together it might
  644
  grow into something more definite, formal and democratic. As I have said: Will this be agreed? I doubt it. I should be sorry to prophesy that it would be agreed, but the Arabs, perhaps, may be brought to recognise that the links of the Jews for four thousand years with this country cannot be broken; that because they are not economic they are all the stronger. They are intangible links and in the long run spiritual ideas are more potent than material things.
  The Commission recognise that Jewish immigration cannot be stopped altogether. The Arabs must recognise that. The Commission reported:
  "We cannot accept the view that the Mandatory, having facilitated the establishment of the National Home, would be justified in shutting its doors."
  These are realities of the situation which the Arabs must be called upon to recognise. I am not unhopeful that perhaps they might, for intolerance and terrorism are foreign to their nature. I am sure that the Arabs would prefer, after the safeguarding of their main position, an accommodation of that kind. It is often said that this proposal of the Commission is a judgment of Solomon. That, to my mind, is a false analogy. In the case of Solomon you had one claim which was spurious and fraudulent. Here both claims are legitimate. If King Solomon had had before him a man and a woman, husband and wife, the authentic parents of the child, who had quarrelled and separated, and each demanded the custody of the child, and then he had said: "Let the child be cut in two, and half given to each," and then the story had ended happily by the two claimants being reconciled and saying "We will come together and live together for the sake of the infant," that, perhaps, would be a better analogy.
  So my conclusion is that we cannot preserve things as they are, that partition is a bad solution, that better than that would be a scheme of which I have ventured to sketch the leading features. We are not here at the last stages, in this debate and the debate to-morrow in another place. As the noble Lord has said, the matter has to go to the League of Nations. The League of Nations cannot compel the Mandatory to undertake a policy of which it disapproves, but if, when the matter comes before the Mandates Commission, the two parties were to come and each say that rather

  645
  than partition they would prefer some scheme of this kind, then I am sure that His Majesty's Government would readily accept such an agreement. If not, then we should have to agree to partition, and make the best of it, in spite of all its disadvantages. This country has great concern in Palestine. The graves of ten thousand British soldiers link the British Empire, and powerful religious influences link the British people, with Palestine, and I am sure that the whole nation would rejoice if now this period of strife and struggle could be brought to an end, and that at last we could fulfil the behest:
  "Speak comfortably unto Jerusalem and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished."
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP or CANTERBURY: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence after the speeches to which we have listened, spoken by men who have in their various ways such special responsibility and knowledge. I feel particular diffidence in following the noble Viscount who has just spoken, in his closely reasoned and brilliant speech, with all its wealth of illustration and instructive detail, bur, may I say this, that the speech to wb.ch we have listened shows what value we shall gain from the presence of the noble Viscount in this House. After such a speech any generalities must necessarily seem somewhat tedious, but I have such a natural, deep, abiding interest in the Holy Land that I feel I cannot be altogether silent. That interest was quickened by my visit there six years ago, and since then I have had constant communications with successive High Commissioners, with civil and religious officials in Palestine, with representatives of the Arabs and also of the Jews, notably that most remarkable and powerful personality Dr. Weizmann. As a result I have been gradually driven to the conclusion which the Commissioners have reached, and which the noble Viscount seems to have reached, that the Balfour Declaration, accepted and embodied in the Mandate of 1922, with its double obligation, has imposed upon the administration of Palestine an insoluble problem and an impossible task.
  We used to think that Mr. Balfour, as we always like to call him, made that Declaration as a stroke of war policy in order to secure at a critical time certain invaluable financial securities for this
  646
  country. We have since learnt in the admirable biography of his niece that at least twelve or thirteen years before Dr. Weizmann, then a young lecturer in chemistry in the University of Manchester, had already inspired Mr. Balfour with the Zionist ideal. When the War came Mr. Balfour appeared to be ready to use it as an opportunity for endeavouring to fulfil these ideals. It has always seemed strange to me that a man of his most acute intelligence should not have foreseen the almost inevitable difficulties which that Declaration, with its double obligation, would impose. The origin of all the difficulties, as it has seemed to me, following this matter for all these years, has been the original ambiguity in the term "a National Home"—a wholly new term, so far as I know, in diplomacy or international relations. What did it mean? Was it a National Home for the Jews within Palestine, or was it that Palestine was to be itself a National Home for the Jews; or was it to be, as Mr. Lloyd George, who was then Prime Minister, seemed to think, a Home of which it could be said that if the Jews became a definite majority then Palestine would become a Jewish Commonwealth? It was this uncertainty which seems to have underlain all the declarations and documents during the course of the experiment.
  The result was, of course, that when an interpretation was made which seemed to favour the Arabs it was followed by another interpretation which seemed to favour the Jews and vice versa, until we had the position created in 1930 by the famous White Paper, immediately followed by what the Arabs called the "Black Letter" addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann. Naturally, the result was that wherever there was any qualification of the Jewish claims it gave offence to the Jews, whenever there was any allusion to a Jewish State it gave offence to the Arabs. There were two reasons, I suppose, which led to the increasing Arab hostility, and here may I say to the noble Viscount (Lord Samuel) that, while I am sure he knows it, he did not in his speech seem to realise sufficiently the immense increase in the strength of Arab nationalism since the days when he presided with so much ability over Palestine as the High Commissioner? The first reason was, of

  647
  course, the sudden and, to them, alarming increase of immigration which followed 1933. Thus in 1935 the number of Jewish emigrants rose from 9,500to 61,854. The whole Jewish population thus rose to 400,000, whereas only fifteen years before it had been only 65,000 in a population of 600,00o Arabs. Was it to be wondered at that the Arabs asked themselves: "Whither is all this tending? Are we not drawing near the time when the Jewish National Home will mean that Palestine itself is to become a Jewish State?"
  In the second place, there was the rapid increase of their nationalist aspirations. When they came to the Government here and asked for some recognition of that nationality in 1925, Mr. Churchill, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, replied that:
  "The creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people."
  Was it unnatural that from that moment the Arabs considered that it was the Jewish Home in Palestine that stood in the way of the fulfilment of their national aspirations? Nor can it he said, indeed, that at any time did the Jews show much inclination to abate the extent of their claims. I am not going to weary your Lordships at this hour with quotations from the Report, but I would refer you to the summary of the claims made before the Commission in the Report of the Commission, page 143. Thus it became apparent that the one essential condition for the success of the Mandate—namely, a willing co-operation between the Arab and the Jew—was unobtainable.
  Perhaps here I may be forgiven if I quote a sentence from the Report, because it summarises the whole conclusion with great terseness and force:
  "The Arabs of Palestine, it has been admitted, are as fit to govern themselves as the Arabs of Iraq or of Syria, the Jews of Palestine, it is clear, are as fit to govern themselves as any organised and educated community in Europe or elsewhere; yet, associated as they are under the Mandate, self-government is impracticable for both peoples. It is here that it is manifest that the Mandate cannot be fully and honourably implemented unless, by some means or other, the national antagonism between Arab and Jew can be composed, but it is the Mandate which created that antagonism and keeps it alive. As long as the Mandate exists we cannot honestly hold out the expectation that either Arabs
  648
  or Jews will be able to set aside their national hopes and fears and sink their differences in the common service of Palestine."
  In other words, it has proved to be a struggle of two national ideals, and they are irreconcilable:
  "'tis true' tis pity;
  And pity 'tis' tis true."
  The noble Earl (and I join with everyone in the tribute paid to him and his colleagues) spoke of the situation, I think, as being tragic. I do not think that is an exaggerated term. The Commissioners say that it is a conflict of right with right, and that seems to me the essential definition of a tragedy. I see no reason why we should be partisans upon one side or the other. We ought to be capable of full sympathy with both. The Jews—how can we fail to sympathise with the ideals of Zionism? When we consider the history of that most remarkable race, one of the most remarkable in the world; when we think of the position they have occupied for centuries as, at the best, an unwelcome and sometimes a persecuted minority in many countries, and of the way in which, in spite of all, they have cherished their national ideals; when we think of their determination to find some means of securing for themselves a place of cultural influence and of political strength, can we wonder that they should long to have a home of their own in the original home land of their race? On the other hand, is it not equally possible to sympathise with the Arabs? I say nothing upon those questions of the hopes or promises which may have been held out to them in the days of the War, with which the noble Viscount dealt in a most interesting way. It is enough that they, as the noble Earl said a short time ago, have been in occupation of these territories for long centuries, and ask why they should be excluded from them by an alien people. They have become conscious more than ever of the great days of their race, and long to have a national position which reflects the honour of those early days, and they ask why they should be denied that national position for a cause about which they were never even consulted.
  And if partisanship is needless, so surely is it needless to be eager to assign the blame to one side rather than the other. Certainly some episodes have been most blameworthy. I need not speak of the outbreak

  649
  of the armed rebellion of 1936. I can but note the strictures passed by the Commission on the Mufti in Jerusalem with whom I had conversations some time ago. Here I must, in contrast, pay tribute to the extraordinary patience and self-restraint of the Jews during that most difficult time. Though we need not be partisans in giving praise or in assigning blame, the real truth is (is it not?) that an ultimate deadlock was inherent in the terms of the Balfour Declaration and in the Mandate. It seems to be, judged from the Report and from all I have been able to discern from all these communications and conversations, impossible to hope for any further progress along that line. No doubt the British Government are strong enough to quell any opposition from the Arabs, but every one in this House will agree with what has been said, that that policy leads nowhere. It is unthinkable that this country should ever attempt to rule the Holy Land, of all places, by repression and make bombs and bayonets the instruments of its government there.
  Is there any escape, then, from the conclusion—I do not think any one can seriously escape from it—that a deadlock has arisen which cannot be terminated by the continuance of the existing Mandate? I need not dwell on that point. The Commissioners make an appeal to the friends of the National Home, among whom I would wish to include myself, urging that the best service they can render it is to recognise frankly that the situation in Palestine has reached a deadlock and to bend their minds to finding a way out. That way out has been indicated by the unanimous conclusion of this very able Commission. It is partition. It is not a solution that any of us could welcome. On the contrary, all our instincts are against it, and the difficulties that it will involve have been most forcefully pointed out by the noble Viscount who has just spoken. If I might, with great diffidence., allude to what he has said, I would say this. One alternative he would propose is a restriction on Jewish immigration. What chance is there of that receiving the agreement of the Jews? It is the one thing they have steadily resisted from the very first. As I happen to know, when representations were made that, for political reasons and for the sake of political harmony, they might abate immigration during the time of the meeting of the Royal Commission, they would not listen to the suggestion even then.
  650
  The noble Viscount's other alternative is this beautiful conception of a great Arab Federal State. I do not know what position Palestine would have within it, but he afterwards pointed out that all the self-government that would be given would be an Advisory Council in which both communities would have a place. I would be very greatly surprised if the Arabs would look at the creation of such an Advisory Council as any sort of fulfilment of, as they think, their legitimate aspirations to independence. I am quite certain that the scheme itself, in its detail, will require a great deal of fuller and further investigation. I am equally certain that such difficulties as those the noble Viscount has pointed out will have to be very seriously considered. Even the responsibilities that will be assigned to the Mandatory Power will remain very great.
  I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but there are two of these responsibilities on which I ought to dwell at the outset for one moment. One is the responsibility for the guardianship of the Holy Places. That, I am glad to recognise, has been fully accepted in the Report, and it is to Christians very satisfactory that they have included among the Holy Places belonging to all the three great religions very especially Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee. I do not think any of us could contemplate the possibility of the Sea of Galilee suffering from developments which might mean not merely disfigurement but profanation.
  The other responsibility is one which I feel bound specially to stress, and that is the adequate safeguarding of the rights of all minorities. In a country where obviously religious and racial jealousies are only too rife, this is the more necessary, and it will be useless in any treaties with these independent States, if they are created, to be content with general terms. There must be specific undertakings. The example of what happened to the Assyrians in Iraq is one to put us on our guard. These undertakings should certainly provide for complete freedom, not only of conscience, but of worship and teaching. They ought to provide for the maintenance of the schools of the different minorities, and it is specially important that the position of those to whom the noble Earl alluded and for whom I have a special responsibility—the Hebrew and Arab Christians—should be fully con-

  651
  sidered. Indeed I am not sure that it will not be found that the territory remaining under the Mandatory Power will have to be increased to find room for persons, not only Arab but also Jewish, who do not wish to live under the political control of either of those communities. I do not dwell more on those points.
  What is the chance of the success of the scheme put before us by the Royal Commission? I wonder if it is impossible to be sanguine. I do not think that the position suggested by the noble Viscount is any more likely to commend itself—either to the Jews or to the Arabs—than the position which will be given to them under the Report of the Commission. I cannot help thinking that, when time has been given for consideration, it will appear to the Arabs that they will gain an independence comparable to that which is enjoyed by neighbouring Arab States, and freed from the fear of being swamped by the Jews. I cannot help thinking that the Jews will come to see that here is something more than a precarious National Home—a Jewish State administered by themselves which they can fill with as many of their race as they themselves think can be absorbed.
  There is one point here on which I feel the Jews have some legitimate grievance in the proposals made by the Royal Commission. It was alluded to by the noble Earl, but it requires further consideration. That is the position of Jerusalem itself. I am bound to say that it seems to me extremely difficult to justify fulfilling the ideals of Zionism by excluding them from any place in Zion. How is it possible for us not to sympathise in this matter with the Jews? We all remember their age-long resolve, lament, and longing:
  "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning."
  They cannot forget Jerusalem in any terms of partition, and, as has been pointed out, the actual population of Jerusalem at the present time is 76,000. Of these, 72,00o—one-fifth of the present population of Palestine—dwell within that portion of Jerusalem which is outside the old city walls, outside the region for which the Mandatory Power must undertake special responsibility. There are only 4,000 Jews living within that area. Is it quite inconceivable that that large modern suburb, with these 72,000 people, and
  652
  containing, I suppose, as it would, the great Hebrew University, should not be assigned to the Jewish State with access to the British Corridor? I feel quite certain, if that could be done, that the objections and difficulties of the Jews might be largely met.
  Lastly, we must all feel, especially after the speeches that have been delivered, that it would be worth almost anything if it were possible to obtain some kind of agreement among these nations as to the future of Palestine. Your Lordships will all remember that in the case of India—no one knows better than the noble Earl himself—there was a Royal Commission. It was followed, whatever we may say about the treatment of them, by Round-Table Conferences, and it was not until these Round-Table Conferences had been concluded that the stage was reached of appointing a Joint Parliamentary Committee and thrashing out the whole subject in detail. Is it quite inconceivable that, once the Government have made it perfectly clear that the continuance of the existing Mandate is impossible, they might summon on the basis of such a clear declaration representatives of the Arabs, including perhaps representatives of neighbouring Arab kingdoms and of the Jews as well as of themselves, to consider together what settlement on other lines than the continuance of the Mandate might be possible? It is conceivable that such a conference might succeed.
  His Majesty's Government may have reasons to suppose that if there were any delay there might be the chance of the outbreak of some disorder—I do not know—but when I heard the noble Viscount a short time ago speaking of what he felt might be the attitude of the Jews towards a just and fair recognition of the national aspirations of the Arabs, and when he assured us that fundamentally the Arabs were tolerant people, I thought it might well be that in such a conference, if not the actual details of the present scheme, at least something analagous to it or possibly even on the lines suggested by the noble Viscount, might be reached by agreement. If such a Round-Table Conference failed, at least the parties would feel that opportunity had been given them for full discussion, and all soreness would have been removed due to the thought that a form of settlement had been merely enforced upon them by the

  653
  Mandatory Power. If it failed, then the ground would be clear to proceed with the only remaining solution.
  In conclusion, I would only say that we must needs pay great deference to the Commissioners who have surveyed the whole situation with a fulness and care that have never hitherto been given to it, and I would like to congratulate the noble Earl and his colleagues not merely on the ability with which they have discharged their duties but on the impression of impartiality which they were able to convey. I know from many sources in Palestine that they succeeded in making everyone who appeared before them, or with whom they had any, dealings, feel that as a body of men they were entirely detached, disinterested and impartial. That being so, we cannot refuse the most careful consideration to the conclusion to which they have unanimously come. It may not prove to be the ultimate solution. I am quite sure there are many points which His Majesty's Government will still have to consider; but, having regard to the present position and to the possibilities of the future, I think we are bound to trust the judgment of the Commission and to give at least a most favourable consideration to their verdict in the fervent hope that it may bring about the reconciliation of two rightful national ideals in a country where, above all others in the world, peace and good will should prevail.
  LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships with a very great sense of the responsibility that must be upon any one in my position who speaks on this question this afternoon, for, by the accident of fate, I not only have the privilege of addressing your Lordships House but I also happen to be the Chairman of the Jewish Agency. I am acutely conscious of the fact that words uttered in this House this afternoon will sound far beyond these walls and will have repercussions in many parts of the world. Before I pass on to the more general observations that I would place before your Lordships, there are one or two remarks in regard to previous speeches which I wish to make.
  In the first place I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Peel, not only on the very able Report which he has prepared but also on the extremely able speech with which he supported it this afternoon. I should like to add my
  654
  meed of gratitude both to him and to all his colleagues for the hard work which they undertook and carried through. But I must say I listened to the noble Earl this afternoon with great astonishment. It seemed that, in spite of the long time during which he and his colleagues have made research and inquired into this question, the mainspring of it still remains concealed from them. Not one word fell from his lips during the whole course of his speech in regard to Jewish persecution. Neither now nor in past times has there been any question of the motives that actuated the Zionist cause. The noble Earl talked of our ambitions. What are those ambitions? Ambitions to relieve the suffering and the distress of millions of our people in Eastern Europe; ambitions to be able to bring into the light and sunshine of Palestine young men and young women who have no hope but starvation or suicide in Germany or Poland or Rumania. If those are our ambitions, I am glad to own them. I want to preface what I have to say this afternoon by making it quite clear that that is the basis of all that we have to discuss at the present time. When the most reverend Primate says that we do not abate our claims that is because, at any rate so far as I have any responsibility in this matter, I have nothing that I can abate. I should be giving away only the suffering of other people, and to that I have no right to agree.
  The noble Marquess who spoke for the Government also made, if I may say so, a striking and a vigorous speech in defence of the Government's policy, but I remember, I must say with some pleasure, the fact that he himself has been in no way responsible for this policy and has only within recent months come into this controversy at all. He has put before your Lordships this afternoon a new definition of absorptive capacity. He has called it psychological absorptive capacity. He can correct me if I am wrong, but that seems to me to mean that as many Jews can come in as are wanted by the Arabs. If one takes an atlas one can find a very large number of countries, in fact on almost every page a country, in which Jews can come in if they are wanted by the inhabitants.
  THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: If the noble Lord will pardon my interrupting, I think it should be made

  655
  clear that that is his own definition; it it not mine, nor that of the Government.
  LORD MELCHETT: It seemed clear to me that the words were open to that interpretation, but perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, when he speaks, will give us a more exact interpretation. I have tried to give a fair interpretation. Psychological economic absorptive capacity seems to me to mean, and can only mean, one thing—that is, as many Jews will be allowed to enter as will not annoy the Arabs, will not disturb their psychology and will not provoke political agitation either in small or large degree. If that is not so I should be very glad to hear exactly what it does mean. I would only like to say that to present us with a proposition of that kind is to reduce the National Home in Palestine to the same level as that of the many countries in which our people suffer to-day, and would be the most grave and the most serious change that has been proposed since the Balfour Declaration was first issued.
  I would like also to deal with one other point, it may be a small point, in the speech of the noble Marquess. He grouped together persuasion and terrorism in regard to both Arab and Jew. I would like to say, and I say it with great sincerity, that I think the noble Marquess did not do a good service to the cause of peace when he grouped those words together. I was one of those many people who spent a great deal of time and trouble in persuading the young men of Palestine, outraged by many acts of terrorism and sabotage, from retaliation. There was a great temptation to adopt terrorism—shooting in the dark, throwing bombs from behind walls—which we have learned in Palestine to a large extent goes unpunished. It was a very great effort of self-discipline on the part of the younger generation to refrain from such activities. It was an act of discipline which I had hoped might be an example to other people in the world—how to behave in face of great provocation. To group together persuasion and terrorism in one phrase, so that it is hard to distinguish one from the other, is not to my mind doing a good service to the cause of peace and international understanding which all of us have at heart.
  656
  After these prefatory observations I would like to deal, if your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes, with the broad historical view of this question. We have heard this afternoon from a number of speakers that the Balfour Declaration was wrong, that it was dead, that the Mandate was hopeless and could not be applied. We have also heard that with irreconcilable obligations the Government have no option except to agree to dividing the country. If your Lordships will allow me to assume for the purpose of my argument that these statements are correct, I would like to deal for a few moments with the way in which the obligations which have been so frequently referred to have been requited in fact. I said at the beginning of my remarks that for the Zionist movement the main purpose of the National Home was the relief of millions of suffering people in Eastern Europe, Russia and elsewhere. When the National Home was promised by the Balfour Declaration it was received with unanimous acclamation by everyone. There was no section of public opinion in this country, there was no country in the world that did not approve of it, and approve of it heartily. There was no political Party that did not support it, and no prominent statesman in almost any country who did not receive it with acclaim. It is quite true—and I put it forward at once—that at a later stage there was a Resolution in your Lordships' House which was hostile to the Declaration, but apart from that I do not think there was a voice raised against it. So far as the Arabs were concerned, not only representative Arabs at that time, but King Feisal and the then Mufti of Jerusalem were completely in favour of the whole scheme.
  It was based not only on providing a refuge for a persecuted race, it was also based upon the idea which was so well expressed in the Royal Commission's Report when they say:
  "Considering what the possibility of finding a refuge in Palestine means to many thousands of suffering Jews, we cannot believe that the 'distress' occasioned by partition, great as it would be, is more than Arab generosity can bear. … There was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to concede little Palestine to the Jews, provided that the rest of Arab Asia were free. That condition was not fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfilment now. In less than three years' time all the wide Arab area outside Palestine between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean will be

  657
  independent, and, if partition is adopted, the greater part of Palestine will be independent too."
  That is the appeal which the Royal Commission made to the Arabs. It was the basis upon which the Balfour Declaration was originally founded. There was to be a National Home for the Jews which might grow into a Jewish Commonwealth, an independent Commonwealth, and it was felt that this was not too much for the Arabs to concede in view of the fact that they were obtaining more than other people obtained in the way of enlargement and liberty as a result of the War.
  I would not like any member of your Lordship' House to imagine that I do not sympathise with Arab national feelings. My own national feelings are far too strong for me not to have the greatest sympathy with them. I wish them every possible success in the great territories which are open to them for development. I hope they will have prosperity, and I hope it will be attended by peace. But I do not think the little bit of country no larger than Wales that was offered as the National Home for the Jews was too great a strain on their generosity. Originally the proposal, as we all know, was supposed to include Trans-Jordan and Palestine as we now know it. The noble Viscount produced evidence with regard to that this afternoon and I fully accept what he said. I have no means of being able to controvert it. But originally the proposal was stated and discussed on the larger scale of Trans-Jordan and Palestine. That represented a territory of about 45,000 square miles: 10,000 square miles of Palestine and 35,000 square miles of Trans-Jordan, a territory about as big as England without Scotland and Wales. As the noble Viscount has told us, 35,000 square miles of this were cut off when Trans-Jordan was removed. The area was reduced to 10,000 square miles, and, it having been then reduced to 10,000 square miles, it is now proposed to reduce it to just under 2,000 square miles. In other words, having started on a territory about as large as England, and having reduced it once to a territory about as large as England south of the Thames, the proposition is now to reduce it to a territory rather smaller than the County of Norfolk.
  658
  I put it to your Lordships as a very simple proposition, one that I do not think any of your Lordships, not even the noble Viscount who is about to reply, will controvert, that the statesmen of the world, British Cabinets, foreign Governments and all the great panoply of State representatives at the Peace Conference would not have considered the proposal to set up a Jewish National Home for the salvation of the Jewish people in a territory the size of the County of Norfolk. On that basis Great Britain would not have involved itself in these very difficult and complex obligations, would not have entered into treaty obligations with a mighty country like the United States of America. None of all that we know has been gone through would ever have been done unless it had been clear that the experiment was intended to be carried out on a scale large enough to have some real meaning. What, in brief, has happened has been that under a series of persistent and violent attacks it has been whittled down to what is now proposed. Those attacks have been made over a long period of time and by many different people, but I do not think that anybody can fairly say that we have not carried out our part of the bargain. I should say that our principal penalty has been our success; our success on the one side and the pressure created by the persecution in Germany on the other side. That has provoked the matter to a point where it is now decided that our effort is to be limited to an area which will certainly increase our difficulties enormously, if it does not make it impossible for us to achieve anything.
  It is remarkable that we have been driven back to this extent. It is very curious and very hard to understand why it should be. The British Parliament has consistently stood up upon every occasion when this matter has been debated in the House, and has never deserted the point of view originally expressed. Successive Governments have also taken the same attitude. Although pressed very strongly on different occasions to prevent Jewish immigration or to stop the National Home, they have never done so. In spite of that, the persistent, vigorous and unrelenting pressure against our ideals has been immensely successful. It has

  659
  succeeded to some extent because it has never been checked by the Administration in Palestine. Every time it has shown its head in the form of violence, the Administration has allowed it to run, and political Arab nationalism in Palestine—that is, the total negation of the Mandate—has always been allowed free rein.
  It has been understood, and there could be no question at all, by the Arabs that certain elements, at any rate, concerned with the Government of the country were not averse from the policy which they advocated. It is only necessary to take one or two figures in the Report of the Commission itself to support that point. On page 194 they tell us that, although it has been found necessary to impose collective fines upon villages for acts of arson and terrorism, and £61,000 worth of such fines have in fact been inflicted, they have not been collected. Only £18,000 out of £61,000 has ever been collected. So far as murder is concerned, 27 sentences for murder as a result of the 1929 riots were confirmed upon appeal; not murder cases, or even sentences, but sentences finally confirmed upon appeal. There were three executions. In 1936 there were 260 cases, there were 67 convictions, there were no executions. I am the last person in the world who would desire either bloodshed or repression, but I put it to your Lordships' House, and I defy contradiction, that you could not run India on that basis, that you could not run England on that basis, and that if you allowed Communist and Fascist in this country free rein for terrorism, murder and arson, the reins of government would be snatched out of your hands.
  That has been the condition of Palestine, and it is summed up by the words of the Commission in this Report on page 14o in paragraph 55:
  "And, if one thing stands out clear from the record of the Mandatory administration, it is the leniency with which Arab political agitation, even when carried to the point of violence and murder, has been treated."
  I do not want to carry this too far, but I say that if there was at any time a chance of conciliation, the only opportunity and hope of conciliation was under a Government with a firm hand—not a violent or repressive hand, but a firm hand. If there ever was a chance of Jew and Arab coming together, as the
  660
  most reverend Primate appealed for in his speech, there was no prospect of our coming together with moderate Arabs as long as terroristic Arabs were unpunished. I and others, over and over again, have in fact been in contact with Arabs, have discussed matters with Arabs, but the only Arab to whom the Government paid any attention was the Arab with a bomb or the Arab with a rifle. I believe that earlier on it might have been possible to arrive at a considerable measure of pacification on both sides and a considerable measure of co-operation between Jew and Arab. But it did necessitate a Government which would maintain law and order, would prevent terrorism, and would prevent any moderate Arab from ever being in danger of assassination or of some physical injury.
  Now it may be true that you have gone too far to hope that you will achieve any result, but I should only like to point out that if that is so and if you go back upon the Balfour Declaration, and go back upon the Mandate, you do so in the blackest hour of Jewry's history. You do so at the worst hour for ourselves, and you do so at a time which is worst for yourselves, because, much as you may choose to try to ignore it, you will not succeed in ignoring the oppression and the persecution of four or five million people in Central Europe. You will have to face it one day, and you might just as well face it now, while you are making the big change which you contemplate. You may say that Palestine is not large enough, and that it is of no use for this purpose. Where else is there a place? One goes over the atlas. Can the noble Marquess find any country where there are prospects? I have not seen it. There are plenty of countries which are ready to have us on the basis of its psychological absorptive capacity, but our psychological experience has been that it means an immigration capacity of nil, if not of a minus quantity, because our people are driven out.
  The Commissioners in their Report come forward and offer us, as the noble Earl has said, sovereignty. That seems a great and precious thing. It is two thousand years next year since there was a Jewish sovereign State. Do they mean sovereignty? I wish I knew, and I wish we could get a clear answer from the noble Viscount who will reply. Can he tell us how our sovereignty will accord

  661
  with the provisions with regard to Tel Aviv, the Customs, Haifa, and so on? It is sovereignty minus the only four great cities in the territory. These are all to be placed under a temporary Mandate. What is to become of the Mandate which was so solemnly undertaken fifteen years ago? We have heard all about it in the House this afternoon. It is impossible, and it is going to be thrown away. Are we to have four unspecified Mandates at the same time, or Mandates to which a period is put, so that we know that they will terminate at a certain time? Sovereignty! It is proposed that the Customs revenues shall be collected by other people. Is that to be as a result of agreement reached after full discussion between the sovereign State and an appropriate authority, or is that to be imposed upon us?
  In regard to the Mandate for Haifa, I would like to say it, and I do so quite frankly, that we all know, no one more than myself, the interest of Great Britain in the port of Haifa. I have been advocating its importance for many years. But I would suggest that if Great Britain wants the port of Haifa there are two ways in which she can obtain rights under the present scheme—either to take Haifa and say she takes it in defiance of whatever international obligations there may be; or else to leave Haifa in the Jewish territory and negotiate a treaty. It would not be consistent with the dignity and honour of Great Britain to try to obtain military, naval and air force rights in Haifa under the cloak of a Mandate for a temporary period. I can assure the Government that there will be no treaty rights they may ask for which will not be freely acceded, but do let us have clarity and real intention displayed when it comes to negotiations on these matters.
  There is another question, that of boundaries. The boundaries as they have been drawn by the Royal Commission would be hard to protect and police. Those who have studied boundaries from a geographical point of view mostly agree that boundaries have to be situated in defensible areas. Is there any intention of creating our sovereign State with such boundaries that we have the remotest hope of being able to protect them? Then there is the question of transfer of population. Greece and Turkey have been quoted as an example of successful transfer. I have often quoted them myself. I have often pointed out that they show an example of how
  662
  the Jewish population might be transferred from Eastern Europe into the Eastern Mediterranean. The transfer, I believe, can be accomplished, but do the Government really seriously intend to pursue the transfer? What are their real intentions in that matter?
  I would like to say just one word about the Nageb—a desert, and likely to remain a desert. Probably it always will be a desert, except for the capacity and power of the Zionist Organisation to bring to it water, to bring to it a population, and to bring to it the opportunity of cultivation and of fruitfulness. That has been relegated under the present proposals to a desert area. I would suggest that something might be arranged even at the present day that will allow for the development of that area and make provision for Jewish immigration.
  One further point which I wish to make is with regard to finance. Reference has been made to the surpluses which the Palestine Government have achieved from time to time, and I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the words of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, speaking in another place on March 24, 1936, where he informed the House that there was a surplus of £6,000,000, which he stated was mostly Jewish money. I would like to draw attention to the way in which this money is to be distributed. Two millions of it have been spent in quite unnecessary military display, when a few policemen, at a negligible cost, could have done all that was necessary. Two million pounds are to be given to the Arabs, and two millions remain. I think that the financial provisions are the least important of anything which is put forward, but I merely add them because they do show the way in which this matter is being handled. I should not have raised them at all but for the fact that this money has been taken from Jewish refugees, flying from persecution. It will be distributed in the way which I have described.
  I was very glad indeed that the question of Jerusalem has been raised. I do not think it is necessary for me to add much to what the roost reverend Primate has already said. But it is hard to make the ordinary person understand what is meant by Zionism without Zion, and when one is going to do a surgical opera-

  663
  tion it is not usual to cut the heart out of the patient before one starts with the rest. To the great mass of Jewry throughout the world from time immemorial Jerusalem has been the very heart of their hopes and their desires.
  Now, having drawn such a very gloomy picture of one side, I would just like to say a few words in regard to the other side. I am glad to think that it is a much happier picture. I have no desire that other people should suffer our despair. The Arab population are offered, as the Commission state, the greater part of Palestine as it now exists. They have now already under their control a territory as large as about half of Western Europe, and inside that they have some twelve million people. Actually I believe it is correct to say that, as far as territory is concerned, 99 per cent. of the Arab territory will be totally released under Arab self-government if the Report goes through in this form, and 98 per cent. of the Arab population. So that at any rate, so far as they are concerned, their claims will have been satisfied to a higher degree perhaps that any nation's claims have been satisfied for years, and certainly than any nation's claims were satisfied after the War. I can only hope, as I said before, that peace and prosperity will attend their efforts to govern and to develop these very great territories.
  With regard to the position of the Jewish Agency, I do not think any of your Lordships will envy me the task of trying to explain the whole of this matter to the people who will be gathered together to decide and give their verdict on it in a few weeks' time. I have to tell them that Great Britain has thrown down the Balfour Declaration; I have to try to explain where the policy that their advisers have so constantly put before them, that of co-operation at all costs with the Mandatory Government, loyalty to Britain in every way and at every turn of the long and tedious history of the last fifteen years, has brought them. The rock foundation of the policy of the Agency has been co-operation with Great Britain; the rock foundation of Dr. Weizmann's policy has been co-operation with Great Britain; the rock foundation of Arab policy has been opposition to the Mandate, and the results of the way in
  664
  which those two policies have been requited are quite plain before your Lordships.
  No sane or sensible man would be prepared to reject out of hand the proposals made by His Majesty's Government on a question of this importance, or at a time like this. There are no proposals before us at this moment either to accept or to reject, but when the time comes and final proposals are put forward, they will be considered by the Agency and the Agency will either accept them or reject them. If they reject them they will go back to the beginning, and we will fight our case, because it is a just case, from the beginning, as we did before. It will be a dark hour; it is a dark hour now. The noble Earl and other people will not mind. They will say: "That is all right. We have got out of our obligations and our difficulties." And they will be right, because you do not need arguments when you have got battleships. We shall have to go back to the beginning, and we shall. And what I hope above all is that history will show that the people of this country will have an opportunity to redress a grave wrong. I believe that Jewry will one day have the opportunity of showing the world that they deserve better at your hands.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the Royal Commission is due, I understand, at seven o'clock, and I venture to make a suggestion about the course of the debate. As your Lordships know, the Agriculture Bill has to be taken to-night, and it can conveniently be taken after dinner. Therefore what I would suggest is that we should resume this debate immediately after the Commission, that we should give an opportunity for perhaps one or two more speeches, and then adjourn this debate at, say, a quarter to eight, and resume it to-morrow. There are two Motions on the Paper to-morrow, which I think would take precedence of an adjourned debate on this Motion, but I understand that neither of them is likely to take very long. That ought to enable us to meet the general wish that we should be able to complete this debate before dinner to-morrow. That would give the opportunity of completing the debate on the noble Lord's Motion to-morrow after those other Motions have been disposed of. If that is convenient to your Lordships I suggest that it is the

  665
  most convenient course to adopt. If we adjourn this debate at a quarter to eight we could then take the Agriculture Bill at rune o'clock.
  LORD SNELL: My Lords, we recognise the difficulty the House is in, and we should like to co-operate in any way possible so that speeches can be made. We have no objection.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION.
  The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:

  Livestock Industry,

  Post Office and Telegraph (Money),

  Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners, Etc. (Tenure of Office).

  Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland),.

  Motherwell and Wishaw Burgh Order Confirmation,

  Coatbridge Burgh Extension, etc., Order Confirmation,

  Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation,

  Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Halifax),

  Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hornsea),

  Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Tonbridge Water),

  Banbury Waterworks,

  Hertfordshire County Council (Colne Valley Sewerage, etc.),

  London Passenger Transport,

  London County Council (General Powers),

  Wadebridge Rural District Council,

  Torquay Corporation,

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation,

  Bucks Water,

  Whitehaven Harbour,

  Woodhall Spa Urban District Council,

  Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council.

  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  PALESTINE.
  Debate resumed on the Motion made by Lord Snell.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, immediately before the adjournment we listened, not for the first time in this House, to a very eloquent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who speaks on this subject with very great authority. That speech was a timely reminder to us of the background of this whole question, the cause of the Balfour Declaration itself and the very foundation of the Mandate—namely, the persecution of Jews in many countries of Europe which has become so very much greater since the Balfour Declaration was first made. There have in fact been so many able speeches already made in this debate that they relieve me of a good deal that I should have wished to say had I spoken earlier to-day, and I only want now to refer to two points which have not been mentioned by any previous speakers.
  This Report is chiefly discussed, and has been so discussed in this House this afternoon, from the point of view either of the Jews or of the Arabs, but I would remind your Lordships that there is another feature of the Report, another partner of the partition, a feature of the Report which causes me the very gravest anxiety. Even if the partition scheme were accepted whole-heartedly by both the Jews and the Arabs, and there is very little evidence of this, I should feel great anxiety about the interests of this country under the scheme and the position of the Mandatory Government which will still continue if this partition scheme is carried out. The noble Marquess, speaking for the Government, reminded your Lordships just now that the Statement of Policy issued by His Majesty's Government supporting the main lines of the Commission's Report must not be taken to mean that Great Britain is leaving Palestine. I would just ask your Lordships to consider in what position Great Britain will be left in Palestine under this partition scheme. It is a matter about which I hope the noble Viscount who winds up the debate for the Government will tell us something. It is assumed, I am afraid rather too readily, both by the Commission and the Government, that this partition will bring peace to Palestine. Well, I hope it may. Everyone who has the interests of Palestine at heart must

  667
  devoutly hope that it may be so. But I fear that the experience of the past does not altogether justify these hopes.
  The Royal Commission say that good and just government without regard for sectional interests must be the basic principle of the Mandatory Authority in the future. When speaking of the minority that will have to be left in each State they say, on page 390, that the problem
  "must be boldly faced and firmly dealt with. It calls for the highest statesmanship on the part of all concerned."
  Yes, my Lords, but these words are just as applicable to the past as they are to the future, and if the problem of the Mandate had been boldly faced and firmly dealt with, if in fact in the past the highest statesmanship had been shown by all concerned, then the Mandate would have succeeded and the proposal for partition of the country would never have been made. The noble Marquess, Lord Dufferin, said it was an illusion to suppose that if these conditions had prevailed in the past, if we had had this statesmanship and this firm and bold government, everything would have gone well. If it is an illusion to say that of the past, it is equally an illusion to hope that that will be the result in the future. Is there really any ground for the belief that in the future everybody is going to be so much more reasonable and statesmanlike than they have been in the past?
  If these hopes are disappointed, what is going to be the position of the Mandatory Power? The Commission have told us in their Report that even the whole of Palestine was too small to enable a sufficient Civil Service cadre to be provided. Well, but when the area is reduced to merely a small corridor where are to be found the statesmen to reconcile these conflicting parties? If you could not get an efficient service in the whole of Palestine where are you going to find your Civil Service to govern the City of Jerusalem with a little Corridor to Jaffa? And where are you going to station troops if troops should be necessary? We do not want to have to conquer Palestine a second time. And note that without any territory, without any revenue, the responsibility of this Mandatory Government is going to be in no way diminished. It is, in fact, if anything, going to be
  668
  increased. I would ask, if the Government of Palestine could not keep peace between its own subjects how will the keeper of the Corridor, or whatever he may be called in the future, be able to have any control over the conflicting interests of two sovereign States between which he is placed? Keeping the peace between Jews and Arabs will not be the only responsibility of the Mandatory Government in the future. There will still remain on the British Government the strategic responsibility of maintaining that great link by sea, by land and air between Europe and the East.
  I have thought it well just to mention briefly this aspect of the question in the hope that the noble Viscount who speaks for the Government will deal with it later. I will only mention one other minor point at this stage. Under the scheme of partition recommended by the Commission two important undertakings have been assigned to the Arab State, the Palestine Electric Corporation in the Jordan Valley and the Palestine Potash Company at the Dead Sea. I only wish to speak about the latter because it is a company with which I am myself connected. Palestine Potash is an English company with an English Chairman. Its present issued capital is £746,000. That capital was subscribed on the footing that Palestine, in which the industry was being established, was a British mandated territory and that if at some future time the Mandate were abandoned, its place would be taken by a Government in Palestine in which would be included the Jewish National Home. I am quite confident that if ever it had been suggested or even hinted that within a few years this enterprise would come under the exclusive jurisdiction of a newly constituted Arab State, with no experience in industrial matters, that capital would never have been subscribed, and this important industry with all its future possibilities would never have been established.
  Of course it may be argued that as this enterprise may be an important source of revenue to the Arab State it is most unlikely that the Arab Government would do anything to injure it. If only business reasons were brought into play that would be perfectly true. From the purely business point of view the Arab Government would have no interest whatever in injuring this enterprise. But, once political considerations are intro-

  669
  duced into a business matter, there is no sort of security, and we have seen during the recent riots how various attempts were made to interfere with or sabotage this industry of the Dead Sea. What I want to point out to your Lordships is that if any injury should be inflicted there will be others outside the Arab State who would wish to intervene.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in his most able speech said that the Royal Commission seemed to have gone to Versailles and picked out all the most thorny points in the Peace Treaty; that they had introduced not only a Polish Corridor but several Danzigs and Memels. I would remind the noble Viscount that the Royal Commission did not even stop there. They have taken an unfortunate precedent from an earlier page in history. In South Africa it was the outside interests in the Rand which eventually led to the Jameson Raid. Let me say that we do not want any Jameson Raids repeated in Palestine. We did not create the problem of the Rand in South Africa. It was there. But having had that experience it does seem the height of folly deliberately and with our eyes open to create two new Rands in Palestine. It may be said that these are mere details capable of adjustment, and with that I quite agree. As the partition scheme can never be brought into operation merely by Act of Parliament in this country, and can only be made to operate by a number of treaties, I have no doubt that these matters will be dealt with ultimately by agreement. I have only mentioned them now to say that when we are discussing partition, and when we are asked, as I understand another place will be asked by the Government in the debate there, to approve the scheme of partition in principle, it must not be assumed that any particular feature of the recommendations of the Report must necessarily form part of the final settlement.
  LORD LUGARD: My Lords, my only justification for detaining your Lordships for a very few minutes at this late hour is that I have been privileged to be the British member of the Mandates Commission since its inauguration until last summer, when we discussed at great length the present condition of Palestine—the condition, in fact, which the Royal Commission found when they went there a month or two later. My place has been
  670
  taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, who will go next week to Geneva and listen to the debate on Palestine, and I feel that in these circumstances I am free to express my own opinion in your Lordships' House for whatever it may be worth. The proposals made by the Royal Commission are not, perhaps, on the general lines which have been anticipated by most people, but I am satisfied that, whatever might have been possible at an earlier date, the method of territorial partition is, at the present time and in existing circumstances, the most hopeful and, indeed, the only course which has any prospect of leading to favourable results. I do not propose at this late hour to discuss any of the problems raised in the Report of the Royal Commission, though I should like to express my admiration for the impartial and skilful way in which the problem has been presented, especially in the statement of the Arab case. The Commission seem to have been somewhat at a loss to understand why the Mufti of Jerusalem, who has been the focus of racial and anti-Government propaganda and practice, has been allowed to assume and to retain up to the present time the position that he holds. I was glad, now-ever, to see in the paper yesterday that there seems at last to be a prospect that an end will be put to his intrigues.
  The substitution of treaties for existing Mandates recalls the course adopted by His Majesty's Government in the case of Iraq. The Council of the League on that occasion asked the advice of the Permanent Mandates Commission, and it was only after a long discussion and with a great deal of hesitation that the Mandates Commission agreed to the surrender of the Mandate in view of the very emphatic assurances given by the High Commissioner regarding the safety of minorities—assurances which, as you know, were very soon to be falsified in the case of the unfortunate Assyrians. The precedent of Iraq appears to have been superseded by the recent action of France, who, as far as I am aware, has made no reference at all either to the Mandates Commission or to the Council of her intention to surrender her Mandate. Moreover, in the present case this cause of anxiety will, or should be, eliminated, since the Royal Commission have recommended that both the Jewish and the Arab minorities shall

  671
  be transferred to their own respective States. However, as has been explained by previous speakers, this operation would be attended with great difficulty and would take a great deal of time. I assume, therefore, that the existing Mandate will continue in operation until the successful completion of this very difficult task is, at any rate, in sight.
  One word I should like to add regarding the neutral enclave, which will include the Holy Places of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. It seems to me a misnomer to call this small area a "Mandate," for it has no single characteristic of the other Mandates of the League of Nations. Their essential characteristic is a trusteeship terminable when the population can stand alone, together with an annual report to the League of Nations on the progress made in that connection, and also a report on whether various clauses in the Mandate have been observed. This small enclave, on the other hand, is rather in the nature of a very onerous guardianship of sacred shrines which will probably remain in perpetuity. The guardianship will not only be on behalf of rival races on the spot, but on behalf of Christendom, all Jewry, and Islam throughout the world. There is, on the other hand, nothing in principle, however difficult it may be in practice, to prevent the four Cities in the north from being placed under Mandates which will be terminable if and when the Mandates can be safely surrendered. Such questions, however, are, of course, subordinate to the main proposition of the partition of the country, and I hope that your Lordships will be in general agreement with the conclusions of this Report.
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, at the outset I should like to join in the general chorus of praise of this remarkable Report, drawn up by such accomplished people headed by my noble friend Earl Peel, who I presume has an unrivalled experience in matters of this description. Since the Report was published the Government have issued a statement referring to the fact that successive Governments in this country have undertaken obligations to Arabs and Jews respectively, but not incompatible obligations. It seems that the wish is father to the thought in this case, because anybody who
  672
  knows anything about Palestine—and I was there as a traveller in 1919—will realise at once how conflicting are the various parties in that country. So much impressed was I that I remember writing a private letter to Lord Curzon exhorting him to be very careful in accepting any responsibility for the administration of that country. Of course I had no prejudice against the Jews, as I had spoken at a very big meeting held in 1917 in favour of Mr. Balfour's Declaration and the National Home. But I was enormously impressed by the danger of our taking any part in proceedings in Palestine; hence my letter to Lord Curzon.
  Now we are told in the Report that there is no hope of permanent peace under the Mandate, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, broadcast recently that the present system must end in disaster. And on page 141 the Report says:
  "…the hatred of the Arab politician for the National Home has never been concealed and…has now permeated the Arab population as a whole."
  It is sometimes forgotten that the Mandate was never really properly executed. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations provides that the wishes of the people must be ascertained. The wishes of the Arabs were never ascertained. They were known perhaps to be in favour of America, and that after America this country should hold the Mandate. Originally the Arabs wanted Syria and Palestine to be kept together as one unit, and a Commission was to be appointed. The French realised that they would never get a Mandate from the Syrian population, and therefore they sent no representative before the Commission, so that the Commission came to nothing. The result has been that the Arabs have never expressed their views about having a Mandate. That was in 1919, when feelings were not so embittered as they are to-day. I think we must remember that in considering the feelings of the Arabs, and while we sympathise very greatly with the Jews in their distress in various countries, it seems to me that in doing good to them we robbed Peter to pay Paul. We never consulted the Arabs, and they cannot be accused of having done anything disloyal or contrary to any undertaking into which they entered.
  The Report of the Commission sets out that there is a strong national feeling of friendship for the Jews in Great Britain.

  673
  That is perfectly true, and is instanced by the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was appointed the first High Commissioner in Palestine, an office which he filled with great credit to himself and advantage to Palestine. The Arabs feel, however, that they are ignored in this country, and that we are influenced by Jewish surroundings. In 1922 they sent over a delegation, and I attended a great meeting. In June, 1922, the late Lord Islington brought forward a Motion in this House, to the effect that the Mandate in its present form was unacceptable to this House. That Resolution was carried by a majority of sixty in favour and twenty-nine against. I think this House on that occasion showed great foresight. It showed more foresight on that occasion than last year, when this House condemned altogether a proposal, made by the Arab administration, for a Legislative Council in Palestine. That was supported by the Government, but not a single speaker outside Government circles spoke in its favour. It was disastrous, because the Arabs' feeling that they had no sympathy here, or in another place, resulted in the General Strike being forced on, which led to such terrible instances of terrorism.
  I hope that this proposed partition may be carefully examined. If it is examined by both sides I think it may be the means of bringing together the various sections of the two contending people. I understand from what the noble Viscount said that there is a movement now for reconstructing the present Mandate by mutual understanding and good will. If that is the case I think it is the one chance of our being saved from disaster. Lord Melchett's only remedy was a firm hand. I think our experience of a firm hand has not been very satisfactory, and I trust that discussions may lead to a better understanding of what either side wants. The noble Viscount went into various details as to the difficulties which might arise in effecting partition, but he did not mention Customs duties. Without a common tariff, it seems almost impossible that there should be satisfactory Customs laws established. There is this point, too: Are our liabilities and responsibilities to be lessened by this scheme? Would they be shared with the
  674
  League of Nations, or should we have to bear the whole liability for preserving peace and order in Palestine, and the regions round about?
  There is one more point, which is not strictly germane to the partition. In the early part of the century, Mr. Chamberlain tried to see whether a Jewish colony or settlement could be made in Uganda. It was not endorsed by the Jewish communities at that time, but things have changed since then, and it might be that such a proposal now would be favourably regarded by the Jewish magnates. Already two Jewish societies are, I believe, in existence which are interested in establishing Jewish settlements in South America. That seems to me to be a possible help in regard to Palestine itself. I do not believe that Palestine can hold these millions of Jews, as the Zionists hold out, and it would give relief to other Jews in Central Europe if it were possible to establish these places of refuge in South America and elsewhere. Whether this partition goes through or not it is desirable to help the settlement of Jews on a large scale. It would relieve the pressure in Palestine. I trust, however, that some good will will be established between the Arabs and Jews, so as to make a scheme, whether of partition or amendment of the Mandate, available.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly till tomorrow.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, it will no doubt be for the convenience of your Lordships that we suspend our proceedings for a short time, and I understand it would be convenient that we should meet again at nine o'clock, when it will be proposed to proceed with the other Orders on the Paper.
  [The sitting was suspended at nine minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]

  EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this is a Bill to amend and consolidate the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920–34. Under these Acts, the Board of Trade is empowered, with the consent of the Treasury, and after consultation with an Advisory Committee, to give guarantees in connection with the export of goods wholly or partly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom, excluding munitions of war. During the last few years, the demand by traders for the Department's guarantees has been rapidly increasing. In 1933–34 the value of exports covered by its guarantees was £7,500,000. In 1934–35 it was £15,000,000, in 1935–36 £20,500,000, and in 1936–37 the amount had risen to £35,000,000. All this business has been done at no cost to the Exchequer as the claims paid and the administrative expenses have been exceeded by the receipts from premiums. In passing I should like to say that no one has noted this progress with greater satisfaction than the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, who as President of the Board of Trade during this period has maintained a personal interest in the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department which has been a constant source of inspiration and encouragement to those engaged in the administration of the scheme. In consequence of this growth of its business, the Department is likely, in a few months' time, to reach the limit of guarantees which may be outstanding, and an increase of this limit has become necessary if the facilities available to United Kingdom exporters are not to be curtailed.
  The main object of the Bill is to provide for the increase of this limit from £26,000,000, the amount prescribed by the Act of 1920, to £50,000,000. This is provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill. In Clause 1 it is also proposed to extend the guarantees to or for the benefit of "any person, firm or company carrying on business in the United Kingdom" in place of the present limitation to persons domiciled in, or companies incorporated in, by or under the laws of the United Kingdom. In proviso (a) of Clause 1 (2) power is taken to extend the guarantee to execution of works and services out-
  676
  side the United Kingdom where such works and services are required in connection with the export of home-produced goods. In proviso (b) of this clause, it is proposed that the guarantee should be extended to cases where the whole of the exported goods may not be home-produced.
  In Clause 2 provision is made for charging on the Consolidated Fund any amounts required to meet guarantees in so far as they are not met from moneys voted by Parliament. The object of the proposal is to make the guarantee formally complete. It is not intended to alter the present practice by which payments under guarantee are normally made from the Export Credits Vote. The Bill contains certain provision for the amendment of the existing Acts in order to afford a greater measure of flexibility in the administration of the scheme.
  I should just mention in conclusion that the title of the Bill will be altered from that of its predecessors. They were called "Overseas Trade Acts" and to avoid confusion the present Bill provides for its citation as the "Export Guarantees Act, 1937." The final purpose is to consolidate the existing legislation which is scattered through Acts of Parliament, some dealing with other matters. The original Act relates the powers of the Board of Trade in this field to the restoration of trade after the War. Now that the scheme has become a permanent one, it is proposed to repeal such obsolete phrases as this, and merge all that is useful in the previous Acts into one simple Act which will govern the Department's operations until Parliament decides otherwise.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

  NIGERIA (REMISSION OF PAYMENTS) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I do not think I need detain your Lordships very long over this Bill. The necessity for it arises from the

  677
  fact that Section 3 of the Act of 1899 for the winding up of the Royal Niger Company is still on the Statute Book. That section reads as follows:
  "… all such sums as the Treasury determine to be receipts from the territories administered by the company at the passing of this Act, in excess of the necessary expenses of the administration of those territories, shall be paid into the Exchequer, save so far as those sums are with the approval of the Treasury applied towards the development and improvement of those territories."
  All I think I need say is that that Act is now entirely obsolete, and that there are in fact insuperable difficulties in deciding, first of all, what actually were the areas administered by the old company, and, secondly, what the receipts and expenditure in respect of those areas actually were. Separate accounts were never kept in regard to the areas administered by the company as distinct from the whole area at present administered by the Government of Nigeria. Therefore there are insuperable difficulties in any case in discovering what those payments should be.
  But I think, apart from those considerations, there seems a very good reason why the Government of Nigeria should now be absolved from any claim upon it with respect to those moneys. I would only say that the amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria in 1914 enabled the united Colonies to dispense with a grant-in-aid after a period of five years, whereas if this amalgamation had not been effected the grant-in-aid would have been on a much larger scale and for a much longer period for Northern Nigeria alone. In the second place the Colony made a large contribution, well over £1,000,000, towards the cost of the Great War, and, finally, a sum of no less than £75,000 has recently been voted by the Legislature of Nigeria as a contribution towards defence expenditure. In view of those facts I feel sure your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  AGRICULTURE BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, I hope the House will allow me to preface the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill to your Lordships' House by referring to the great loss which the agricultural industry has sustained in the death of Lord Ernle. As your Lordships will know better than I, Lord Ernle, who was for many years a member of this House, was President of the Board of Agriculture during the very trying period from 1916 to 1919, and he had to administer the affairs of the agricultural industry during an anxious period of the Great War. I believe that I shall voice the opinion of your Lordships when I say that in this House he was regarded as one who was in a position to speak authoritatively on all aspects of agricultural matters. It is a great loss to your Lordships' House and indeed to the wider public that the noble Lord is no longer with us.
  This Bill, to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is conceived along somewhat different lines from other farming legislation of the past few years. In the past our chief preoccupation has been to endeavour to provide a remunerative basis for the production and sale of different commodities. This Bill has an equally vital purpose. It is directed towards improving the fertility of the soil and the health of the stock that the soil carries. It is therefore concerned with fundamentals. While it does not in itself represent a long-term policy for the agricultural industry, it makes a contribution which is essential to the success of any long-term policy. It seeks to repair the damage which has been done to the chief capital asset of the industry, the soil, during the long period of agricultural depression. When the producer—and also the landowner—is struggling to make ends meet, he cannot afford to observe as fully as he would wish all the rules of good husbandry, and, in particular, the potential fertility of his land must necessarily deteriorate. Yet it is essential to maintain soil fertility at its highest pitch, whether we are building for peace or guarding against the danger of war. In short, therefore, this Bill embodies primarily a peace-time policy, which is nevertheless in complete

  679
  harmony with the aim of making agriculture ready to confront any emergency that might arise.
  So much for general considerations. I now turn to the actual provisions of the Bill. Under Part I it is proposed to give financial assistance to enable farmers to apply more lime and basic slag to their land. For lime the Exchequer contribution is to be 50 per cent., and for basic slag 25 per cent. of the farmer's expenditure in purchasing these materials and transporting them to his farm. The cost of spreading them on the land will be borne entirely by the farmer himself. All occupiers of agricultural land will be able to participate, smallholders as well as large farmers; for, although no assistance will be given for a smaller quantity than two tons of lime or slag, it will be possible for smallholders, allotment holders and others to combine together for the purchase of this minimum quantity. The word "lime" is used in the widest possible sense so as to include all forms of calciumoxide, hydroxide and carbonate with which farmers are at present liming their land. It would cover sea-sand containing lime, which is, I believe, used by farmers in Cornwall and certain parts of Scotland, and waste lime from beet sugar factories and other manufacturing processes, provided the proportion of calcium in these substances is sufficient to justify the cost of conveying them to the land. Special regulations will be made to cover the case of a farmer who digs chalk on his own land, or obtains it from a neighbouring chalk pit, using his own labour and transport.
  The scheme will be administered by a Land Fertility Committee appointed by Ministers, and the scheme may provide for the collection of a small levy, not exceeding 2d. a ton, from occupiers and from producers of lime or basic slag, the proceeds of which will be devoted to research, investigation and instruction in the use and application of lime or basic slag. The advice of the agricultural education staff will be available to all those who wish to participate in the scheme. The scheme will run for three years certain, and may be extended, with the consent of Parliament, for a further one or two years. I believe that the House will appreciate the reason why the Land Fertility Scheme is to be confined to
  680
  lime and to basic slag. These two substances have a more lasting effect upon soil fertility than other fertilisers; and they are different in so much as we produce all our requirements at home. If imported fertilisers were allowed to rank for subsidy, it would be quite impossible to place any adequate check upon the movement of prices. Lime, as your Lordships are aware, is not a fertiliser in the strict sense of the word, but rather an improving agent whose presence in the soil helps the action of all other fertilisers. Bad times have been responsible for a falling off in the time-honoured practice of liming, and there is plenty of evidence on almost every kind of soil that a return to liming is essential if fertility is to be maintained.
  Part II deals with the cereal crops. There is a school of opinion, which received support from the Opposition in another place, which holds that we should not encourage cereal farming in this country. But I contend it is not practicable to divide arable and pasture farming into watertight compartments in this way. They are inter-dependent, and the mixed farm has the soundest economic basis. The Government's intention is to prevent a further decline in the arable area and to stabilise, by certain price guarantees, the production of cereals at a reasonable level. We need a proper balance between arable and pasture, but it is no less necessary to hold the scales evenly between the three chief cereal crops—wheat, barley and oats—since on many types of soil they are by no means interchangeable. Wheat is not a crop that can be satisfactorily grown everywhere, and the payments made under the Wheat Act of 1932 have, as I think your Lordships know, mostly tended to go to the arable farmers of the Southern and Eastern Counties.
  It is therefore proposed to provide growers of oats and barley, who have obtained little or no benefit from the Wheat Act, with a measure of insurance against low prices for their crops. In any year when the average price of homegrown oats in the United Kingdom falls to 7s. 7d. per cwt. or lower, subsidy payments will be made to growers of oats and barley at a rate per acre amounting to six times the difference between the United Kingdom average price of oats and a "standard price" of 8s. per cwt. The maximum subsidy per acre is fixed at

  681
  20s. Owing to the considerable rise in cereal prices, no subsidy would be payable under these proposals at the present time; but payments of varying amounts would in the past have been made if this scheme had then been in operation. Therefore, as I have said, the Government's policy for crops of oats and barley is one of insurance rather than one of subsidy.
  The fixing of a maximum payment per acre will limit the possible charge upon the Exchequer. That charge will be further limited by two other provisions. Firstly, the rate of subsidy will be reduced in proportion as the total "qualifying" acreage of oats or of barley exceeds by more than ten per cent. the acreage of the present year. Secondly, subsidy cannot be claimed both for wheat and for oats and barley. The grower must decide each year, on or about June 4, which subsidy he will choose. The wheat subsidy is larger than the oats and barley subsidy and, generally speaking, it would not pay a farmer obtaining average yields of wheat to choose the oats and barley subsidy, unless his acreage under barley and oats were at least three and a half times that under wheat. These provisions should enable us to avoid the twin dangers of an over-production of oats and barley and an unlimited liability upon the taxpayer. I should add that it would, of course, be undesirable to aim at restoring the oats and barley acreage to anything like pre-War figures, in view of the smaller demand for those crops owing to the decline in the number of horses and in the consumption of beer.
  As your Lordships will have noticed, the subsidy for barley will be calculated on the price of oats, and will therefore vary with that price. There are two good reasons for this. In the first place, barley is in reality two products, according to whether it is used for feeding or for malting, and little significance could be attached to an average price for all barley. In the second place, the price of oats and the price of feeding barley tend to move together. In fact, prices of all feeding stuffs move more or less together. Consequently, there is no reason to suppose that any unfairness will result from linking the subsidy for barley to the price of oats. Part II also increases the quantity of wheat receiving the price assured under the Wheat Act from six million to eight million quarters. In a year of good har-
  682
  vests the limit of six million quarters, fixed by the Act of 1932, can be, and has been, exceeded. When that situation arises, the grower does not receive the full price of 45s. per quarter, and the extension that is now proposed will provide him with a better guarantee that he will, in fact, receive the standard price for the wheat that he sells.
  I believe that no one will question the value of an adequate and efficient system of land drainage. Arterial drainage has been pressed on with vigour by the catchment boards, and the value of the work embarked upon under the Act of 1930 amounts, with the aid of grants, to the very large sum of £6,500,000. Financial assistance for drainage works in England and Wales is at present limited to work on the main rivers, for which the catchment boards are responsible. Drainage must be effected from the sea upwards to the source, and not from the source to the sea. It would be worse than useless to drain off water more rapidly from the higher reaches, if the lower channels were too choked to carry it away speedily to the sea. But the work on the main rivers has now proceeded so far that the Government feel able to take a further step with profit, and Part III of the Bill empowers the Minister to make grants for work on the lesser streams, drains and watercourses in England and Wales, which are the responsibility of internal drainage boards and, where no such boards exist, for the most part of county councils. Grants will be payable to all these bodies at a flat rate of 33⅓ per cent. for the ordinary work of drainage, but a 50 per cent. rate of grant will be permissible where expensive constructional work is involved, such as the erection of new pumping plant, machinery or sluice-gates or the provision of sea walls. These provisions will run for three years, but the Minister may, with the consent of Parliament, prolong their operation for a further two years in all. It is not proposed in this Bill to include field drainage operations in England and Wales within the scope of the Bill for the reason which I have already given: that an eye must be had to practical considerations, and drainage must be conducted in logical sequence.
  Finally, I come to Part IV of the Bill, which many may regard as the most ambitious and far-reaching part. It embodies a long-term programme for the

  683
  eradication of animal diseases, and it recasts the existing machinery in order to attain that goal. All livestock, including poultry, are included in the programme, which is to be national in scope. Speaking generally, the present treatment of animal disease is in two distinct compartments. There are, first, the Diseases of Animals Acts, which are administered by the Ministry of Agriculture on behalf of the whole of Great Britain, and which are primarily directed against those diseases which are liable to spread in epidemic fashion. Those Acts establish a dual control: control at the ports, to prevent the introduction of disease, and control of the movement of livestock into and out of any areas or premises which are infected. The steady application of these methods has led in the course of years to the extinction of many of the most virulent diseases and to the effective control of others.
  Unfortunately, efforts to deal with certain cattle diseases, such as tuberculosis and contagious abortion, have met with little success. The position has, indeed, grown worse, largely because of the increasing ease of communications and the wider adoption of the practice of buying-in animals for the herd instead of breeding within the herd. That practice aids the introduction of disease into areas previously uninfected. The seriousness of disease in our herds was amply shown in the Report of the Gowland Hopkins Committee, which was published in 1934. The figures will be familiar to some of your Lordships. Fifty-eight per cent. of dairy cattle leaving herds are disposed of on account of disease; four out of ten cows are infected to a varying extent with bovine tuberculosis, and about the same proportion with contagious abortion; and the average productive life of dairy cattle is four-and-a-half years, or half what it might well become. It has been estimated that the total annual loss from all kinds of livestock disease amounts to some £14,000,000, or 10 per cent. of the output of our meat, dairy and poultry industries.
  Besides the Diseases of Animals Acts, there is legislative provision such as that contained in the Milk and Dairies Acts and Orders and the Milk (Special Designations) Order, under which cattle are subject to veterinary examination. Under
  684
  these measures the problem is approached from the public health and not from the animal disease standpoint; and their administration is in the hands of local authorities up and down England, Wales and Scotland. With the best will in the world—and many local authorities have combined the best will with the most efficient action—it has not proved possible to make this system a complete success. This has been due to natural causes outside the local authorities' control. Disease cannot be hemmed in by county or by political boundaries. Uniformity of administration is required, and that cannot be provided by a collection of separate local authorities, each working on its own. Consequently, the Government have come to the conclusion that their programme for the eradication of disease requires a reorganised machinery of administration. It is felt that the whole problem of disease must be dealt with as what it is in fact, a diseases of animals service.
  It is therefore proposed in Part IV of the Bill that the local and central veterinary services shall be amalgamated into a central State Veterinary Service, and that the area of administration shall be the whole of Great Britain. The veterinary work now being done by the local authorities in connection with the examination of animals for the purpose of securing the purity of the milk supply will be taken over by the State, and whole-time veterinary officers employed by local authorities for this work and that connected with the Diseases of Animals Acts will be offered appointments with the Ministry of Agriculture. There is also, of course, a very large number of veterinary surgeons in the country who are employed on a part-time basis by local authorities. The Government also will have need of the part-time services of these officers and there is no reason to suppose that the transfer of all public veterinary work to the State will entail reduction of the work that they do. Indeed, the demand for their services should, if anything, increase because of the more active and thorough campaign against disease which it is intended to undertake. I gather that the Government's proposals are generally approved by veterinary opinion, which recognises that its capacity for service to the community will be greatly enhanced.

  685
  These several proposals for fertility, drainage, disease and cereals are not simply brought together into this Bill for convenience. They are interdependent, and the value of each Part of the Bill depends in a very real way upon the inclusion of the other Parts. Taken together, they provide a sound foundation for the creation of a healthy soil and healthy stock on which a more prosperous industry can be built. They are neither superficial nor sensational, and their results will not be seen immediately, but I believe that their value will be permanent, and therefore I trust that your Lordships will generally accept these proposals. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
  LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I might perhaps be allowed to associate myself with what the noble Earl said in his opening remarks about the late Lord Ernle, who was a colleague of mine during some very anxious days of the War, and I will say that his stimulating and kindly personality were a comfort and help to his colleagues almost every day. If your Lordships will allow me I will make some comments on the different proposals of this Bill in the reverse order in which they appear in the Bill, and afterwards try to associate them, if I can, with some scheme of policy which the noble Earl suggested in his closing remarks and which I suppose he saw with the eye of faith. I would like to associate myself very heartily with what the noble Earl said about Part IV. One has said sometimes in another place that the Government's agricultural policy is rather a patchwork affair. We had a Beef Bill before us not long since with five different sets of proposals, and here is another one with four. Well, if it is like Joseph's coat, of many colours, this is a good red patch, and I notice that, avoiding objectionable terms, the noble Earl called it national reorganisation. I welcome it under any terms, because it is the beginning of a national veterinary service, a service very badly needed for a long time past.
  I am sure all who have any inside knowledge of this matter will agree with the warning which the noble Earl very properly gave that it will necessarily be a considerable time before the full effect of these proposals becomes manifest. I am quite sure that if we had had them a long
  686
  time ago we should not have had the struggles, which I well remember having to share in, to secure some improvement in the National Veterinary College in Camden Town. We shall all hope, I am sure, that they will lead in the course of time to the recruiting into the veterinary profession of an increasingly high standard of men and an increasing efficiency in its educational establishments. I wonder whether the methods which appear to be proposed for the eradication of tuberculosis are altogether on the right lines. Owing to our lack of knowledge in times past we have been accustomed in this country to engage in mediæval attempts to eradicate disease. When I allude to the slaughter heaps that have followed on an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease noble Lords will understand what I mean.
  The question I am going to ask is related to a portion of these proposals. Clause 20 of this Bill provides that:
  "The Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, expend such sums as he thinks fit with the object of eradicating … diseases of animals in Great Britain."
  I would like to know whether it is proposed that any of the money thus provided shall be spent in encouraging and developing research. That does not appear to be mentioned in the Bill but it is the beginning of progress. We have now established, with very inadequate finance, an Agricultural Research Committee on the lines of the Medical Research Committee and the Scientific and Industrial Research Committee in the civil and industrial field. Both those other Committees were provided with very large funds and there is no question anywhere as to the immense value of their work. I hope that this provision will be interpreted to mean that the agricultural research branch will be provided very generously with finance.
  I had a struggle—in 1931 I think it was—with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and I only got away with a very skimpy sum which was entirely inadequate. If we had had organised and well directed research into animal diseases for a long time past with such pay as would attract the right young men into research and keep them in it, I believe that we should have been much further forward than we are now. Anyhow, I would express the hope that this expenditure will

  687
  not take the form too much of paying for animals which are found diseased—which of course have got to be got rid of—but that it will aim at seeking to remove the causes of disease which can only be achieved by large-scale, patient encouragement of research.
  Now I come to a Part of the Bill towards which I am afraid I cannot be quite so friendly. The noble Earl said with regard to Part III of the Bill relating to land drainage that £6,500,000 was the amount of our commitments under the Act of 1930. I notice that the noble Viscount, who was Chairman of the Commission on whose Report that Act was founded, is now in his place, and I remember very well that the forecast for requirements for ten years for main river drainage under that Act was £40,000,000. We could not have a better illustration of the disastrous short-sightedness of the Treasury in this matter than what occurred in the Great Ouse district not many months ago. That is a district in which the lowly-rated people in a rural area cannot possibly be expected to contribute a large proportion towards the costly works which are necessary. I notice that the noble Earl said that the first thing to do was to let the water out to the sea. I agree, and I wish that his colleagues at the Treasury had borne that in mind during the past six years, because the first section of the work which ought to be done on the River Ouse, as I am sure he is aware, is to take the sea canal through the shallow waters out into the deep waters of the Wash.
  All that has happened so far is a niggardly expenditure of £200,000 or £300,000 near King's Lynn. Until this work is undertaken it is quite futile to spend money on the higher reaches of the river, and I hope that what the noble Earl has said means that His Majesty's Treasury will be prepared to make a generous grant, much beyond 50 per cent., in this case. In the Trent catchment area you have thirteen county boroughs, where a penny rate yields a very large sum, but a penny rate in the Ouse area yields a very trifling sum, because it is a rural area and it is impossible to expect that this work will ever be done unless it is looked at as a national responsibility and until the
  688
  Treasury get away from the local haggling which has held up the work for a good many years in this manner.
  I am glad that £190,000, or whatever it is, is going to be spent in grants to internal drainage authorities in Great Britain. The noble Viscount's Report tells us that there are 1,750,000 acres of good land urgently in need of drainage. If that was the figure then, I am quite sure it is much more now. All you have to do is to go up and down the Eastern Counties and many other good areas and you will see excellent land with far too many rushes growing on it, waterlogged and sodden. Why? Because the owner or occupier cannot afford to do any tile drainage, and because the main drainage undertakings have been sterilised for some years past by the kind of proceedings that I have just described. Your Lordships will, I am sure, be merciful to me if for a moment I say why I think this system as it now stands cannot possibly succeed. This vast area of good land—I am not talking about bad land—which needs adequate tile drainage is in the ownership of a large number of men some of whom are very poor. A large number of landowners get a very trifling return from their land. I am not, and never was, one to blame them a bit. What with their annuitants, Death Duties and one thing and another, they cannot afford the great expense which is entailed in large-scale drainage. The owner-occupier is for the most part mortgaged up to the hilt, and he has not got any money to spare at all.
  With great respect, my Lords—and this is really Socialism; I would not call it reorganisation—I do not believe that this work can ever be done under the present system of land tenure. Large-scale land drainage is an engineering proposition. Water runs downhill and has no regard whatever to the banking account of the man who owns this field or that. You will allow me, I am sure, to relieve my mind on that subject. For all that, so far as this is useful, we welcome it; but do not let us get it out of proportion: it is a trifle as compared with what is really required. I have no criticism to make of the oats and barley scheme. I do not know to whom the noble Earl referred: I am afraid I had a little parental responsibility for drafting some provisions of the wheat scheme, although I asso-

  689
  ciated with it certain other conditions which were, I am sorry to say, dropped afterwards. Still, it is an approach to a reasonably stabilised price system, which we believe is essential if ever agriculture is to be put on the basis upon which we all wish to see it.
  Might I ask the noble Earl some time or other to reply to two or three questions about the lime and basic slag proposals? In the first place these proposals, so far as they operate at all, if they do operate successfully, should not be limited to three years. I think, as Professor Stapledon says, that we need liming on 20,000,000 acres of good land for twenty years. I do not know whether his figure is an outside figure or not; it is a long time of liming that we need, and I am quite sure that three years is not enough. The farmers will only just have got into the working of it by the end of three years, and if the thing is to succeed at all it must be much longer. The Ministry should inquire carefully into the prices to be paid. I have made some inquiries into the prices of basic slag, and without wearying your Lordships with a lot of figures I may say it was found that 40 per cent. basic slag was priced at Corby delivered on the farm at 62s. 6d., and that basic slag with the same percentage apparently is quoted f.o.b. Antwerp at 35s., and with shipping and loading and discharging costs on the farm at, say, 46s. The Minister of Agriculture has been good enough to provide me with quotations, and I see that the usual basic slag quoted for farmers by different corporations in this country is 15¾ per cent. at about 50s. I understand that if you allow a generous estimate for the grinding, costs for freight, merchanting expenses and so on of this slag—it should be being produced in abundance now because the steel trade is doing so well—the price should be about 30s. a ton, and therefore there is £1 to be added for selling charges and rebate to the furnace.
  Before the Minister of Agriculture consents to pay the proposed price for 15¾ basic slag I hope he will have these costs carefully checked. Otherwise we shall find ourselves in this position, that when the farmer has received his 25 per cent. subsidy he will still be paying a big price for basic slag. On the estimate I have given I find that for the principal unit of
  690
  phosphate, which is the thing which matters in basic slag, the price he will be paying the corporations under this scheme at the price quoted me is 1s. 6d, per unit on the high percentage slag, which can be obtainable at Antwerp, although I do not say it should be, at 1s. 2d. per unit. It is quite clear that these figures of the cost of basic slag need very careful scrutiny, and I hope that the Ministry will not allow the price to be placed so high that the three-quarters which the farmer has still got to pay will be such a figure as he will find difficult to pay.
  So far as the general scheme underlying these proposals goes, I confess I am glad the noble Earl places it in the future. There is only one nexus between them, and that is the cash nexus. If we take the series of Government proposals, all of them have the cash nexus. Subsidies amount to £16,990,000 this year—the whole lot—and that is apart from the £1,450,000 proposed under this Bill, the expenditure of which is limited from one to four years. Then there is derating as well; so that it is a large sum of money which the taxpayer is finding, one way or another, through the proposals of the Government for agriculture. As I said the other day, if the farmer was getting the benefit of it perhaps one would be more comforted, but I do not think he is.
  And that brings me to a continent in reply to what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said the other day in relation to something I had been saying on the Livestock Industry Bill. If these various devices—bonuses for milk in different forms, cattle, lime and basic slag, milk and wheat subsidies, quantitative regulation, tariffs and all the rest of it—were really effective, I should not be able to quote to the noble Lord the figures I am now going to quote. I think that the head of the Government had some misgiving about the value of this dole system. I see that the clay before yesterday the Prime Minister, speaking at Middlesbrough, said:
  "I have a sort of an idea in my bones that the farmers will presently be coming along and asking for more."
  I am sure that is a well-grounded apprehension, and the reason why they will be coming and asking for more will be that they are not really getting the benefits that were designed for them. And that is the reason why, with great re-

  691
  spect, I do not feel chastened by what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said in reply to me the other day.
  I was commenting upon the fact that I was afraid the agricultural labourer was not participating in these benefits, and the noble Lord said that if it had not been for these subsidies he was afraid something very calamitous would have happened. He said that this form of assistance has "automatically redounded" to the benefit of the labouring class, and that "it is alarming to suppose what might have happened unless these measures had been taken." Neither he nor I can prove a negative, and I am not concerned to contest what he says. It is I think a fair statement that you do not know what would have happened if there had not been the beet sugar subsidy, for instance. That has helped, I agree, in some districts. Then he went on, however, to say:
  "If Bills before Parliament are expressly to include the labourer, the inevitable consequence will be to lead the noble Lord and his Party into a direct subsidy of wages. There is no other way of benefiting the labourer otherwise than by direct subsidy of wages."
  I cannot accept that at all. I think that we can create a self-respecting and self-supporting agricultural system which will give the producer a price upon which he can rely, and out of which he can pay decent wages, without subsidies, but only if we are prepared to organise the whole thing on a proper and comprehensive basis. Anyhow, I suggest that the condition has now become so perilous that these methods cannot be continued, at all events with any expectation of success.
  Let me give the figures. I have taken them to-day from the Agricultural Statistics. In 1921, all told, there were 996,000 workers, men and women, whole-time and casual, employed in agriculture in this country. Last year the figure was 751,000, a fall of a quarter of a million people employed in agriculture in sixteen years. If you take the whole-time workers there is a fall of 112,000 whole-time male employees. There have been 77,000 fewer people employed in agriculture since 1931, and last year, the only year in which agriculture has had the full benefits of the bounties which have been heaped upon
  692
  it since 1931, the fall was 35,000—that is all told, workers of all classes. The diminution of whole-time male employees was 15,713. Why did they go? They went because the young men were not satisfied that they had a good enough prospect or the security of a decent standard of life in agriculture. That is why they drifted from it, and, with great respect to the noble Earl, these disastrous figures—more disastrous last year than the year before—show clearly that these devices are not enough.
  I believe that we shall not succeed until we decide to have a sufficiently managed price system in each of the major commodities. We can do it, but that will include a sufficient management of the costs of distribution. It is a discredit to an intelligent community that milk doubles its price in a few hours. It must limit the consumption of liquid milk, it must limit the demand, it must increase the amount the producer has to sell at 5½d. a gallon to the factories. It must, pro tanto, diminish the producer's ability to pay decent wages, because nobody can pay good wages on milk which is sold at 5½d. a gallon. We all know that. We have to control the discreditable system of charges which prevails between the producer and the consumer. I believe that is an essential if we are going to succeed in our long-term agricultural policy. For my part, speaking with no partisan bias at all, one would welcome it if, in order to avoid any suspicion that what you are doing is not completely respectable, you gave it a cloak, some other name—say it is "Management," say it is "Regulation," say it is "Control," say it is "Disinterested direction"—anything you like save Socialism. Of course, that would be very objectionable. But, whatever we call it, that is what we shall have to do, in my opinion, if we are to make agriculture the splendid, self-supporting, thriving industry we should all like to see it.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I cannot help feeling, after listening to the noble Lord, that we have in him a valuable recruit to what I may call the Agriculture Group in your Lordships' House. I find it rather difficult sometimes, as I read his speeches on public platforms, to find myself wholly in accord with his political outlook, but I am bound to say that I have seldom heard in this

  693
  House a speech on agriculture with which I am more fully in accord in almost every sentence than that to which we have just listened. Being a member of the medical profession, the noble Lord is naturally an expert at diagnosis, and in the course of what he said to your Lordships during the last half hour I consider he has most accurately diagnosed some of the more serious maladies from which the whole of the agricultural community of this country is not only suffering now, but has been suffering for at least half a century.
  I, for my part, congratulate the progenitors of this Bill, and warmly welcome its birth, not because it is a perfect Bill—very far from it—but because it seems to me to indicate a realisation on the part of a British Government of the nature of the deep-seated canker which has been for at least fifty years slowly but steadily eating away the very foundations of Britain's most vital industry and the welfare of her rural population. If I am a critic, as I feel bound to be, of its illogicalities, its scientific defects, and its obvious concessions to political and, in some respects, local considerations and prejudices, I may say candidly I am very far from being a critic of the present Minister of Agriculture or of his able lieutenant who has presented this Bill with such clarity to your Lordships' House. They have done their best under difficult circumstances to bung up some of the chief holes in a very leaky structure. They could hardly do more in view of the unattractive legacy, what the lawyers would call the damnosa hereditas, which they have inherited from the past.
  May I, in passing, pay my tribute to the memory of the late Lord Ernle, as having been an old colleague with him in one of the War-time Governments? The courage, vision and initiative of that cultured English gentleman, and the respect which the whole countryside entertained for his integrity and his frankness were very material factors in saving the nation from starvation during a period of unparalleled emergency. Mistakes were no doubt made during that period—and it is to his lasting credit that there were not more—and valuable lessons were learned, some of which I fear may be forgotten by those who have not sufficiently accurate memories. Two mistakes
  694
  which we realised all too late, and which are somewhat material to the consideration of this Bill were the basing of our emergency food policy almost exclusively upon wheat, regardless of suitability of soil and climate, coupled with the premium being placed, as I see it is placed in this Bill as regards oats and barley, upon acreage rather than yield. The result, of course, during the War was a ploughing up of much good pasture land, particularly in the West of England and in Wales, which was serving a much better purpose under grass than ever it did subsequently under cereal crops.
  But the most valuable lesson in my judgment that we then learned—and I speak as one who was during the most critical period of the War the Chairman of the National Council of County War Agricultural Executive Committees—was the paramount advantage of leaving the industry in time of crisis to control itself rather than attempting to control it from Whitehall. The control then exercised was far more drastic, equitable and discriminating than any that a Minister of Agriculture could have exercised. I wish that this plan of local "farmer control," if I may so call it, could have been incorporated in this Bill. It would be more in accord, I venture to suggest, with the genius of our people, who respond strenuously to patriotic appeals but intuitively resist regimentation.
  The Bill itself deals, admittedly in somewhat piecemeal fashion, with four important factors in seeking to revive the productivity of the land of this country—namely, the maintenance of inherent fertility, the stimulation of cereal products, especially of oats and barley, the proper drainage of the soil and the health of our livestock. These are, with one exception and a very important exception, the fundamental conditions of rural welfare, the exception being the nationwide realisation of the basic and indisputable fact that unless efficient farmers of all dimensions can earn their living there can be no confident and continuous enterprise in any branch of the agricultural industry. Had this realisation existed in this country, as it does in most other countries, during the last half century, I venture to suggest that there would have been no need for this Bill except possibly as regards arterial land

  695
  drainage and the control of contagious animal diseases. As regards the latter it is worth remembering that the control of contagious diseases was the sole raison d'étre for the foundation in 1889 of a Department of Agriculture in this country. It was then realised, and it has come to be realised still more in recent years, that there must be central control in the matter of animal disease, unless in this somewhat overcrowded country disease is to become rampant and uncontrollable. Given decent encouragement and fair treatment, farmers would long ago have worked out their own economic salvation without any recourse to the artificial and in my judgment somewhat humiliating stimulus of subsidies, quotas and marketing boards.
  As regards the agricultural labourer, I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Addison, indicate that he realises—as some of his colleagues, particularly in another place, do not appear to realise—that you cannot get more than a pint out of a pint pot. If the industry is not in a sufficient state of prosperity to give a larger wage to its workers then it is no good clamouring for a larger wage unless you want to accentuate the depression and hasten the bankruptcy of this our most important industry.
  As regards fertilisation of the land, lime and phosphates are admittedly the most crying need of our surface soil, especially, as regards lime, in the West of England and in Wales, where the normal rainfall is relatively high and the soil relatively sour. Lime and phosphates, it is sometimes forgotten, are the two main constituents of animal bone structure. They must come from somewhere. In their absence morbid and unthrifty conditions are bound to develop among our livestock. I was glad to hear the noble Earl accentuate the fact that the different Parts of this Bill are interrelated, because the longer I live and the more I study the morbidity of farm animals, the more I am convinced that it is very largely due to soil deficiencies which largely exist in this country as well as in other countries of the world. Unless the land is generously treated we cannot expect the animals who live upon it to be in a thrifty, healthy condition. This applies particularly to pigs and poultry whose requirements make a special drain upon
  696
  these elements of phosphate and lime in the soil, a drain which is seldom made good.
  There are two points I would venture to make as an agricultural chemist. One is that lime varies in constitution, and if the Bill, as the noble Earl or his chief in another place indicated it might, stimulates the reopening for land surface dressings of old lime kilns in areas where the local limestone has a high magnesia content, which we are told is poisonous to plants, it may do more harm than good. The other thing I would point out is that basic slag is not the only source of phosphate. Superphosphate of lime, which is very largely used as a source of phosphate throughout the world, is, let us remember, the first of all chemical fertilisers, which had its inception at the Rothamsted Experimental Station in this country, and which we owe, above all, to that greatest and most enlightened of all country squires, Sir John Bennet Lawes, the first director of that institution. Superphosphate of lime is, speaking generally, as no doubt many of your Lordships will realise, far more effective on light soils as a source of phosphates than is basic slag. The suggestion that slag, as more largely the product of British factories, therefore merits a special Government premium upon it does not carry complete conviction to my possibly ultra-logical mind. Its use on all soils seems to resemble somewhat the giving of cod liver oil to a sickly child when malt extract would be a more appropriate remedy. In any case I venture to hope that, as time goes on, superphosphate will come to be included in what is described as the Fertility Scheme. I could have wished that the transport of lime to the farmers might have been entirely at the public expense, as it is in New Zealand under a similar scheme which was initiated four years ago. Otherwise, of course, those farmers whose holdings are easy of access by road or rail to the source of supply of the lime will obtain a larger benefit and, as I think, an undue benefit out of the proposed public subsidy by comparison with those who are not so favourably located.
  I am glad to perceive in a certain provision of this Bill a determination to prevent anything in the nature of a monopoly or corner in agricultural lime, such as undoubtedly occurred in the West of England some ten years ago and put

  697
  lime to a large extent beyond the means of farmers who desired to use it. Although lime and phosphate are undoubtedly the main desiderata, I trust that British farmers will not imagine from this Bill that these are the only medicines that their sick and exhausted land requires. It is to be hoped that potash and other chemical dressings will eventually be brought within the ambit of this so-called Land Fertility Scheme, preferably after a complete soil survey of the agricultural areas of Great Britain, a survey which has been carried out in many countries of the world, which is long overdue here, and in the absence of which, in my judgment, much Government money is bound to be wasted.
  This leads me to remind your Lordships that the average English and Welsh farmer, although, thanks to county council instructional activities, he is better informed about plant food and animal food than he was a generation ago, is still far behind his fellow-farmer and competitor in many oversea countries, foreign as well as British, in the matter of scientific instruction such as is necessary to ensure, with a minimum of expenditure, well-balanced fertilisation of his land and well-balanced rationing of his stock. It would, in my judgment, be true national economy to apply some of the money which will become available under this Bill in supplying what I may call peripatetic supervisors, such as are employed in Denmark, who, as a condition of enjoyment by farmers of these subsidised fertilisers, shall have free entry on the recipient's farm in order to afford guidance in their prudent and appropriate application. Otherwise, I cannot help feeling that a large amount of public money is going to be wasted on supplying what will be wrongly used en various farms, particularly the smaller farms, in this country as a dressing for land which really requires a dressing of a different character altogether. I was glad to hear the noble Earl who introduced this Bill say in such clear language that you cannot separate grass land from arable land in this matter of fertilisation. If there is one thing that Professor Stapledon has made more clear than anything else, it is that grass is a crop and has to be cultivated like any other crop if you want to get the best possible kind of output from it. I desire to make no comment
  698
  on the proposed cereal subsidies, except to urge that a yield basis be substituted for one of acreage, and that the difficult and delicate task of discrimination and condemnation in regard to site and practice reserved to the Minister under Clause 8, subsection (2) be delegated to county agricultural committees, as was the case during the War.
  The noble Lord who spoke last referred to my Chairmanship of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage in England and Wales, and in that connection, and reminiscent of the really alarming evidence brought before me and my colleagues at that time, in 1927, I warmly welcome the contemplated Exchequer grants to drainage authorities, for according to the calculations which we made at that time at least one-seventh of the whole of the non-mountainous land in this country is more or less waterlogged or inadequately drained. In consequence its productivity is very materially decreased, and the maturity of its crops considerably delayed owing to depressed soil temperature. When I read of grants being given now to internal drainage authorities, I venture to ask whether there has been taken into account the fact that some of these internal drainage authorities are about to be merged in the catchment boards. I am given to understand that that is what has taken place with regard to the large catchment area of the River Thames. May I assume that where such merger or amalgamation is taking place these grants, available to the internal drainage authorities, will similarly be available to the catchment boards in which they will come to be absorbed?
  But the solution of this problem cannot rest where the Bill leaves it. The field drains of our farmers in this country require entire overhauling and relaying, not in the interests of the owners of the land but in the national interest, and without some financial incentive to the owners to undertake this task the food supplies of the nation in war time will be seriously restricted. About eighty years ago, when land drainage was the great cry of the agricultural community, and landowners were more affluent, millions of pounds were spent, but the pipe drains of our fields in many cases were laid too deep and too far apart, and in many cases the pipes have long ago become choked up. Why should Scottish landowners have

  699
  this definite advantage over the landowners of England and Wales in the matter of grants? Of course I recognise that the Royal Commission on land drainage dealt only with England and Wales and, the Report dealing only with England and Wales, I take it that no catchment boards were set up in Scotland, and it is owing to the absence of catchment boards—and I wonder whether perhaps we would not be better without them—that the Scottish landowners are going to obtain valuable grants towards the re-drainage of their land. Realising how very serious is the state of field drainage in England and Wales to-day, I hope that this great privilege that the Scotsmen, with all their shrewdness, have extorted from the Government will be extended to their neighbours south of the Tweed.
  I entirely welcome and endorse that Part of the Bill which relates to animal diseases, first because it provides for slaughter, with compensation, of animals affected with contagious disease of any character—and I trust that this will include contagious abortion, which is far too prevalent in this country—and partly because it makes for greater uniformity and equity of administration than are possible under the present system—a system which gives almost despotic powers to the veterinary officer of a local authority, which he can exercise according to his own discretion, based possibly on insufficient knowledge or upon incorrect diagnosis. In saying that I want to make it perfectly clear that there are plenty of efficient veterinary officers of local authorities, but what is very noticeable, particularly when one lives on the borders of a county, is that the lack of uniformity in the attitude of the different veterinary officers of different counties does appear to operate an injustice in the manner in which the Diseases of Animals Acts are administered locally.
  LORD BAYFORD: The Ministry of Agriculture are going to take it over.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: The Ministry of Agriculture are going to take it over, I quite agree. That is all to the good, and that is why I for my part warmly welcome this Part of the Bill. The noble Lord who spoke last referred, and I think with perfect justice, to the relative
  700
  lack of progress that we have made in the matter of veterinary research and veterinary science in this country. When I presided over the Imperial Agricultural Research Conference about ten years ago it was admitted by all those attending that Conference from every part of the Empire that in every branch of agricultural research Great Britain was preeminent, except in the matter of veterinary research and veterinary administration, and we all had to acknowledge that South Africa at any rate, under the able guidance of Sir Arnold Theiler, who I am sorry to say has lately died, was doing far more valuable work—and incidentally at much greater expense but it was money well laid out—in South Africa than what was being conducted in this country. I venture to hope that the time has come when the status of veterinary surgeons in this country is going to be improved. Why should those who attend to the ailments of livestock be put in every sense upon a lower status and less generously remunerated than those who attend to the ailments of human beings? There are countries in which in some cases the professions merge one into the other, as they do in Denmark, but in many countries there is not that disparity of status which unfortunately exists in this country and keeps some of the ablest and most scientifically minded men out of that branch of the medical profession.
  And finally—and I am afraid I shall not carry this House altogether with me here—I want to make the somewhat revolutionary suggestion that if we desire to build up a sound agricultural organisation in this country, in which not merely adequate wages but what I think even more important, opportunities for promotion and economic independence, are to be open to efficient and keen agricultural workers, and if, moreover, we really want to provide profitable outlets in our over-sea Dominions for people of our own race, we should found our agricultural policy and erect our national agricultural edifice not, as in the past, on the needs of the larger farmer, but on those of the allotment holder and the small family farmer. Sufficient inducements, coupled with a rural bias in our country schools, should be held out to them and their families to make the land the scene of their life's vocation, and the channel of their social and material advancement. Under such

  701
  a policy, continuously and honestly pursued, the English countryside would receive recruits rather than lose deserters, hope would replace despondency, and the vast fertile spaces of our Imperial heritage would gradually be occupied by British settlers of an experienced and acceptable type. After all, if you are able to benefit those on the lower rungs of the ladder, in an economic sense, you are bound to benefit those who are situate higher up.
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I feel it can seldom be possible, and I am confident it can never be wise, to offer unconditional acceptance to any Bill, but with that qualification it is only the truth to say that this Bill is greatly to be welcomed by all agriculturists, more particularly by those who, in and out of season, have preached and prayed that some day the land itself would be recognised as the foundation of any scheme for agricultural betterment standing a permanent chance of probable success. It would be less than human if, having preached this doctrine myself for so many years, I should not feel comfort at that realisation having been at last begotten. But what a ghastly confession it is to those who were brought up in the strict tradition of land ownership which prevailed universally not more than thirty years ago! It is positively shocking to think of the need that a Bill should be introduced into Parliament including a land fertility clause. In those days it was the proudest and first duty of every landowner to make himself responsible for that fertility. In those days he had the power to enforce it, and in the main he had the means to make his own essential contribution to it. To-day he has neither the power nor the means. And why? Because for thirty years unseeing jealousies, political spite, and, above all, fundamental and abysmal ignorance have deprived the owner of the soil of what it was his first duty and privilege to do—not only a duty and privilege to his own good name, but one which, in conscience if not in law, he held himself obliged to do in view of his responsibility to the State.
  It is not as if Parliament and those in high places have not been warned, for all through this long period there have been voices crying in the wilderness pointing to what would happen. Now it has happened, and mark you, my Lords, this is only the beginning. To-day we are
  702
  asked, under sheer necessity, to invite the taxpayer to pay for the re-fertilisation of the soil. Lime is good and basic slag is good, but the land does not live on lime and basic slag alone, and when these two constituents have played their part, there will be others also which will have to be brought into play, and the taxpayer and not the landowner or the farmer will have to pay for them out of sheer necessity. I did not get up to voice a jeremiad, nor to say, "I told you so"; but it is sad to think, now too late, that the position that the landowner used to occupy with credit to himself and advantage to the country has been so undermined that the taxpayer has now to pay for these things himself. These provisions for re-fertilisation of the soil, sad though the necessity of them is, are good in every way. I welcome them. It would be true to say that in many parts of England there are forms of phosphate more suited to the land in those parts of England than is basic slag. It is true to say that not all of England requires lime, but large parts of England do, and large parts do require basic slag, and those parts that do require them are going to benefit very largely from their application. It would be foolish, therefore, not to offer the largest welcome to what is done, always remembering that other things must come if a full refertilisation is to be secured.
  I suggested that there might be certain criticisms to offer to this Bill and the criticism which I offer at once is in the title of the Bill itself. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, gave us a list of the various subsidies which have been and are still being paid, and are now being added to for the advantage of agriculture. We see in the title of this Bill "a subsidy to farmers in respect of their crops of oats and barley." The noble Earl, Lord Feversham, admitted that at the present time no subsidy would be payable. It is extremely doubtful if on a rising market, circumstances being what they are, a subsidy will ever be payable in respect of oats; it is an absolute certainty that no subsidy will ever be payable in respect of barley. Yet here, in the title of the Bill, we are invited to pay a subsidy to farmers in respect of their crops of oats and barley. And what is the farmer going to get out of it? He is not going to get a subsidy out of it. All he is going to get is the odium of a subsidy

  703
  which he is not going to receive. Therefore I have the greatest objection to this particular phraseology in the title of the Bill.
  I have already dealt quite briefly with Part I and I move on to Part II. Part II of the Bill contains a number of provisions which are reprehensible in the highest degree. The first of them standardises production. It is not the first time in this House that I have objected to standardisation of production. The noble Earl, Lord Feversham, said, with perfect truth, that a reduction in the number of horses had made it undesirable that oats should be overproduced, and the reduction in the consumption of beer had made it equally undesirable that there should be an overproduction of barley. That is a dangerous statement for the noble Earl to commit himself to. The obvious answer is to say that you must increase the consumption of beer. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, in this House has been holding out to us, and indeed it requires no holding out, the alarm which is generally felt in regard to the migration of agricultural labour to the towns. Has beer nothing to do with it? Is it not possible to conceive that when an agricultural labourer finds himself unable to buy the quantity of beer which it is necessary he should drink in order to perform his function properly on the land, he should be forced into some form of employment where beer is no longer a necessary of life? Whereas beer is in every way a desirable liquid the consumption of which should be encouraged, I do not take it that barley production should be restricted, but that beer consumption should be increased.
  But, apart from these pleasantries, it must be entirely unsound to restrict production. It cannot be right. After all, there are many acres of land in this country that are suited to the production of particular crops. Why restrict the growing of the crop to which the land is particularly suited and force the production of some other crop to which the land is not suited? That cannot be sound agriculture. The thing to do is to increase the market for the product to which the land is suited and not tell the farmer no longer to grow that particular crop. I have protested about this before, I shall protest about it again and I am protesting about it now. This is one of the
  704
  most undesirable features of this particularly undesirable Part, but it is by no means the most undesirable. There are things far worse.
  There is Clause 7. Clause 7 has shocked me very much. For years I have taken for granted that here and there in the Ministry of Agriculture there must be one or two men with some practical knowledge of the profession. Clause 7 has forced upon me very reluctantly that there are none, because Clause 7 has no application whatever to practical agriculture. It is stated in Clause 7 that the man who grows wheat shall not be eligible for any assistance in respect of his oats and his barley. If he does grow oats and barley and elects to take what little assistance there may be given to him in that regard, he is not to be able to claim any assistance in respect of wheat. For some extraordinary reason this clause links oats and barley. It is a a complete mésalliance. They have nothing whatever to do with one another. Wheat and oats are alternative crops; barley and wheat are not alternative crops.
  In Scotland, of course, they have peculiar habits, and I may be criticised there for what I am saying, but I am speaking with some knowledge of agricultural conditions that prevail from Yorkshire down the whole East coast to Hampshire in the south. In that considerable stretch of country it is possible to grow corn in some form of rotation. If you farm land on a four-course rotation you have one fourth wheat or oats and one fourth barley. If you grow on a five-course rotation you have one-fifth wheat or oats and two-fifths barley, and so on through the various permutations and commutations of cropping and rotations whichever you care to adopt. But never in England do you grow wheat instead of barley or barley instead of wheat. They have nothing whatever to do with each other. Every farm in the south that I have seen has always had both wheat and barley growing upon it. If land is unsuited to wheat, oats will be grown, but there will always be barley.
  To say that a man is not eligible to claim the wheat subsidy because he is growing barley as an alternative to wheat is to display truly amazing ignorance. It is incredible that the Ministry of Agriculture should have committed itself

  705
  to such a clause as this. If they do not wish to pay a subsidy to the barley grower let them say so and be honest about it. We know that there is no such thing given in this clause for the barley grower, but why not say so. Why delude both the corn grower and the public into the belief that there is going to be a subsidy to barley growers when there is no subsidy for them at all? It does not seem reasonable or proper or even decent. The barley grower is going to get nothing whatever out of the Bill except perhaps the sand which it throws into his eyes.
  In the matter of land drainage I can only join in the chorus of welcome given to the proposal in this Bill, only in common with all practical agriculturists I would warn the Government that the Bill does nothing like enough. There is here, in Clause 14 (1), the statement that
  "The Minister may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, make towards expenditure incurred by drainage authorities to which this section applies in the exercise of their functions in carrying out drainage schemes, grants of such amounts and subject to such conditions as may be approved by the Treasury."
  Now anybody reading an Act of Parliament, such as this will become, would naturally be disposed to try to discover what would be the percentage of those grants. The local authority or other persons concerned would buy the Act of Parliament and hope to find it. But it is not even possible to find it by reference to the Financial Resolution that was passed in another place. You have to look at the Memorandum introducing the Financial Resolution to discover what those grants are going to be. It is not quite a matter for me to complain about, but I would ask the noble Earl if it is not very unusual and if it is not peculiar, and if he does not think that it would be more reasonable and make the Bill more easy to understand if in Part III words were put into Clause 14 indicating the extent of the grant which the local authority or other authority is likely to be able to obtain. That is hardly a criticism. It is a criticism of the drafting more than of the provisions of the Bill itself.
  There are one or two other points in respect of this Part to which I would like to refer. Although it is unquestionable that the drainage proposals embodied in this Bill are most urgently needed, and whereas I would agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Addison, that
  706
  something far larger than this is required, there is going to be a limitation to the possibilities of this matter which we have not yet taken into account, and that is the labour question. It so happens that at the present time the demand for the man capable and willing to undertake manual labour is tremendous. It is very great; greater than I think any of us has ever known. This, combined with the various disadvantages which have hitherto attached to labour on the land, is causing and has caused an abnormal number of agricultural workers to leave the land. Here in Part III we have an additional occupation for just the type of man for whom everybody is now looking. We must not expect, we must not hope, that at the present time it is going to be possible to do anything like as much as we should wish to do in the matter of this land drainage unless we deplete ordinary agricultural work to an even greater extent than it is depleted already. I only throw that out as a word of warning: in most parts of England the men are just not there to do it with.
  Then there is Clause 15, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe. With a number of Scotsmen about me, I feel almost anxious and nervous about saying what I think about this clause without turning my back to the Table and looking at them. Clause 15 is an outrage, and all I can say is that, unless the Scottish Peers support me in moving the elimination of Clause 7, I shall have a most vigorous contest with them about Clause 15. Really, there is a limit to what can be tolerated by the unfortunate Sassenach! Here in Scotland is a landowner, quite properly, going to receive subsidy grants towards doing work which it is most necessary that he should do. His English neighbour is to have no such opportunity offered to him, and drainage authorities which in many cases now exist are going to have the distribution and spending of the money which the landowner could so very much better lay out for himself. Clause 15—well, perhaps I had better not say what came to my mind. It would not in any way be disrespectful to noble Lords from Scotland, but it might be thought disrespectful of a Scotsman who is not in this House.
  "Part IV: Provisions as to Diseases of Animals." Now, my Lords, here is a

  707
  very gallant venture. I do congratulate the Government with all my heart on daring to attempt this. I am, again, more than nervous about its operation. I am most fearful of the things which may happen under this Part. I fear, amongst other things, that the Government will attempt to go far too quickly. Here, if ever there was a case for proceeding very cautiously, it is in this Part, and in particular in respect of this venture which the Government are now taking in hand. Our knowledge of animal diseases is not yet sufficiently advanced to justify any wholesale determination in any direction.
  Lord Addison spoke with great wisdom of the necessity for research into animal diseases. That is more essential than any other work which could be undertaken in respect of animal diseases at this particular moment. To fly off into the counties and destroy wholesale, on insufficient grounds, would be to create panic among agriculturists without doing permanent good to anybody. There is another feature which I think the Government would be well warned about. They would require a very large and very efficient veterinary staff to carry out these proposals. If they take all the men they will require from the available veterinary surgeons they will remove out of their ordinary work in the counties every veterinary surgeon worth having, and will do more damage than they give advantage to agriculture by putting them into these new pursuits. They want to train a much larger number of efficient veterinary surgeons than now exist before putting in practice the schemes which are adumbrated in Part IV. With those warnings I give a hearty welcome to this Part of the Bill. It is very obviously overdue, and I can only wish the Government well in their undertaking which, if it succeeds, will redound to the immense advantage of agriculturists and of agriculture in our country.
  Before I sit down I would refer only in a word or two to one or two general issues, such as were referred to by Lord Addison. The noble Lord will of course remember that when I said what I did say the other day I was not myself advocating a subsidy on agricultural wages. I should regard anything of the kind as literally a counsel of despair, but I did say, and I say now, that it is most undesirable to endeavour to dissociate the
  708
  three classes engaged in agriculture. What we have to remember is that anything which benefits agriculture itself must always benefit every class engaged in it, and it is far safer to try to devise schemes for the benefit of agriculture out of which the labourer will get his share, than it is to pick upon the labourer and try to give him a benefit without giving to the other two classes any share. That is all I had in mind.
  I think it is very necessary and desirable to warn the Government and the House that desirable though this Bill is, welcome though it is to agriculturists as a whole, it is only an instalment of what must follow. We have issues far greater to compete with than those with which this Bill attempts to deal. For years we have been taking out of agriculture money which agriculture has most badly needed. For more than thirty years sums slightly in excess of £2,000,000 a year have been extracted from an industry which requires new money more urgently than any other industry in this kingdom, and there will come a time, and heaven pray it comes soon, when this country will realise that it can no longer afford to deplete agriculture of that money. Year after year the taxpayer's money has been paid into agriculture while all the time we are taking it out. It is folly. It is the fact that the occupier, the would-be farmer, has not the money with which to farm. There is to-day a letting value to small farmers, but all England cannot be divided into small farms; the land is not suitable for the purpose. There is no money to take up large farms, and unless and until the would-be farmer, qualified in other ways, can see his way to credit at a proper figure, we shall not find it possible to farm these lighter lands and broader farms of England to the best advantage. Something in the way of a national credit scheme is most urgently required. Such credit schemes as are now in existence have defeated their own purpose; the rates of interest which they necessitate are crushing to the agriculturalist.
  Those are two directions in which real help could be given to agriculture, both of them of a financial character. And finally there is the infinitely greater and more difficult problem of how to retain labour upon the land. That is far the greatest problem which we have now to consider. It far outweighs anything that

  709
  this Bill can possibly do, and until that problem is solved we cannot really look to a prosperous agriculture. On the contrary, we can look to one which is diminishing both in extent and in value. With these remarks I shall close what I have to say, but on the Committee stage there will doubtless be a great deal more to say on certain of the provisions of this Bill to which strong exception is taken in certain parts of England.
  LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, the first thing I want to say a word about is a remark which was made by my noble friend opposite (Lord Addison) and that I have heard from members of his Party very often, with regard to the cost to the consumer as compared with the cost of production by the producer, and the enormous amount of money which must go into the pockets of the middleman. That has been said over and over again, and naturally the way by which that drawback is to be faced is by co-operative societies. The noble Lord shakes his head: he would probably say by State distribution instead of by individual distribution. Well, that is really very much the same thing as co-operative societies on a larger scale, and the experience that one after another of us has had in trying to assist co-operative societies has been that they have gone on for a short time and, after a short time, they have been wound up and we have lost whatever money we put into them.
  I want now to deal with some things in the Bill. With regard to Part I, I do not think anyone is likely to quarrel with it seriously. It is a Part that we all welcome. On Part II I do not think that one need comment at all, because I think that it is unlikely to come into operation. I hope that it will not come into operation, because I believe that the price of these two cereals will not fall, in the time for which the Bill extends, below the limit that is there fixed. On the drainage question, which comes in the next Part of the Bill, I want to say something. I welcome this drainage. As my noble friend Lord Bledisloe said, it is overdue. It is absolutely necessary in great parts of the country. In my own part of the country, all over Sedgemoor, the land is going back and back. This year we had something like 60,000 acres under water for four months. That is
  710
  not an unusual thing. It happens whenever we get a wet winter, and a great many of these fields are now growing rushes more than anything else. We have a big scheme for carrying out very extensive drainage works. Towards that the catchment board contributes, but the Government contribute a considerably larger sum than does the catchment board. Even these two do not make up the whole of the money that is going to be spent on the scheme, and they have had to come to the county council to ask for a special grant towards effecting this large scheme of drainage. It is quite a good way, no doubt, for the county council to spend its money, but the unfairness of it lies in this.
  There are three contributors to this work. One is the catchment board, representing the owners and occupiers of the land, the second is the Government, and the third is the local authority. Supposing the scheme is a success—and we devoutly hope it will be—it will raise the value of that land per acre to a very considerable extent indeed. It may very well raise the rental value by £1 an acre. That will mean that there will be a very large return upon the money that has been spent. A considerable amount of that will go to the owners and occupiers, a considerable amount will be taken out of their pockets in increased taxation and it will go to the Government, and if the scheme works out as it is hoped, it will more than recompense the Government by paying a considerable amount of interest on the money that the Government has advanced. The only body that gets nothing out of it at all is the local authority. I would ask the Minister in charge if he would have that matter looked into, and if he could see whether there is not some way by which, now that the land is altogether derated, some return should be made to the local authority for the large sums that may be spent in that way.
  As to Part IV of the Bill, I should like to start by saying that I do not want to take anything away from the Scotsmen. Their scheme in this respect for veterinary surgeons seems to differ entirely from what we have in England, and if, in order to meet the purposes of their scheme, there are certain Amendments they want to introduce, I should be the last to urge the Minister to say them nay. I am dealing with the scheme

  711
  as it applies to the English counties, and I quite realise the reason for this scheme. The veterinary surgeons have been called in for this comparatively new work of inspecting cattle for tuberculosis. It has been found that the services they render lack uniformity, that the practice in one county is different from the practice in another. That, of course, is not desirable. We want to see that altered, but at the same time we want to see it altered with the minimum of friction, and what I would suggest to the Minister is this. All the veterinary surgeons who are employed in this work in a county are county servants working solely for the county. They will be taken over by the Government. But in a great many counties that is not so. In those counties one or two veterinary surgeons are whole-time men for the counties, and a great deal of the rest of the work, in fact the whole of it, is done by the local practitioners. I want to ask the Minister whether, when the Government scheme comes in, those local practitioners who are doing part-time work will lose their jobs. If so, I presume they will want compensation. Who will pay the compensation? Will it be paid by the Government or will it fall upon the county council?
  I hope the Ministry will exercise a very great discretion in regard to the men whom it appoints. After all, this work of inspection is one that requires not only a great deal of knowledge but also a great deal of tact, and I do hope that the Government will see that they appoint not only men who know their jobs but also men with considerable knowledge of dealing with people. I have heard some controversy about this veterinary question. Am I to understand that there will be no further veterinary expenses for these services falling on the county councils at all and that the whole thing is taken off their shoulders? I should also like to know whether they are going to take on in their service, when they can, the part-time men? If so, I hope, as my noble friend said, that they will exercise the greatest care about it, because there are not too many veterinary surgeons scattered about the rural districts, and it will produce quite a serious situation if the best of them are picked out by the Government and taken into
  712
  Government service, so that the ordinary individual who wants the service of a veterinary surgeon cannot find one within reach. As I said, I welcome the Bill as a whole, and I hope it will have a safe passage through this House.
  LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me, and I am bound to say a somewhat unusual one, to congratulate heartily the Government on an agricultural measure. I have two grounds for doing so. The first one is that this is a comparatively simple measure. I went to a meeting of a farmers' club the other day. There was a man who spoke there who had farmed half his life in the Argentine and half in England, and he was asked after he had spoken what was the difference between the two. "Oh," he said, "the difference is quite simple. When you farm in the Argentine the whole of your working day is given over to farming, but when you farm in England half the day is given over to filling in forms and wrestling with Government inspectors and officials." I am glad to think that under this Bill the labours of the ordinary farmer will, I think, he very little added to.
  The second ground is that this Bill seems to me to be the first step along a new path. It is a short step but it is a very necessary step because it deals with the condition of the land, and without land in good heart I think we shall agree you cannot get anywhere. I venture to hope that it will not be very long before His Majesty's Government take another step, and that that step will deal with the man who has his living to make out of the land. I do not think that any one on either side of your Lordships' House would attack the good intentions of this Government with regard to agriculture or the great efforts they have made, and I have a feeling that some among the members of the Government will feel that there is a certain ingratitude on the part of farmers towards the efforts they have made. But you know, my Lords, that neither the farm labourer nor the farmer can live entirely on good intentions or on efforts. He judges, and must judge, by results, and it is by results that you will ensure his gratitude.
  I noticed the other day that a speaker in another place, not taking quite the same line as the noble Lord, Lord Addison, who spoke so admirably just

  713
  now, said that he had worked the whole thing out quite carefully and he had found that during the last eight years—I think it was eight years, but it might have been ten—the farm labourer had got a shilling a week, that he was perfectly certain the farmer had got nothing and therefore the landlord must have got the lot, barring that shilling. It was quite a reasonable statement, but I think he forgot one or two things. He forgot in the first place that it is most easily demonstrable that the landlord's rents have not gone up and that his maintenance costs have gone up by 75 or 100 per cent.; and therefore he would not appear to be very much better off. Next he forgot the agricultural wages boards. I can recall not so very long ago when the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, who is so conspicuous now by his absence from your Lordships' House whenever an agricultural measure is brought forward, introduced the Agricultural Wages Bill into this House. He said it was a magnificent measure, that it was a charter for the agricultural labourer because it would ensure for all time that the agricultural labourer would get his full share of any prosperity that was going. I should very much like to know whether in the opinion of the noble Lord opposite that has remained a charter or whether it has been a failure. If the money has not gone to either of the three people I have mentioned, where has it gone? I think a little of it has gone, as the noble Lord said, to the middleman, but I think the bulk of it has gone to the consumer. He has got the bulk of that money in the form of cheaper food, and I recommend the consideration of that point to His Majesty's Government.
  The present Minister of Agriculture said the other day, if he was correctly reported, that the aim of the Government was to ensure prices to give a reasonable profit. An even better way of putting it, if I may say so, was the phrase used by the noble Lord opposite when he said that farming must be made to pay. I thought that a remarkably good sentence, rather better than the words used by the present Minister. Either statement will do, but it is not by words but by fruits that we shall know them, whether in the past or whether in the future. I have the greatest sympathy always with the
  714
  Minister of Agriculture. It is always rather a wonder to me how any one is got to be a Minister of Agriculture, to tell you the truth. After all, we know that 93 per cent. of the people of this country do not live by agriculture or care for agriculture, and therefore the Minister is up against the people who want the votes of the majority. He is usually up against the Treasury, the Minister of Health, and the President of the Board of Trade. As a lover of the soil I am deeply grieved over the feeling of this country towards agriculture. After all, we have had an instance of it to-day. Before dinner we had a debate in this House concerning the rights and wrongs of some 400,000 Arabs and some 400,000 Jews. There was a most interesting debate, a full House, a crowded Press Gallery and most admirable speeches by Cabinet Ministers and eminent orators. Now, after dinner, we come here, we few—I cannot even say, "We few, we happy few," can I? because I do not know that we are happy, and we are not confident of the result of our efforts, either. That is a serious and a sad thought which I have towards this matter.
  Just a word or two on the provisions of this Bill, so far as they have not been spoken to already. The first is with regard to lime and slag. I think the Government have made out a good case for limiting the assistance to these two things, but I must confess that I was disappointed in the percentage of help that they are given. I hoped it would have been a higher percentage, because, as my noble friend Lord Hastings has so justly pointed out, and I think other noble Lords as well, the capital of farming in this country has so largely gone now that in many cases it must be very doubtful whether they will be in a position to pay the half and three-quarters that they are called upon to pay.
  Now taking Part II, with regard to wheat, in the first place I would point out—I do not know whether that has been pointed out; I expect it has—that this Bill will not cost the Government anything. It never has cost the Government anything, the wheat measure; perhaps that is why it is so successful. But this will cost nothing in any case. It is welcomed, and most certainly welcomed by me, because it is an assurance to the

  715
  farmer that he will get, at all events, 44s. out of the 45s. that is available. But what I want to suggest to the noble Earl below me is this. I believe that, either next year or the year after, the standard price is to be again reconsidered. I wonder whether it would not be possible to expedite that reconsideration. Surely this is a very good reason to expedite it and to raise that standard price by a very considerable sum. There are two good reasons. The first is that the price of wheat throughout the world has gone up by at least 10s. and there is no sign whatever of its going down, none whatever. The second, and I do not think that anyone in this House, or anyone else, can doubt it, is that the cost of growing wheat since the Wheat Act was started has gone up by at least 5s., if not more. I commend that to the consideration of the noble Earl.
  With regard to barley and oats, how I conceive this took place was that, when the question of wheat was decided on, the Government gave a sudden start and said: "What will our friends in Scotland say? Everything gone for those infernal fellows on the East Coast! Something must be done about it." So, with lightning rapidity, they said, "Do something for oats and barley!" I should like to see our friends in Scotland getting a lot, but it does not seem to me that they will get anything at all as the matter stands at the moment. I must join my noble friend Lord Hastings in saying that it seems to be a remarkable thing that under a clause of this Bill the assistance to the two cereals should be alternative, coming from a Government who have said again and again that balanced agriculture is the thing they want. And then they say, "Well, it is one or the other."
  Now as to drainage. It is a regret to me—and I hope it is merely a postponement—that this drainage does not go further than it does. It does not go to the ditches, pipes, etc., and I am not entirely convinced with the argument that you must get rid of the water below before you get rid of the water above. When I was a boy the fields were pipe drained and the ditches were cleared out. There were no drainage or catchment boards, but the farmers got the water off their farms, and would have been
  716
  ashamed if they had not. How is ditching and, in the main, pipe draining done? It is done in this way. After the winter corn is in, and before the spring corn is in, there is a shortage of work for the men on the farm. Generally there are two or three men whose services can be dispensed with, but when I was a boy they were always used in draining. Now they are turned off, and of course they can get the "dole," or whatever you call it, but if they were assisted it would be a direct subsidy for employment, and I sometimes think that a subsidy for employment is the only subsidy that is economically justifiable.
  Finally, I would say a word about the diseases of animals. I share with my noble friend Lord Hastings the very greatest fears en this matter. I am entirely at one with the Government in what they aim to do, and my only fear is how it will work out from the point of view of the farmer. I do not like putting myself entirely in the hands of a body of scientists. I fear that I may be putting myself in the hands of a body of cranks, and I am the more full of these fears because I notice that in the Bill the only disease mentioned except the diseases of poultry is tuberculosis. There is more misapprehension and more nonsense talked about bovine tuberculosis than any subject in the agricultural world. I heard it said, to-day, by a person fully conversant with this subject, that 40 per cent. of the cows in this land were reactors. People are getting frightened to drink milk. It is a scientific fact, though you may not be aware of it, that nearly 90 per cent. of your Lordships are reactors, but you do not die because you have a resistance to the disease; and a very high authority has said that a little tuberculosis is a very good thing but a lot of it is a very bad thing. Of the 40 per cent. of reactors only a very small minority, I think about 4 per cent., are dangerous, inasmuch as they give milk which might cause bovine tuberculosis. Those animals can be discerned by clinical examination and I do not think that any clinical examination can be too careful to get rid of them, but I do say that where these animals are got rid of, and prove to be healthy, full compensation should be given.
  In this matter we heard research mentioned, and I would myself ask that one of the earliest forms of research should

  717
  be research into the tuberculosis test. I believe everyone connected with cattle knows that the double intradermal test at present in use is utterly unreliable. Veterinary surgeons themselves say that in the hands of experienced veterinary officers it is 90 per cent. effective. Ninety per cent. does not appear to me to be very good, if you work it out in pounds, shillings and pence, but that is only in the hands of experienced and knowledgeable officers, and I do think that this subject should be very carefully investigated. It is one of the first methods of research which should be gone into. May I point out that the veterinary profession have said that the size of the wound is not of itself of any value? Yet in every sale of tuberculin-tested cattle you will see particulars of the size of the wound given; and it is the same with regard to cattle exported abroad. I very seriously suggest to the noble Earl that that is one of the very first forms of research for which money should be used.
  I also regret in this particular instance to find in the Bill no mention of contagious abortion, or indeed anything else—only tuberculosis is mentioned. And in the Financial Resolution I find what seems to me the most remarkable thing, namely, that only those herds which have been fortunate enough to become attested with Government help are to have the advantage of further help with regard to contagious abortion. I hope that the noble Earl will give some explanation on the point. It seems to me quite incapable of explanation. This clause is going to cost the farmers a lot of money. The livestock producer is without doubt going to be financially penalised. I know the Ministry think that he is going to get an advantage in the longer life of his stock. I think that is a false hope. I have for many years had one tasted herd and I have had one accredited herd. There has been no difference whatever in the life of them, and I somewhat doubt whether it is very desirable that cattle should be kept in a herd after a certain time. My own belief is that after ten years in ordinary cattle, and after twelve years in Red Poll cattle, the life of an animal is wasteful in the stock. A cow is an uncertain breeder and is liable to form disease, and I doubt very much whether she is an economic proposition. I have made certain criticisms, but ray final remark is this,
  718
  that I regard this Bill as the first small step along a road leading in the right direction, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, there are experts in this House who have dealt with the first three Parts of this Bill, and now it is a chance for Scotland, and perhaps a hope for Scotland. I wish to refer your Lordships to Part IV, which deals with the transfer of all veterinary services from the county councils to the State. The Association of County Councils and Royal Burghs of Scotland, of which I am a member, are strongly against this Part, and they are against it because they feel that the great progress that has been made in Scotland during the last few years with regard to the eradication of diseases among animals will be retarded, if not definitely set back. I hate to criticise this Bill, because I, like all your Lordships, am in entire agreement with the ideal behind it. The Association of County Councils are also in entire agreement with the ideals of the Government, but they consider that these ideals could perfectly easily be carried out in Scotland, at any rate, without transferring the present county veterinary services to the State. So strong is the feeling that they have about this that they have suggested that it be moved in Committee that Part IV of the Bill should be deleted, and that the Government should bring in a new Bill dealing with the veterinary services after consultation with the local authorities. I personally do not agree with this, as such action, if passed through Parliament, of which there would not be the slightest chance, would set back for a definite period all hope of grappling with this very important problem.
  But I do desire to protest very strongly against the method by which this constitutional change is being carried out. The Gowland Hopkins Report was presented to Parliament in May, 1934, so that while the Government has taken three years to decide on its policy, Parliament is asked to pass this Bill within a few weeks of that policy being declared, and before the local authorities who are vitally interested have been consulted at all. The Government adopted the unusual course of securing a Financial Resolution in another place before the terms of the Bill were disclosed. The Bill was introduced

  719
  immediately afterwards. First and Second Readings were taken on successive days, and the Committee stage was taken in a week when most Scottish members, at any rate, were up in Scotland on the occasion of Their Majesties' visit to Edinburgh. As a matter of fact, several Amendments were put down on behalf of a certain member of the House of Commons, but unfortunately he was unable to be in his place. The Bill will take away all power from local authorities to provide these veterinary services. It is a direct revisal of the policy of the Government as expressed in the Local Government Act where larger local authorities were constituted in order that larger executive powers should be conferred on them. It is also contrary to the policy of the Trunk Roads Act where the Government take over the roads, including all finance, but have retained the executive position of local authorities by constituting them their agents.
  It is extraordinary how this Bill slipped through another place. One can only surmise that members did not realise its implications. What is to be done is unprecedented in local government. The Government are taking the administration of the veterinary services out of the hands of local authorities, and the Government officers will give orders to officers of the county council, because you cannot separate the veterinary services from county drainage and health. Although I understand the Government will pay for the new veterinary services, yet the ratepayers will still have to pay the police and for advertising, &c. In other words the ratepayers will be paying partly for the Government service. I do not say that the amount will be large, but the principle is deplorable. We in Scotland would almost prefer that the Government should take the diseases of animals administration entirely out of the control of the county councils. There is a difference to my mind between England and Scotland, in spite of what English Lords have said, as regards progress in the eradication of disease in animals. There are, of course, backward counties in both England and Scotland, but, taking it as a whole, Scotland has been much more progressive than England. In my own County of Ayr there are 221 herds which are T.T.—in other words, which are licensed as free from disease,
  720
  and we have also 23o attested herds. I understand that is far better than the whole of England put together. There are other counties in Scotland which are nearly as good.
  In the more progressive counties, where the local authorities have developed a coordinated medical veterinary and bacteriological service, we are considerably concerned that the proposals of this Bill may seriously affect not only the veterinary services but also the health services generally. In respect of these public health services, the veterinary officer is only one link in the chain of control, the other links being the sanitary inspector and the county medical officer of health. Now it is proposed to break this chain, and, important as animal disease may be, surely public health is of more importance. The danger of this severance is aggravated in Scotland by the fact that the laws of public health are different from those in England where the veterinary service is to be controlled from London; the Department of Health for Scotland being in Edinburgh. Scottish local authorities are, therefore, greatly concerned as to the relationship between officers of the new service on the one hand and the Department of Health, the local authority and the medical officer on the other.
  We are afraid that with the divided control in veterinary public health questions the essential close liaison is being destroyed. To give your Lordships an example, I may remind you that in the Bill the present veterinary officers in Scotland will be retained. The best veterinary officers will be retained, but instead of being responsible for a county they will be responsible for an area. Take Ayr as an example. Supposing the veterinary officer in Ayr has charge of other counties in Scotland, say those of Wig-town, Dumfries and the Stewartry, some of them hundreds of miles away. At the present time the veterinary officer is able to step across a passage and confer with the medical officer of health and with the sanitary officials, as occasion may require him to do. Under the new scheme he will be unable to do this or to carry out those measures which are required in Scotland. It seems to me that it would be difficult to keep in the future that splendid liaison which we have had all this time.

  721
  One last word. There is no guarantee in the Bill that whole-time veterinary inspectors or local authorities are to be transferred, as Lord Bayford said, to the Ministry staff, nor that part-time inspectors, who are essential for some districts, will be employed in future in carrying out the transfer duties. I recognise that during this debate in another place certain assurances were given, but why not incorporate them in the Bill, especially since no provision is made for compensation being payable to any inspector who may not be transferred or who may suffer loss of salary through his transfer? Of course in terms of the Financial Resolution such provision cannot now be incorporated in the Bill, but surely the veterinary inspectors of local authorities are entitled to the same consideration in respect of compensation as officers of other branches of public service who have been transferred from one authority to another. If no compensation is given a dangerous precedent will be established. We cannot embarrass this Government because it is a strong Government, but I do hope the noble Earl when he replies will give some assurance on the points I have raised.
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, at last the turn of Scotland has come. We have been waiting all the evening to put Scotland's case. I agree with what the noble Earl has just said about Part IV, but I should also like to say that we in Scotland do recognise that the National Government have done more for agriculture than any other Government in recent times. This Bill is another earnest of their resolve to go on helping agriculture, which really is one of the most important industries, if not the most important, because it is a country industry and other industries are generally based on populated centres. While I say that, I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Hastings when he complains of Scotland getting a subsidy. England has been getting a subsidy all through the depressed time, whereas Scotland has had no subsidy.
  LORD HASTINGS: I beg my noble friend's pardon, but I did not object to Scotland getting a subsidy. What I objected to was the suggestion that barley was getting a subsidy when it was getting nothing of the sort.
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: Why should barley not get a subsidy? The wheat grower has had a subsidy, but wheat is a crop we cannot grow in Scotland. We in Scotland think we should have equal treatment and get a subsidy on the cereal crop which we can grow. England can grow wheat, and because English farmers have been getting a subsidy they do not now require it, as the subsidy has raised the price of wheat. I hope that may prove to be the case in Scotland, but until we are helped in some way we cannot get our price. It is only now that the suggestion of a subsidy for oats has been put in black and white that the price of oats has begun to rise. People in England cannot complain of beer not being helped, because I remember that not very long ago there was a discussion in this House on hops. Hops were aided, and therefore beer was aided. Why should not the national beverage in Scotland be aided by Parliament and the national food in Scotland, oatmeal, be helped by a subsidy on oats? It has to be remembered that Scottish agriculture cannot be compared with English agriculture, because we have a different climate and different circumstances to deal with in Scotland. Therefore I thank the Government very much for at last implementing a promise which was more or less made in a very good speech in the City of Aberdeen, some eight years ago I think, by the then Prime Minister. We have had to wait, but we are thankful for mercies even if they are delayed.
  There is one other point which I believe my noble friend Lord Saltoun is going to raise but to which I should just like to allude. Throughout the Bill the date June 4 is mentioned. That is the date, I believe, on which a general census of produce is taken, but it is not a date which applies very well in Scotland. The date in Scotland for taking or leaving a farm is May 28, and I think reference should be made to the occupier before May 28, because the man who comes in has to pay for the work which his predecessor has done on the land. It seems to me quite wrong that there should be no notice taken of the custom in Scotland—namely, May 28. I should like to see a new clause added to this Bill: "Application to Scotland." There are one or two clauses and subsections which apply to Scotland; my noble friend has

  723
  already objected to Clause 15, just because there are no catchment boards in Scotland. Perhaps the noble Earl in charge of the Bill might consider the inclusion of a Scottish application clause during the next stage of the Bill. I will not weary your Lordships with further suggestions from Scotland, but simply say that we in the North welcome this further earnest of the Government to help agriculture as a whole.
  LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I do not wish to weary you at this time of the night by talk of barley, wheat, oats or even Clause 15, which caused a certain amount of controversy, but confine myself entirely to Part IV of the Bill: that dealing with animal diseases and the veterinary service. I have had a very long experience, both in my own herd and in the herds of my neighbours, of the double intradermal test, and the longer that experience has been the more clearly has it been proved to me that this test is one of the most valuable tests the farmer has for diagnosis. Once again I would say, if properly administered; and it is the basis of the whole of the veterinary services of this country. In the past there has been too haphazard a choice of those who were to administer the test, which has led to anomalous results, and to a lack of confidence among the farming community in the value of this test. I have had exactly the same experience of the agglutination test for contagious abortion, and I am convinced in my own mind that this, if properly applied and not just made on one individual occasion, is of the greatest possible value and certainty in the diagnosis of disease.
  I fear that if the figure which has been named on some occasions, of some 550 veterinary surgeons, for this great centralised veterinary service is correct, it will mean that considerable time will have to be wasted. I cannot believe that a central service of anything approaching that number is required. I cannot believe that there is any necessity for more than a nucleus to carry out the services of co-ordination and of supervision. I believe that as much use should be made as possible not only of those halftime men who are already in the employ of the counties, but also of the general practitioner in veterinary surgery. Under the present scheme in force in Scotland
  724
  —the attested herd scheme—there is a provision that the man who brings the herd to the state of supervision or attestation is entitled thereafter with proper supervision to carry out the routine test. That proves that the man is capable of doing his job, and that is all that we want to get at: the men in the county who are capable of doing their jobs and the men who are not.
  Any service which says to the veterinary surgeon in private practice, "Go along, help us to draw this man to the stage where his herd is free from tuberculosis, and the more quickly you do it, and the more efficiently you do it, the sooner will you lose your bread and butter," is a scheme which is bound to fail, because the farming community have the greatest possible respect and affection, I may say, at least in our part of the country, for the general practitioner in veterinary surgery. I would maintain that the greatest possible use should be made of the central staff purely for supervision and co-ordination, and of the general veterinary practitioner for carrying out the general work with proper safeguards.
  Then the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, brought up the question of the taking over by the Government of other services than those which are contemplated by this Bill: that is, the inspection and passing of dairy premises, the inspection of meat in the abattoirs. These services are done sometimes by the medical officer of health, sometimes by the sanitary officer, and sometimes by the veterinary officer. It is a most anomalous position that the sanitary official should have to be called in before any decision can be come to as to the eligibility of a herd for a tuberculin tested certificate—a man who has no experience whatever of dairy conditions, and yet who has the say over a man whose job it is to be skilled in such things. It will inevitably lead to friction, and I fear that if the inspection of dairy buildings is left in the hands of sanitary officials, and the inspection of the animals themselves is taken over by a centralised State Veterinary Service, it will lead to greater friction than ever. I urge upon the Minister the desirability of taking over the whole of these services out of the hands of the local authorities and overcoming these possible, not to say probable, causes of friction.

  725
  I come now to Clause 21, which deals with compensation. I believe it is essential that compensation should be paid in cases where eradication is being set up. I think it should be essential where there has been a wrong diagnosis and valuable animals have been destroyed. I think this affords a desirable opportunity of doing away with a piece of legislation which has served no useful purpose since it was passed in 1925, and that is the payment of compensation under a tuberculosis order. In 1925 there was some reason for saying that compensation was desirable so that the farmer might be persuaded not to conceal indurated udders in his herd. Nowadays, with the constant supervision, which is to be intensified in the future, there is no chance of his concealing it for long, and there is no excuse whatever for a man being allowed to keep on his farm cow which is not only a danger to public health, but also to the man's own herd and those of his neighbours. I am not dealing now with the cow which merely reacts, but with the animal which is condemned under the Tuberculosis Order, 1925. I hope the noble Earl will consider whether it is necessary still to continue compensation under that Order.
  The next point I will call attention to is Clause 22. There seems to be an anomaly that an area which holds an attested certificate is not subject to restriction as to pigs and poultry. Pigs, as we all know, are most susceptible to tuberculosis, and have been the cause of many reactors in otherwise disease-free areas, and it seems strange that you should place restrictions upon the entry of cattle into those areas from outside while pigs are allowed free entry without restriction. Poultry are a slightly different problem. I do not believe they are anything like the same danger. Pigs, however, should, I think, be under control as to importation into an attested area, or areas which are in process of being freed from disease under Clause 22.
  Then I come at last to a question brought very clearly to my notice last year, when I was privileged to serve on a committee investigating the livestock improvement schemes in Scotland. We learned of a poultry station scheme whereby certain poultry breeders, if they wished to do so, may receive a certificate and have the health of their stock attested regularly on condition that they supply sitting eggs at certain specified
  726
  rates. It is in the knowledge of every one of your Lordships that disease in poultry has reached such a stage that many of us believe that we shall have to go back to the foundations in order to try to build up once more a healthy stock. There is no certification of poultry flocks in this country. It is proposed under Clause 23 of this Bill to set up stations for testing poultry free of charge. I would press upon the noble Earl in charge of the Bill the importance of not wasting money in this direction, but of setting up accredited flocks of poultry, just as we have set up accredited and attested herds of cattle. There should be no trap nesting conditions in connection with these flocks. There should be a low restriction of production for the cockerels used, say 180 to 200 eggs; but the emphasis should be laid on the fact that these flocks should be free from all disease, hereditary or contagious, and that any deaths among them must be reported to the county staffs or the various veterinary authorities, who would be able either to give them a clean bill of health or to send them to a central laboratory where they can be diagnosed. I believe that that is most important for the well being of the poultry industry in this country.
  Now, to come to the provisions dealing entirely with Scotland. You have heard that conditions are different from what they are in England. It is essential to my mind that if the Diseases of Animals Acts are to be administered from the Ministry of Agriculture in Whitehall there should be the closest possible liaison with the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. I would suggest that we should have a liaison officer permanently in Edinburgh who should be in the closest touch with the various Departments in Scotland and with Scottish conditions, and that he should be given, in the early years at any rate, a certain discretion in the administration of the various orders, which would allow him to suit his orders and administration to the conditions which exist in Scotland. And over and above that I believe, not because Scotland is separated from England, but because some parts of Scotland are a very long way from Whitehall, that a central laboratory for the diagnosis of disease in poultry or in cattle should have a subsection in Scotland, so that delays in diagnosis may be avoided.

  727
  It is not only the case that delays occur in diagnosis, but that a number of carcases arrive at Weybridge in such a condition that no diagnosis is possible. It is impossible to send a carcase from Caithness to Weybridge on a hot summer day and expect it to arrive in a condition that will encourage any bacteriologist or chemist to take an interest in his work. Therefore it is essential that there should not only be a liaison officer who will keep in closest touch with the Scottish Departments in Edinburgh, but that there should be a branch of the National Veterinary Laboratory in Scotland, either at Glasgow or Edinburgh.
  One more point. Reference has been already made to research. I heard not long ago of a man who went with a largo sum of money in his pocket to give to a clinic for research into rheumatic diseases. When he arrived there he asked how much research work they were doing, and he was told none, because they had to treat so many patients. That is exactly what has been happening in agriculture. The Government have been treating so many patients that they have not had any time or money to spare to find out the cause of the diseases. I hope that all these research and educational institutions will not be forgotten, but that the research workers, who are working at the present time for salaries which no commercial firm would think of offering to scientists and chemists of equal standing, will receive more consideration from the Government in future than they have done in the past, and that we may be able to say with confidence that we are not only getting the finest service from our research workers but that we are paying them a salary which will recompense them in some way for the work they are doing and for the years they have spent in equipping themselves for their work.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I wish that the occasions were more frequent, and that we did not have to sit up so late at night, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, speak. My noble friend Lord Hastings, quite inadvertently and without any previous consultation with me, at the beginning and at the end of his speech took all my opening remarks. Your Lordships will admit they sounded
  728
  extremely well from his lips. I should like to carry them just a step further and say that if it had not been for the reckless plundering of the land by this Government and all its predecessors over so long in the past this Government would not have been under the necessity of setting up such an infinite number of boards and similar agencies for controlling everything connected with the production and marketing of agricultural produce. By doing so the Government, politically speaking, have in a sense placed themselves in the position of Providence, with this difference, that while civilised people have ceased to pay their clergy in accordance with their success in rain-making, the Government are politically accessible and a succession of bad seasons will put them in difficulties which may be very serious owing to the responsibilities which they have assumed.
  I notice that the noble Earl avoided Clause 11 of the Bill. I am in the happy position of being able to inform your Lordships that I can scan, parse, and construe Clause and that entitles me to deal with a point that arises in Clause 6 on page 5, line 20, which says that the subsidy, whatever it may be, is payable to
  "the person who, at the beginning of the fourth day of June in that year, was the occupier of any farm in the United Kingdom, comprising land then under oats."
  The usual removal day at the end of a tenancy in Scotland is May 28, and the law in Scotland is that the crop belongs to the man who sows it. Now it is not the case—and I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will not give me this answer, because it really is not the case—that the crop is invariably taken over by the incoming tenant. I know many cases, and there are many different reasons why the crop should not be taken over very often by the incoming tenant.
  I myself at the end of the tenancy of a farm have had to see to the reaping of my crop which was in the North of Scotland while I myself was in Edinburgh. But that kind of thing is always happening everywhere in Scotland. I know that legally there is one way of looking at it. One says that the incoming tenant gets entry to the houses and pasturage lands at Whitsuntide and he gets entry to the corn land on the separation of the crop from the ground. I do

  729
  not know whether that is good law or not, but it is certainly a point to avoid because I do not think it is accurate. But whatever interpretation may be suggested there can be no doubt under any law who the person is who at the beginning of June 4 was the occupier of a farm comprising land under oats. He is undoubtedly the incoming tenant. That means that the Government, according to this clause, are going to pay to the man who has absolutely nothing to do with the oat or barley crop, except such part of it as he may obtain by purchase, the subsidy which should properly go to the true owner of that crop, who is the man who sowed it, the outgoing tenant. I should not like myself to have to draft an Amendment on this point and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give me an assurance. It really is a matter for a Government draftsman. It is a serious point.
  The only other Part of this Bill that I have to criticise is Part IV. I will try not to trespass on what other noble Lords have said on this subject. The Association of County Councils in Scotland feel the introduction of this Part of the Bill to be a very retrograde movement for Scotland. In the first place they feel—I think we all feel—that this Part of the Bill is so important of itself that it ought to form the subject of a separate Bill. But if that is not the case I do not think it is a fair thing to Scotland to introduce this Bill and to pass it through all its stages in another place before the county councils of Scotland have had a proper opportunity of seeing it. Many of them have had no opportunity of meeting before it passed through all its stages in another place so that it has really not been considered by them. That is serious for Scotland because Scotland has a very creditable record in its public health services.
  For instance, in the City of Aberdeen during the last eighty years the death-rate has fallen from one half per cent. to one-twentieth per cent., and I presume Aberdeen's other services have succeeded in the same way. In the County of Aberdeen we have a very carefully co-ordinated public health service with a chief medical officer, a veterinary officer and a bacteriologist. All these work together in the Department. Suppose the chief medical officer diagnoses a case of tuberculosis, the bacteriologist gets on to
  730
  it and says it is bovine tuberculosis. Thereupon the veterinary officer immediately functions and gets the whole thing put right. Part IV is going to interfere very seriously with our county organisations in a case like that. Again, if an animal dies different counties have different ways of dealing with the matter. In the County of Stirling, where they have three county veterinary officers and excellent road communication, they can get a man to that carcase in three hours at the outside. In Aberdeen road communication is not so good and there is only one veterinary officer, but the county officer makes use of the services of local veterinary surgeons and they are in a position to perform the same service. Our local authorities are very anxious that Scotland should be excluded from Part IV, but they are more than willing to put into force any schemes which the Ministry wish them to execute.
  If, as so often happens, the interests of Scotland are incompatible with those of England we are the last people in the world to forget our partnership. What the county councils say is that they will content themselves with asking that the Minister shall take over the whole administration of the Diseases of Animals Act, because they say it is not fair to leave them with responsibility for the expenses of the administration of the Act if they are deprived of control. We think we deserve some consideration in the matter. The Diseases of Animals committee recommended—it was their first recommendation—that the veterinary services should be expanded under the immediate control of the local authorities. If the Government are going to take a directly contrary course it is only fair, I think, to grant this very fair and reasonable request and an Amendment to carry it out will be moved in Committee.
  One other point I would like to make has reference to the First Schedule. The average price of oats in Scotland is 2S. 6d. per quarter below that in England. The Schedule provides for a single average price in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The heavy weight of the extra acreage in England coupled with the difference of 2S. 6d. in price will have the result that Scotland will feel that a subsidy is payable when the presence of England in the calculation of the average price excludes it. This, on

  731
  top of the fact that Scotland is very ill adapted for growing wheat, and for that reason is unable to benefit to the same degree as England from the wheat subsidy, will be felt as a real grievance, and therefore I would ask the noble Earl to consider whether he cannot give each country a separate average.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, in the course of his speech drew a distinction between this debate in your Lordships' House after dinner and the debate before dinner on Palestine. The noble Lord expressed regret that there were not more members of your Lordships' House present to discuss the fundamental issues that are contained in the provisions of this Bill dealing with the great industry of agriculture. I naturally share that regret, but I think I shall be expressing the general opinion when I say that if we have lacked quantity we certainly have had quality. I believe that if any agriculturist, whether he be from Scotland or from England, were to compare the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates, on agricultural matters in general and on this Bill in particular, in another place with the REPORT of those in this House, there could be no doubt in his opinion that the fund of knowledge on all the relevant matters of present-day administration of the land is of a far higher quality in this House than it is in the other place.
  I have listened during this debate, not only to the particular issues that have arisen out of the provisions of this Bill, but also to those fundamental aspects which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, and taken up by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and indeed by a number of your Lordships who have spoken. I feel that your Lordships will not expect me at this hour to endeavour to reply to the many points that have been referred to in each of the separate Parts of the Bill; but with your permission I should like to refer to what I consider some of the major issues that have been raised.
  The noble Lord, Lord Addison, referred to the price of basic slag and asked what safeguard there will be against part of the subsidy being deflected from the farmer to the supplier through an increase in the price. I am glad to be able to say that
  732
  steps have been taken to ensure that the subsidy goes where it is meant to go, and that is to the occupier of the farm. The question of price was discussed confidentially beforehand with representative bodies in the lime and basic slag industries. As a result, the producers of basic slag have agreed that, when the Scheme comes into operation, they will reduce their prices by 6d., 9d., or 1s. per ton according to grade, below the rates ruling on May 1 this year—that is, before any announcement of the proposals was made. The Central Association of the Lime and Limestone Industry of Great Britain, whose members supply the bulk of the lime used in agriculture, have also agreed to charge, when the Scheme comes into operation, prices no higher than those normally ruling on May r of this year. In regard to the point raised by Viscount Bledisloe, the arrangements in the cage of both lime and slag provide for variations of basic prices (up or down) to correspond with ascertained variations in the cost of wages and fuel; but it will be necessary to have an accountancy investigation before any increase in price is made, and there is provision in the Bill to that effect.
  It was a gratification to me, whose task is not made any easier, as the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, by the fund of knowledge that has been delivered to-night and to which I have to reply, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, generally bless this Bill; but as his speech proceeded so did his criticism of certain parts of the Bill, and the noble Lord saw fit to describe Clause 7 as quite incredible, and neither reasonable, proper nor decent. I think Lord Hastings has no justification whatsoever for making that statement. He comes from the Eastern part of this country, and in the normal rotation of crops there the farmer relies in a large measure upon the production of wheat. He has also in the past been able to rely upon the production of beet sugar.
  But I think that the noble Lord must have had a lapse of memory when he said that the subsidy for barley growers would not in fact operate. There are tracts of land which range from the East of Scotland to parts of Yorkshire where, owing to climatic and soil conditions, it is impossible for a farmer who recognises the rules of good husbandry to grow wheat. It is those farmers who, during the last

  733
  few years, have had to rely upon barley and oats as their mainstay in cereal production, because they are unable to grow wheat or sugar beet. As I said in my earlier speech, the intention of these proposals is more an insurance than a subsidy, but there are a large number of farmers in those parts of the country to which I have referred who will derive direct benefit from the barley subsidy, because they are unable to claim any subsidy on wheat. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to enlarge his vision with regard to the benefit which this proposal will give.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bayford, and a number of your Lordships have referred to the drainage proposals, and it has been said by noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion that the Government have not really tackled the problem because they have neglected to give for England the provision made for Scotland as regards facilities for field drainage. I would repeat, in spite of what Lord Cranworth has said, that whereas in past days where the farmer saw to it that his main drains and main streams running through his farm were well cleared, now owing to one circumstance or another those main drains are very often blocked. It is the intention of the Government, under the auspices of the internal drainage boards, to get those main drains and those subsidiary streams and watercourses clear. The next logical step would be a system of field drainage such as they have in Scotland.
  In Scotland there is no equivalent of the internal drainage boards, and the financial assistance which it is proposed to give in England and Wales under this Part of the Bill will, in consequence, not be applicable to Scotland. But field and hill drainage works in Scotland, owing to the topographical nature of that land, have been provided for by Exchequer assistance, and such works will, under this Bill, continue to receive assistance, although at a rate of grant of 33⅓ per cent. instead of 25 per cent. as at present. There is no doubt that, owing to the lie of the land in Scotland, they have been able to provide a system of drainage there that does admittedly assist the individual farmer to a greater extent than has been possible in England. But we hope that, under these proposals, we shall be able shortly to inaugurate a policy whereby the individual
  734
  farmer will benefit from the middle course of draining the lesser streams now that the main-river schemes under the catchment boards are being undertaken.
  I would now turn to the points raised so successfully, if I may be permitted to say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, and Lord Saltoun. There are three points which I believe are in the minds of most of the noble Lords who represent Scotland, and I should here state that it is a matter of regret to me, as the one in charge of this Bill, that your Lordships have been put to some considerable inconvenience owing to the fact that these proposals have had to be considered at such short notice. I hope that in the further stages of the Bill I shall be able to co-operate with your Lordships in discussing any Amendments that may be necessary, in order to facilitate the proceedings on the Bill before Parliament rises.
  The point first raised was, I think, that many local authority veterinary inspectors have done excellent work in their districts in Scotland, and have gained the confidence of farmers, and that therefore it would be a mistake, on their transfer to the Ministry's service, for such inspectors to be moved to other districts. A second point was that a central veterinary service should not exclude the employment of suitable veterinary practitioners as part-time officers. I would wish to assure the noble Lords that I think that the apprehensions which they have expressed on those points are to some extent unnecessary. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has assured the County Councils' Association that the importance of maintaining to the fullest possible extent the local connections made by these inspectors while they have been working for local authorities is most appreciated by him. He has further said that every endeavour will be made, both in the interests of the officers themselves and, indeed, of the efficiency of the service, to reduce changes to the minimum. These will of course be matters for consultation with the local authorities before the change-over to the centralised State service is effected.
  As regards the full-time veterinary inspectors employed by local authorities, I would say that it is proposed to invite

  735
  whole-time officers to accept appointments under the Ministry, subject of course to the conditions normally attaching to the State Veterinary Service, which include an age limit with as generous an interpretation as possible. There can be no doubt that in the minds of those who formulated the plan for a central State Veterinary Service the activities of the part-time officer of the local authority will still be necessary under the new scheme. Further, the general practitioner who has such a great influence in his district in the eradication of diseases will, through the stimulus given by the campaign for the eradication of disease, be more likely to have a greater volume of work to do, and his services, where required, will be utilised by the central body. I wish to give that assurance to the House.
  In these circumstances the question of the part-time veterinary surgeon does not seem to arise in quite the same form as noble Lords have expressed. An adequate whole-time staff is essential for the effective conduct and uniform administration of a campaign which is to be national in its scope. But there will be a considerable amount of work for which the part-time services of private practitioners will be needed, and I wish strongly to intimate to noble Lords that the scheme should work more satisfactorily than they at present believe, partly because the point stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, as to the necessity for a liaison officer for Scotland, will be agreed to by the Minister. There will be a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture appointed to Edinburgh, acting as a link between Whitehall and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. I believe that system will largely assist in bringing the standard of England into line with the high standard that exists to-day in Scot-and, and it will be our aim to see that the conditions ruling in this country are brought up to the high level that they maintain in Scotland.
  The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, raised a point under Clause 6 with regard to the date on which the tenant leaves his farm after having sown one or more crops for which subsidy is provided under the Bill. The Bill provides that the subsidy
  736
  will be payable to the person in occupation of the land on June 4. Some date must be fixed, and this is thought to be the most convenient date because it coincides with the date on which the occupier of an agricultural holding must render his agricultural return to the Ministry. If a change in the occupation of the land takes place in the course of a year the question of any subsidy that may accrue will no doubt be taken into account in the usual arrangements between the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant. It would, I think, be impossible to fix a date that would suit all circumstances, and it has therefore been felt wise to fix a date that is most convenient both from the point of view of administration and also from the standpoint of the farmer, who will be able to make his claim, except for the present year, at the same time as he renders his annual returns.
  For the present year the forms for the making of claims will be issued early in September, but they will of course relate to land which was sown under barley and oats on the 4th of June last. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, will appreciate that no payments can be made until after the following 31st of March, as the average price has to be calculated for the seven months September to March. It is for those reasons that the Bill provides that it is the person in occupation on the 4th of June who will receive the subsidy. I will, however, further inquire into the point raised by the noble Lord and if I can meet him in any respect I would be very glad to intimate it at the next stage of the Bill.
  I regret that I have not been able to cover more fully the important points that have been raised in discussion on the Second Reading, but I hope that I have said sufficient to allay certain fears of the Scottish representatives in your Lordships' House as to the proposals of Part IV of the Bill. Meanwhile, I shall be glad to discuss the whole question, which only came to my notice this afternoon, with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at eighteen minutes before one o'clock.